Sitting of 28 June 1993

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

    Railway Rolling Stock
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Government are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom retains the ability to build railway carriage body shells.
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the British Railways Board to announce the result of the tender process for new trains under the recent£150 million leasing facility.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): The Government are providing record levels of financial support from the public purse. In 1992–93, British Rail investment stood at the highest level for more than 30 years. Investment of more than £3 billion is planned over the next three years, £2 billion of which will be on the existing railway. Later in the summer, British Rail will place the order for the £150 million leasing facility for new rolling stock, which we proposed in advance of privatisation. We have also recently announced measures to encourage the development of a rolling stock leasing market.
    Mr. Bayley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there have already been 532 casualties of railways privatisation, in terms of the number of jobs lost at the York carriage works because of lack of orders, and a further 364 redundancies at other Asea Brown Boveri factories around the country? Is he further aware that ABB is the last surviving rail company in Britain which manufactures railway bodyshells, and that unless the Government ensure that the company receives orders extremely quickly the York works will close? We shall then have to import railway bodyshells from abroad—at huge cost to our balance of payments—and commuters in the south-east will not get the decent, modern trains that they are looking for, deserve and want.
    Mr. MacGregor: First, those redundancies have nothing to do with privatisation. Even if we had not put forward our reform proposals, the position, which is largely to do with the recession and the switch in priorities in British Rail investment, would be the same. I am aware of the situation at ABB, and have had recent discussions with the company. I hope that British Rail will proceed as soon as possible with the decision to be taken on the £150
    640
    million leasing proposals, and I have urged it to do so. It is for British Rail to decide where that order should be placed.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend urge British Rail to get its act together and place the order for the new trains for the Kent link line with ABB York as quickly as possible? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of the ABB York workshop depends not only on that order, but on the new leasing market for trains and an increase in orders from overseas railway operators? Would not it help ABB's export drive if British Rail were to place the order now and demonstrate its confidence in the excellent ABB work force?
    Mr. MacGregor: I know of, and pay tribute to, the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in ABB. I also pay tribute to the huge improvements in ABB's productivity since it went into the private sector. The prospects of ABB securing overseas orders are greater now as a result of that improvement in productivity. It should be asked why it was unable to compete in international markets much earlier.
    I hope that British Rail will reach its decision as quickly as possible. The choice of where investment lies is, however, for British Rail. The tendering process is now under way. I hope that the tenders will be in very shortly and that British Rail will make its decision as speedily as it can. I entirely agree about the importance of moving to a private sector leasing market. That will be concentrated on rolling stock, and we have been developing our plans for that.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister knows that £150 million is less than half of what is needed for new rolling stock and that it will not meet the cost of existing orders that British Rail is ready to place. Why does the Minister not admit, honestly, that other nations that have privatised their railways, like the Swedes, have accepted that they can do so only with massive investment in new rolling stock? How does the Minister think that his shadow organisations will create one penny more for investment when he knows that only more money will create new jobs and better rolling stock?
    Mr. MacGregor: By attracting private sector capital to the future leasing market. Current investment is at record levels. British Rail investment is more than 50 per cent. greater in real terms than it was in 1979, and one and a half times greater than in 1969. British Rail has given priority in its current programme to infrastructure and signalling, but in recent years there has been a substantial investment in rolling stock—something like 90 per cent. of rolling stock in the regional railways is less than eight years old—and that must be taken into account when looking at the priorities.
    Mr. Waller: My right hon. Friend may be aware that go-ahead is anxiously awaited for the leasing scheme for rolling stock on the Leeds-Bradford, Airedale and Wharfdale lines. Will he note that the go-ahead for that scheme would provide a valuable boost for the British train manufacturing industry and anxiously awaited new trains for a line, which is well used and would otherwise have to use 30-year-old stock?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the situation. My right hon. friend the Minister for Public transport has taken a

    641
    very close interest in the matter. There is to be a debate on the subject on Wednesday and my right hon. Friend will give a full reply then.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the blame does not lie with British Rail or the engineering company but with the Government, because they have accepted a tendered contract for the north-west line and Network SouthEast, which finished in December last year? The Government ordered a review and re-tendering. That delay has led to hundreds of workers being put out of work. Perhaps he will tell us how much more the re-tendering will cost the Government. Will it be between£10 million and£100 million?
    Mr. MacGregor: No. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the two alternatives for the£150 million rolling stock—the ICC 225s for the west coast main line and the Networkers—that is a new order. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind the decision on the ICC 225 or 250, the 225 was chosen. That reflects the fact that there has been a substantial decrease in British Rail's revenue as a result of the recession, which is probably more to do with present rolling stock investment than anything else. But there are also advantages in going for the ICC 225, because it has been impressed on me by rolling stock manufacturers that long runs of existing locomotives can often be a much more cost-effective way to deliver new orders.
    Sir Roger Moate: Can my right hon. Friend confirm reports that his Department sees a strong economic case for both those contenders for the£150 million in the Network SouthEast programme and the west coast main line and that the 150 million is to be seen as the first stage of a continuing ordering programme, because that is what travellers on British Rail want and what the industry needs?
    Mr. MacGregor: Of course, one would wish to undertake several areas of investment, and my hon. Friend is right that one would wish both to be done as soon as possible, but for the£150 million it will be a choice between the two tenders. My hon. Friend must realise that I cannot predict the outcome of future public expenditure rounds. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) must realise that one has to take into account overall public expenditure when making any decisions where public money is involved. However, we shall have to consider whether there would be an opportunity to repeat that kind of leasing operation or whether we should look entirely to the private sector which will finance future orders.

    Air Pollution (Ferrybridge)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received details of the study to measure air pollution in the Ferrybridge area along the roads of the AI and M62; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): The air pollution study has been commissioned to start later this summer when traffic flows will be at their peak. It will last for several weeks and preliminary results should be available before the end of the year.
    Mr. O'Brien: May I welcome the Minister to his new post and hope that with a new Minister we shall get some
    642
    fresh ideas on highway development in the Ferrybridge area? The study to which the Minister refers is very important because there is a plan for a 16-lane motorway to go through a conurbation 250 yd from a large junior and infant school, with a large mixed estate of council and private houses to the east, and a large housing estate to the west, less than 200 yd from the motorway. Does the Minister accept that an in-depth study is needed, and will he agree that that study will be made available for public consultation? If the proposals put forward by the Department of Transport are allowed to go ahead, we shall have the most polluted mile of motorway in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister assure me that the consultation document will be made public?
    Mr. Key: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. It is a pleasure to do business with him again. It takes us back to the golden days of the Local Government Finance Bill, when we enjoyed so many happy hours.
    The hon. Gentleman would expect me to have done my homework on this matter. He has been a strong advocate on behalf of people on the Darrington and Limetrees estate in that corner of Pontefract. There has already been substantial investigation into the matter and the air pollution study is yet another investigation. We expect to publish draft orders in the next 12 to 18 months, which will give another opportunity to look at the matter. The preferred route, which has been announced, provides the best value for money, the least environmental impact, the greatest traffic relief to residents of Ferrybridge and Brotherton, and is supported by the majority of residents there.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, on the general point of controlling and reducing air pollution, the Government's commitment to catalytic converters, the greater use of unleaded petrol, and new proposals to get more freight off the roads and on to the railways is absolutely clear?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has catalogued a number of the Government's successes. He may have omitted one or two, however. I remind him of the tighter emission limits for new heavy duty diesels from 1 October 1993. Neither should we forget noise pollution which, from new motor vehicles, has been reduced by up to 10 decibels through tighter standards between 1980 and 1990. That is just for starters.

    Merchant Fleet
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to encourage the growth of the British merchant fleet; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): The Government remain committed to creating a trading climate in which the United Kingdom shipping industry has the opportunity to compete fairly. In support of that, in the recent past we have taken a number of initiatives within the European Economic Community and in the International Maritime Organisation.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us involved in the British shipping industry welcome the recent initiatives taken by him and his colleagues? At the

    643
    same time, does he accept that the British merchant fleet is still at a significant fiscal disadvantage compared with many of its competitors? Will he make representations to the Economic Secretary about such matters as first year capital allowances and rollover relief?
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the sterling work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken, and I am sure that the Economic Secretary will have noted his remarks about capital allowances and rollover relief. When one considers the economic framework within which British shipping has to compete, it is worth noting that corporation tax rates in Britain are the lowest of all the G7 countries and that low interest and inflation rates contribute towards creating a climate in which British shipping can compete.
    Ms Walley: Does the Minister realise that the British merchant fleet is now as low as 291? For all the commercial reasons to which he has referred, is there not also a strong defence reason for keeping a merchant fleet? Instead of paying lip service to stopping the merchant fleet from sinking, will he join us, and ensure that his colleagues join us in Committee, to ensure that something will be done to stop the merchant fleet sinking?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady will want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport because it was during his presidency of the Transport Council that resolutions were put forward allowing the Council to reach agreements on a common policy on safe shipping at the Luxembourg meeting on 7 June. That is a major step forward because sub-standard shipping is an urgent problem in terms of the safety of human life and the environment. That is where important results will occur, not least in narrowing the gap between the cost currently borne by the British shipping industry in enforcing high standards and the lower costs currently borne by countries that enforce regulations less rigorously. The hon. Lady may like to pay a little more attention to that.
    Mr. Wolfson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spelling out the successful actions that the Government have taken to ensure safety in the merchant fleet. Does he agree that, however right it may be in principle, the policy of trying to achieve a level playing field with our European competitors has not yet delivered that for our merchant fleet? That is why Conservative Members also support fiscal measures to give the British merchant fleet a competitive position.
    Mr. Norris: If we followed my hon. Friend's argument and offered as much state aid to our fleet as is offered elsewhere, we would enter the inevitable spiral of ever-increasing state aid to industry. That would not benefit our economy or any other economy. The answer must be to eliminate the state aids in other countries which currently distort the market.

    East Coast Main Line
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has held with local authorities in north-east Scotland relating to InterCity services on the east coast main line.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I last discussed InterCity services on the east coast main line with representatives of Grampian regional council on Wednesday 23 June.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that a spokesman for Richard Branson recently announced that Virgin is investigating the cost of purchasing the east coast main line service between London and Edinburgh? Does he agree that that confirms, first, the private sector's complete lack of interest in the other part of that service—the through diesel service between London and Aberdeen—and, secondly, that companies such as Virgin are interested only in running fast trains, with few stops, for the cream of the customer load? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if he persists with the market testing of railway services, the only and inevitable result will be fewer trains, worse services and the break-up of the national railway network?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman well knows that we are not intending to franchise the east coast main line on the basis of only the service between London and Edinburgh. I have made it abundantly clear that all British Rail's services to Inverness and Aberdeen will be franchised. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman would do a great deal more for the cause of electrification of the east coast main line to Aberdeen if he started supporting the economy of Scotland and stopped supporting the job wreckers at Timex in Dundee.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fears expressed about privatisation of the east coast main line are precisely the sort of fears that were expressed about other industry privatisations—yet those have led to better services, not worse—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about what discussions the Minister has had with local authorities in north-east Scotland.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local authority in Aberdeen has even privatised its bus service? Is it not clear that local authorities in Scotland recognise that privatisation leads to better services at less cost to the consumer?
    Mr. Freeman: I confirm that those local authorities to which I have spoken welcome the prospect of improved quality and quantity of services that our reforms will bring.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister accept that as well as meeting representatives of Grampian regional council he must also meet representatives of the Highlands regional council and the surrounding districts? The lines to which he referred are vital to the economy of that area, given that Aberdeen is the oil capital of Scotland and Inverness is the tourist and whisky capital and the fact that there are also fish and food processing exports? The freight aspect of the line is vital to the area's future economy, and no doubt it is also of importance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Freeman: I hope to meet representatives of Highland regional council in September to discuss our proposals for the railway industry in its part of the world. The prospect of introducing additional private sector

    645
    capital means that there is an opportunity to enhance rather than reduce services in the hon. Lady's part of the world.

    Motorways
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of drivers (a) regularly use motorways and (b) never use motorways.
    Mr. MacGregor: Surveys indicate that about half of drivers never or rarely use motorways.
    Mr. Taylor: That interesting statistic illustrates why it is important that the 50 per cent. of drivers who use the motorways regularly should be asked to contribute more so that those roads can be improved. Our experience of the success of the Dartford crossing, where private venture capital was used, shows that private finance in motorway construction can play a great role in ensuring that we get the roads that people want and that traffic moves properly and does not go on to the side roads.
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I am canvassing those issues in relation to the Green Paper on better motorways and the possibility of charging a toll. My hon. Friend is right in the sense that no decision has been taken, but one of the issues put forward is whether we can accelerate the improvement in motorways. That is not least because, in this country as in others, we run the risk of greater congestion with an increase in traffic. Therefore, we wish to accelerate the improvement by widening motorways and improving the services on them through additional finance raised by a modest charge.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that the charge needs to be modest to avoid diversion on to local roads. One of the arguments for that is the fact that about half of all motorists hardly ever or never use the motorways.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his absurd policy of cutting the investment level for both British Rail and underground services by nearly£1 billion, and the reinvestment of that money on the M25, will result in that road being widened to 14 or even 20 lanes to cope with the extra cars created by that stupid transport policy?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to describe the policy as stupid. Presumably he means that he wants to restrict people's use of cars and heavy goods vehicles by fiat from Whitehall. That does not make any sense. Otherwise, what does a centralised transport policy mean?
    The hon. Gentleman is also wrong about the balance of Government expenditure. Although 90 per cent. of all inland passenger and freight traffic goes by road, we are spending about 56 per cent. of Government expenditure on roads and 44 per cent. on public transport—including rail—this year. That is a clear indication that Government expenditure is, if anything, skewed heavily towards public transport and rail.

    Selby Bypass
    Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what scope exists for expediting the publication of the necessary draft compulsory purchase orders for the construction of the Selby bypass.
    Mr. Key: Bearing in mind the total amount of work in hand, preparation of this scheme is progressing towards publication of the draft compulsory purchase order as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Alison: As there has been some slippage in the Selby bypass project, will my hon. Friend confirm that that project is now irreversible and will not be subject to either cancellation or postponement due to any internal departmental budgetary reassessment?
    Mr. Key: I certainly hope that it will not, as the scheme has been in the programme since about 1984. I well understand my hon. Friend's concern, but we are continuing preparations for the scheme. I shall use my best endeavours to keep up the momentum and I look forward to discussing the matter further with him when we meet on 12 July.

    West Coast Main Line
    Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss services on the west coast main line.
    Mr. Freeman: I met the senior management of the west coast main line in Birmingham on June 18 and I reaffirmed my support for improvement of the west coast main line, infrastructure and rolling stock for the whole of the route.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The managing director of the west coast main line, Mr. Ivor Warburton, has told the west coast main line all-party group that without substantial investment during the next 18 months there will be a "catastrophic failure" of track and/or signalling on that route. In the light of the Minister's letter of 23 June to the chairman of the all-party group, how does he propose to maintain the rail links to and from Europe for the industrial heartlands of the west midlands, the north-west and as far as Glasgow if the private sector fails to provide the necessary capital investment to effect the improvements?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will know that British Rail is to start design work for improving the signalling on the west coast main line this year, and will commence the work next year.
    I agree with both the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Ivor Warburton about private sector investment. A satisfactory formula for private sector investment—particularly in signalling, which does not count as public expenditure—would be welcome. I hope that by early autumn we shall have resolved a correct formula for the introduction of private sector capital. British Rail and Railtrack will then be able to place a contract for investment in the line. That will advance the date on which we can say truthfully that the west coast main line is the premier route in the country.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that in bygone years the Great Western railway was the very best in the country? If one travelled on the Great Western, one travelled first class in every department. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we mean business about attracting the Olympic games to Manchester, we need a good west coast main line with good rolling stock? Does he agree that it is important that the InterCity 225

    647
    rolling stock is obtained for the western line? Will my right hon. Friend continue his good work and ensure that the money comes to the west coast main line?
    Mr. Freeman: Clearly, some of the rolling stock on the west coast main line—in particular, that which is now 30 years old—is badly in need of replacement. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, British Rail is considering placing an order. Whatever the results of that exercise, my hon. Friend knows that I am committed to work with British Rail for further orders so long as they comply fully with the Treasury guidelines on what is an operating lease. The Treasury gave the criteria for such operating leases in the latter half of last month. I hope, therefore, that it will be a question not of Networkers or 225s but of both.
    Mr. Harvey: Given that we know that west coast main line passengers must expect franchised services at some stage, will the Government take this opportunity to clarify the welcome but rather ambiguous undertaking given during the Report stage of the Railways Bill that franchise agreements will require
    "participation in discount schemes for senior citizens, the disabled and young people"?
    Is that not in marked contrast to the specific commitment that railcards for disabled people would be
    "on broadly similar lines to present arrangements"?—[Official Report, 25, May 1993; Vol. 225, 762–63.]
    Given the worries that have been expressed since then by British Rail and other groups, will the Minister clear the matter up for us? Will participation be at about the same cost and bring about the same benefits as existing schemes and will the schemes be universal?
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made it plain on Report—[Interruption.] He did. My right hon. Friend made it plain that the franchising director would require all franchises in Great Britain to include discount railcards for the disabled, young people and elderly people. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that the great advantage of those discounts—which we firmly believe that the market will provide—will be retained. We decided to require the franchising director to write that requirement into each franchise.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent letter of 23 June to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) alluded. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, among many important points, the letter says that when cross-subsidisation between rail lines no longer exists, there will be revenue support for such main lines, as required?
    Mr. Freeman: I can certainly confirm that routes—for example, possibly the west coast main line—will qualify for support by the franchising director if they require subsidy. At present, InterCity has a commercial remit. Profitable routes such as the east coast main line cross-subsidise others such as the west coast main line. The Conservative party believes that where public money is to be used, we should all know precisely where that money goes. We have given every assurance that whether the service is InterCity, Regional Railways or Network SouthEast, it will continue to receive support if it is socially desirable.
    Mr. Wilson: Would not the people who use the west coast main line and, indeed, those who use other main lines in need of investment be better served if the Government instructed or allowed British Rail to invest in the future of those lines instead of constantly spending money on restructuring? Will the Minister confirm that, by next April, having recently undergone a major reorganisation, British Rail will have to divide itself into no fewer than 65 companies comprising 26 train companies, 10 rail track companies, 16 infrastructure companies, three train leasing companies and 10 commercial service groups in order to meet the Government's privatisation plans? How much will all that cost? Will the right hon. Gentleman express that figure as a percentage of the£170 million that British Rail has apparently lost in the last year? Will the Minister bear in mind that whereas workers at Timex face a£60 a week loss, he has just given Railtrack's three-day-a-week chairman a£100,000 increase?
    Mr. Freeman: The chairman-designate of Railtrack, Mr. Bob Horton, is excellent value for money. He is already planning with his staff for the commencement, subject to Parliament's approval, of Railtrack on 1 April next year. As to British Rail's organisation, the hon. Gentleman should realise that British Rail already runs its passenger operations on the basis of 26 profit centres; there are another nine freight profit centres, and so on. That is how modern industry is organised. As I travel the country—sometimes ahead of the hon. Gentleman, sometimes behind him—visiting profit centres, I find that morale among senior British Rail managers is excellent now. They are getting on with the job of preparing the rail industry for its reorganisation and improvement.

    Trunk Roads (Maintenance)
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce delays caused by maintenance work on the trunk road network during the summer months.
    Mr. Key: All our programmed maintenance work is carefully planned and co-ordinated to minimise delays, using lane rental contracts wherever possible.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of my constituents who use the M40 and Western avenue have to tolerate extremely long delays caused by major and minor road works? Will he do everything in his power, including using lane rental and other incentives, to ensure that delays are kept to the absolute minimum?
    Mr. Key: Yes, I certainly will. Contractors must display signs explaining the presence of cones where no work appears to be in progress. My hon. Friend's constituents can help to achieve the objective that both he and I want to achieve. Under the citizens charter, a system exists for cone hotlines, whereby if members of the travelling public see lengths of motorway or road coned off unnecessarily, they have only to telephone 071 276 3000 and a written explanation will be available.
    Mr. Pike: Although there have been some improvements in the way in which road works are undertaken, misleading signs still appear and, despite the Minister's remarks, many motorists will be unable to act in the way that he suggested. The appearance of signs giving misleading information leads to genuine speed limit and

    649
    other warnings being disregarded. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that accurate speed limit and other restrictive signs are used and that it is made clear when they no longer apply.
    Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we are here to help. If the hon. Gentleman's constituents and other members of the travelling public see misleading signs, I hope that they will contact us. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman imagines that the travelling public do not have access to the telephone system—although not necessarily from their cars. It is important to work on the problems together. It is no use blaming someone else. Let us try to sort out those problems sensibly.

    Jubilee Line Extension
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a start can be expected for the Jubilee line docklands extension.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that work will be completed on the Jubilee line extension.
    Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will authorise the start of construction once negotiations between London Transport and the parties involved with the financing of Canary Wharf on the basis of their contribution to the Jubilee line extension have been satisfactorily concluded. It is planned that the line will be operational 53 months after the start of construction.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm the Government's commitment to the scheme and urge all the parties involved to reach agreement on the funding package so that the start can be brought forward to the earliest possible date, for the obvious economic benefit of docklands and of my constituents, who hope to be involved in the line's construction?
    Mr. Norris: Yes, I can confirm that the Government are fully committed to their contribution, once negotiations with the private sector on its contribution are complete.
    Mr. Banks: It is not much use the Minister saying when he thinks that the line will be finished when he cannot even tell us when he thinks that work on it will start. We have been waiting for that for ages and ages. It is about time that the Minister got his finger out and gave a date for the actual start.
    Is the Minister aware that there is a phrase for people who always tempt but never get around to delivering? They are called political teasers. The Minister should stop dangling the prospect in front of us and tell us when work on the Jubilee line extension will start.
    Mr. Norris: That is yet another inviting prospect from the hon. Gentleman, but in all seriousness he knows the answer to the questions that he poses. The Government have clearly stated that the private sector should contribute a substantial amount of money towards that line because of the considerable value that is conveyed by it to those property owners who are contributing. I think that the whole House will accept that that means that about£400 million, which is to go into the scheme, is coming from those who will benefit as developers of property rather than from hard-pressed taxpayers.
    650
    It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is inviting us to forget that and simply to say that the Government will find the entire contribution. That is lamentable. No Government can act so irresponsibly. These negotiations have taken time, but I trust that they will be satisfactorily concluded. When they are, the Government are committed to making their contribution, to ensure that the line can be constructed.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Market Testing
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what comparisons he has made between the costs arising from the implementation of market testing over each of the last two years and the savings arising therefrom.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): Annual returns from Departments indicate that in previous years savings arising from market testing have typically been around 25 per cent. of the original cost, even when the activity has remained in-house.
    I shall report on the costs and savings arising in the current period, which runs until September 1993, as soon as possible after that date.
    Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful answer. Does he not think it extraordinary that although certain Labour-controlled councils take on competitive tendering with great gusto, which results in enormous savings, the Opposition Front Bench has no enthusiasm whatsoever for market testing?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. Labour authorities thoughout the country have found, after resisting a great deal at the beginning, that there is great benefit for their local taxpayers and for those who use local services in buying in services that can better be provided by the private sector.
    Mr. Garrett: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to market test the jobs of grades 1, 2, 3 and 4 civil servants, or is market testing a mandarin-free zone?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I look forward to discussing those matters with the hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee. No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that an increasing number of grade 1 and 2 jobs have been put out to open tender. We have thrown it open to competition. Two people, of permanent secretary rank, have come in by that route.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Could my right hon. Friend extend market testing to ensure that when civil service jobs are about to be moved from one constituency to another area, the civil servants who are doing those jobs are given the opportunity to bid for them under private management?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and constructive point. It is part of the policy that we should enable civil servants to show, as they often can, that they can do the jobs very well, both by management buy-outs, which sometimes they have achieved, or by straight in-house bids, and sometimes by transferring successfully—as, for example, at Devonport dockyard—to private sector contractors and working very well with those private sector employers.
    Ms Mowlam: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has announced that he believes that there is a cost saving of about 25 per cent. in the civil service as a result of market testing. Can he confirm that there is no evidence to suggest that that 25 per cent. cost saving is the result of internal efficiency—as would be the case with many Labour local authorities, if they were allowed to make the decision at local level, as opposed to being dictated to by central Government at Westminster—but that it is solely as a result of cutting wages and changing the terms and conditions of civil servants? That is the result of the right hon. Gentleman's market testing. There has been no increase in the quality of service.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Lady has got her brief back to front. The wages issue is normally raised by local authorities. Labour local authorities have got used to compulsory competitive tendering. can give the hon. Lady one example. It happens to be the latest. RAF Finningly has stated that it expects to achieve savings of£3·5 million in the first year, 1993, and£29 million over 10 years through efficiency savings, including market testing of the technical maintenance of aircraft. That represents between 20 and 25 per cent., which is exactly the point that the hon. Lady does not understand. She will find that it has nothing to do with pay. It is the result of greater efficiency in the organisation of the function.

    Citizens Charter
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total number of civil servants engaged in activities subject to citizens charters.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): The charter approach is integral to the delivery of public services. Many civil and other public servants are now involved with the charter programme as part of their normal duties. The citizens charter unit in the Cabinet Office has 32 staff.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he, perhaps like me, concerned that our business community will soon need its own charter to protect it from the growth in the inspectorates that are now visiting it almost daily: environmental health inspectors, agricultural inspectors, safety at work inspectors and weights and measures inspectors—you name it, there is an inspector for it? Does he agree that it is very important that we as a Government, and he as a Minister, keep an eye on the growth of that sector of the civil service, because otherwise we shall kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
    Mr. Davis: I agree entirely about the need to reduce the regulatory burden, especially on small companies. The citizens charter and deregulation go hand in hand; they are not alternatives. They are both about providing a better quality of service to users and improving efficiency. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that unnecessary regulation is avoided and that new regulations are not excessively onerous for the business community. In that context, it is no coincidence that the policy to deregulate London Buses was mentioned in the citizens charter White Paper.
    Mr. Cryer: Instead of wasting civil servants' time on these useless public relations exercises that are called charters, why does not the Minister do something sensible
    652
    for a change and transfer civil servants to the disability living allowance unit at Blackpool, where applications for mobility allowance and attendance allowance are still weeks behind? People are living in great difficulty because of the delays, which result from the Government not providing enough civil servants for the job.
    Mr. Davis: That is an extraordinary statement. The hon. Gentleman should have read the ombudsman's report on the disability living allowance, in which he identified the charter as a very important tool in achieving better terms, improvements and recompense for people who had suffered under the scheme.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been expended on citizens charters since their inception.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The charter applies to all public services, which is reflected in their individual expenditure programmes. Centrally, the charter unit spent£1·6 million in 1991–92 and£2·14 million in 1992–93.
    Mr. Banks: Would I be right to assume that the global figure is much more than£2·14 million? An extraordinarily large amount of taxpayers' money is being wasted on what most people regard as nothing more than propaganda puffs to give the appearance that the Government are actually doing something, when we know they are incapable of doing anything. These charters are a joke—a very expensive joke. It is little surprise that they give most people the impression that the country is being run by a bunch of train spotters.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps that would be better than being run by the panel game on which the hon. Member excels. All public services should give clear information to the people who use them. That is a proper use of the resources that are voted by the House for public service. I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman, with his background, does not understand that it is an essential part of public service to let people know what their rights are.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about complaints procedures in the public services as part of the citizens charter; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Davis: I announced the citizens charter complaints task force on 10 June. As part of its work, it will be seeking the views of public service and other organisations and, of course, those of members of the public.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is he aware that many people still find it a bureaucratic nightmare to make a complaint to and about a public sector organisation? Can he assure me that the complaints task force will draw up a set of principles to make it easier to make a complaint and to encourage public service organisations to treat complaints more positively and as a means of ensuring their own effectiveness?
    Mr. Davis: I am happy to give my hon. Friend just such an assurance. He is right to state that complaints systems must be easy to use and that complaints must be responded to by the people who operate those systems. I cite an example: just such an attitude is engendered in the Department of Social Security's OTIS system. It stands for

    653
    "opportunity to improve service", and the evidence so far is that improving services is exactly what it has done, precisely because it is simple and quick and enables the service to analyse complaints and to respond to them effectively and speedily.
    Mr. Hall: May I refer the Minister to a complaint that I received About the Cheshire family health services authority, which gave some of my constituents five days' notice that their doctor's surgery was about to close? I checked the citizens charter, which states that patients have a right to be-consulted about their services, but when I checked with the family health services authority, I found that there was no law to ensure that they were. The Cheshire family health services authority closed the surgery regardless of the views of my constituents. Will the Minister take on board my ten-minute Bill, which would amend the law to ensure that in future patients are consulted about doctors' surgeries and the services that they receive?
    Mr. Davis: Naturally, I should be happy to consider the matter if the hon. Gentleman would write to me or give me some notice, rather than bouncing it and trying to score political points. If he cares to write to me, I shall deal with the matter.
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which other Governments have contacted his Department for information about the implementation of the citizens charter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: At least 15 other Governments have been in contact with me or my Department to find out more about the citizens charter. Last year's service to the citizen conference attracted delegates from 21 countries, and we expect that the next event will attract even more.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that among the 15 are the new French Government, who are committed to introducing a form of citizens charter? Does not the international interest prove that, just as Britain led the world in introducing private enterprise into tired and inefficient nationalised industries in the 1980s to make them more competitive, Britain is again leading the world in the 1990s by dispelling the myth that the only way to improve the efficiency of public services is by throwing more money at them?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The previous French socialist Government sent a speaker to our conference last year, and I am happy to say that the new French Government retain that interest. Throughout the world, Governments across the political spectrum are having to reassess the way in which public services are run so that people's legitimately higher expectations can be met against the background of very tough resource decisions. Everyone faces the same issues.

    Technology Transfer
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what specific measures he will take under the Technology Foresight programme to increase technology transfer.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Technology Foresight programme will promote technology transfer through a new
    654
    partnership between science and industry. Improvements in working relationships between academics and industrialists have been a major feature of foresight processes overseas. This programme will help the Government to determine their own priorities for spending on science and technology.
    Mr. Gunnell: I think that the Minister would agree that the Technology Foresight programme looks constructive on paper, but that, as in science itself, translation from theory into practice is not always easy and requires resources and imagination. In view of the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of Science and Technology, can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that funds have followed the transfer and that he has the necessary funds to launch and promote the programme? What measures has he taken to encourage to join his steering committee people with the creativity, imagination and commitment to ensure that the programme translates from theory into practice?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. It is perfectly easy to describe the process, but what really matters is to get it established well and working well. My Department is now involved in a series of regional visits across the country, discussing how best to take forward the programme—officials have doubtless been to Leeds to discuss it with the relevant players there. It is essential that we have the involvement of those working at the laboratory bench and those in industry who really understand markets.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more industry is involved in the Technology Foresight programme, the more likely it is that industry will pick up the fruits of that programme and carry them through to the marketplace?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes an essential point. The Technology Foresight programme here must be like the successful programmes abroad and not be dominated by Whitehall; it must be led by practitioners in the field including scientists, engineers and industrialists. We at the centre should simply be the secretariat for the process. That is the intention.

    Citizens Charters
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce further charters during 1993; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Davis: Thirty-two charters have been produced so far. New charters during 1993 will include the further and higher education charters. In addition, the Benefits Agency charter and parents charter will be updated and improved.
    Mr. Greenway: I particularly welcome the further and higher education charters. May I ask for more action on schools charters and particularly the publication of league tables for school attendance, allowing for a proper value added section? Is not it legitimate and right that parents should know which schools achieve high attendance? Is not the charter a good way of achieving that? In my right hon. Friend's opinion, why does the Labour party oppose providing information about schools? The Labour party does not care about parents' right to know.
    Mr. Davis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The proposal to produce league tables will be one of the motivating forces for improving our education service. That is true whether it relates to educational achievement in its academic sense or to truancy. In respect of the latter point, I note that a report was published today which is very helpful.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's point about value added tables, of course we believe that they would be the best kind of tables to have. However, as my hon. Friend will understand, it will take time to develop a database for those tables to work. In the meantime, we see absolutely no reason to deny parents the kind of information that would allow them to take the proper action in the best interests of their children's education.
    Mr. McCartney: Will the further and higher education charters include the right for students to claim housing benefit and income support during summer recesses? Some of my constituents will have less than£5 a week to live on this summer after they have paid their rent during the college recess. That is an unacceptable imposition of poverty on our youth and on the development of their educational potential in respect of industry. If the further and higher education charters are to mean something, there must be a right of access to housing benefit and income support for students when they are not at college.
    Mr. Davis: Absolutely not. Housing benefit and income support are designed for people who need them because they are in poverty or in poor circumstances of one kind or another. They are not designed as a giveaway for students in our society. I believe that it is a very bad idea to start young people off on a dependent mode as they begin their careers.

    Science and Engineering (Wales)
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last visited Wales to discuss science and engineering issues; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I discussed science and technology issues when I replied to the excellent debate at the Welsh Conservative party conference on 12 June.
    Mr. Richards: I thank my right hon. Friend for corning to Wales to make the first speech on science and engineering at a party conference for many years. Does not that reflect the importance that the Government attach to science and engineering—unlike the Labour party, which attaches very little importance to that subject?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I note that the Welsh Conservative party lead on that matter as, doubtless, it leads on others. I also note that there is no proper spokesman for science and engineering in the shadow Cabinet and that is a matter of regret. I also note that in Wales there are major developments in this area. For example, the Agricultural and Food Research Council is now concentrating most of its work on grassland research in Wales and that is quite proper.

    Investors and Risk Takers
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what intitiatives his Department has taken to encourage the investors, entrepreneurs and risk takers of the United Kingdom to produce scientific products for the world market.
    Mr. David Davis: Partnership for the creating of wealth lies at the heart of the White Paper on science, engineering and technology. As markers of that—there are too many aspects to go through in one question—each research council will have a mission statement that reflects that aim, and the Technology Foresight exercise will be identifying generic aspects of technology and research that are most useful for the United Kingdom's industrial base, a policy which has already proved to be successful in Japan. In support of that, the Department of Trade and Industry's innovation budget to assist small business will be increased by 15 per cent. this year.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that trade and industry are delighted with the emphasis that the Government are now placing on the research councils' drive for wealth creation? That is just what industry and commerce want, and it is just what the doctor ordered.
    Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is supported by several people, not least Richard Freeman, ICI's chief economist, who, referring to science and technology, said:
    "A central feature of the White Paper is the commitment to the greater focus of S&T policy on United Kingdom competitiveness and wealth creation. Within more explicit guidelines … research is to have regard to its relevance and potential for appropriation by industry and other users. These are changes to be greatly welcomed."
    I agree with him entirely.

    Rolls-Royce
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the chairman of Rolls-Royce about his White Paper on science, engineering and technology.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I expect to meet Sir Ralph Robins next month and I am looking forward to discussing the White Paper with him. I was greatly encouraged by the letter from him and 12 other senior industrialists in The Times on 1 June welcoming the White Paper.
    Mr. Knapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sir Ralph Robins letter was also signed by the chief executives of Glaxo, British Aerospace and many others? Does not that show that the vast majority of British industrialists fully support my right hon. Friend's White Paper on science, engineering and technology?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a very broad welcome for the White Paper. As sometimes happens, the spokesman for the Labour party in the House of Lords, who had perhaps read the document before responding to it, got it right in welcoming it, whereas its spokesman in this House had not read it and did not welcome it.

Iraq
3.31 pm
Mr. George Robertson (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Nations Security Council's consideration of the United States attack on targets in Baghdad.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): On 26 June, United States forces launched a military operation against the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad. That action follows discovery by the Kuwaiti authorities of a plot to assassinate ex-President Bush in Kuwait city in mid-April by detonating a car bomb. The consequences if the bomb had detonated would have been devastating and would have led to great loss of innocent life.
On 27 June, the Americans immediately reported the action to the Security Council as required by article 51 of the charter and briefed it on the evidence of Iraqi involvement in the plot and the threat presented to the United States by Iraqi terrorism. That operation was a justified and proportionate exercise of the right of self-defence, and a necessary warning to Iraq that state terrorism cannot and will not be tolerated.
That act of terrorism by the Iraqi regime has to be seen in the context of a pattern of attempted defiance and obstruction by Iraq of the United Nations.
Iraq also continues to detain illegally nationals of Kuwait and other countries. Three British citizens—Paul Ride, Michael Wainwright and Simon Dunn—have been given grotesque prison sentences, along with nationals of the United States, Sweden and Germany. We are doing everything that we can to secure their release.
The international community has achieved progress in dismantling the Iraqi regime's capacity to attack its neighbours and in deterring attacks on its own citizens; but the attempt to kill ex-President Bush is a reminder that the Iraqi state is still a sponsor of terrorism. We believe that only through firmness can Iraq be persuaded to conform to the standards of behavour required of it and others by the international community.
Mr. Robertson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer, but I tell him that the American action yesterday was dubious in legality, questionable in morality, haphazard in its military impact, and potentially devastating in diplomacy. It should therefore never have been supported by the British Government.
No one doubts the appalling nature of Saddam's regime, least of all those Labour Members who have campaigned for many years, and no one doubts the need collectively to face up to the threat that he poses both to his own people and his neighbours.
How can it be said that the raid is justified as falling under article 51 of the United Nations charter when the alleged assassination attempt failed anyway? It took place some three months ago, and the trial of the accused people has not been completed. How can it be said to be measured and appropriate, when the target building was in a busy city centre and at least three of the missiles almost predictably failed to hit that target and killed innocent civilians?
How can the action be said to be effective when it has alienated our Arab allies and united Saddam's friends?
658
How can it be said to have enhanced international law and order and the influence of the United Nations when the decision was taken unilaterally by the United States, involved no real consultation with this Government beforehand and went to the Security Council only after it had taken place?
Did our Prime Minister ask President Clinton to take the issue to the Security Council and seek prior authority for it? Did President Clinton tell our Prime Minister what yesterday's target would be? Was the United Nations Secretary-General consulted in any way before the attack happened? Did our Government take into account sufficiently its effect on the British prisoners who languish in Saddam's gaols at present?
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that those of us who are friends of the United States, President Clinton and his Administration—especially those of us who are their friends—are dismayed and troubled by what happened yesterday and believe that the attack should not have taken place? If there is to be a new world order—we all hope that there will be one—it cannot be based on unilateral action taken by any one state, however powerful. If that new order that we all yearn for is to have any chance at all of succeeding, it must be firmly based on international law and the clear authority of the United Nations.
Mr. Hurd: I am surprised by the nature of the hon. Gentleman's response. It seemed to be a throwback to the old days from which I thought the Labour party had recovered. It showed little understanding of the sort of problem that the President of the United States faced when he considered the mounting evidence before him.
I shall try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. Article 51 prescribes:
"Force may be used in exercise of a State's inherent right of individual or collective self-defence,"
and that that exercise must be reported immediately to the Security Council. Force may be used in self-defence against threats to one's nationals if: (a) there is good evidence that the target attacked would otherwise continue to be used by the other State in support of terrorist attacks against one's nationals; (b) there is, effectively, no other way to forestall imminent further attacks on one's nationals; (c) the force employed is proportionate to the threat. That is the state of international law as we understand it. However, it must be viewed against the political context, which the hon. Gentleman would not deny.
The Iraqi state has shown time and time again a propensity to engage in state terrorism, so there must be considered to be a constant threat of further attacks. Unless the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party understand that position, they are not understanding the realities with which President Clinton had to deal.
The second question related to consultation. For several weeks since the middle of May, we have been told that, as the United States, and especially the FBI, examined the nature of what occurred, they were considering what further step they would have to take in response. The Americans made it clear that this was to be, if it took place, a United States action, that they would not ask for allied participation in it, but that they would ask for allied understanding and political support. That was the nature of it. We have been kept fully informed as the action continued.

659
The main gap in the assumptions of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and in his questions to me was the assumption that, before the right of self-defence can be exercised, there needs to be a specific mandate from the United Nations. I ask the hon. Gentleman, "Please think carefully before you put that forward as a received doctrine of an Opposition party."
Mr. John Smith: He did not say that.
Mr. Hurd: Well, that was the implication of everything that the hon. Gentleman said. It is simply not possible to lay that down as a doctrine. It must be right, as the United Nations charter recognises, that states preserve and have the right to exercise the right of self-defence without a specific authority each time from the United Nations, provided that they immediately report, as the United States did, on that action to the Security Council. I believe that that is absolutely fundamental to the nature and prospects of world order.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that state-inspired or state-condoned terrorism is one of the most dangerous and evil threats to the stability of the world today, and that it points a dagger at our own societies here in Europe, as well as spreading throughout the middle east and along the north coast of Africa?
Will he therefore agree, as I am sure he will, that, although the loss of innocent lives in any operation of this kind is deeply to be regretted, far fewer have died in this case than have died, are dying and will die if state terrorism of this deliberate kind is allowed to proceed unchecked by a decisive response, such as the response that. the Americans have employed?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I especially agree with what he says about civilian deaths. I do not believe that the targeting can be regarded as disproportionate, given the nature of the target and the nature of the offence. I disagree with the criticism by the hon. Member for Hamilton on that.
I further agree with what my right hon. Friend says about state terrorism. All of us, and Iraq in particular, are required by paragraph (32) of Security Council resolution 687 to give an undertaking not to support state terrorism. That undertaking was given, but has not been honoured. Against the background that I have described, it is legal and reasonable that this measure should have been taken as a response to the assassination attempt and as a signal for the future.
Sir David Steel: The Foreign Secretary noticeably did not quote the part of article 51 of the charter that makes it clear that the article is intended to be used when there has been an attack on a member nation pending the ability of the Security Council to restore international peace. It was not intended for retaliation against an abortive attack two months ago when the Security Council had not considered the matter.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman must accept that the right course would have been to present the intelligence evidence to the Security Council, together with the evidence from the Kuwaiti trial when it had been completed, and to take action against Saddam's intelligence headquarters as a threat to international peace. That is the orderly way in which to proceed.
660
As it is, surely the right hon. Gentleman must accept that there are damaging consequences. The Gulf coalition has been broken. The Arab Governments who are under threat from Islamic fundamentalism now find that it is fuelled by the American action. The action also undermines the authority of the United Nations itself. The right hon. Gentleman must tell President Clinton that "might is right" is not the new world order.
Mr. Hurd: I have tried to set out to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House how article 51 stands as regards attacks against the nationals of a member state. I do not accept, as I have said, that it is an inevitable restriction on the rights of member states of the United Nations under article 51 that they should have to receive a specific authority and approval from the Security Council before they exercise that right.
I advise the right hon. Gentleman, as I have advised the hon. Member for Hamilton, not to start to lay that down as a principle of international order. There would be a dangerous state of paralysis if it were accepted.
Mr. Ray Whitney: The Labour party's reaction, far from being surprising, is entirely predictable and, indeed, Pavlovian. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a vigorous response to state terrorism is essential, and that the action of the United States was very necessary—in particular, to show that the change of Administration in Washington had not changed the resolve of the United States Government to force the Iraqi regime to behave in an internationally acceptable way?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. It is very important that Iraq should understand that the change of Administration in the United States, or any other development on the international scene, will not lessen the weight attached by the international community to the need for Iraq to discharge its obligations, including the obligation against state terrorism. The signal for the future is crucial.
It was predictable that the action which was taken would be criticised in some quarters. I am sorry that the Labour party has joined in that criticism, as it shows misunderstanding of what the world needs, which is strict compliance with international law. However, the world requires also firmly shown proof, particularly from the United States, of a willingness to deal with state terrorism.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that two of the people who died in Baghdad on Saturday night included a little baby of 18 months, who was held by its shopkeeper father, and whose mother is critically ill in hospital? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this act was perpetrated by a country that launched the Bay of Pigs attack, invaded Grenada, invaded Panama, and has itself been guilty of many acts of state terrorism?
Does the right hon. Gentleman know—indeed, he almost confirmed it—that the real motive was to give President Clinton a reputation at home for being tough? The British Prime Minister supported the action, as he is accused of indecision in this country. Before the right hon. Gentleman frames his answer, I should tell him that the brother of the man who was killed—the uncle of the baby—is here today to hear his reply and the first apology for the killing of innocent people in this murderous attack on Baghdad.
Hon. Members: Say you are sorry.
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will resume their seats.
Mr. Hurd: A few minutes ago, I expressed regret for the loss of civilian lives. No doubt I was simply saying what a representative of the President of the United States had said already'. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that there should be no response to such attempts at state terrorism—this attempt, if successful, would have resulted in the deaths of a very large number of people not in any way involved in the Gulf war or the argument—he is putting forward an argument for paralysis, which we cannot accept.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: While totally deploring the alleged attempted assassination of a former United States President—a friend and ally of this country—may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he realises that, over the next decade, we shall need the support of some Arab countries if we are to contain Iraq and Iran? Does he agree that Hizbollah and Hamas will have been greatly strengthened by the events of the weekend? If he were a moderate in the Arab world, encouraging democracy and respect for human rights—let alone a Palestinian negotiating with the Israelis—his position today would be fragile.
Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is one that was made throughout the Gulf war. It was said constantly in many parts of this country by experts on Middle East affairs that, if the United States and the rest of the west were to take a firm line, there would be flaking away of support for the coalition. This was constantly written and otherwise reported at the time of sanctions and Desert Storm.
It is a risk, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it. I suspect that what happened before when these warnings were given will happen again. Although those concerned feel doubts and express criticisms, on reflection they will feel safer and more satisfied that the United States is once again prepared to show leadership against an evil from which we and especially those states suffer—that of state terrorism.
Mr. Peter Shore: While there are real difficulties in dealing with the provocations and crimes of an outlaw regime such as that of Saddam Hussein, surely, in the exchanges between the President and the Prime Minister, it was pointed out to the President that the American case would have been far stronger if action had been deferred until the conclusion of the Kuwaiti trial.
Mr. Hurd: The United States deferred action until the nature of the responsibility was clear from its own investigations. The evidence is there—was in Mrs. Albright's speech yesterday—t that responsibility lay where the missile attack was directed.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: As one who agreed entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said about state terrorism and who believes that the Gulf war should not have ended until Saddam Hussein had been deposed, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that, if we are to have an internationally respected world order, we must
662
be even-handed? Does he agree that those who orchestrate, plan and perpetrate genocide should be treated at least as harshly as those who plan the deaths of presidents?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has been persistent over months in advocating a more interventionist policy in the former Yugoslavia. That is what he is referring to. We do not have an established world order: we have attempts to create one and a series of tragic situations in which, in one way or another, such order is being breached.
The international community must seek case by case—all these cases are different—the best remedy that it can afford. The two situations—the attempted assassination of ex-President Bush and the war in Bosnia and the crisis alongside it in Croatia—are as different as could be. There is no established world order that would provide equal remedies for each.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many people in this country are simply nauseated by the alacrity with which the Prime Minister endorsed the American criminal action? What did the Secretary-General of the United Nations say about this?
The Foreign Secretary has the reputation, rightly, of being a humane man. Has he any idea of the sheer horror in places such as the Amariya where missiles struck during the Gulf war? In that place, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), Tim Llewellyn of the BBC and I saw carbonated arms on a ceiling. As in Pompeii, mothers were burnt holding their infants when the missiles arrived.
In such circumstances, can the Foreign Secretary be surprised that the many Iraqi graduates we met who were doubtful about the Ba'athists are now firmly behind Saddam Hussein? This kind of action entrenches the regime.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to bried me after his visit to Iraq. I entirely accept the good faith in which he and his hon. Friend undertook that visit. However, in several respects, the characteristics of a totalitarian regime enabled the two hon. Members to be thoroughly misled about the situation there. I respect the hon. Gentleman's bona fides and his sincerity, but not his conclusions.
I do not believe that, in the end, the cause of humanity—which is what the hon. Gentleman is pleading—is served by allowing attempts of this kind to go without response. I do not believe that it is safe. We can argue about particular targeting and particular procedures, but I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman's main assumption: that regimes like that of Saddam Hussein—given its record and the knowledge that we had of its intentions—should be spared and left alone simply because a response inevitably carries with it the risk of innocent casualties.
Mr. David Sumberg: Is not the correct historical comparison not with the Gulf war but with the action that the United States took against Libya a few years ago? Should it not be made equally clear to Saddam Hussein, as it was to Colonel Gaddafi, that state-sponsored terrorism is entirely unacceptable?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend puts the gist of it very well. I agree with him.
Mr. George Galloway: Does the Secretary of State accept that he cut an uncharacteristically unconvincing figure when he made his opening remarks? The Secretary of State, who knows the middle east very well—and the British Foreign Office, which knows it even better—will know the consequences of 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles landing on an Arab capital. One of the collateral damages was the death in her sleep, with her husband and family, of Leila Attar, a very famous Iraqi painter, who was revered throughout the Arab world.
The Foreign Secretary knows that that raid has detonated a fracture among the Arab allies of this country and the United States, and set in train a further twist to the pattern of fanaticism, extremism and despair which is felt throughout the Arab area, and which imperils the very regimes to which he and the Foreign,Office are so close.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Arab world will see that raid, as his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said, not just as a dramatic comparison with the paralysis over the Bosnian Muslims, but as a tawdry, shabby attempt by a pathetic President of the United States of America to divert attention from his miserable failures at home?
Mr. Hurd: That is not what the historian will record when he looks at the American papers. I have had enough knowledge of this over the last few weeks, from discussions in Washington last month, to know the way in which this was tackled and the way in which the plans for this operation were postponed, put aside and withheld while an authentic and serious investigation took place. That is what the history books will show.
The hon. Gentleman's main point, which is understandable, is similar to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South. The hon. Gentleman rightly records the risks and criticisms from the area, but running alongside them, and eventually overcoming them, will be a feeling of relief that there is the possibility—nay,
664
the certainty—of firm action against the evils of state terrorism, from which the countries about which he has spoken have been and may well be the chief sufferers.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Would my right hon. Friend take it from me, as someone who has lived and worked in the middle east, that the people I know are much more concerned about firm allies at this dangerous time than legal niceties? Can I also put it to my right hon. Friend that the next time that western interests are in serious danger in the middle east, the Americans may, for one reason or another, be less willing to intervene? It is essential that the countries of western Europe, which in practice means Britain and France, do retain a capacity to intervene ourselves, if necessary.
Mr. Hurd: In this case, the Americans acted; they asked for our support, not our participation. They were entitled to that support, and they were given it.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The Foreign Secretary sought to justify the American action according to the concept of self-defence under international law. He will know that there is a clear distinction in international law between self-defence and reprisal. Is not self-defence essentially a defensive action against the threat of attack, while a reprisal is a punitive action to punish a past unlawful incident? Given those definitions, is it not clear that what we have witnessed is punishment, a reprisal, and not self-defence?
Mr. Hurd: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that that distinction exists, but he is obscuring or ignoring the fact that the threat remains. I told the House about our understanding of the state of international law when there has been an attempt at state terrorism; the threat quite clearly remains, and is a serious one.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are now going to move on to the statement.

Police Reform (White Paper)
3.59 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard: With permission, I should like to make a statement about the future of the police service in England and Wales.
I am today publishing a White Paper which sets out the Government's proposals for police reform. Those proposals will lay the basis for the police service of the 21st century and deliver the promises that we have made under the citizens charter.
We are rightly proud of our police service and of our tradition of policing with the consent and support of the community, but the present administrative arrangements can handicap the police in getting on with their job. There is not a clear enough distinction between the respective roles of the chief constable and the police authority. There is too much paperwork, and the police are not given a clear enough set of priorities. The aim of the White Paper is to enable the police to focus far more than they can at present on waging war against crime.
There are four main elements to my proposals. First, we need to forge the strongest possible partnership between the police and the public. The concept of such a partnership is not new; it can be traced back to the roots of British policing. However, we now need to revitalise community support for the police.
The police cannot succeed on their own. We all have a responsibility as individuals to give our help and support. There are many ways for people to get involved, for example as members of neighbourhood watch schemes, or by joining their local police consultative group. Even more importantly, we need to help the police to prevent and detect crime by passing on information that may be of use to them.
Service as a special constable is the most active way in which ordinary people can help the police. Special constables provide a valuable link between the police and the community. I therefore propose to set a fresh target of 30,000 for the number of special constables—an increase of 10,000 on the present strength of 20,000.
Secondly, I intend to strengthen local police authorities. They will set their own budgets. They will be required to develop local policing plans and strategies for partnership between the public and the police. They will be expected to consult closely with the public in drawing them up. They will be required to tell local people how well their force has done, so that they can compare its performance with that of other forces. They will be clearly responsible for ensuring that policing meets both local and national priorities, and they will be held to account for the results.
I intend that local police authorities should have access to a wider pool of local experience and ability in carrying out those tasks. Police authorities will all be independent bodies made up of local people. Each police authority will have 16 members: eight local councillors, three local magistrates and five local people appointed by the Home Secretary. One person from among the overall membership will be appointed by the Home Secretary to chair the authority.
Thirdly, we shall make it easier for chief constables and local police commanders to deliver a service that provides what local people want, in accordance with citizens charter principles. We want to streamline management within
666
police forces to devolve responsibility to the lowest possible level. The main responsibility for local policing should go to the local commanders who are in touch with their local communities.
Central Government grant to the police will in future be cash-limited. That will allow us to give detailed controls on police manpower and capital expenditure. We shall no longer determine centrally how many police officers there should be in each force. It will be for local police authorities and police forces to decide for themselves on the mix of police officers, civilian staff, equipment and other resources that they need. They will not need the permission of the Home Secretary if they want more police constables instead of senior managers.
Fourthly, we want to give the police a clear sense of priorities. I propose that, in future, the Home Secretary will publish a brief statement each year of the key objectives for the police service. That will provide a framework for assessing police performance. Those objectives will reflect the Government's belief that fighting crime and the protection of the public should he the top priorities in police work.
The police must be freed as far as possible from the burden of paperwork, so that they can concentrate on the key objectives of fighting crime and protecting the public. That is why we have commissioned a swift study by consultants to examine the paper administration of the criminal justice process from arrest by the police to disposal in court. I attach a great deal of importance to this exercise. I want to see a significant reduction in paper pushing. The public want the police to concentrate on fighting crime. So do the police, and so do I.
I now come to my proposals for London. My predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said in a statement to the House on 23 March that he would consider how the new format for police authorities might be changed to take account of the special circumstances of London. Since my appointment, I have given this careful consideration.
The Metropolitan police have unique national responsibilities. I have therefore concluded that the national interest in the work of the Metropolitan police makes it right that the Home Secretary should remain the police authority for London. But in discharging these responsibilities, I shall no longer rely solely on advice from the Home Office.
To help me oversee the performance of the Metropolitan police, I will be forming a new body. I shall appoint to it people from a wide variety of backgrounds with the skills and experience to make a major contribution to the work of the police in the capital. It will, for example, help me draw up local London objectives for the police taking account of Londoners' views. I have no doubt that these new arrangements will be of great benefit to the people of London.
These are the main elements of a much broader programme of reform. The White Paper also sets out a range of other measures to provide the police service with the best modern management systems.
On Wednesday, I expect Sir Patrick Sheehy to announce the results of his inquiry into police pay, conditions of service and rank structure. We need arrangements which will ensure that we can recruit and retain high quality officers and which allow for the widely differing responsibilities of individual officers

667
There will be new procedures to ensure that poor performance by individual officers is dealt with fairly and effectively. There will also be new separate arrangements for dealing with misconduct by police officers. Existing procedures are often long drawn out. This is not satisfactory from anyone's point of view, not least the police. Speedier decisions should result from the new arrangement.
I hope to bring forward legislation as soon as possible to implement all the elements of the reform programme. I want to see them all in place by April 1995. The changes that do not require legislation will be introduced sooner, and many are already in hand.
This is a programme of reform to lay the foundations of policing well into the next century. The reforms will lead to a better service for the public and greater job satisfaction for police officers. With the support of all of us, the police service will be more effective in its ability to wage war against crime. I commend these proposals to the House.
Mr. Tony Blair: As I did in March, may I welcome the part of the Home Secretary's proposals that deal with greater flexibility in financing? Will he confirm that this is just the removal of a central Government inhibition on local finances and could be done by a simple one-line amendment to the Police Act 1964, and that it is distinct from all the other proposals in relation to police authority?
As the Home Secretary announced in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, he says that he will increase the number of special constables from 20,000 to 30,000. Will he confirm what appears in the White Paper, that there is already a plan to increase special constables to 25,000—that makes his announcement today slightly disingenuous—and that the figure that he has announced is simply a target, not a firm commitment? At present, even the target is nowhere near being met. Will he also confirm that he is keeping the freeze on new police officers, which is hampering many local police authorities that want more police officers back on the beat in local communities?
One startling omission from the Home Secretary's statement was any mention of the proposal for amalgamating police forces. We might therefore have supposed that he has dropped it. Will he confirm that the White Paper contains a whole chapter on amalgamations? I do not know why he did not mention that. Is it because that chapter makes it clear that the Home Office believes that the number of existing authorities is questionable and because it wants to reduce them and amalgamate them considerably?
The White Paper states on page 42:
"But the Government does not propose to launch an immediate programme of compulsory force amalgamations."
It then states on page 43:
"Where in future police force amalgamations become desirable, the Secretary of State will be able to prescribe new police force areas."
It sets out a new procedure for amalgamation that leaves out many of the aspects of public consultation.
Will the Home Secretary come clean and say what his intentions are for larger police forces? All the evidence shows that smaller forces have better cost-effectiveness, a higher percentage of operational officers and a better clear-up rate.
On London, was not there the clearest possible commitment in March to a proper police authority for
668
London, as there is in other areas? Is it not the height of absurdity to justify reneging on that commitment on the ground of the unique work of the Metropolitan police, when the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has, during the last few days, given his full support to a proper police authority in the interests of better policing? Is not the truth that what has changed are not the views of the police, still less those of the people of London, but the response to the clamour of a few out-of-touch, unrepresentative Tory Back Benchers who want to deny Londoners a proper voice in how London is policed?
On the structure of new police authorities, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that is opposed by virtually all chief constables and by Tory, as well as Labour, local councillors? He claims that it is necessary to remove local councillors from a large part of the police authority to depoliticise the police, but does he understand that the effect of his proposals will be not to depoliticise police authorities, but to transfer political control from local people who are locally elected to serve local communities to Government appointees who are accountable only to Whitehall?
There is a deep and growing concern in this country, across a range of issues, about the vast number of local services from health through to policing, involving billions of pounds of public money, where the chairmen and chairwomen of the controlling bodies now hold office at the Government's pleasure and the fact that their first loyality will not and cannot be to local people, but only to the Tory party in government.
Are not the Home Secretary's proposals, taken as a whole, the clearest sign of the utter bankruptcy of the Tory party as the party of law and order? Is that not shown by the fact that he should announce, as his first measure, not a new initiative on crime, drug abuse, violence, car crime, burglary or even crime prevention, but a misguided piece of prejudice against local policing? What this country wants is not a vendetta against local government, but a crusade against crime—and it is the Labour party that will wage it.
Mr. Howard: The first question was whether it would be possible to detach some of our elements of reform from others and enact them separately. Of course, the answer is in the affirmative. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should ask such a question.
On the issue of special constables, I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether he too was in favour of an increase in the target figure for special constables, and whether he thought that they had an important part to play. He remained silent. He was not prepared to say on that issue, as on any of the other issues that he raised, whether he was in favour of our proposals, against them or, as is so often the case, simply sitting on the fence.
The hon. Gentleman asked about amalgamation. As my predecessor announced, we are introducing more streamlined arrangements to replace the present cumbersome ones, where amalgamation is thought desirable. I shall consider any proposals for amalgamation on their merits.
On London, what it comes down to when one sits, listens to and penetrates the hon. Gentleman's bluster, is that he and the Labour party remain as determined as ever to put left-wing Lambeth Labour councillors, who are still not prepared to participate in the work of the local police consultative committee, on any local police authority for

669
London that Labour would set up. That is what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's bluster about London, and we will have no part of it.
The hon. Gentleman repeated the old litany of criticism about police authorities outside London. Is he seriously suggesting that only councillors and magistrates can make an effective contribution as members of a police authority, and that no one else has anything to contribute? That is the import of the hon. Gentleman's criticism.
We say that 50 per cent. of the membership of police authorities should continue to be councillors. Three members should be magistrates, and five should be appointed by the Home Secretary. Those five can bring to bear their wide experience of the problems that are faced by police authorities, and make an effective contribution to the authorities' work.
We heard from the hon. Gentleman what we hear all the time from the Opposition, day in day out, in the House. "Things," they say, "are dreadful as they are. Let us keep them exactly as they are."
Mr. John Greenway: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement—particularly as it relates to special constables—and I remind him, the House and the country that it was Special Constable Goodman who was murdered by the IRA in North Yorkshire. That proved that special constables can be as brave and courageous in the policing of Britain as full-time police officers.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that local accountability and contact between the police and the community both exist through the consultative committees, and not through the police authorities which have a small number of members?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend. He is, of course, right to pay tribute to the bravery of Special Constable Goodman and, indeed, of other special constables, who, together with the police, are prepared to risk their lives for the rest of the community, day in, day out.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the important contribution that local police consultative committees can make. I am sure that they will continue to make an effective contribution under the new arrangements that I have proposed.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the Home Secretary is to assume sole reponsibility for the appointment of the chairman and five members of the local police authority, for setting the key objectives of every police force and for capping their expenditure, is he not on the road to making the police answerable only to himself and not to the communities with which partnership is essential for effective policing?
Is it the Government's intention to follow the pattern that has been set in health, in which the Government have taken on doctors, dentists, nurses and even patients in attacking the problems? Are the Government prepared to pit themselves against the entire police service with the proposals?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood our proposals. We are not proposing to cap the expenditure of local police authorities, as he will find out when he looks at the proposals in detail.
It is difficult to take the hon. Gentleman and his party seriously on law and order. The only debate on the subject at the most recent party assembly was a motion to legalise brothels. When the hon. Gentleman's party takes law and order seriously at its party conference, we will take seriously what he says in the House.
Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the reforms are designed to help the police concentrate on what the people of Portsmouth really care about—the prevention and detection of violence, burglary, vandalism and so on—rather than on those matters that are so beloved of the Labour party, and particularly their local councillors, which make police officers into virtual social workers?
Mr. Howard: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he wants. I hope that the people of Portsmouth will take full advantage of the opportunities that the proposals contained in the White Paper will make available to them. They will be able to have their say in setting the priorities of their local police force—and, indeed, will be able to play a full part in helping their local police force to do its job more effectively.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Home Secretary aware of the perception that the pendulum has been pushed too far against the police and the courts, and that there would be widespread support for any measures that restored the pendulum to at least mid-distance? May we look upon his announcement today as a modest beginning?
Mr. Howard: I am certainly aware of the perception to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The proposals are a first step on an important road and will, I hope, go a long way to removing that perception. We have a unique opportunity to tackle the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and I intend to do everything in my power to tackle it effectively.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his announcement about strengthening the partnership between the police and the public will be warmly welcomed, as will his comments about eliminating unnecessary police paperwork—which was imposed by the House when it passed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that the police service will have substantial reservations about his decision that he and his successors as Home Secretary will in future appoint half the membership of the new-style police authorities? How will their members be chosen, and who will vet them?
As to the increase in the number of specials, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making their work a form of voluntary national service—so that young men and women who become specials can take part in police work and help everyone to become more aware of their civic responsibilities?
On the question of the Commissioner's advisory body—
Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are seeking to ask questions. I ask hon. Members to put one question each, so that we may get through as many as possible. Mr. Secretary Howard.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend speaks with particular authority on these matters, and I am grateful for his opening remarks. As to police authority membership, I shall appoint live of the 16 members—fewer than one third of the membership. I shall look for people who can bring their experience and expertise to bear effectively, to ensure that the new authorities give the relevant leadership required in their local areas. I note my hon. Friend's remarks about special constables, and I certainly view service as a special constable as service to the community in a very real sense.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Home Secretary said that the Metropolitan police has unique responsibilities, but he could have considered the option of taking away those responsibilities. Some of us believe that they take up far too much of Metropolitan police resources. As for the Home Secretary's cheap crack about Lambeth as a reason for keeping local councillors out of London's police authority, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgotten that, under his own proposals, local authority representatives would not even be in the majority on the police authority?
Mr. Howard: The Metropolitan police's special responsibilities are indivisible from its other responsibilities, and it would not be at all sensible to hive them off in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. For that reason, I reached the conclusion that I outlined in my statement. I well understand the Opposition's sensitivity towards the behaviour of Lambeth councillors, but they are elected as Labour councillors, and the Opposition cannot disown them.
Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a key objective of the White Paper is to ensure that police in Aylesbury and throughout the Thames valley area spend less time filling in forms and more time out of the office and on the beat, detecting and catching criminals?
Mr. Howard: I hope that we shall be able to achieve the objective that my hon. Friend identifies. As I said, a study is being made of the amount of police paperwork. I hope that we shall be able to reduce it as a result of that study, and that the consequence will be more policemen on the streets and on patrol, fighting crime—as my hon. Friend and I would like.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State said that he thought of the special circumstances of London when he took office. Can he tell us how those special circumstances had changed when his right hon. and learned predecessor came to the Dispatch Box a few months ago and said that there would be a new police authority for London?
When the Secretary of State abuses councillors in London, will he remember that he is abusing not just Lambeth councillors but Tory, Labour and Liberal councillors? How will the advisory committee for London be appointed? Will the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities be able to make
672
nominations? What does he intend to do about the City of London, which still has its own police authority in the middle of London?
Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) identified the relevance of the special responsibilities of the Metropolitan police to the decision that I have made. As to the membership of the new authority, no one will be able to make nominations to it, but I shall be open to suggestions from any quarter. When the hon. Gentleman grows excited about these matters, it behoves us all to remember his words in 1986, when he described the police as
"all that is rotten in our society."
Mr. Tony Banks: At Wapping, as you know!
Mr. Howard: As long as I remain Home Secretary, the smaller the extent to which people who hold the views of the hon. Gentleman on the police have any influence on the police, the better.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Can the Home Secretary make it plain that, when amalgamations of police forces take place, they will take place after consultation with local people? Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, whatever happens, nothing will be done that affects the integrity of the police force of the county of Kent?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will understand that I have a particular interest in the well-being of the police force of the county of Kent, so I shall bear his remarks in that context very much in mind. I can assure my hon. Friend that no amalgamations will take place without consultation, but the process of consultation will be very much more effective under our proposals than it is at the moment.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Secretary of State tell us who the consultants are and how much they are being paid? Can he guarantee that none of the principals, or the consultancy, has given money to the Tory party? Can he also guarantee that, when he appoints these people to the local police authorities they will not consist simply of Tory stooges?
Mr. Howard: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. We shall have as members of the police authorities those people who can make the most effective contribution to the work of those authorities. If it is indeed the view of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the only people who can make such a contribution to the work of police authorities are councillors and magistrates, he ought to examine the position afresh.
Mr. James Paice: Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge and appreciate that most people are fed up with the namby-pamby approach to law and order, and will welcome his move towards giving the police much more control over their own resources so that they can target them where they are needed? As part of my right hon. and learned Friend's campaign against paperwork, will he talk to the Lord Chancellor about the Crown Prosecution Service? An immense amount of police time is wasted on cases that never go to court, which is frustrating for the police and tormenting for the victim.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to identify that as a matter of concern. I share his concern. I hope that it will be possible, in the light of our response both to Sheehy and to the royal commission, which is expected to report next week, to address that concern in a very effective manner. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
Mr. Chris Mullin: In the interests of reducing the paperwork, what plans does the Home Secretary have for putting an end to a little racket that has been going on in more than half our police forces for many years, whereby police officers tour the nation's gaols to persuade convicted felons to own up to offences on the unsolved book, which they then count towards their clear-up record?
Is the Home Secretary aware that, in Liverpool, for example, this practice accounted, according to the last figures I have seen, for more than 40 per cent. of the clear-up rate? It discriminates, of course, against honest police forces that do not employ this practice.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will discover when he reads the White Paper, as I know he will, that one of its proposals is to enable local people to make recommendations to their local police authority on the objectives of the force. That is the kind of factor that they can take into account in setting what they think the objectives should be, and the police authority will be in a position to set them.
Mr. Winston Churchill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that not only the police but the country will welcome enormously the fact that we have a Home Secretary who is prepared to put some elbow and some muscle behind the police, to give them the equipment that they want and now to give them the reinforcements that they so badly need? What he said today about strengthening the special constabulary will be very welcome, especially in my constituency. What special measures does he propose to ensure that they are brought fully up to establishment at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know that he has taken a close interest in the special constabulary, and in the important role that it plays. I am proposing a targeted campaign to maximise the recruitment of special constables.
I think that there is a mood abroad in the country that people want to play a part in helping the police. They are fed up with feeling frustrated and helpless and they all want to play a part in the war against crime. Becoming a special constable is one of the most active ways in which they can help. The targeted recruitment campaign will evoke a much more successful response than previous campaigns, and I shall certainly do all I can to ensure that it succeeds.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the witchfindergeneral please withdraw his odious and offensive remark against my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), which he knew was highly misleading? Will he confirm that, in appointing members to police authorities, especially the London authority, he intends to pack them with what have become known as "TWEMs"—Tory white establishment males?
Mr. Howard: I was particularly careful to quote accurately from what the hon. Member for Newham,
674
North-West (Mr. Banks) said in 1986, and I note that neither he nor the hon. Gentleman suggested that I got the quotation wrong.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement, especially the fact that he has come down against the policing of London being the same as the rest of the country. He has responded to the view of many Conservative Members that a police authority would be quite wrong for London. Indeed, that view is shared by local authorities. Will he confirm that, in making a change in London, there will be no need for fresh legislation?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming my decision on London. I think it likely that we can achieve the new arrangements for London without legislation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not this poor man's Jack Benny have the guts to admit that what this Tory Government are all about it taking away powers from democratically elected local authorities? They have done it with education, in part; they have done it with housing, in part; and they are already privatising lots of services.
The idea of shifting police authorities to be run by Tory spivs is part and parcel of getting more power at the centre of Government and taking it away from elected local government. As for being more effective, if the police were not effective, how did they manage to arrest 9,000 miners in 1984? They trampled the streets of north Derbyshire—
Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Secretary Howard.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman does not seem too happy with the police under the present arrangements. I should have thought that he might be prepared to look rather more kindly on new and improved arrangements that will ensure that people other than councillors and magistrates can serve on police authorities and make use of their expertise and experience.
Mr. Tim Devlin: When my right hon. and learned Friend comes to appoint members of the police authorities, especially in places such as Cleveland, will he make it his top priority to appoint people from the community who have a positive contribution to make and who will help to build a partnership against crime, not Labour county councillors who have been found fighting in the library or arrested or other offences?
Mr. Howard: I shall not appoint members of police authorities on the basis of their political affiliation to whichever party they happen to belong, but I do not envisage appointing those who have been apprehended in the type of activity to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the important phrase that we need
"to revitalise community support for the police",
but may I warn the Home Secretary that it will not come about by wholesale amalgamation via the specious league table idea?
Reference has been made to a cash limit which, if it is unreasonable, will merely perpetuate under-establishment. For example, my force in north Wales is grossly

675
under-established, I think to the tune of 70 members. If the cash limit is unreasonable, there will be no co-operation and the whole thing will be a waste of time.
Mr. Howard: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of wholesale amalgamation. Let me also assure him that the result of the changes envisaged in the White Paper will give much more control to the chief constable and local commanders, which will enable them to make decisions about the appropriate number of officers to a much greater extent than at present. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman has had time to study the White Paper, he will find that his anxieties are allayed by its proposals.

Points of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. David Sumberg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that during last week's debate on party political funding, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), to whom I have given notice of this point of order, made a serious allegation to the effect that the President of the Board of Trade had been involved in trying to obtain foreign Governments' money to support the Conservative party. It has emerged over the weekend that the allegation was made at the behest of a newspaper simply for the purpose of ensuring that it was on the parliamentary record. Is not that a disgraceful abuse of our procedures and a clear breach of parliamentary privilege?
Madam Speaker: Very often, points of order are abuses of our procedures too, especially those that do not relate to the Chair and for which I have no responsibility.
I ended questions on the private notice question and on the statement reasonably early, because two minority parties have the right to be heard. I hope that hon. Members who wish to raise points of order will make absolutely certain that they are genuine.
Mr. William O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request or notice from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he wishes to make a statement about something that he said in County Down last Saturday night? When questioned about bombings in Northern Ireland, he said that, thankfully, no one had been killed but in the opera they all were killed.
Madam Speaker: Had there been a statement, it would have been on the annunciator and we would all have known about it by this stage.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
    VAT (SUPPLY OF SERVICES)
    That the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1507) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 7) Order 1993 (S.I.) 1993, No. 1606), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[ Mr. Wood.]
    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  OPPOSITION DAY

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.38 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
    That this House believes that, as evidenced by the hardening of international opposition, there are increasingly strong economic, environmental and proliferation reasons why it would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom or the rest of the world for Her Majesty's Government to bring the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield (THORP) into operation; notes that the last public inquiry into THORP took place more than fifteen years ago, since when all relevant circumstances have substantially changed; and therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to investigate and make public all relevant aspects of THORP and alternative processes for dealing with spent fuel including dry storage, to ensure full disclosure of the terms of all contracts for the use of THORP and of the calculations supporting its economic justification, and to ensure that all information is available for public comment, independent appraisal and proper cross-examination before any decision is taken.
    In The Observer at the weekend, there was a three-line NIB—news in brief—entitled "Small Tremor". It stated:
    "An earth tremor measuring 3·0 on the Richter scale hit south Cumbria and north Lancashire."
    Perhaps it was the Almighty reacting to the fact that, for the first time in 15 years, there is to be a debate in the House on the future of THORP.
    The thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield is a very important project. It was commissioned, and approval for it was sought, by British Nuclear Fuels plc back in the late 1970s. BNFL saw THORP as a means of treating partially used nuclear fuel, from home or abroad, from advanced gas-cooled reactors or light-water reactors and, by that reprocessing operation, separate out uranium and plutonium and separately place the waste.
    The inspector who held the inquiry in the late 1970s was the very eminent judge, Mr. Justice Parker. It was very clear to him that he was making a decision based on the evidence at the time. It was clear to him that the evidence and circumstances might change and the matter might have to be reconsidered. From the beginning, it was clear that everyone who participated in the debate regarded the decision as conditional.
    There were two debates on the matter, one very shortly after the other. The first debate was on a motion for the Adjournment of the House and it was initiated by the Government. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) commended THORP to the House. During that debate, and in the debate in May 1978, many hon. Members on both sides of the House made the conditionality of the project clear.
    The second debate was initiated by the then Leader of the Liberal party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). He
    678
    initiated the debate by praying against the order that provided planning permission for the Windscale proposal. He said:
    "In my view, the arguments on both sides are finely balanced and contain many uncertainties. It is because of that that I believe the burden of proof ought to lie quite firmly on the side of those who are pressing this order and who argue that we should now be taking this firm step into the plutonium economy."
    My right hon. Friend ended his speech by saying:
    "This House has a straight choice between looking at the longer-term results of a decision that we take tonight against the undoubted economic value of the Japanese and other contracts which we could acquire. I believe that the onus must lie heavily on the Government, who have brought forward the order, to persuade us that we are wrong. If they do not persuade us beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be right to vote in favour of the order being withdrawn."—[Official Report, 15 May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 111–18.]
    In the event, the order was approved by the House, though not without many hon. Members, including the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, making it very clear that it might not be, and should not be, the final decision on the matter.
    Today's debate has produced great benefits. We have flushed out where other people stand. We have flushed out the Government's position which—there is general agreement on this—had been secret for several months. The Government received advice, as they were bound to under statute, several months ago. BNFL, the operators, and the opponents wanted to hear a decision about that. However, until the end of last week, not a peep was heard.
    Not only have we forced the Government's hand today—and therefore I hope that today's debate is welcome, no matter what view people take on the issue—we have also flushed out two other things. We have flushed out an announcement, which has been made in the past hour, about how the Government intend to respond to the two reports that have been given to them. We have also flushed out the advice provided by the body that advises on radioactive material.
    In addition, we have flushed out the Labour party's position. We have forced Labour's hand and it has made a decision. Labour is going to abstain, just as it did in respect of Maastricht—
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Not all of us.
    Mr. Hughes: Well, perhaps not all Labour Members. However, the official Labour position is that it is not for THORP and it is not against it. It is not for a public inquiry and it is not against one.
    I challenge Labour Members to tell us what words in the motion they disagree with and why. I challenge them to tell us how, after all this time for deliberation, they cannot either endorse the project which they started in the 1970s or oppose it because circumstances have changed. As with Maastricht and income tax rises or public expenditure cuts, the Labour party is neither for them or against them. Yet again, the Labour party is sitting on the fence.
    Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Gentleman is talking about flushing out the views and opinions of a variety of people, particularly hon. Members. Does he accept that the work force at Sellafield are one of the best-trained work forces in the country? Is he aware that he could have flushed out the view of that work force if he had been on College green at lunchtime when the work

    679
    force made their views known? They want THORP to continue. They believe that it is safe. It is their work and they want it to be allowed to be commissioned.
    Mr. Hughes: Of course they do, and understandably so. My hon Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said last week that the workers at Rosyth wanted their work to continue, and, as the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) will be aware, many miners wanted their work to continue last October and this March. However, at the end of the day, the Government and the Conservative party could not endorse that.
    Of course the work force argued their case, and the hon. Member for Rochford has raised very proper concerns about that work force and their future in Cumbria which has significant unemployment, if not the highest in the country. I respect the view of the work force. I have spoken to some of the shop stewards and I hope to meet them again when I visit Sellafield in about 10 days' time. I have undertaken to meet the shop stewards and the work force as well as the management.
    The hon. Member for Rochford is well versed in these matters and his point alludes also to the fact that there is a quite reasonable debate about the issue and an understandable and honest entitlement to a difference of view. Complex issues such as the general debate about nuclear power and about nuclear weapons, do not necessarily drive to a unanimous conclusion along party lines. People in the Conservative party hold different views about the desirability of THORP and about a public inquiry, as they do in the Labour party and in my party.
    Hon Members such as the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have proper constituency views and we would expect them to speak on the matter. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who represents Dounreay, has made no secret of his views over the years. There is an honest disagreement of views.
    Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale spoke in the late 1970s, it has been my party's policy to oppose THORP, because we were not persuaded about it, and to argue that the only basis for supporting reprocessing is when it is necessary on safety grounds. That was the position on which we went into the last general election and to which we are committed as a party.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I do not only take a constituency view: I am a believer in nuclear power.
    Mr. Hughes: I may have been unfair to the hon. Gentleman. I tried to make the point that there is a difference in respect of the fundamental issues and that hon. Members are quite properly entitled to take a constituency view. The hon. Member for Workington has argued his views. I hope that he welcomes the debate. as he and I were in a meeting recently when we were asked to try to facilitate such a debate and I have now provided that opportunity.
    My colleagues and I do not intend—and it would be improper—for this to be a debate about the future of nuclear energy in Britain. That is a huge and wide subject. We may complain about the fact that we have not had such a debate. We do complain about the fact that the way in which we debate energy policy in this place is nothing
    680
    short of mad and we complain that the logical sequence of events should not have been what we have seen, are seeing and are about to see: a debate on coal in the late autumn of 1992 and the spring of 1993; a debate about THORP today; a debate about the national Audit Office view on the economics of the nuclear industry before the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday; a possible announcement about the nuclear review originally heralded to be made by the Minister for Energy at a meeting tomorrow night, although he will no doubt tell us that whether that will be the case, but certainly with a timetable envisaged to be announced before we break for the summer recess—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It might come today.
    Mr. Hughes: It might even come today.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar) indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister says no, so it will not. And there will be a debate about renewables some time later.
    The only point that I want to make about the energy debate is that it is a mad system which does not look at Britain's strategic energy needs first and then decide what the implication is for each of the component parts—for example, whether we should have a nuclear industry, how much coal we should have, whether we should have opencast coal, and so on. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland says, having previously spoken on the subject while holding this brief for our party, it does not help when we have a Government who do not believe in an energy strategy.
    Workers at Sellafield, like us and, indeed, the management at Sellafield, wish that the Government had had a clearer strategy on these matters for a long time. There is consensus that the way the Government are acting is no way to run a country, and, with or without the President of the Board of Trade present—we wish him a speedy recovery—it is certainly no way to decide an energy policy.
    There is one obvious linked point. What happens at THORP and the contracts at THORP are relevant to the economic viability of nuclear power and nuclear energy. A very timely article in today's issue of The Guardian made that point very clear. I do no more than allude to part of that article, but it makes it very clear that there is a battle royal going on between BNFL on the one hand and Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear on the other about who underwrites the risk. Unless we make that clear, it could make all the difference to the viability of the nuclear energy industry. Indeed, there is a strong argument from the nuclear energy industry to take the THORP equation—the reprocessing issue—out altogether. Some believe that they would be better served if that were not part of the equation.
    Mr. Dalyell: Some of us were the guests of Robin Jeffrey and James Hann of Scottish Nuclear. We asked them, and they were quite clear that there was no animosity of any kind whatever along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Hughes: As my hon. Friends say, they would say that, wouldn't they? The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is eminent in these matters. It is clearly a matter of controversy where the liability lies. One of the

    681
    things that are apparent from the contracts as they were originally drafted and as they have been in the public domain—one criticism is that they are not generally in the public domain—is that it is not clear exactly where liability lies. The hon. Member for Linlithgow is entitled to challenge that point, and, if he is correct, I hope that the Government will tell us whether that matter has been resolved or whether there is still a dispute. The Minister is in a better position than anybody else to tell us that.
    Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry to interrupt once again. That was said in the presence of the former Chairman of the Energy Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark). It was only 10 days ago. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman has to accept it.
    Mr. Hughes: I was making the point, with which the hon. Gentleman will agree, that the finances of the nuclear industry will be different if we include or exclude the prospective financial benefit to Britain of the THORP process. That is an uncontroversial point and I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow will accept it.
    Mr. Richard Page: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hughes: I will give way one more time and then I want to make the substantive part of my speech.
    Mr. Page: At the time of the Parker inquiry, I had the privilege to represent Workington, and I am also a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Leaving to one side the aspect that it could cost 2,000 jobs and the cost of£2 billion, I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman does his economic calculations, he will take into account the compensation that this country might have to pay if we do not go ahead with the THORP process: that has been estimated at£5 billion. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Hughes: That would be a very good point if, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) says, we had seen the contracts. If the contracts were in the public domain, as the Government committed themselves to doing at Rio in respect of environmental information, we could see the compensation clause. With respect, as someone whose job used to be commercial contracts before I came to this place, I know that what they do and do not include is highly relevant, and they can make a difference of billions of pounds; but they are not in the public domain and until they are the figures will be speculative. Also, it is not acceptable for Parliament to accept the view only of BNFL, which clearly has a vested interest, as the hon. Gentleman will accept.
    Mr. Page: I made the point that I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The report came forward with the endorsement of the National Audit Office. Is the hon. Gentleman calling into account the National Audit Office's integrity on this matter?
    Mr. Hughes: The National Audit Office, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has just produced a report which is to go to the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday. It makes it clear that the costs of decommissioning are uncertain, to put it neutrally, and it certainly does not endorse the figures that have been put forward by BNFL and others. In answer to the point about the Committee's
    682
    earlier report, what is not clear—the NAO did not say that it was clear—is what the automatic compensation entitlement would be.
    I will tell the hon. Gentleman why it is not clear. First, it is not clear in what form the waste might be able to be sent back within the contract. There is a debate about substitution, and I shall refer to the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee report in a minute. Secondly, it is also not clear whether the contract would be fulfilled if BNFL—Britain—held on to the waste and put it into dry storage as opposed to reprocessing it.
    There are many ways in which the contract might be able to be honoured without any compensation having to be paid. As the former hon. Member for the relevant seat, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) might like to persuade the chairman of BNFL to give us a copy of the contract. We could all then take legal advice and we would all be the wiser. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hughes: No.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: For the last time; it is very important.
    Mr. Hughes: No. I have given way once.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman knows what is coming.
    Mr. Hughes: No, I do not know what is coming. I have given way once. I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will be called if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman is frit.
    Mr. Hughes: I am certainly not frit. We put the subject on the agenda, for heaven's sake.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does the hon. Gentleman not give way?
    Mr. Hughes: Because I have even better points to make. and I am about to make them.
    In our motion, we make one general point and three specific points, and we call for one specific conclusion. We make the general point that there is growing international opposition to the reprocessing of spent fuel in a way that increases the amount of uranium and plutonium in the world. My hon. and learned Friend for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will address that matter, too. It is very clear that, over 10 years, the process will add about 60 extra tonnes to the global plutonium surplus of which there is already plenty.
    I cite nothing less than the most radical and non-Conservative document, The Economist, and an article written only earlier this month. It is clear that the risk of proliferation, particularly in the former Soviet states, is now considerable and that article argues strongly against it. Not only the Administration in the United States but two senior members of Congress are now putting into Congress Bills a provision to make sure that there is a control that could, at the time of the renewal of the non-proliferation treaty in 1995, actually make the

    683
    THORP process illegal. I ask the Minister to address that matter. When the Euratom treaty is renegotiated, the process itself may offend against international law.
    There is that growing international opposition, but there is growing international opposition much nearer home. Earlier this month, in Berlin, the member states of the Paris commission on prevention of marine pollution from land based sources met to consider what to do about the Sellafield plant. By a majority of nine to two, including four countries that have customers of BNFL within their borders, they voted, including other matters, to request
    "information on the need for spent fuel reprocessing …"
    a full environmental impact assessment;
    "the demonstration that the…discharges are based upon the use of the Best Available Techniques"
    and that they be consulted before THORP goes ahead. Only in the past fortnight, a motion was tabled in the European Parliament asking for a public inquiry.
    There is increasing evidence in Japan—one of the big customers—that there is growing public discontent. That is not answered by a newspaper advertisement this week, which appeared to answer the protest from the Japanese last week. We discover that the advertisment was placed not only by the Japanese utilities but, apparently, in association with BNFL. That is hardly an impartial response. Finally, it is only one year ago this month that the Prime Minister signed us up to principles in Rio, especially article 10 of the Rio declaration which stated that we were committed to full environmental information.
    There is growing international concern, and I break it into three areas—I can only be brief, because the debate obviously must allow hon. Members fully to participate. Those three areas are economic, environmental and proliferation. I have alluded to proliferation and I do not intend to elaborate on that now. It is a fairly obvious point that if a process produces uranium and plutonium, and that plutonium is available to be used, even though there may be legal constraints for nuclear weapons, one has increased the danger of nuclear escalation in the world.
    I shall deal with the economic point. The figures are difficult to work out because we have not seen the contracts and the market for the product is not nearly as buoyant as it was in 1978. They are also difficult to work out, because, although there may be contracts for the next 10 years, THORP is meant to have a life of about 25 years, and considerable extra costs of decommissioning are added once one starts to operate the plant.
    A lot of money has been spent on building the plant and getting it ready for operation, but there is a history of white elephants in Britain and other countries The argument is not how much we have spent and whether we can afford not to go on, but whether it is the wonderful earner economically for Britain, that BNFL has told us that it will be. Unless the figures are in the public domain and can be examined, and people can cross-examine on them, the economic case cannot be clearly made out.
    An important part of the economic case relates to jobs. It is not clear how many jobs at Sellafield might be at risk. I accept that it is in the order of between 1,500 and 2,500. Any job lost is a job that one certainly should try to preserve. I tell the people of Cumbria directly that those of us who advance this argument do not do so with no care whether people should have work—I say that as the
    684
    Member representing a constituency with double or more the unemployment level of either Workington or Copeland—but we ask whether there is an acceptable alternative.
    Well validated figures suggest that, if we take the dry storage option, which is much less environmentally damaging, we could have many more jobs on that site than we would have through the reprocessing option. We could have many more jobs and many less dangerous ones. That is another question which needs to be examined, because some people have been taken on ready for the site to be up and running and will be laid off in any event as they will probably not be able to be kept in construction or operating jobs in the interim period if there is further delay, as the Government announced today that there will be.
    More importantly, one must distinguish between the number of people whose jobs will be operating such a plant and the prospective thousands of jobs that there would be over a period of up to 10 years in constructing a dry storage facility to honour our international obligations or national contracts. In all probability, according to much of the evidence, such a facility would give much more work than is currently envisaged for West Cumbria or Sellafield in particular.
    Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Gentleman has asked for a lot of evidence relating to contracts and other matters. Can he outline his evidence that suggests that a dry store facility would employ more people than the reprocessing plant? On top of that, can he tell us what one does when one has stored the specific materials for some time? Is he suggesting that the materials should be stored for ever?
    Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with the first question first. Many people have done studies of the alternative job implications for a dry storage facility. I have taken advice from at least three sources about what the alternatives would be. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the best answer that I can now, and I will be happy to pursue the matter with him later.
    In option 1, commissioning THORP—the proposal supported by the Government—BNFL estimates that the number of jobs in the THORP division would be about 850, probably plus a few. Jobs related to the THORP operation but in the Magnox division would probably be in the order of 500. That is a total of 1,350. Abandoning THORP and building a dry storage facility, and management of it, would provide about 520 jobs plus about 500 support jobs and thousands of construction jobs in the foreseeable five years or more.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: They are juggling around with my constituents—throwing them in the air.
    Mr. Hughes: We are absolutely not throwing the hon. Gentleman's constituents in the air—we are trying to give them much more long-term employment than they might get from a process that may have no takers at all in 10 years' time. [Interruption.] I quoted the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe in long-term economic solutions, not short-term ones, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents agree.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hughes: No, I will not.
    Mr. Dalyell: Name your sources.
    Mr. Hughes: I will finish my point, then answer the question. The third point is the environmental one. That point is made best by, first, a Minister writing in the last month and, secondly, a report that has come out only today.
    Mr. Dalyell: Who are your sources?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman can bellow all he likes. I told him that I will answer his question but finish my point first. This is my speech for a change. We get many more chances to make speeches on subjects of our choosing than he does because of the unfairness of the system. However, that is an argument for elsewhere.
    On 25 May, Baroness Cumberlege, an Under-Secretary of State for Health, endorsed by letter—I have a copy here—the comments of the committee that gives advice to the Government on the medical aspects of radiation in the environment. That committee considered the draft authorisations for discharges from Sellafield and said that it had not had adequate time to consider the discharges and was not satisfied that they were safe. The Minister explicitly set out the position almost exactly a month ago. She said:
    "I attach a copy of the text of COMARE's response to the authorising Departments on this matter. The Department of Health, which was also invited to comment on the proposals, has endorsed COMARE's comments."
    Only today, we have flushed out—this is another achievement of my hon. Friends and myself—the advice—[Laughter]—Conservative Members should not laugh. It is true.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is true.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that support from the hon. Gentleman. The advice of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to the Government was in my tray at 3.15 pm today. It says:
    "RWMAC had originally been requested to provide advice to the Secretary of State by July 1992 but was unable to meet this deadline because insufficient information was provided by BNFL…The advice submitted by RWMAC to the Secretary of State is not as comprehensive as RWMAC would have wished because information that was requested from BNFL is still outstanding."
    Waste equivalence is an important point to do with substitution and the question whether it can be converted and compacted so that only the high level is sent back and the intermediate or low level is retained, or vice versa.
    "The radiological basis chosen by BNFL for calculating waste equivalencies has not yet been agreed by BNFL and its overseas customers."
    The RWMAC advised that until there is agreement between BNFL and its overseas customers on the technical basis of substitution, the BNFL substitution exercise should not be approved. That recommendation was made not 20 or 10 years ago, but today, 15 years after the plant was approved.
    The RWMAC made two other points:
    "The substitution scenario proposed by BNFL depends on the Nirex repository being available to accommodate the foreign intermediate-level waste and low-level waste resulting from the reprocessing by 2005 and is based on a best case return time of the ground water from the repository to the surface environment".
    Nirex has said that the repository will not be commissioned before the year 2007 at the earliest and the RWMAC has said that waste is unlikely to be disposed of before 2010, if the repository is sited in Sellafield.
    686
    "As the site will not be available in 2005, it will be necessary to evaluate the implications for both the UK site currently used for the disposal of low-level waste"—
    next door at Drigg—
    "and for various interim ILW stores."
    The RWMAC advised the Secretary of State that until the studies are complete, it was not in a position to be able to comment fully on the radiological and environmental impact for the United Kingdom of the introduction of substitution.
    There is some final advice to BNFL that is relevant to the Government. The RWMAC also advises that BNFL should
    "examine to case for the return of intermediate-level waste to determine whether the return of foreign waste in this form, rather than the return of equivalent quantities of vitrified high-level waste is viable."
    The RWMAC suggests that BNFL should
    "document its case demonstrating that retention of foreign intermediate-level waste resulting from reprocessing will not cause health or safety concerns to the UK population.…There should be a trial return of high-level waste."
    The RWMAC advice sets out a number of issues which the committee believes needs to be addressed by BNFL and the Government before the substitution of high-level waste by intermediate and low-level waste should be approved. The RWMAC
    "looks forward to receiving this additional information and at that time would hope to be in a position where it could advise more fully on the BNFL proposals for substitution".
    That is not scaremongering from political parties, but information from the Government's official advisers on the medical effects of radiation, endorsed by Health Ministers, and information from the relevant advisory committee which says that it does not have the facts.
    Not long ago, the controversial proposal for Torness in Scotland was the subject of a public inquiry. The inspector made it clear in his report that dry storage was not only a possible option and a viable option, but a reasonable alternative option. My friends in Scotland, who have campaigned for many years against the Torness plant, would agree that as it now appears that Government policy—on the advice of inspectors—is not universally and unilaterally in favour of reprocessing, but considers that there is an alternative, the entire logic of THORP is questionable.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, when he quotes the numbers of jobs that would be available in dry storage, that, at the recent public inquiry into the proposed dry storage at Torness, Scottish Nuclear Ltd. said that the store would require only 10 to 15 staff during loading and that thereafter, staff requirements would reduce to those required for occasional monitoring and maintenance? In that light, how can the hon. Gentleman talk of 1,000 jobs in dry storage?
    Mr. Hughes: That would be a fair—[Interruption.] That would be a fair and relevant comparison if the size of the two plants were equivalent.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is 100 times as large?
    Mr. Hughes: No. They are not equivalent. We know what the contracts currently placed for THORP are, and we know the contracting party and the amount of work involved. The hon. Gentleman quotes figures, which I

    687
    quoted, for the far smaller element in the debate—maintenance of the dry storage operation—but has left out the amount of people needed for the construction.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Sub-contractors.
    Mr. Hughes: Yes, but many of the jobs that have been created in Sellafield have been sub-contractors' jobs, for building.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: They come and go.
    Mr. Hughes: Of course, but by and large, they are local employees.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are talking about long-term jobs at THORP.
    Mr. Hughes: We are talking about some long-term jobs. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such facts need to be the subject of a public debate. That is why the Liberal Democrats are specifically proposing a public inquiry. It is no good the Minister laughing, because, by law, he may be obliged to hold one. He may not have been in the House—he is a contemporary of mine and I was not present either—in 1960, when the Radioactive Substances Act was passed. He may not have followed the amendment process to that Act in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
    Under sections 11 and 12 of the 1960 Act, it seems that there is a strong case that, once the reports have been given to his two right hon. Friends who are the determining authority—the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment, for whom the inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution acts—there is an obligation to consult on that report.
    Surprise, surprise, today at last, the Government have responded to that request. In a written answer from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)—it may be a planted question—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here."] The hon. Gentleman is not here. The question was tabled a couple of days ago, and only after it was announced that we were having today's debate. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that he had received the report and that he and his colleague had considered it. He makes an earth-shattering proposal:
    "My right hon. Friend and I propose that there should be a further round of consultation".
    I pause to tell the workers in Cumbria that the Liberal Democrats are not saying that there should be further delay, but that the Government are saying that there should be a further round of consultation. In that consultation, the questions raised by the response to the HM IP draft authorisations should be considered. I might add that 108 local authorities, as respondents, are opposed to the operation of the plant.
    The Secretary of State's officials are writing to BNFL seeking further information. The written answer continues:
    "I shall make their reply available for public comment, together with other material. My right hon. Friend and I do not propose to take final decisions on the exercise of our functions under the Act until after this further consultation."
    There we have it: the stories in the press were true. The Government were not going to make a decision. The arguments put to them, from advice given by leading counsel to Greenpeace among others, about the legal case,
    688
    have resulted in the Government's agreeing that they have to have further consultation. They propose simply to write to BNFL, to seek information, and to make their reply available for public comment, together with unspecified other material. How on earth can there be an objective assessment of jobs, of the economics issue and the environmental issue, unless the people and their evidence are put in the public domain and cross-examined?
    We do not want a long delay. There need not be one. Mr. Justice Parker's inquiry took 100 days. An inquiry could be held and a decision could be made before the end of the year, providing that the Government and the system move quickly. There would then be an up-to-date appraisal of the facts this year, as was suggested might be necessary in 1978.
    One does not embark on a process that has hidden additional costs of decommissioning before the cost of doing that is known. One should evaluate the radiological impact and wait for the judgment of the case where families have brought an action against BNFL alleging that leukaemia results from discharges from Sellafield. I am reliably told that the judgment is likely by the autumn. One can get the facts. My hon. Friends and I put a simple proposition to the House. We want the facts, and we propose the most independent way in which to get them.
    I shall answer the question that I was asked, and I shall then make the case for the Government to reconsider. I answer now the hon. Member for Linlithgow to whom I can show the figures, and I am happy to go through them with him. The best advice that I was given on the calculations for the job prospects was by Friends of the Earth, which did the first analysis, and by Media Natura, which did the second analysis. I also received advice from the third analysis, which was done on the basis of local research into job prospects in Cumbria. I can go through the documents with the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I have them here and they are available in the House this afternoon.
    My hon. Friends and I believe that what the Government have not done by their answer is preclude the option of a public inquiry. The Government have not ruled out a public inquiry. It is a bit like the public expenditure review, in which nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. There is still a chance for the Government to take that course. If they do not, they risk protracting the commissioning of THORP or the decision not to commission it even longer.
    The Government know as well as I do that there is strong legal advice that, on the basis of planning guidance, of our obligations under the Rio convention, and, more explicitly, of the requirement for an environmental impact assessment for this project under the directive passed by the European Community in 1985, which is now law here, and, above all, of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, they have an obligation to ensure that the facts are put into the public domain. If the Government do not go down that road now, they will prejudice the very jobs that they seek to protect, they will risk the project that they support and, worse, they will allow Britain to go ahead with the development of a project which the rest of the world increasingly regards as undesirable and uneconomic.
    We argue for jobs and sanity. We hope that the Government do not press their amendment. If they do, we hope that that is not their final word, because we believe that they are wrong.
    5.21 pm
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'congratulates the management and workforce of British Nuclear Fuels plc on the completion of its high technology thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield; welcomes the 3,000 jobs, mainly in the North West, which the plant supports; recognises that around 90 per cent. of its £1,850 million capital cost was spent with British industry; notes that the plant is needed to fulfil the customers' requirements for reprocessing, represented by contracts already won worth £9 billion; recalls that it is a major example of international inward investment which the chairmen of the ten Japanese nuclear power generators strongly endorsed last week; expresses confidence in the non-proliferation arrangements that underlie the plant's work for all the overseas customers; and, subject to receipt by BNFL of such consents as are required by law, supports the commissioning of the plant at the earliest practicable date.'.
    The choice of debate today by the Liberal Democrat party is interesting. It can choose four half-days of debate this Session. Not for the Liberal Democrats a debate on the issues about which they claim to care really passionately. There is no debate about proportional representation. There is no debate about local income tax. There is no debate about the economy, nationally or locally. There is none of that.
    What do they choose to debate? They choose to table a motion which, if passed, would lead directly to the loss of 3,000 jobs, net of dry storage considerations. If passed, the motion would lead to the closure of a high-technology plant. If passed, it would lead directly to a loss of confidence by overseas investors and by our major trading partners. That says a lot about the priorities of the Liberal Democrats.
    Despite the length of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I turn briefly to the general tone of his remarks. What did he do? He took a series of comments out of context. He deliberately misconstrued Government reports and responses. He relied extensively—as, to be fair, he admitted—on the briefing of such eminently objective organisations as Friends of the Earth. It was a pretty shoddy performance even by the standards of his own party.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the most shoddy part of this afternoon's event was his own laughter at the suggestion of a public inquiry? Why does he find the idea of a public inquiry on this most important of issues funny?
    Mr. Eggar: It is instructive that the hon. Gentleman is the first to jump to the defence of the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps he should join the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on this point. Is it not typical of the Liberal Democrats that they go at length into the difficulties of the issues? They put forward an analysis, bogus though it may be, and then come back with the magic solution—a public inquiry.
    What do they want? Do they want government by public inquiry? That may make sense to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but he knows perfectly well that it does not make sense to Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members—and, to the credit of the Labour party, it does not make sense to the Labour party either.
    690
    What the Labour party and the Conservative party want are firm decisions in accordance with the legal constraints and the legal framework within which we operate.
    I welcome the chance to set the record straight today. In the past few months, a great deal has been said about THORP by unelected pressure groups and by people speaking at the prompting of such groups. My right hon. and hon. Friends may like to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has today answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). In that answer he outlines the steps that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are taking on BNFL's request for revised discharge authorisations for the Sellafield site. As the House knows, there are copies of the relevant answer in the Vote Office.
    It is important that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey listens to this, because he went some way to misconstrue the answer, which explains that my right hon. Friends intend to undertake further consultation before—I stress the word "before"—taking final decisions on the authorisations. The answer states:
    "the inspectorates have concluded that no points of substance have been raised that should cause them to reconsider the terms of the draft authorisations, save for some minor amendments/corrections. In their judgment, the provisions of the draft authorisations would effectively protect human health, the safety of the food chain, and the environment generally."
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will repeat that point. I wish that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey had also referred to it in his remarks.
    As the House would expect, in addressing the matter of the Sellafield discharge authorisations and their relevance to THORP, the Government are careful to ensure that their general functions in relation to the nuclear industry are properly distinguished from the specific statutory responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    What Conservative Members say today does not constrain the statutory discretion of my right hon. Friends. They have to make their own decisions, although I am sure that they will take note of today's proceedings. It would be wrong to seek to constrain or to prejudge them in the exercise of their functions. Certainly nothing that I say should be construed as seeking to do so.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: As this is an important issue, neither of us should quote selectively. I add to the quotation given by the Minister by quoting the third short paragraph. The answer says:
    "However, a substantial number of the responses raised questions as to the justification for the operation of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP), and therefore whether that part of the site's total discharges arising from this plant should be allowed. Other respondents expressed their support for THORP. These questions were not dealt with by the inspectorate because of the wider issues raised."
    That is one of the considerations. Logically, because it is also part of the answer which has led to the conclusion, there must be a further round of consultation.
    Mr. Eggar: Yes, of course those issues are relevant, and my right hon. Friends have to take into account the legal background against which they operate. They have made

    691
    clear what the next steps will be. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I do not propose to take final decisions on the exercise of our functions under Radioactive Substances Act 1960 until after this further consultation. There is no disagreement.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I should like to go back to the paragraph which says:
    "However, a substantial number of the responses raised questions as to the justification of the operation of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant."
    Why were these matters riot dealt with six or nine months ago? During the course of the consultations, such representations were received as early as January. Ministers knew in August or September that arguments about that aspect of the matter were being raised. Has there been a cock-up, preventing these matters from being dealt with? Did Ministers fail to give the right remit? Is that the cause of the delay?
    Mr. Eggar:Bearing in mind the legal position of my right hon. Friends, I have to be careful in this area. Because of the judicial implications, the precise decision of my right hon. Friends is a matter that the hon. Gentleman should refer to them.
    Mr. Dalyell: As one who is dismayed that there is not to be an announcement that THORP should go ahead straight away, without further consultation—as I believe it should—may I put two questions to the Minister? I am told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the delay is costing £2 million per week. Do the Government's own figures confirm that? Secondly, is i t true that compensation of up to £5,000 million could be claimed? That figure has been given in the debate already. Is it the Government's figure?
    Mr. Eggar: The estimate of £2 million per week was provided, I believe, by British Nuclear Fuels plc. I think that I can confirm that that is the company's figure.
    Mr. Flynn: What is the true figure?
    Mr. Eggar: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman's yelling, from a sedentary position, "What is the true figure?" The figure was provided by BNFL.
    With regard to the £5,000 million to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred, I understand that in certain scenarios, under the terms of the contract, compensation of that order could be due to BNFL's customers if THORP were cancelled and were never to go into operation. The Liberal party ought to stop and think about the consequences of urging such action.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Let us see the contracts.
    Mr. Eggar: That remark from the hon. Gentleman is a typical and classical cop-out, as he knows. He knows perfectly well that the summary of those contracts was made available at the inquiry a number of years ago.
    Mr. Hughes: I have copies.
    Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman has copies, I do not know why he doubts the figures.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: One answer would be to let us see the contracts. However, there is another way. The Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of Parliament. If he were prepared to look at the contracts
    692
    and to assure us that his interpretation of them is the same as that of BNFL, would the Minister be prepared to accept his word?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), are hoping to catch my eye during this debate. If these long interventions continue, the hon. Gentleman may not be successful.
    Mr. Eggar: I am rather enjoying being a spectator during my own speech.
    There is today, I suspect, a sense of deja vu as we talk about THORP. In 1978 the two major parties in the House of Commons supported the construction of THORP, while the Liberals opposed it. Now, 14 years later, the plant has been built and is ready to operate, advance orders amounting to £9 billion have been placed and staff have been recruited and trained. Despite all this—despite the clear evidence of the success of the project—the Liberal party calls for a public inquiry.
    Let me qualify what I have just said about the Liberal party's call for a public inquiry. There is a glaring omission from the list of names of those who have signed this motion. Where is the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)? He is not even here to listen to the debate. Why is that? The hon. Gentleman understands the motion's implications for his constituents and for the nuclear industry. I believe—though, as he is a very discreet individual, I cannot know for sure—that he would rather absent himself from the debate than be forced to disassociate himself from the case being made by his hon. Friends.
    In a short debate last December the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) supported the plant, subject to the views of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the disharge authorisations. I am happy to agree with that approach. I agree also with the views of the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry who, when he visited the plant in May, said:
    "The case for commissioning is an extremely strong one, and I have been very impressed with what I have seen and heard today."
    I agree, too, with the author of a letter to the Financial Times which described BNFL and THORP as a flagship for Britain. The Liberal Democrats might do rather better if they listened rather more to that author—Sir Ian Wrigglesworth. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raises his eyes to heaven. How typical that is. A former leading and very widely respected member of his party has now stated his view very publicly, but the hon. Gentleman dismisses it with a lift of his eyes to heaven, as though it were of no account whatever.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is a Minister now, and not a member of the Cambridge union, as he was when I first met him. That being the case, he should rise above such an approach. I stated explicitly that on this issue there is proper, honest dissent in all parties. Unlike the hon. Gentleman's party, my party has conferences and debates. We take decisions by majorities. I have enunciated the policy of my party. I do not dismiss Sir Ian Wrigglesworth's views or those of my hon. Friend. I was honest enough to admit that there is a difference of view, and to suggest that politicians may know less than inspectors at independent inquiries.
    Mr. Eggar: I would have rather more respect for the hon. Gentleman's views if he had bothered to visit the plant, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan and I have done. The hon. Gentleman subscribed to the manifesto and has drafted this motion. He has been throwing people's jobs in the air as though they mattered not at all, but he has not bothered to go to the plant. He does not have the guts to go and see for himself. What is more, he has been invited.
    Mr. Hughes: And accepted.
    Mr. Eggar: And accepted. That is typical. The hon. Gentleman will go there after subscribing to the Liberal party's manifesto and mounting this debate. He will sneak up there, and I suppose that he will go round the plant and say that his view has not been changed. I challenge him to give some of his time to the work force. Let him have a talk with the unions. Let him argue his case.
    Ms Clare Short: Like the Minister?
    Mr. Eggar: I have on numerous occasions met the BNFL unions, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) knows perfectly well. I should like to hear the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey argue how other people's jobs are to be redistributed round the economy. Let him explain the advantages to the skilled workers—how they would be employed in dry storage. Let him for once expose himself to the difficulty of making decisions.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister does not listen. I said in my speech that I had accepted the invitation before the motion was tabled and before I knew that there was to be a debate. I also said that I had had some discussions with the work force and the management and that I had agreed to have more. There are more people unemployed in my constituency than in that of the Minister. I do not throw jobs around, but the Minister condemned 30,000 miners to lose their jobs. We did not do that.
    Mr. Eggar: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's report of his meeting with the unions at BNFL and to his seeing the THORP plant, after which I hope that he will reflect carefully on his position.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Eggar: I am willing to give way, but I am conscious of the time and the fact that other hon. Members wish to speak.
    Mr. James Molyneaux: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to express the view from the other side of the Irish sea. All Northern Ireland Members are concerned about the effects of THORP on the Irish sea. I impress on the Minister the fact that few people in Northern Ireland will be satisfied or will have their concerns allayed until every fact is known and every possible safeguard is put in place.
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of that concern. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, under section 37 of the Euratom treaty arrangements, proper investigation has been carried out into the radiation effects of THORP. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the scientific findings, which should alleviate concern on the other side of the Irish sea.
    694
    The plant has been completed and all those who have seen it have been greatly impressed, not only by the plant but by the commitment of the work force and its preoccupation with safety. The hon. Member for Clackmannan spoke about that. There has been much debate about the importance to the area of the 3,000 jobs which flow from and are associated with the plant. Some 2,000 of those jobs are in west Cumbria alone.
    The plant was built to meet the needs of its proven United Kingdom and overseas customers. Those needs are not customer aspirations but binding contracts totalling £9 billion, and half the contracts are from overseas. That in itself is a major export achievement by BNFL. In addition, THORP is a major example of inward investment. Some £1.6 billion has been advanced by overseas customers towards the capital cost of the plant, and £1 billion of that came from Japanese customers. The Government greatly value the long-standing nuclear co-operation between this country and Japan which made that investment possible.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I confirm that there is no reason whatever why the debate cannot continue until 10 o'clock and that only custom and convention limit it to 7 o'clock? That is my information from the Clerk, so we are not short of time. Does the Minister recall the occasion on which he and I spoke from the platform of the Trade Unions for Safe Nuclear Energy, under the chairmanship of Bill Morgan of the Amalgamated Engineering Union? The Minister said at that time that general relations with Japan were affected by the THORP decision. Will he expand on that important matter?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman's initial point is a matter for the business managers. I remember the event that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and I look forward to speaking again at the union's annual dinner later this year. On the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I spoke about the major inward investment by the Japanese and said that the plant was probably the single largest export element of our trade with Japan. I said that, if there were serious problems about the start-up of that plant, it would almost inevitably have implications for Japan's perception of the United Kingdom as a trading partner and as a place in which to invest.
    Some hon. Members have argued that somehow those major customers of THORP were misguided to enter into these contracts, which are inappropriate. If there was ever any truth in that allegation, it has been completely disproved by the advertisements in The Times on Wednesday by the 10 Japanese electric power companies—[ Interruption.] The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seems to dismiss that on the grounds that in some way BNFL was associated with that advertisement.
    Does the hon. Gentleman think that the chairmen of the major electricity generating companies in Japan would append their names to an advertisement just because somebody wanted to organise it? Of course not. They must have considered the matter extremely carefully and would have wanted to make a clear statement of their views because people such as the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal party were misconstruing their stance. Those Japanese companies felt that it was time to make their views clear.
    As the Government have made clear, it is for the owners of spent nuclear fuel to make the commercial decision

    695
    about whether to reprocess. In recent months, various pressure groups have been telling the world that those customers are somehow wrong and that they should not want the reprocessing. Some of the pressure groups have gone so far as to suggest that BNFL should take the initiative and tell its customers that their choice is wrong.
    What sort of business practice is that? It is rather like telling customers in a car showroom that it is immoral to buy a car and that it would be better to ride out of the showroom on a bicycle. Such a policy may be appropriate for the Liberal Democrats, but it is totally unrealistic in today's commercial world.
    The lobby groups have recently started to go down a new track. They are going through the pretence of showing concern for the economic success of the industry. I say "pretence" because, of course, the real agenda of the lobby groups is purely and simply to shut down the nuclear industry. Those groups suggest that the United Kingdom and its overseas customers would all be better off if there were some kind of deal to abandon THORP.
    It has always been open to THORP customers to tell BNFL that, on reflection, they do not want the plant to operate and are prepared to make other arrangements. What have they done? In 1989, almost all THORP's overseas customers took up BNFL's offer of additional reprocessing capacity. The chairmen of the two major German customers, RWE and Veba, recently wrote to BNFL to confirm that they would fulfil the contracts into which they had entered. I have already mentioned last week's advertisement by Japanese customers.
    Much has been said recently about the dangers of plutonium. It is worth commenting on the nature of plutonium and its creation because there has been much misinformation. Plutonium is created when nuclear fuel is burnt in a reactor. It is not created by reprocessing. which extracts the plutonium from the spent fuel together with the unused uranium. When that has been done, both materials are available for recycling, which can be undertaken in most existing water-moderated nuclear reactors. The operator can load up to about a third of the reactor with a mixed uranium-plutonium fuel known as MOX fuel. When the plutonium is recycled as part of MOX fuel, much of it is used up. The use and planned use of MOX technology is increasing world wide and BNFL already has a number of orders or letters of intent to manufacture MOX fuel.
    The spent fuel and plutonium have to be managed irrespective of whether there is reprocessing. The Government believe that reprocessing is a proven and safe option. If the plutonium is not managed centrally at Sellafield until recycled, it will have to be dealt with as part of the stored spent fuel. It is for the owners of the spent fuel, having regard to their contractual commitments and the appropriate regulatory requirements, to make the choice.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Why do Britain and Europe need THORP? What useful product will it provide? In the 1970s, that need was justified on the ground of the plutonium that it would produce, which was needed for the fast breeder reactors. The Government have now abandoned that programme and Europe has turned from it, so the demand for plutonium has gone. THORP provides no useful product.
    Mr. Eggar: I know that it is a difficult concept for the hon. Gentleman to take on board, but we need THORP because customers have signed contracts and want it. They want to make use of the process carried out at that plant. The customers can decide whether they wish to take the plutonium and store it for future use in fast breeder reactors of for MOX fuel. They are exercising their right to choose what they do with their spent fuel. That is the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman.
    It is typical of the hon. Gentleman and his like to want to decide what commercial customers should do with their product. It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's question that he wants to deprive the United Kingdom of huge export orders and many thousands of people of jobs in west Cumbria and elsewhere. He should be under no illusion about his motives.
    Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Minister so sure that customers want the fuel, or do they want to avoid responsibility for the cost of cancellation of the contracts? Is he so sure that there is a genuine demand for MOX fuel relative to the fuel costs of enriched uranium?
    Mr. Eggar: Customers always have the right to go to BNFL and make alternative proposals. If they decided that they did not want to make use of THORP, costs would be associated with that decision. Customers not only signed up to the original contracts, however, but almost all of them signed up to additional contracts as recently as 1989. A number have expressed interest in signing additional contracts, once THORP has an operating record, beyond the 10 years agreed.
    BNFL believes that there will be a demand for a Mox plant, but whether that plant proceeds will depend not only on authorisation from Government, but on customers' willingness to enter into contracts to ensure the economic viability of the plant. The answer will depend, critically, on the attitude of customers. I am sure that BNFL would not proceed unless it was confident that there was a market for the plant and its product.
    Mr. Dalyell rose—
    Dr. Michael Clark rose—
    Mr. Eggar: I should like to press on, but I will give way—for the last time—to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).
    Dr. Clark: Has it ever occurred to my hon. Friend that, if he had come to the House and suggested that spent nuclear fuel should be put in prepared sites in the ground and covered over—and the process had been given the fancy name of dry storage—there would have been an outcry from everyone in the House and probably throughout the country? I am sure that people would have argued for a proper scientific process to be followed whereby the waste fuel was taken to a proper processing plant and the high radioactive material isolated from the low radioactive material. They would have argued that the fuel that could be reused should be made available for that purpose and that the peril should be concentrated rather than left in the ground in dry storage. Has he ever thought that that might have happened if he had suggested dry storage in the first place?
    Mr. Eggar: As ever, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Apart from what he has said, at the end of the

    697
    dry storage process, what then? After 50 years, the chances are that a process would be needed, not unlike the THORP one, to deal with the material.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford has recognised only too well, much of the argument against THORP is not an argument against it as a plant or against BNFL, but one aimed at the destruction of the nuclear industry. The opponents of THORP know perfectly well that if they can stop the plant functioning they will deal an effective blow to the underpinning of the nuclear fuel cycle and the operation of the nuclear electric industry. No one should be under any illusions about the motivation of the opponents of THORP. To be fair, for once, to the Liberal Democrats, they know that they share that motivation.
    Mr.Geoffrey Dickens: They are disappearing from the Chamber.
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right.
    Whatever the cost in jobs, and whatever the costs in additional charges to electricity consumers, the Liberal Democrats are opposed to nuclear power—and they admit it. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey would have been rather more honest if he had not finished his speech by saying that he wanted a public inquiry. He should have said that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the nuclear industry and will do everything that they can to stop its development.
    I commend our amendment to the House.
    5.56 pm
    Mr. Chris Smith: I welcome the opportunity for a short debate on THORP. Unlike the Minister, I believe that it is entirely right and proper for the Liberal Democrats to select this important and controversial issue for debate.
    I suspect that the one achievement—I would not necessarily describe it as such—of the Liberal Democrat motion will have been to precipitate the Government into a firm decision. At least the Government appear to be taking a firm decision to proceed, if their amendment is anything to go by. They have, however, also revealed in a parliamentary answer that was tabled after lunch that they are proposing a further round of consultation.
    What sort of consultation can that possibly be, when they have already announced to the entire world in the amendment to the Liberal Democrat motion their view about whether THORP should proceed? The Government are, in effect, saying that they have made up their mind, but that they will consult because, legally, they must be seen to do so. That is not a real, proper, considered process of consultation. It cannot possibly be, because the Government, by what they have said in the amendment, have prejudged it.
    It is important for everyone to acknowledge that much has changed since the Parker inquiry. There were five original reasons for embarking on the THORP process: first, plutonium was to be produced for the fast breeder programme; secondly, uranium was to be recovered for re-use; thirdly, it was regarded at the time as the best and, perhaps in some instances, the only means of dealing with spent fuel; fourthly, financial benefit was to be gained from the reprocessing operation; and, fifthly, employment opportunities were to be garnered.
    698
    The employment considerations remain as compelling as ever. The impact of any decision taken on the future of Sellafield and the economy of west Cumbria need of course, to be taken carefully into account. Two of the original reasons for proceeding with THORP have, however, lapsed with time.
    The fast breeder programme has now been abandoned at national and European levels. We already have a stockpile of some 30 tonnes of plutonium in the United Kingdom from the Magnox reprocessing procedures. THORP would create an additional 30 tonnes a year. There is a world stockpile of some 300 tonnes. What on earth can be the use of extra plutonium now being generated?
    Moreover, the recovery of uranium is no longer a competitive exercise. Large quantities of directly mined cheaper uranium are now available and will certainly be so over the 25-year period of THORP's predicted existence.
    There is consensus on those two points about plutonium and uranium. Where the debate begins in earnest is over the issue of the right option in waste management in environmental terms for dealing with spent irradiated fuel. That has now become the central nub of the THORP issue.
    The Government clearly said in their response to the Environment Select Committee report in 1986 that reprocessing was their favoured option for the disposal of spent fuel. That position now seems to have changed. The Minister for the Environment and Countryside answered a question to me on 24 June. I had asked him:
    "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".
    The answer, on which the Minister for Energy touched this afternoon, was:
    "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."—[Official Report, 24 June 1993; Vol. 227, c. 246.]
    From that answer and an answer given in June 1989 by the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the Government appear to express no preference in principle between the reprocessing and dry storage options.
    That attitude of no preference from the Government has again been exemplified in the evidence given to the inquiry at Torness into the construction of dry storage facilities there. Giving evidence before the Scottish Office, Mr. Hetherington told the inquiry that he
    "accepted that circumstances had changed since the Government had made its response to the select committee in 1986. The relative economic advantages of obtaining uranium from reprocessing rather than direct mining had changed, and dry storage of spent fuel had emerged as a practicable possibility."
    He went on:
    "The reprocessing route did not appear to offer any immediate and significant advantages, from a waste management point of view."
    So the Government, both in their answers to the House and in the evidence that Government officials have given at Torness, are saying that there are no advantages either way between reprocessing and dry storage. It is interesting to note that the United States, Sweden, Canada, Finland and Spain are all committed solely to the mechanism of direct disposal. They abjure the reprocessing option.
    According to the evidence given by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. to the Torness inquiry, BNFL proposes to offer dry storage facilities in conjunction with the Costain

    699
    Construction Group. Dry storage is clearly on the practical agenda, BNFL's agenda, as well as on the agenda elsewhere.
    Mr. Dickens: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman understands that dry storage gives the management two options: either to reprocess or to destroy completely—[Interruption.] well, hon. Gentleman know what I mean. Clearly, those options exist if there is a dry storage facility. If for instance, the fast breeder reactor in Monju in Japan is as successful as the Japanese hope, and as we expect, plutonium may suddenly come back into fashion. Therefore, those options are extremely important. It is a choice between disposal—that is the word that I was looking for—and reprocessing. That is what dry storage offers for future generations.
    Mr. Smith: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman corrected himself, because radioactive waste can never be totally destroyed, at least not for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. He fails to recognise that there must be disposal of something at the end of the day, whether reprocessing or dry storage is chosen. Because reprocessing creates a substantial quantity of intermediate-level waste, it cannot simply he dumped in the ground at Drigg, where low-level waste tends to go, but must be properly disposed of in a monitored fashion. Whether we choose reprocessing or dry storage, we have the problem of ultimate disposal.
    Mr. Dalyell: In case there is any misunderstanding, it should also be put on the record that Scottish Nuclear has a major fixed price contract with THORP, and Robin Jeffrey and James Hann made it clear that they thought that THORP was very important.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect although I do not necessarily agree with everything that he always says on this issue, is right on this point. Scottish Nuclear has a contract for reprocessing at THORP and, as far as I am aware, intends to make use of it if THORP goes ahead. It is also exploring the option of dry storage as an alternative for some of its future spent fuel. It looks very much as if, for the spent fuel beyond the initial contract with THORP, it is likely to opt for the dry storage route.
    The Government therefore appear to have no distinct preference between the two options. What, then, is the best waste management option? A number of considerations must be borne in mind. First, reprocessing certainly reduces the amount of high-level waste that is created, but it increases substantially the quantity of low-level waste that is generated. That is confirmed in RWMAC's. 11 th report, which states:
    "Reprocessing increases the volume of radioactive waste and the amounts of radioactive material released into the environment".
    Secondly, the Select Committee on the Environment noted from paragraph 186 of the report by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in Manitoba, that
    "if anything oxide fuel was more stable and more leach resistant than vitrified waste".
    Thirdly—it is the point to which the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) alluded—eventual deep direct disposal must be entertained as an option, whatever intermediate route is chosen, either reprocessing or storage.
    700
    Fourthly, it is crucial to know the precise arrangements for substitution of the waste generated if THORP goes ahead and what the waste stream actually generated will be. I submit that that crucial matter, even with the publication, after a seven-month delay, of the RWMAC advice to the Minister, remains in doubt. The RWMAC report says that issues are still outstanding in relation to future disposal facilities and that those issues need to be determined properly before a final decision can be taken.
    The chairman of RWMAC, Professor John Knill, told
    The Independent:
    "the full range of evaluations has not yet been done. We have asked for them and have not seen them. It is necessary that this should be done before Thorp goes into operation".
    It is clear from RWMAC's agenda for its 1 July meeting that some of its members have remaining doubts and questions beyond what is expressed in the report.
    I do not believe that a proper decision can be taken on the crucial question of the best environmental waste management option, whether it be reprocessing or dry storage, until the report published today has been properly considered, its arguments analysed and—this is crucial—any additional comments have been sought from RWMAC.
    The other principal environmental issue at stake is that of emissions. HMIP published its draft authorisations last year. Although it is true that it proposed lower overall emission authorisations for Sellafield, it envisaged higher discharges. In fact, the projected discharges will be about 75 per cent. of the proposed authorisation limits. Again, we know from the report published this afternoon that the original authorisations will be substantially agreed, but there are still some questions that I must ask.
    First, when will the full HMIP report be made public? The Government have committed themselves to that and we want to know when it will emerge. Secondly, how do the proposed discharge levels compare with those that currently exist at Cap La Hague, where I understand that discharges of both alpha and beta activity are substantially lower than anything envisaged at Sellafield.
    Thirdly, in reaching its conclusion, has HMIP taken into account the new recommendation from the National Radiological Protection Board that 0·3 mSv a year of radiation impact on the general public should be used as the yardstick against which to judge emission authorisations? It is clear that H MIP's report will have to be seen in full and considered by the public before a final decision can be taken on the environmental impact of the plant.
    The environmental considerations, the best waste management options and their different impact and the full effects of emissions and discharges must take primacy of place in reaching a conclusion on how, when and if THORP should go ahead. Therefore, a full environmental impact assessment is needed, coupled with wide public debate. Indeed, the Paris commission meeting on 16 June made that a virtual necessity.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Some time ago, an all-party committee said that the Irish sea was the most polluted sea in the world. What is the hon. Gentleman's response to the suggestion of a ten fold increase in both atmospheric and maritime discharges of radioactive materials? That pollution of our environment must he ended, especially in respect of the Irish sea.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify one of the problems of opting for reprocessing, which

    701
    generates large quantities of intermediate and low-level waste. A great many of the low-level discharges go straight into the sea, which is why a proper environmental impact assessment of the discharge pattern from Sellafield is required.
    Mr. Dalyell: What reply would my hon. Friend give to our right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who says that THORP already has £9 billion of secure orders? Our right hon. Friend, who is the local constituency Member of Parliament, also says that delay is causing losses of £2 million a week and that that money is needed to help boost investment in west Cumbria. What answer would my hon. Friend give to his shadow Cabinet colleague?
    Mr. Smith: I am aware of the legitimate constituency arguments that our right hon. Friend has always made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is abroad on official duties; nevertheless, he is taking a keen interest in our debate. The figure that my hon. Friend quoted is slightly inaccurate, because BNFL puts the loss at £2·4 million a week. I accept that with every week that passes there is a loss of income to BNFL, but that should not prevent us from ensuring that we get the decision right.
    It is important that we make the right decision because the moment that THORP is brought into operation, the entire decommissioning costs will be incurred. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the decision to open THORP is absolutely right. Even on BNFL's figures, the decommissioning costs are, at current prices, about £900 million. A few weeks of delay may be necessary to ensure that we make the right decision.
    My hon. Friend's intervention was timely, because there is a continuing question over the financial consequences of a decision either to proceed or not to proceed with the plant. BNFL has told us of the projected earnings of the plant—a profit of £500 million over 10 years, with direct employment for 1,200 people and, perhaps, 3,000 in total. Those are not to be dismissed lightly. However, the decommissioning costs must be borne in mind. We know from the National Audit Office report that some of the estimates of decommissioning costs within the nuclear industry are open to some challenge, to say the least. If the decommissioning costs for THORP are even 60 per cent. greater than currently envisaged, that would entirely wipe out the projected profit from the operation.
    In addition to the decommissioning issue, a mystery surrounds the exact content of the contracts for the reprocessing of spent fuel from abroad. We are told that there are severe penalties for cancellation by either side, but we cannot know whether that is right, because none of us has seen the contracts. At the very least, the proposal that the contracts should be shown to the Comptroller and Auditor General should be taken up because it is impossible for the public to make a judgment about the penalties that might be imposed. Surely greater transparency about the contracts would assist the public to make that judgment. Surely also, the Touche Ross report on the overall economic prospects for THORP should be published so that everyone can make his own assessment rather than leaving it to the managers of BNFL to tell us.
    702
    We should also know the outcome of the dispute reported in The Guardian this morning between the nuclear generators and BNFL over who should be laible for any unforeseen additional costs that might arise and that are no longer underwritten by the Government. We must establish clearly, in the public doman, some of the important issues about the likely financial future of the plant. As I said, once THORP opens, its entire decommissioning costs will be incurred. We must be as reasonably certain as possible about what that cost will be and what benefit will be derived in return.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend's speech, and I agree with much of what he says. I understand that if the uranium processors were opened up at THORP, which would take the first two or three months, the decommissioning costs would be only £250,000 up to a certain point in the development process. The company has offered to pay the bill. If that is the case, my hon. Friend may want to temper his remarks in that light.
    Mr. Smith: I am somewhat puzzled by the figure given by my hon. Friend. The decommissioning cost that he has given sounds rather small for any portion of such a plant of any size. However, I suspect that, if that were to happen, we would have another case of the tail wagging the dog in three, six or 12 months. We would be told that, because things had started, they might as well continue. It is important that we get the decision right at the outset.
    A range of unanswered questions have arisen about the emissions and discharges from the plant, the nature of the waste stream and the waste management consequences of alternative options, the future decommissioning costs and the content of the spent fuel contracts, and the employment implications of any decision that is taken. The RWMAC report has been published this afternoon and needs careful analysis. The Touche Ross report should also be published. A proper environmental impact assessment should take place. It would be foolish to leap to a conclusion either way before the issues are properly and openly determined.
    The Government keep telling us how committed they are to freedom of environmental information, the precautionary principle and environmental impact assessments. None of those is evidenced in their amendment. They say that they are launching a new—if truncated—consultation process, yet their amendment shows that they have already made up their mind. Our environment deserves better.
    6.25 pm
    Mr. Michael Jopling: Listening to this afternoon's debate, my mind has gone back to the debates in March and May of 1978 referred to by other hon. Members. The debates followed the Parker inquiry, which itself lasted 100 days.
    I remember taking part in the first of those debates. The THORP project was created as a result of the two debates. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who has been in the Chamber for a good deal of the debate and, of course, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) led for the Government in those debates. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is no longer in the Chamber, because his speech during the debate was one of the most

    703
    courageous and compelling that I have heard in the House in 28 years. It is a speech for which he deserved the greatest credit at the time.
    As has been said in the debate, things have moved on since those 1978 debates. The plant is complete. The staff are trained and ready. The material for reprocessing is in the ponds of the site waiting for the gate to go up and for the containers to be moved into the reprocessing part of the plant. I was taken through the plant four weeks ago. I went into the chamber where the separation of uranium, plutonium and other materials will take place. It may be only a few weeks or months before that chamber is finally sealed up.
    I represent a Cumbria constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) represented Workington in 1978. He also spoke during the two debates. On that occasion, all the Cumbrian Members of Parliament from all parties joined together to vote in favour of the plant going ahead. It is a vital project for Cumbria.
    Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the importance of employment. Is not it a fact that, if BNFL does not get the go-ahead in the near future, it will have to lay off valuable and trained staff? If the dry storage option is taken, it will mean another public inquiry, a delay of several years and even more people will be laid off. We must go ahead with the project immediately.
    Mr. Jopling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course the project is important for Cumbria, because it provides 2,000 jobs in that part of the county. My hon. Friend is right and BNFL has told me that if the project does not get the green light soon, some jobs will have to go. Some have gone already because of the delay. The House should be aware of that. The project is important to Cumbria. The investment already amounts to £1·85 billion. It is worth noting that a further £900 million has been invested by BNFL for additional plant and environmental protection infrastructure. It is important to realise how massive the investment has been.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The project is of extreme importance also to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and to rne. A previous Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and I were at the original inquiry and have supported the project ever since.
    Mr. Jopling: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's support, and I remember that she joined me and others in that debate in May 1978 to support the project.
    As has been said, the project has been profitable for the United Kingdom. I am told by BNFL that, in the worst case, the project's profits will amount to £500 million in the first 10 years of operation. The Touche Ross report, I understand, says that the economic benefit to the United Kingdom will be about £900 million. It is also important for Cumbria, as I have said. The delays and the possibility that the project will not start up at all, to which opponents of the project referred, are also important. The massive cost of the delay of £2 million a week is a serious matter. If, by any chance, the project did not start up, there could be compensation of £5 billion. The economic case is overwhelming.
    The number of my constituents who work at Sellafield is not enormous, so I am conscious principally of the
    704
    environmental matters. Those are paramount. I have always said that however powerful the economic case, which I have just stated, it must be set aside if the safety elements of the plant are not entirely satisfactory.
    I remind the House that I refused to vote in the March 1978 debate. I said that I could not agree to the opening of the THORP project until the two Secretaries of State had explained the safety provisions. They eventually did so, in the second debate in May 1978. Given the undertakings that they gave, I added my support to THORP going ahead.
    It is worth noting that, since 1978, the emissions from Sellafield have been dramatically reduced. If the then Secretary of State had told the House that, by the mid-1990s, the emissions into the sea from Sellafield would be about one hundredth of what they were at their height in the 1970s, no one in the House would have believed him. He would have been laughed at.
    But the emissions have been reduced by that amount. I have been given some graphs which demonstrate on a yearly basis the extraordinary reduction of emissions into the sea to one hundredth of what they were. It has been the most remarkable success story. It is a pity that no one has referred to that so far in the debate.
    Mr. McGrady: I note the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the reduction in emissions and in the pollution of the Irish sea over the years. But he must admit that the early emissions were way above the safety standards which had been set and entirely unacceptable in terms of modern science. We also know that, apart from the revealed pollution, pollution of the Irish sea has taken place which has not yet been revealed. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that a quarter of a tonne of pure plutonium was dumped into the Irish sea?
    The right hon. Gentleman will be more familiar with the debate in 1978 than I am. I understand that one of the findings of the Parker inquiry was that the necessary cleansing equipment should be installed for the removal of krypton 85. That is not being done, and krypton 85 will be released into the atmosphere, with climatic and other consequences which the right hon. Gentleman has not even mentioned.
    Mr. Jopling: Now that the hon. Gentleman has made the speech that he obviously intended to make, I shall proceed with mine. I shall refer to the krypton element in a few moments.
    As I drove to London last night, I played again the two-hour debate on THORP which Radio Cumbria broadcast some time ago. The debate was held in Whitehaven. Listening to it, I was struck by the local support for THORP in west Cumbria. I was especially struck by one panellist, a local trade union leader, who made the point that the work force, who had wives and families living in the area, would hardly give their support—it is full hearted support—to THORP if they felt that the plant was in any way unsafe.
    I am not surprised that there is such overwhelming support for the project among the work force when I read the statistics. In a statement, BNFL said:
    "the individual BNFL worker who received the highest radiation dose in 1992 will receive less than the residents of some 25,000 homes in Devon and Cornwall would receive from natural background."
    That is a significant statement which puts the whole debate in its proper perspective.

    705
    I understand why some of those who are passionately opposed to anything that has a nuclear tag—we heard from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—use every opportunity they can dredge up to try to stop the project going ahead. They opposed the project in the Parker inquiry. They were unable to convince either the judge or his expert assessors. They have opposed every step which has been taken. Now they are using the final argument, that they want another inquiry.
    I think that it was a trade union leader who made the comment that, if a second inquiry was obtained, one could be sure that, once it was over, people would find reasons for a third. We are familiar with those tactics. If people do not like something, they ask for an inquiry and create delays.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: The earlier inquiry was held in 1978, when we were preoccupied with world oil supplies and oil prices, and when we were in the middle of a world energy crisis. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, by 1993, 15 years on, environmental arguments are much stronger, the energy situation is different and, most significantly, the demand for plutonium that was envisaged as significant has not materialised?
    Mr. Jopling: We have not heard much in the debate about the pollution effect of coal-fired electricity generation. If the hon. Gentleman reads about the possibilities of mixed oxide fuels, or MOX, projects he will realise that there is a possibility of using the material. There is already an order from Switzerland for this type of fuel.
    Opponents of THORP keep talking about dry storage. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West asked me a question about it. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey understandably made it his business to refuse to answer the second question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). My hon. Friend asked whether the hon. Gentleman realised that dry storage was purely a short-term, transitional solution, which leaves the major problem of what to do with the material at the end of the day.
    If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey believes that dry storage is the option to take, will the Liberal party and all his friends who are opposed to THORP agree to it without a public inquiry or any further delays? We know perfectly well that it is simply a plot, and that they will oppose dry storage just as strongly as they have opposed everything else.
    Mr. James Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jopling: No. I must get on, because the debate is due to end shortly.
    The problem of krypton was another favourite worry which was spread around. People said, "Ah, but what about the krypton? This is the serious matter." At the beginning, I was anxious about the krypton factor. However, when I inquired into it, I was astonished to be told that the radiation from krypton emissions in the area in a year for the worst affected person was equivalent to eating a quarter-pound bag of brazil nuts, or four seconds
    706
    of sunbathing in the United Kingdom. That demonstrates the absurdity of some of the arguments which have been put up to try to convince us that the project should not go ahead.
    The amendment tabled by the Government is entirely correct. I hope that the plant can open at the earliest practicable date. But, of course, that must be subject, as the amendment says, to receipts by BNFL of such consents as are required by law.
    The Government have decided that there will be a delay, and we must use it to make sure that the plant is entirely safe. That decision reflects great credit on the Government, even though it causes much irritation to many people. They should be given credit for making doubly certain that the plant is safe. Once that has been done, I hope that the project will continue, and that it will produce significant wealth and employment for this nation.
    6.39 pm
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: One unfortunate aspect of this debate is that the Liberal Democrats have cast themselves as the villains of the piece, whereas the Government, because they have dithered and delayed, are the real villains.
    Before I produce evidence of that, I repeat my earlier remark: that the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, is an independent officer of the House of Commons. Before this debate ends, the Liberal Democrats—and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—should be prepared to state that, if Sir John Bourn says that his interpretation of the contracts is the same as that of British Nuclear Fuels, they will accept it.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The preferable option is that we should see both the contracts and reports such as that produced by Touche Ross. If such a conclusion were reached by someone who is an independent officer of the House, that would be a satisfactory outcome, and acceptable but all the documents must be submitted, and that independent officer would have to make a full report.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman concedes that, because environmental groups have repeatedly used the same line as the Liberal Democrats—which is that, without seeing the contracts, British Nuclear Fuels cannot be trusted. I hope that that argument is settled and if Mr. Lowry is listening, I hope that he will also take note of what is said by the Liberal Democrats in the House tonight.
    Mr. Page: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office produce a report, it must be agreed by the Department under scrutiny and by the National Audit Office, so that there is no dissension when it comes before the PAC? Therefore, the agreement to which the hon. Gentleman referred is in place.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, I can go that far. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I spent 11 years on the Public Accounts Committee, and we all know what happens in private session. A slight difficulty arises, but it is an agreed report.
    In the first two to three months of THORP's life, there will be a process entitled "the commissioning of uranium".

    707
    Thereafter, the plant could be decontaminated at a cost of £250,000 to British Nuclear Fuels, which it has offered to pay. I fail to understand why that process cannot begin now. If the plant were to be commissioned at a later stage, a number of months would be saved.
    I want to make it clear that I am pro-nuclear and pro-THORP, and have lived in Cumbria most of my life. I was in west Cumbria at the time of the 1957 fire. I am the son of an engineer who worked in the nuclear industry, but regard myself as a constructive critic of the industry.
    I supported Greenpeace during the 1973 demonstration over the Sellafield pipeline and subscribed to its legal costs—and was criticised locally for that action. I did so in order that, one day, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) would be able to say in the House exactly that which he did say. The hundredth multiplier in terms of reductions and discharges of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke arises in part as a result of that incident. I was proud to have been at the forefront of supporting environmental groups.
    I have been in a number of public and private scraps with British Nuclear Fuels over the years, primarily in respect of employment, discharges, public relations, waste management and—most recently—krypton emissions. I have argued ad nauseam with the company against its legal actions against environmental groups, which I believe are nonsense. I hold the view that it should never bring such legal actions.
    On this occasion, however, the industry has a substantial case and should be supported. Although BNFL is located in Copeland, it is the largest employer of my constituents. It currently has 13,500 people on site, including contract staff. THORP will provide 2,100 permanent jobs in west Cumbria. If it failed to open, that would be an unmitigated disaster for my constituency. The impact would be five times that of the imminent job losses at Rosyth, and the local economy would be devastated.
    When a Labour Government proposed and planned the THORP project in the late 1970s, much of the debate centred on employment in the west of the county. Last July, we were told that a timetable had been agreed to allow THORP to begin operations at the beginning of this year. That date was never met. Seven months later, the Department of the Environment is demanding further consultation.
    A parliamentary reply from the Secretary of State for the Environment made available today, which clears the air as far as I am concerned, states:
    "the Inspectorate have concluded that no points of substance have been raised that should cause them to reconsider the terms of the draft authorisations, save for some amendments/corrections. In their judgment, the provisions of the draft authorisations will effectively protect human health, the safety of the food chain, and the environment generally."
    What more could we want? How much more consultation must there be before the project goes on stream?
    All the matters raised today were dealt with in the Parker inquiry and in the course of hundreds—perhaps thousands—of' parliamentary questions and repeated interventions during numerous energy debates on all aspects of the industry over the past 13 years.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: I have every respect for my hon. Friend's professional background and integrity, but in the Parker inquiry and in the 1978 debates, the main reason given for commissioning THORP was to isolate plutonium for the new generation of fast breeder reactors. That was
    708
    the energy scenario presented for the 21st century. Now that that no longer holds true, there is no valid energy reason for proceeding with THORP.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that there is a large order book. It is not I who am saying that there is a demand. The utilities of Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Canada and Italy all tell us that there is a market for the product. It seems that the statements made at the Parker inquiry in 1978 are very relevant, and led to the creation of a substantial market.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Does not the tendency on the part of those countries to buy British tell the hon. Gentleman something about the product and about their anxiety to get it out of their countries?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting point. I went to a meeting the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). A Japanese lady was at that meeting. The Japanese are not prone to giving us business when they can turn out products themselves.
    I am told that the Americans, by treaty, prevented the Japanese from developing certain nuclear technologies and that, if it had not been for the existence of that treaty, we should not have the THORP plant in West Cumbria today. I am grateful to the Americans for that. It adds to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). It may be that the Japanese wanted the business, but the existence of the treaty prevented them from getting it.
    The truth is that a strong and articulate lobby of opponents of nuclear power wants to phase out the nuclear industry. It wants THORP stopped at all costs. The Government appear to be conceding some of their arguments, with the result that BNFL is now losing £2.4 million a week in lost profits. The Government's amendment is extremely ambiguous. Although it expresses support for THORP, it fails to reveal the Government's dithering over approval. I believe that there has been dithering and a lack of decision-taking in Government Departments.
    I understand that Mr. Guinness is here to observe our proceedings, but he would have done well to come to politicians long before he did so. I understand that there is much criticism in the industry that we were not approached far earlier, so that representations could be made to us about ensuring that the right decisions were taken at the right time, with a final decision being taken earlier than now appears to be likely.
    Why should the credibility of British industry be put at stake? We have signed a number of binding contracts. We did so having debated all the issues that are now being questioned. The £9 billion BNFL order book comprises eight overseas companies, many of which are now expressing open concern about what is happening. Why? Because we built the plant with their money. They paid for that plant. Therefore, they want it to be commissioned.
    The largest Swiss electricity utility, NOK—a BNFL customer—has recently stated:
    NOK has invested in this plant more than £90 million without taking into account the accrued interest on construction. With deep sorrow we noticed articles in the British Press … stating that the start-up of THORP could be further delayed up to one year. Such a development would

    709
    badly hurt our business interests but (also) our confidence (which, we put up to now into the performance and excellency of British Industry, especially BNFL."
    NOK is not alone. Hon. Members will have seen the advertisement in the national press last Wednesday by the 10 Japanese electricity companies, emphasising their support for the plant. German customers, too, have expressed concern. One company, GKN, worriedly stated only recently:
    "We have made a big contribution to that facility. We assumed, that after the public inquiry years ago, there will not be basic doubts on THORP's operation."
    The reality is that we are letting down our customers with this delay. So why the dithering? Why do we need this further process of consultation? All these issues have surely been dealt with in recent years. Why can we not have the decision now and let BNFL take its chance on judicial review, in the event of Greepeace bringing the case it has talked about?
    These overseas customers have provided up-front payments to finance the large majority of the THORP construction costs of £1·85 billion, 90 per cent. of which was spent with British industry. I wonder how many jobs in the constituencies of hon. Members in all parts of the House were created as a result of that up-front payment by foreign contractors?
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Was the hon. Gentleman in the House when the Government announced that they were not going to go ahead with the fast breeder reactor programme? Does he know how many Liberal Democrats protested, because of job losses in their constituencies?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not want to go into the question whether the Liberal Democrats protested on that occasion, but we can be sure that jobs in every constituency have been affected by the THORP project. I protested about the rundown of the fast breeder reactor programme. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) protested about it at that time, I believe.
    I have already said that 90 per cent. of all this money was spent with British industry. All in all, it has brought £1·6 billion-worth of inward investment to west Cumbria. It represents the biggest inward investment in our history. We shall never again experience anything like it.
    These contracts, which were negotiated with the customers, are based upon both cost-plus and fixed-price terms, with about 40 per cent. accounting for the latter. On that specific point, can the Minister confirm that, irrespective of arguments over price, reported in The Guardian this morning, the business for core tonnage for reprocessing at THORP from Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear is absolutely secure? Is it legally watertight?
    The real issue is not that the nuclear giants are on a collision course but that the Government have withdrawn their pledge to underwrite risks attached to future legislation. It may be that the prospect of future privatisation of parts of the industry features greatly in the minds of Ministers and civil servants when decisions are taken on such matters, particularly when it comes to decommissioning costs.
    Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend mentioned that Japan does not do its own reprocessing because the world did not trust
    710
    Japan, because of its record, at the time. Does he not think that events have moved on, and that the greatest threat in the world is the proliferation of materials for making nuclear weapons? If THORP goes ahead, there will be two choices: either this country will become the nuclear dustbin of the world or plutonium will proliferate throughout dozens of countries, many of which are unstable. As plutonium lasts for ever, will it not enormously increase the danger of nuclear proliferation?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall refer to that point at the end of my speech. We must certainly address the proliferation argument. As for what my hon. Friend says about waste material, he will have heard earlier in the debate the argument about material substitution, which I think dealt with his point.
    Questions have been raised about the soundness of the contracts. I am told that several joint opinions of leading counsel have been received by BNFL, confirming that they are
    "commercially effective and binding on the parties."
    I am equally sure that, if THORP did not go ahead, all the customers, especially those with fixed-price contracts, would seek compensation. That would cost the taxpayer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, as much as £5 billion. Furthermore, it would cost BNFL £1 billion in lost profits over the next 10 years. So I say again: why the dithering by the Government?
    But the buck does not stop there. If THORP does not open, the cost of Magnox reprocessing will increase, as it faces the full cost burden of otherwise shared waste management facilities. Who will be forced to pay for that? Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear. However, at the end of the day, the customer, the householder, will pay for it in higher electricity prices. That has to be avoided at all costs.
    I want to say a few words about safety and proliferation. The public should never measure the industry's safety record on the basis of incidents at Sellafield. They are invariably in the old plant. When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) goes to Sellafield, he should tell the management, if they want to take him round the new plant, that he wants first to go round the old plant. I understand that management do not always take people round the old plant.
    It is only when one sees the old plant and compares it with the new one that one appreciates the developments in nuclear technology over the years. That is important when one is evaluating reports on television or radio, or in the media, about incidents at Sellafield.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that an episode as minute as the misplacement of a used glove counts as an incident? One reads in the newspapers that such incidents are increasing, when in reality they are less significant than a glove being lost in a hospital.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady is right. Many small incidents are reportable. However, we must not underestimate the importance of larger incidents, which, equally, are reportable.
    The old plant was built in the 1950s. Subsequent plants have a far higher safety record, as their technology is invariably state of the art. Discharges into the sea following the Greenpeace incident in 1983 are now less

    711
    than one hundred of what they were 10 years ago. If we are to evaluate the effect of radiation doses on the population, we must compare them with naturally occurring background radiation.
    Although the report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment mentions the possibility of an increased risk to the general public under the proposed authorisation in the area of the plant, such levels account for only 10 per cent. of natural background radiation. Put simply, THORP increases exposure by 25 microSieverts per person a year. That must be compared with 4,300 microSieverts in Ireland, 7,500 microSieverts in Cornwall and 2,200 microSieverts in west Cumbria.
    I have, however, one reservation about discharges, and it concerns krypton, about which I have had endless correspondence and conversations with the company. I have corresponded with the Japanese authorities to establish whether the krypton removal plant attached to the Tokaimura pilot reprocessing plant should be fitted to THORP.
    We are now told that the Japanese do not intend to fit such technology to their new fully fledged reprocessing plant at Rokashamura, which in effect will be the same as THORP when it is opened in 10 years' time. In my view, further work is needed on krypton, particularly as the THORP facility is designed for add-on krypton removal technology.
    Proliferation is an issue, and we have to address it. The Minister should tell us today whether the Americans are exerting any pressure on the Government about the potential for proliferation arising from THORP. If the answer is yes, instead of questioning the project, surely the solution is to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency and its enforcement powers.
    One must not stop the process or shut the plant, but rather deal with the problem of shipping the product around the world and with its end use. If I recall correctly, in the 1980s. when many Labour Members were unilateralists, we argued for the enforcement of its powers and for it to do its job successfully and properly.
    Many of my constituents are worried about this debate and about the future of THORP. We believe that, after 15 years, the talking must stop and the plant should be allowed to open. We cannot go on in an atmosphere of concern such as currently exists in west Cumbria.
    7.3 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I wish, first, to declare an interest as a non-executive director of Nuclear and General Engineering Ltd. and of Cunnington and Cooper Ltd., which both manufacture for BNFL on a considerable scale. I was previously a director of a company that manufactured for coal-fired power stations and of an oil company, so I have wide experience of energy, not merely a narrow view.
    The United Kingdom has no equal in orchestrating delay—it really takes the biscuit. I am talking about Ministers, civil servants. inspectorates and local planning officers. I could go on and on. Who rubs their hands? It is the French across the channel. Why? Because they are our main competitors. They have nuclear power and nuclear processing in a big way. If we do not get cracking on
    712
    THORP, we will export not only jobs from Cumbria but many jobs throughout the United Kingdom that depend on contracts for THORP going ahead very shortly.
    We are affecting thousands of people. We are doing a great disservice to our engineers, scientists and inventors, who have made us leaders in nuclear processing. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen say, "It is a question of storage or reprocessing." It is not; it is a question of disposal and reprocessing, which allows management to decide whether some material is stored in dry storage. Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen have their story wrong and they are not thinking clearly enough. Management wants the choice.
    The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made a very good speech. However, he blamed John Guinness, who I believe is blameless because he was not chairman when many of these things were put in motion. Since becoming chairman, he has been quick to talk to hon. Members who have taken an interest in nuclear energy and to invite them to Sellafield to see things for themselves.
    I referred to the United Kindom's orchestrating of delays, of which the Sizewell inquiry was a good example. We are simply handing contracts to our competitors. We have the designers, scientists and the skills. For goodness sake, let us capitalise on that and win trade for the United Kingdom.
    The dangers were mentioned. People who live in Cornwall are subject to 7,500 microSieverts of radiation a year. People who live in Cumbria will be pleased to hear that they are subject to only 2,200 microSieverts a year. People who live close to the plant might be subject to an additional 53 microSieverts, but that equates to only the radiation level experienced on an aircraft trip to Tenerife and back. The radiation level for the whole of Cumbria equates to that experienced on an aircraft trip to Singapore and back.
    Why are we talking about safety? If we are worried about safety, why let the French take the lead? They are only 20 miles across the water. If there is a disaster in France, we will suffer. It is absolutely stupid.
    I have said all that I want to say in only a few minutes. I wish that other hon. Members would be as brief, because the speeches and stupid interventions that we have heard will serve only to hand contracts to the French. If hon. Members had something to say, why did not they stand up and make a speech? Why did they keep intervening? I reckon that I have said it all in two minutes.
    7.8 pm
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: I thank the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for initiating the debate.
    The key decisions about THORP were taken in 1978, since when there has not been a parliamentary debate on the subject. In those 15 years, circumstances have changed substantially. In the 1970s, oil prices went through the roof and our future oil supplies were uncertain. There was a world energy problem, because we did not know how long our oil and gas resources would last. There was, therefore, a projected energy gap. The answer with which we were presented in the 1970s was nuclear energy—advanced gas-cooled reactors, pressurised water reactors and, in the long term, fast breeder reactors.

    713
    The initial justification for THORP was that we would need plutonium to solve the energy problem, and that fast breeder reactors would be the reactors of the 21st century.
    Fifteen years later, it is a completely different ball game. There is no energy problem. Oil and gas resources are finite, but we are thinking in terms of 50 years and more. Oil prices are no longer the problem that they were in the 1970s. There is a glut of coal on the world market, and it is British. The market for nuclear energy has collapsed. Orders for reactors have been cancelled, and, because of the transparent economics, we now know that nuclear electricity means a £1 billion a year levy on electricity prices. There is no demand for plutonium, although there is an embarrassment of plutonium in Europe, Russia and the United States.
    The Government cancelled the British fast breeder reactor programme two or three years ago. In Europe, all work on fast breeder reactors is coming to a halt, including that on the Super Phenix in France. Only Japan is proceeding with a fast breeder reactor, but, having studied nuclear matters for the past 20 years, I can safely predict that within 10 years, or perhaps even five, Japan will also scrap that work.
    What is the justification for THORP? Once we had scrapped the fast breeder reactor, there was no need for it. The only justification is the £9 billion of orders for reprocessing, which were negotiated 10 years ago. We now realise that reprocessing is quite unnecessary because dry storage is a realistic, viable and far cheaper option.
    The Minister said that everyone who is anti-THORP is anti-nuclear, which is generally the case. In economic terms, it would be cheaper for Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear if THORP were cancelled and if they switched to dry storage, which is their preferred option. Germany is now considering removing the reprocessing requirement from its electricity utilities so the German orders can be re-negotiated; perhaps Germany would be glad if THORP were cancelled. The £5 billion-worth of Japanese orders is not a consolation prize. I am sure that the cancellation fee would be only a small fraction of that. The Japanese do not need the plutonium because there is an embarrassment of plutonium on the world market.
    Why should we proceed with THORP? We do not need the uranium, which is much cheaper on the world market. We do not need the plutonium, because there is no market for it, and the radioactive waste produced is the same as that in the dry store facilities.
    The future of THORP should be the subject of a full and open public inquiry so that all aspects can be considered. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said in his excellent speech, a public inquiry need take no more than 100 days; the decision could still be taken by the end of the year. I am sure that the result of a public inquiry would be completely different from that in 1978. The THORP project should be scrapped. It is cheaper to scrap it than to proceed.
    7.13 pm
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: For all the passion and certainty that have accompanied so many of the speeches, perhaps the most revealing was the passage in the Minister's speech when he was at great pains—no doubt with his eye on the Strand and the High Court—to
    714
    make it perfectly clear that certain statutory responsibilities devolve on the two Secretaries of State and that, however much passion and certainty we may display in the Chamber, to a large extent the decisions may fall to be taken under the discretion that legislation affords to them.
    The speech made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was one of the most significant contributions to the debate. He expressed with great eloquence his and many other people's reservations. His analysis was faultless, but I found his conclusion difficult to justify against that analysis.
    He concluded that an environmental impact assessment was necessary. I have seen a few of those in my time, and the one thing we know about them is that they are all based on assumptions. If one wants to challenge the assumptions, the only way to do so is at a public inquiry. I should declare an interest in public inquiries because some of the best and, I suppose, some of the most lucrative days of my life have been spent at public inquiries.
    One important issue has not yet been dealt with: public inquiries are an important vehicle for creating public confidence. They are not merely opportunities for points to be scored by either side of the argument or for cross-examination; they are an opportunity to allay the public's legitimate anxieties. Of course, if a public inquiry were to follow in this case, it would cause delay and costs would also be involved. I agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that jobs could be at risk.
    I am not one of those who passionately oppose nuclear power, to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), but the issues go beyond the boundaries of Cumbria and have attracted the attention of and caused anxiety among sufficient people to justify a public inquiry.
    Hon. Members should read with care the answer put on the board at 3.30 pm today. The Secretary of State for the Environment made it clear that the functions incumbent on him under, for example, section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 are not to be prejudiced by the terms of his answer. If one reads the Act, one finds that the form of the consultation that the Secretaries of State may yet determine may be that of a public inquiry. The Minister dare not say that there will be no public inquiry; if he did, he would be trenching on the discretion of those Secretaries of State, and I can assure him that it would be relied on in an application for judicial review in the High Court in the Strand. The consequence of the passion and commitment that have been displayed this evening may yet be a public inquiry. If there were to be an inquiry, I do not believe that it would be against the public interest.
    I understand those who support nuclear power with great passion and enthusiasm. I also understand hon. Members who are anxious to support those who work in the industry, especially their constituents. However, before we proceed, and in view of the fact that 15 years have elapsed since the Parker inquiry, is it not right to pause and reconsider?
    I do not make that suggestion on an insubstantial basis. On the subject of substitution, the document produced by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee raises an important matter that has not yet been resolved. How is it to be resolved to the public's satisfaction other than through a public inquiry? I wanted to say a little more about the risks of nuclear proliferation, but time prevents me from doing so.

    715
    One consequence of THORP would be the production of more plutonium. To convert it to weapons grade material takes great skill and is no mean feat. The existence of additional plutonium and the risk of its potential diversion for illicit purposes should cause us great concern. I do not think that the United Kingdom is at risk of a nuclear attack from countries that were formerly members of the Warsaw pact or the Soviet Union, but the United Kingdom's interests will certainly be prejudiced, or at risk, if there is a proliferation of countries with nuclear weapons. That in itself should make us pause and think before we proceed with the programme.
    7.19 pm
    Mr. Eggar: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
    We have had a constructive debate in which a wide variety of issues have been aired. Of course, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take careful note of the points that have been made. They must exercise their functions in relation to the Sellafield discharge authorisation as that is a matter for them.
    The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) urged an environmental impact statement on the House. He was answered admirably by the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). They argued against such a statement very persuasively.
    The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) again urged us to have a full public inquiry. He joins Greenpeace in that request. However, unlike Greenpeace, he was not honest about what he wanted. Greenpeace has stated quite specifically that it wants a public inquiry because that would delay the operation of THORP by a year or 18 months. Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman come clean with the House and say that that was his motivation?
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Workington spoke well for Cumbria and made clear the widespread support for THORP. As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) spoke clearly, directly and to the point.
    The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) revealed himself once more to be a fully paid up member of the "We know it all, but we are opponents to nuclear power and we will use every mechanism we can" brigade, as that is what, in effect, he said in his short intervention.
    I wish finally to consider the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats. They state in their motion that there is a "hardening of international opposition". There is no evidence of that and customers have supported the plant yet again. The motion states:
    "there are … strong economic, environmental and proliferation reasons"
    against the plant. However, the conclusions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, revealed in today's parliamentary answer, give the lie to that.
    The Liberal Democrats also state in the motion that
    "all relevant circumstances have … changed".
    Yes, relevant circumstances have changed: THORP has been constructed; people have been recruited for the plant, contracts have been signed and people are trained and ready to work. The Liberal Democrats should pay attention to that.
    716
    The motion states that alternative processes are available. However, customers are not choosing those alternative processes. The motion calls for "full disclosure" of contracts and well it might. As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth made clear, what would that do? It would help the French and BNFL's international competitors.
    The motion also calls for "economic justification" for the plant. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has done in his announcement today. The motion calls for opportunity for "public comment" and that, too, has been provided in the parliamentary answer today.
    The points made by the Liberal Democrats have been answered. I call on the House to vote for the Government amendment to the motion.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 157.

    Division No. 308]

    [7.22 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Bayley, Hugh

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Madden, Max

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Mahon, Alice

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Mullin, Chris

    Cann, Jamie

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Rendel, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Salmond, Alex

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Skinner, Dennis

    Cryer, Bob

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Dafis, Cynog

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Denham, John

    Tyler, Paul

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Wareing, Robert N

    Flynn, Paul

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Galloway, George

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Harvey, Nick

    Wise, Audrey

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. James Wallace.

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Burns, Simon

    Amess, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Arbuthnot, James

    Butler, Peter

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Ashby, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Cash, William

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Clappison, James

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Bates, Michael

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Congdon, David

    Booth, Hartley

    Conway, Derek

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bowis, John

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Brazier, Julian

    Day, Stephen

    Bright, Graham

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Devlin, Tim

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    717

    Dover, Den

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Duncan, Alan

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Eggar, Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Legg, Barry

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lidington, David

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Luff, Peter

    Fabricant, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fishburn, Dudley

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Forman, Nigel

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Malone, Gerald

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Mans, Keith

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Marlow, Tony

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    French, Douglas

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Garnier, Edward

    Merchant, Piers

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Milligan, Stephen

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hague, William

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Harris, David

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hawksley, Warren

    Page, Richard

    Hayes, Jerry

    Paice, James

    Heald, Oliver

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hendry, Charles

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Horam, John

    Richards, Rod

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hunter, Andrew

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Hutton, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jack, Michael

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Key, Robert

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Sproat, Iain

    Knapman, Roger

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Stephen, Michael

    718

    Stern, Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Stewart, Allan

    Wells, Bowen

    Sumberg, David

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Sweeney, Walter

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Wilkinson, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Willerts, David

    Thomason, Roy

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wood, Timothy

    Thurnham, Peter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Trend, Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

    Waller, Gary

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the management and workforce of British Nuclear Fuels plc on the completion of its high technology thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield; welcomes the 3,000 jobs, mainly in the North West, which the plant supports; recognises that around 90 per cent. of its £1,850 million capital cost was spent with British industry; notes that the plant is needed to fulfil the customers' requirements for reprocessing, represented by contracts already won worth £9 billion; recalls that it is a major example of international inward investment which the chairmen of the ten Japanese nuclear power generators strongly endorsed last week; expresses confidence in the non-proliferation arrangements that underlie the plant's work for all the overseas customers; and, subject to receipt by BNFL of such consents as are required by law, supports the commissioning of the plant at the earliest practicable date.

    Regional Development (Wales)
    7.34 pm
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the reduction in resources for regional development by the United Kingdom Government; notes that this is in stark contrast to the policy of the European Community, which actively promotes regional development in order to improve the infrastructure and economies of peripheral nations and regions; and calls on the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that the whole of Wales benefits from a wide range of instruments for regional development, including assisted area status.
    The timing of this debate is particularly opportune, for several reasons. We have a new Secretary of State for Wales—a Secretary of State who inevitably knows little about Wales. There is nothing unusual about that—with the Tories, of course, it is par for the course. The House will know perfectly well Plaid Cymru's remedy for that chronic situation. I shall return to that point later.
    It is equally significant, perhaps, that Wales knows little about the new Secretary of State. True, his reputation has come before him—a Thatcherite, as dry as a bone, a non-interventionist free marketeer, so it is said, thus inevitably one who is less than enthusiastic, perhaps highly sceptical, about what is termed regional development policy. However, that might be a completely false impression. Among other matters, the debate provides an opportunity to begin to find out what creature the Secretary of State is. I use the word "creature" in its original and best meaning—a person created. If he wishes, this is an opportunity for him to dispel the image of him that I have just presented.
    I make it clear at the outset that, when members of my party speak of regional development policy, we do not mean developing Wales as a region; we mean the development of the regions of Wales. Wales is not a region; Wales is a nation. We in Plaid Cymru say that the prime reason why almost the whole of Wales is in such need of regional development policy is that we in Wales have not taken our nationality sufficiently seriously. We have failed to bring into being the institutions, in particular a properly constituted Government accountable to a democratic Parliament, that would enable the people collectively to take Wales's future into their own hands. That is an interpretation that more and more people in Wales are beginning to accept, and with more and more conviction.
    One of the factors that have brought about that evolution of opinion over recent years has been the absurdity and the incongruousness—it would be comical were it not so infuriating—of the fact that three successive Secretaries of State for Wales have been English, representatives of English constituencies and members of a Government pursuing policies that are quite unacceptable to the people of Wales.
    We in Plaid Cymru and other hon. Members want national development in Wales, and that entails the economic development of Wales's regions in order to provide prosperity for our people, the material underpinning of our communities with their varied Welsh cultures, opportunities for fulfilment within Wales for our young people, and the encouragement of confidence and self-reliance among the people of Wales. The underlying chronic debilitating problem of Wales has been the
    720
    continued out-migration of our young people over a long period—a continuous brain drain from Wales. Building a national future for Wales must entail tackling that underlying historic problem.
    Of course, the Conservative Government have made some concessions to Welsh distinctiveness, lest, I suppose, the natives become restless. Two of the three previous viceroys have become wets, as they are called. They have made much use of Wales as a laboratory to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of relatively—I emphasise the word "relatively"—interventionist economic strategies. We have been told that that is typical of Conservative administration in Wales recently. It remains to be seen whether the Secretary of State will belie his reputation or prove himself to be of the same ilk as the previous two, or perhaps three, Secretaries of State.
    That relative interventionism, as we might call it, has meant that Wales has endured a reduction in Government expenditure on regional and financial assistance of 62 per cent., compared with 79 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole. If that sounds a bit like damning with faint praise, as Pope would have it, that is exactly what it was meant to be. Funds from the Exchequer for the Welsh Development Agency stood at £87 million in 1991–92, compared with £112 million in 1979–80, at constant prices.
    Notwithstanding the reduction in funding, the WDA is a powerful agency. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say about its future. It has been suggested that the WDA has trumpeted its own success to such a degree as to imperil its future by, first, arousing envy among the English regions and, secondly, causing some people to believe that its survival is no longer necessary. The WDA is a great success story of the Welsh economy.
    That weakness—that peccadillo—of the WDA is less true of the Development Board for Rural Wales. That board has done important work in the rural areas of mid-Wales and is now targeting—as it should—the western seaboard, which includes a great deal of my constituency. That work must continue. We must ensure that the commitment to those areas in Wales is maintained.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of the WDA and the Development Board for Rural Wales, perhaps he will recognise that the way in which those organisations have operated recently has led to there being much more in terms of a partnership between private business and the agencies. That is different from the situation that existed at the inception of the WDA. Does he think that that shows that the agencies have a glowing future, in line with the whole approach of Government policy in terms of a partnership between the Government and private business?
    Mr. Dafis: I have no objection at all to the principle of a partnership between public agencies such as the WDA and the private sector. Long may such a partnership continue and develop. However, it is not the same as always tying the funds that public agencies should he putting into certain developments to the availability of private moneys in connection with them. Be that as it may—a partnership of that sort must be welcomed.
    It is worth considering what exactly has been achieved by regional policy in Wales, including the activities of the

    721
    WDA over the past decade. I shall leave aside for a moment the pitiful inadequacy of the response in the 1960s and the 1970s—I make no apology for that period—to the massive structural change that the Welsh economy was undergoing. There were serious deficiencies at that time.
    There were successes in the 1980s, but they were partial at best. That is not to whinge—it is simply to face the truth. It is important that we do not allow any propagandist self-deception to prevent us from looking the facts straight in the face and examining the current needs of the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment that the improvements have been partial. Does he agree that, if the remit of the Development Board for Rural Wales were widened somewhat so that it could take a more active part in both agriculture and tourism, its success might be rather more holistic?
    Mr. Dafis: I am grateful for that intervention. An holistic approach is certainly what we need in rural Wales, as elsewhere. Clearly, industrial development needs to be considered, together with the state of the agricultural industry. I go further to say that such developments need to be considered in relation to cultural issues and cultural development. Recently, the DBRW has become more sensitive to such considerations, and I am glad to see that sort of development.
    In what way has the achievement been partial? Inward investment has been largely limited to south-east and north-east Wales. I have the figures for the period 1983–88, but I do not think that they would be much different today. At that time, 84 per cent. of inward investment went to the three Glamorgans and Gwent alone. With Clwyd, it added up to 93·9 per cent. Effectively, inward investment has been limited in Gwynedd and it has hardly touched Dyfed and Powys. I do not think that things have changed since then.
    Mr. Tim Devlin: The United Kingdom as a whole has been lucky enough to attract nearly 30 per cent. of the total amount of inward investment in the European Community. The vast majority of it goes either to Scotland, where it is pooled by the Scottish Development Agency, or to the Welsh Development Agency. Meanwhile, the north of England, which must trundle along with the Northern Development Company, has been successful, but not to anything like the same degree as the WDA.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Ms Lait) is here to plead for the sort of assistance that the hon. Gentleman is taking much too readily for granted in southern and northern Wales. Incidentally, the people living in those two parts of Wales need regional assistance.
    Mr. Dafis: I am here tonight unashamedly to plead the cause of Wales. That is certainly my priority. In the creaking United Kingdom framework, it is only right and proper that the national nature of Wales and Scotland should be recognised by different agencies. I am not in the business of bandying figures about or making comparisons of that sort—I am simply examining what has been achieved in terms of regional policy in Wales as a result of the activities of the WDA. I am simply saying that inward
    722
    investment has touched only relatively confined parts of Wales. Even in Glamorgan and Gwent, its effect has been strictly limited in territorial terms.
    The south Wales valleys are the cradle of Welsh industrial development—[Interruption.]—with politics of various sorts. We have all read Lewis Jones and we all know about little Moscow, the great tradition of Welsh Labour politics and the rapid growth of Plaid Cymru support in the industrial valleys. I am speaking with great affection about the south Wales valleys, which are so important to the cultural make-up of Wales. Recently, unemployment in those valleys has reached the same level as that in the 1930s. Each year, 1,000 people move from those valleys. Even in south-east Wales, the effect of inward investment and industrial development has been partial. That is my point.
    There is also the problem of low pay. During the 1980s, Wales fell from fourth to ninth position among the British regions for male full-time manual earnings, from fifth to 10th for non-manual males and from seventh to ninth for professional women. Activity rates—which are a key indicator of the nature and health of an economy—among males of working age are 9 per cent. below the British average. Dependency rates, reflecting in part the migration of the young, which I mentioned earlier, are high. There are deep structural deficiencies.
    Meanwhile, the economy of rural Wales, and therefore of its communities—economies and communities go together—are in a truly perilous state. That is no exaggeration. In agriculture, there has been a rapid reduction in the number of holdings and in full-time employment—a process which is not yet complete, I fear. We see the centralisation of many services, out of rural areas, and out of villages and small towns. Our nuclear power stations, which are important employers, face an uncertain future. In Dyfed, the closure of military establishments is dealing a devastating blow to many areas. There are deep and serious problems in rural Wales. There is widespread cynicism in Pembrokeshire about the Welsh Office's response to the closure of defence establishments there.
    The former Secretary of State, in the run-up to the 1992 general election, established a west Wales task force which was charged with drawing up a strategy for the economic revitalisation of the area. Prestigious and able consultants were appointed, and it was announced that the strategy was to be complete and ready for action by September 1992. A seriously inadequate strategy document was made available for a meeting at Gwydyr house at the end of January 1993, several months late.
    The key recommendation was that the task force should be revamped and that a new project director should be appointed. That was a key appointment. It was not until 25 April this year that the WDA was told that it was to be given the job of organising the new task force. Not surprisingly, the project director is yet to be appointed. All those months of lost opportunities have been mentioned by people working in the area. It has been a disgraceful affair from start to finish. The task force is, I believe, once more under way, and I wish it well. I have been positive in my response to the existence of the task force all along and I intend to continue to be positive, despite the serious faults in the way in which the matter has been handled.
    Fundamental to the recommendations about the task force was the recommendation that the Fishguard travel-to-work area should be granted full development

    723
    area status. Here we come to an important theme in tonight's debate, which is mentioned in the motion. There must be full development area status for the Fishguard area. It will 13e astonishing if that is not implemented, although such implementation should not be at the expense of the parts of Wales that currently enjoy assisted area status.
    Rumour currently tells us that parts of Wales, including parts of my constituency, may lose assisted area status. That is entirely unacceptable. I hope that my remarks so far have highlighted the massive task that remain:; to be carried out in regional development policy in Wales. We need not a rundown, but a strengthening, of regional policy. There is scope for modification, for refinement and for changes in direction. There is a need to pinpoint for special attention the areas, already mentioned, that are suffering severe difficulties. I think especially of the south Wales valleys, areas in my constituency and areas in the north which need special attention.
    It is accepted by the development agencies, including the DBRW, that we need greater emphasis on indigenous businesses, on the encouraging of local sourcing and on the creation of networks between businesses within areas. We need more emphasis on skills enhancement, on innovation, and on the availability of information of the highest quality to individuals, to companies and to public authorities. We need such information to be facilitated through the development of modern technology. All those themes need to be pursued more now than in the past, in a general context of strengthening regional policy and especially of maintaining assisted area status for the areas that have it now.
    This is no time for downgrading, partly because that would convey entirely the wrong signal to the European Community. That point leads me to the second reason why the timing of this debate is opportune. EC structural funds are currently under review, so the months from now until the end of the year are important. It is vital that European regional development policy should be strengthened, because without a really powerful regional policy—this is perhaps the central issue—the effect of the single European market, the move towards a single European currency and monetary union will be devastating for peripheral and disadvantaged regions such as Wales.
    Free trade and open markets can serve the interests of people, in the short term at least, as consumers. Open markets, open borders and free trade can also serve the interests of large, powerful organisations and conglomerates. As such, those developments have an inexorably centralising tendency, favouring areas that enjoy a competitive advantage. People are not just consumers, thank goodness; they are also workers and producers, and they are also members of communities with roots in cultures specific to particular places. Regional policy is a philosophical recognition, among other things, of that second aspect of human need—the need for people to be rooted in communities and to be infinitely more than merely consumers of goods.
    The recognition of that need at European level is one reason why resources under the European structural funds were doubled between 1989 and 1993. That is why Maastricht envisages a further strengthening and development of regional policy. Wales is looking increasingly in the direction of Europe, and rightly so. Objective 2 status for regions seriously affected by industrial decline has been important in the industrial
    724
    south-east and in the north-east. I am sure that hon. Members who represent those areas will wish to elaborate on that point.
    As I represent a western constituency, I refer to the crucial importance of objective 5b status for Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys. The £100 million provided for the integrated development operations programme has made possible road improvements. Regional development fund money has contributed to further education for 10,000 students in Dyfed alone. We have had the excellent Leader programme administered on the borders of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) by Antur Teifi. It is a most exciting development. I was there not long ago at the opening of the new Telemateg centre. That programme was initiated under the Leader programme, and was a consequence of the fact that the area has objective 5b status.
    The European regional development fund grant of £2 million will enable Stena Sealink to effect improvements to Fishguard harbour. That will make possible a third crossing, which is a crucial development for that port and for the southern corridor linking the Republic of Ireland through south Wales to the European continent. The fund has made an even more significant contribution to the development of Holyhead, which is crucial for the development of the central corridor.
    I have given just a few examples. It is small wonder that Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys seek to continue objective 5b status as essential to the development strategy. I support, as a person from the south, the wish of Aberconwy, Colwyn and Glyndwr to be included in objective 5b status. Clearly, those areas in the north belong to the same category. Currently the application for the new programme for 1994–99 is under consideration. This time it is a six-year programme. Here, time is of the essence.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I dare say that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that, five years ago, Aberconwy satisfied all the necessary criteria for objective 5b status. With the passage of time, Aberconwy has declined in economic terms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that its application this year should succeed?
    Mr. Dafis: That proposal, and any emphasis on it, will have my whole-hearted support. It is good that Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys are united in their support.
    As I have indicated, time is of the essence in considering the application for the new programme. It is crucial that the system be in place by the end of the year so that the local authorities may make timely arrangements for co-financing—which is difficult these days, local government finance being what it is—and so that programmes may get under way promptly at the beginning of next year. The Secretary of State must ensure that progress is not held up in any way.
    It seems that one area of dispute concerns the proposal in the Commission's green paper published on 16 June that 10 per cent. of total funding be given to European Community initiatives—programmes initiated by the Community itself in response to specific socio-economic situations. It is reported that the British Government want the proportion to be 7 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. In this regard, my party supports the Commission. We want to see the development of a partnership between the European Community and local authorities. Community

    725
    initiatives must be given their proper place. I should say, by the way, that I am told that such initiatives are a means of ensuring that additionality actually applies. That is, of course, of great importance to the people of Wales.
    In any case, at least three of the initiatives that I want to mention are particularly relevant to Wales. First, as many hon. Members will no doubt want to emphasise, we want a commitment of support for RECHAR 2—something that is very important to former coal-mining areas. Secondly, there is Konver for areas dependent on military installations and suffering the effects of cuts in that field. That is, of course, highly relevant to Dyfed and, in particular, to Pembrokeshire, which are reeling from the effects of the closure of Trecwn and Brawdy.
    Applications under the current Konver programme were to have been received by June, according to information that I received earlier this year. However, until recently local authorities were unaware of the criteria for projects, as the information had not been provided. That is very worrying. I hear that the deadline has been extended by a month, and I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that we shall not lose out. It is important that such funds be targeted at places, such as those in Wales, where defence establishments have been closed and that there be no failure by the Welsh Office to formulate and process applications.
    Thirdly, there in Interreg. It is essential that the maritime border between Wales and Ireland be recognised for the purposes of this initiative. Co-operation between local authorities in Wales and local authorities in the Republic of Ireland is growing. I have attended several meetings of representatives of Welsh and Irish authorities. This is a highly encouraging development. Access to lnterreg—a very substantial fund—would enable Gwynedd and Dyfed to benefit from development in the Republic of Ireland.
    Indeed, there has been substantial development in the Republic owing to its objective 1 status and its eligibility for cohesion fund money. In particular, the development of the central corridor through Holyhead and of the southern corridor through Fishguard as Euroroutesroad and rail—is of vital importance. The existence of an autonomous European state out there in the sea west of Wales is a factor of major importance and of enormous advantage to Wales, particularly west Wales.
    Mention of objective 1 status, which will take 70 per cent. of all structural fund moneys, brings up the question of eligibility for rural Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State will continue to pursue this matter with the utmost energy. Eligibility would be of enormous advantage to Wales because of the size of the fund and because 75 per cent. funding of capital projects with objective 1 status would be made possible. It would be quite unacceptable if rural Wales were not included in objective I status.
    I have said little about the nature and direction of the development in Wales that we wish to see by means of regional policy. That has not been my prime purpose today. I have already touched on the need for the so-called peripheral regions to develop co-operation and to become cohesive areas that trade with each other and share the benefits of contacts. I am not very keen on the term "peripheral regions", as so much depends on what one
    726
    defines as the core. Developments of this kind are to be seen in a very interesting way in the statement of intent prepared by the Irish sea partnership of local authorities.
    Policymakers need to be aware of the fact that the principle of environmental sustainability must very soon become the prime consideration in economic development—something of which not many people are yet aware. We need to plan accordingly. The shift towards this kind of sustainability—ultimately the only kind of sustainability—will have massive implications for transport, trade and all other aspects of the pattern of production, distribution and consumption. That is something to which we are just beginning to wake up.
    Ultimately, if economic activity is not environmentally sustainable, it is not sustainable at all. We hear these days, in very responsible and well-informed quarters, talk of the future of the planet and of mankind being at stake. This is not empty rhetoric. Coming to terms with that fact will have monumental implications for regional policy in Wales, among other things. That is something of which we must be aware now.
    In Wales, there are particularly relevant issues, such as our enormous potential for renewable energy. It is possible that we need new instruments of policy to ensure that those resources are developed in such a way as to strengthen the local economy and to empower the local community and enhance local self-reliance, which is a fundamental tenet of environmental sustainability.
    I should like to emphasise a particular principle—that, in the context of open European borders and a completed European market, a strong and effective regional policy is absolutely essential. Naturally, we—I refer not just to members of my own party—believe that by far the best way for Wales to advocate this principle within Europe would be as an autonomous nation directly represented in the Community. Until we achieve that status—and afterwards, of course—partnerships between the Community and Welsh local authorities will have a role. So long as there is a need for such a person, we shall need a Secretary of State for Wales who is a vigorous and a committed proponent of regional development. I hope that the current Secretary of State will confirm tonight that he is such a person and that he will prove it in action over the coming months.
    8.9 pm
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'welcomes the progress that the Welsh economy has made in recent years as a result of the Government's policies; and notes with approval that the Government intends to continue to pursue vigorously these same policies that have brought about this success.'.
    The most pressing priority for Wales and the whole United Kingdom is recovery which will bring new companies and new products, strengthen our industries, raise living standard and, above all, bring more jobs. I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) about that, but I do not for a moment agree with many of his other points.
    He said that we had to cut the Welsh Development Agency budget, but the budget over which I am presiding this year is a record in both cash and real terms. As we have seen in the past few days, it and many other factors about Wales are delivering the goods in terms of many new

    727
    jobs coming to Wales. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the WDA has a fine future just as surely as it has had a proud track record in recent years.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman also assure the House that the Development Board for Rural Wales has a fine long-term future in continuing the work that it has done so well so far?
    Mr. Redwood: Our current plans are for a vigorous programme through that body as well as through the WDA.
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North welcomed the idea of partnership, although it is a pity that he almost choked when he used the word "success." He should be proud of the successes of Wales and those of the WDA. It ill behoves him to be jealous of success in the valleys, although I understand his wish to succeed everywhere. But if he is serious about winning votes from Labour in the valleys, he will have to be more enthusiastic about promoting the valleys as well as the other parts of Wales.
    Labour's Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) laughs because he does not think that the 'Welsh nationalists could claim votes in the Welsh valleys. There will be more tension between those two parties as they rival each other to paint a portrait of gloom and conduct a Dutch auction of promises that they wil not have to fulfil.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Secretary of State saying that the Conservatives will not contest the valleys? In the local elections, many votes which would normally have gone to the Conservatives went to Plaid Cymru, but that was because the Conservatives did not put up any candidates.
    Mr. Redwood: Of course the Conservatives will contest and win many more seats in Wales at the general election because of our economic success. In the long run-up to that election, there will be many disputes between the Opposition parties.
    The west Wales task force was called into question in the introductory dirge by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. The WDA director for rural affairs is already acting as the executive on behalf of that task force beause we have not yet made a final appointment. He is doing that because local authorities are involved and wanted the job formally advertised. We are now doing that, but we do not want delay; that is why the rural affairs director is carrying out the task in the meantime.
    Today I had the privilege of opening a new business centre at Milford Haven which is making a home for new enterprises in that part of Wales. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North welcomes that. I went on to open a remodelled youth hostel at Trevine, which will also bring business and activity to that part of the national park. I want many more such schemes thriving there, based on the partnership that our activities are bringing to Wales. I wish to see maximum local involvetment in schemes funded by the EC, by the Government or by a variety of means. That is because locally driven and locally determined schemes and locally derived ideas are usually the best, and in a true partnership local people are needed to push ideas.
    Of course the Government supported the idea of objective 1 status, but unfortunately the EC was not
    728
    enthusiastic. We proposed it and there was no lack of enthusiasm by the Government; nor will there be any lack of enthusiasm in pressing other joint claims by the House to the EC in its review of regional funds and eligibility.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the sustaining of objective 2 status in Clwyd, Glamorgan and Gwent is predicated on the maintenance of assisted area status in those areas? Does he also agree that the Government have designated some of those assisted areas to be downgraded? Those areas will inevitably lose the possibility of objective 2 support as a direct result of London Government policy.
    Mr. Redwood: I do not agree at all. We shall urge Wales's case upon the Commission for our revised regional map for our own assisted area status and in the wider connection about which the hon. Gentleman asks. Later in my speech, I shall deal with the state of play on the assisted area map.
    A dynamic enterprise economy delivers recovery. The luxuries of yesterday become commonplace today. The jobs of tomorrow will be making things which are still on the drawing board or have yet to be invented. In the depth of the 1981 recession, people asked where the jobs would come from. Few predicted the speed or intensity of growth in pharmaceuticals and electronics, in biochemistry and in services, but that growth was the hallmark of the British recovery and growth of the late 1980s.
    In the 1950s most homes lacked television, but by the 1980s practically every household owned one. In the 1970s few had video recorders, but they are now regular features of the living room. In the early 1980s, the rich few owned a microwave; today a majority of Welsh kitchens sport one. So it may be, too, with home computers, video cameras, satellite and cable television and a host of new products.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: They were all invented in Japan.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman jibes that all those things were invented abroad. They were not, but I wish to see more such products invented and made in Wales and I hope that he shares that aim.
    I trust that in moving this motion Opposition Members want Wales to prosper, but they look at only a small part of the story of how that can be brought about. Grants can help to clinch a deal or tip the balance with the marginal investment, but investors come to Wales or expand in Wales for many other reasons, which we must also encourage and support. Prudential Insurance, Toyota and Dow Corning all came without any regional selective assistance grant and they are all very welcome.
    The Government have completed their review of assisted areas and have sent their proposals to the European Commission. If we judged by unemployment alone Wales would see its assisted area coverage fall from 85 per cent. to less than half its population, such has been the success in reducing relative unemployment in Wales compared with elsewhere in the country and in the Community.
    Mr. David Hanson rose—
    Mr. Redwood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to complete my point. He might need to hear it all before he puts a question.

    729
    I assure Opposition Members that the proposals put to the Commission are a much better deal for Wales than that, but they will have to be patient about knowing the final outline of the map. We shall announce the results when we know the outcome of the EC review. My aim has been to ensure that Wales gets all the help that it needs to continue recovery. I have taken structural change, remoteness from markets and proximity to other assisted areas into account. I have not sold Wales short. I trust that the EC will now back our judgment.
    Mr. Hanson: Would the Minister care to comment on activity rates in Wales? An examination of that aspect rather than a statement about the number of people employed shows a far worse picture than the one that he has just painted.
    Mr. Redwood: I have explained the factors that I am taking into account. I share the hon. Gentleman's wish to see higher activity rates. I am not satisfied with one person in 10 being out of work. There is much to do, and that is the purpose of all my actions at the Welsh Office.
    Mr. Llwyd: The Minister says that he has taken proximity to assisted areas into account. Is that good or bad for Aberconwy, which is sandwiched between two such areas?
    Mr. Redwood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can work that out for himself. I made a simple point and, on reflection, he should be able to answer his question to his own satisfaction.
    Why do businesses come to Wales? I have asked business men this while encouraging them to do so. They tell me of many things that persuade them, such as the warmth of the welcome and the fact that Japanese, Americans, German and other people from far afield are made to feel at home.
    Those business men are attracted to Wales, above all, by the quality of the work force, who are well trained with an excellent record of Labour relations. Good cost levels and a competitive exchange rate are also attractive, because companies are shifting production from the dearer areas of Europe. Also of significance is the fact that we have the lowest interest rates in western Europe. Other factors cited by business men include the availability of good premises, the beauty of the landscape and the quality of life.
    It is worth noting the achievements that the country has put together. According to Cambridge Econometrics, the growth forecasts for 1993 reveal that that of Germany is set to be minus 2 per cent., that of France to be minus 0·6 per cent. and that of Spain to be minus 0·5 per cent. The economy of Wales, however, is forecast to grow by plus 1·8 per cent. Let us hope that that forecast is wrong and that the economy will grow by an even greater amount, as it well could.
    The inflation rate in Germany, Spain and Italy stands at 4·2 per cent., and 4·6 per cent. respectively. That of the United Kingdom is 1·3 per cent. The interest rates of Germany and France are around 7·5 per cent. and those of Italy 10 per cent., while in the United Kingdom they stand at 6 per cent. That is the kind of undercutting that I like to do, and that is the way to promote business.
    730
    Unit labour costs are also extremely important to manufacturers. In the past year, those of Germany, Spain and Italy have grown by 8·3 per cent., 5 per cent. and 4·8 per cent. respectively. In the United Kingdom, however, they have been falling.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: It is because we are a low-wage economy.
    Mr. Redwood: No, it is not because of low wages; it is because we offer high productivity and good rates of growth in productivity. Opposition Members do not like that, but it is true.
    Economic recovery is what we want. The long dole queues across Europe are a malignant growth that we must cut out—the patient needs surgery. We want low levels of unemployment and high levels of investment, low levels of business failures and high levels of success, low costs and high productivity.
    Cutting interest rates from 15 per cent. to 6 per cent. was the biggest job creation programme of all—£11,000 million of extra spending power was left with United Kingdom companies. That is money for research and development and for new factories. At last the investor. choosing between Britain, France and Germany, comes to us for the cheapest money.
    Keeping taxes low gives rewards for success. Opposition Members, peddling the politics of jealousy, want to tax the entrepreneur more. If they had their way, those who create jobs or make profits would be taxed more highly than our competitors. Why, then, would those entrepreneurs stay? Why should new business men come, if more than half of their earnings would be taken by the state? Keeping taxes on profits the lowest in western Europe—33 per cent. corporation tax, with 25 per cent. for small companies—counts with investors and creates the right atmosphere for business success.
    The reform of our labour laws has also been telling. Employers and employees alike need to know where they stand. Everybody's rights and interests should be protected in a clear and fair way. Sensible labour laws breed good industrial relations [Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh about everything apart from assisted area status. They obviously do not have a clue about how business works. They do not know what it is that attracts investors and creates jobs. I will tell them more, because I think that they should know.
    In recent years, industrial relations have been transformed. Last year, across the country, there were only 253 stoppages—the lowest ever recorded. In Wales, the record is even better. Only 10 days per 1,000 employees were lost through strikes in Wales, compared with 24 per 1,000 in the United Kingdom as a whole and many more in most of our competitor countries.
    Business needs freedom—freedom from red tape, from bureaucracy and from the encumbrances of vexatious rules imposed by vexatious minds. We cannot afford to put investors off with all the paraphernalia of the social chapter, as some Opposition Members seek to do. The best social welfare policy is one that delivers jobs. There is little point in extending workers' rights too far if all that results is that they get the sack because their employers cannot afford to keep them.
    As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North almost identified in his speech, underlying all is the need to promote free trade. Backing business in world

    731
    markets can win orders. We must avoid or remove artificial barriers put in the way of global trading. Countries like ours, with strong manufacturing bases, cannot afford to let themselves be hemmed in by protectionism. Protected trade brings longer dole queues.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: It is extremely encouraging to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak with such enthusiasm about free trade, and I agree with everything that he has said about it. Does he agree that one of the greatest encumbrances to free trade in the European Community is the fact that each member state has its own currency? Will he now become a convert to a single currency, which would facilitate free trade in Europe?
    Mr. Redwood: No, I do not accept that point at all. People can and do trade in a single currency of their choice—the common currency—and many already do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not done enough deals in international markets to know the modest cost of exchange transactions against the overall costs of the deal transacted. If Opposition Members spent more time talking to business men and understood the real issues faced by the wealth creators today, they might make a more constructive contribution to the debate. We should praise the entrepreneur, not undermine him. We should encourage him, not overtax him. We should see him as the job creator, not as the pariah of socialist mythology.
    Government can, of course, do a lot to help. Government must provide the roads and railway lines. They must stand up for fair and open markets. They should provide help where high unemployment, massive structural change or remote locations need it. None of that will work, however, if the general policy for growth is wrong.
    Wales has been the prime beneficiary of that approach. Let no one have any doubt about the fact that Wales is making it: Wales is leading the United Kingdom out of the recession. The recovery is gathering speed all the time. Unemployment in Wales is now 0·2 percentage points below the United Kingdom average. At the beginning of the recession it was 0·8 percentage points above that average. In May 1986, it was 2·6 percentage points higher. Long-term unemployment in Wales has fallen by 40 per cent. in the past seven and a half years. How I welcome that.
    Thousands of new jobs have been created by investors from overseas, who have been attracted by the skills of the Welsh work force, the relatively low taxes and the good communications. My predecessors as Conservative Secretaries of State for Wales made enormous strides in investing in communications, developing strategies to meet particular problems—as the valleys programme demonstrates—and enabling the Welsh Development Agency to play its role in attracting development and promoting the visionary Cardiff bay scheme. I pay particular tribute to their special achievement in generating a spirit of co-operation in developing the economy of Wales which transcends many of the boundaries of politics and ideology. There is a team in Wales which is out to win for Wales, and I am proud to lead it.
    International competition is getting keener by the day. I want more skill added to the products that we make. We do not want to be a branch plant economy making low-value products which are vulnerable to any downturn
    732
    in world markets. We must strive for ever higher quality. Wales should lead in new products and quality goods. We must be at the cutting edge of innovation. We must not concentrate on inward investment success alone and neglect the need to develop industry at home. A great deal has happened and an enterprise culture is emerging in Wales. Between 1979 and 1991, more than 16,000 firms set up business in Wales and manufacturing output has increased by almost two thirds—more than double the increase for the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Flynn: That is fantasy.
    Mr. Redwood: How sad it is to hear the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) say that it is fantasy. He should see what I have seen in recent weeks—great companies in Wales with great ideas.
    Mr. Flynn: It has been instructive and enjoyable to hear the wish fulfilment fantasy of the right hon. Gentleman at such length, but can he tell us why the most progressive firm in Wales, at the hard edge of technology, which developed one of Britain's greatest inventions in the past 22 years, has left Wales? That invention—the transputer—is now being manufactured in France and Italy. The transputer, manufactured at INMOS at Newport, has been lost to Wales as a result of Government indolence and failure to invest in it. The French and Italian Governments have been more than happy to invest in it.
    Mr. Redwood: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I wish that he had seen some of the firms that I have visited recently, which show how Wales is innovating, has many talented minds and is putting together a great record of success. I intend to give a special push to the work to encourage more entrepreneurship, more innovation and high quality business.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: We have listened to 10 minutes of extremely optimistic cliches about the economy. The right hon. Gentleman anticipate that, in the next 12 months, the Welsh economy will grow by 1·8 per cent. Would he care to speculate about what has happened to the growth rate since January 1990? I suggest it has stood at minus 5 per cent. That is what the record says.
    Mr. Redwood: We know that there has been a recession. It has been universal across the western world, and it is regrettable. I am discussing how we get out of recession and how Wales will lead the way. The forecast of 1·8 per cent. was independent. I have said that I hope that it will be right. Indeed, I hope that we shall improve on that.
    The training and enterprise councils exist to lift the skills and encourage the new businesses of Wales. The Welsh work force has been the single most important reason for success and will be so in the future. I want the TECs to do all that they can to raise skill levels, help the unemployed to get back to work, enable young people to start off on life-time employment, and help deliver a work force that is even better qualified and skilled, and better able to adapt to new demands.
    Like many advanced countries, Britain is in the throes of her fourth industrial revolution. The first three saw us change from water power to steam power to electric power; from a dominant textile industry, to a dominant engineering industry, to a strong consumer products industry; from canals and carts, through the age of the railway, to motorways. The fourth revolution takes us on

    733
    to brain power, from older industries to high-tech industries, from motorways to Telecom's digital highways. Skilling and reskilling Britain is the new imperative.
    Excellence in education is central to that task. A good start at school and college is vital. I want the universities and colleges of Wales to develop their links with business so that industry knows what they can deliver and the education world in Wales knows what industry wants. We must encourage joint ventures, initiatives and exchanges of ideas and personnel to maximise the enormous opportunities before us.
    I also want working for oneself to be an option. The brightest and best leaving college and university should not automatically want to become journalists, civil servants or commentators writing elegantly about Europe's decline—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or politicians."] No, nor politicians—but some of us were in business and industry before we entered politics. Graduates should want to plunge into business, shaping the future with new ideas for commercial success.
    We are now embarked on changing the subject and style of debate in the European Community. After months and years of sterile abstractions and constitutional wrangling, we are turning the focus to the pay packet and life style issues which affect every citizen. The Copenhagen summit began to ask the right questions about jobs and recovery. Our Prime Minister placed Britain and British ideas at the centre of the debate. He persuaded others to confront the reality that during the years in which America created 30 million new private sector jobs the EC managed only 3 million. While Japan has 2·5 per cent. out of work, the EC has almost 10 per cent. EC labour costs are now a fifth higher than in the United States and EC non-wage labour costs are almost twice as high as in the United States.
    In Wales since 1988–89, United States firms have created 7,261 jobs; Japanese firms 4,964 jobs, and German firms 3,126 jobs. That is because Wales is better than the EC average in many respects and as such has benefited from more new investment and new jobs. I do not want a low-wage society, but I do want a low-cost economy because that is how to guarantee prosperity. That means high productivity and good ideas.
    Britain can now lead the EC debate about restoring competitiveness. I say to many, "Come and see what is happening in Wales." As the dole queues lengthen on the continent, Wales is winning new business and new businesses. In the past week, 1,000 new jobs have been created in Crumlin from ASAT, 480 new jobs in Gwent from Aiwa, a possible 1,000 new jobs from the British Coal Enterprise initiatives, and 240 new jobs from six companies announcing expansion plans. Over the weekend, I announced 58 jobs for Swansea at Addis and another 160 new jobs are on the threshold of announcement as we meet tonight. That is winning for Wales, based on an agenda for a competitive Wales.
    Fortress Europe or castle Wales could not succeed. Turning away foreign investors or putting them off with high taxes, strikes or too many regulations is the road to ruin, not the path to prosperity—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Caerphilly think that it is so
    734
    funny; I am sure that his constituents will be delighted to know that he giggles throughout a debate on how jobs can be brought to the valleys and his area of Wales.
    Over a year ago, the United Kingdom persuaded the EC not to outlaw digital technology for satellite television, and not to make the Sky transmissions illegal. Two weeks ago, the United Kingdom quietly scored another important success in Brussels: we stood up for Welsh industrial interests. In so doing, we stood up for wider United Kingdom interests—indeed, for the future success of the consumer electronics industry in Europe as a whole.
    Ministers agreed an action plan to help promote wide-screen and high definition television. We were able to secure a valuable commitment that UK-based manufacturers such as Sony will be able to participate fully and without discrimination in future research programmes into digital television technology. There are those in Europe for whom this will not be welcome news, but it is good news for Wales and for the House.
    We helped to shape a sensible policy for a vital new tecinology. Companies appreciate that, and many consumers and future employees in that industry will come to thank us. Those who tried to stop Europe developing digital systems were carrying out the industrial equivalent of burning books because the ideas were said to be heresies. It would have been damaging, but it could not have worked.
    Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State has mentioned a significant number of job gains in Wales. How many of those are in the counties of Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys? Am I right in saying that the answer is virtually none? In view of the difficulties that have been faced in those westerly parts of Wales, can the Secretary of State propose any new strategies to overcome that problem in the near future?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the bulk of the jobs were in areas other than those that he mentions, but I have already described what I have been doing in west Wales. I said that I intend to back fully the work of the west Wales task force, and the hon. Gentleman should wait to see developments. I intend to do for west Wales what I am doing for south Wales and for all parts of Wales.
    The British Government's case to the EC is the case of Wales, the cause of the whole United Kingdom, and the crusade for jobs throughout Europe: do not damage competitiveness by passing unnecessary laws; do not put investors off with all the paraphernalia of the social chapter; and do not keep out new ideas or technologies just because they were dreamed up elsewhere, but realise that it is a world market and understand that the best social policy for the unemployed is a job.
    All those opportunities must be grasped if we are not to fall behind. Europe must wake up, for Asia's tigers are roaring. We must reply. We must do more to curb and then to cure the European dole queues. We must shake off the shackles which still hold the economy back from developing its full potential. Away with restraint, away with petty restrictions, away with the head-in-the-sand thinking which refuses to adopt new ideas or technologies just because they were not invented here—we in Wales must scour the world for the best production processes, the

    735
    best management ideas arid the best products, and we must make sure that they are produced here in Wales and sent out again across the globe.
    Wales at its best is world class, able to hold its own in any company across the globe. Products are better made in Wales and should be better designed in Wales. Wales must be free, dynamic and vibrant, taking on the world—and beating it.
    8.37 pm
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and thank Plaid Cymru for choosing this opportune subject. The Secretary of State's speech was stronger on ideology than on facts and exhibited no detailed knowledge of Wales or the Welsh economy. I was not sure whether it was his Llangollen Tory party conference speech all over again, or some old material rehash of a Rothschild induction course for junior clerical staff. However, it was a preparation for the great betrayal that is to come over assisted area boundaries.
    Until we heard the Secretary of State's speech, we were looking for a commitment to keep the assisted area map of Wales roughly along its present lines, perhaps with some tinkering on the borders. We were not expecting to have the Secretary of State speak for well over 20 minutes without saying whether Wales would lose out from the boundary revision, in which he has been playing a major preparatory part—even if it was mostly before he became Secretary of State—through the alterations that we now expect before the summer recess.
    We also expected to hear about the timing and to have a clearer restatement that we shall have an opportunity to debate in the House the specific implications for Wales of the changes. We do not want the announcement to be sneaked in on the last day before the summer recess, only to find that the only opportunity that we get to debate the changes will be in October, during the spillover part of the Session.
    That would be wholly unsatisfactory. It is why tonight is a suitable opportunity—there may be another later—for the Government to give a cast-iron promise that the House, and in particular Welsh Members of Parliament, will have the opportunity to discuss the sort of damage that I now expect because of the little hints in the speech by the Secretary of State.
    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention for nothing, and with great pride, the three firms that had come to Wales in the past few years without any regional selective assistance. He was not telling us that as though Wales had won the triple crown; he was basically saying that if Wales could attract those three firms without regional selective assistance, who needs it?
    The three projects include Toyota's new engine plant on Deeside. Because of surplus capacity in the motor industry, the EC would not permit any regional selective assistance for either the engine plant, which came to Wales, or the much larger assembly line, which many people thought would come to Wales, until, in the words of the previous Secretary of State, it was snatched away at the last minute. The assembly plant that Wales did not get is 10 times bigger than the engine plant that it did get. Whether that was also a great betrayal is a matter of
    736
    dispute between the previous Prime Minister and the previous Secretary of State for Wales but one, Lord Walker.
    The Secretary of State also mentioned Prudential Assurance, which is located in my home of Cardiff. He was careful with his words when he said that that firm came without any regional selective assistance. It would be interesting to know whether he is claiming that it came without any Government grant. It received another form of Government grant—I do not know whether it was an urban development grant or some other form of grant, but it certainly had a substitute grant equivalent to regional selective assistance. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that, if Wales loses regional selective assistance, it will still attract a flow of firms.
    The third firm that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned was Dow Corning, which is also close to my home. It has a long-standing commitment to Wales and I am pleased that it continues to provide employment in the Barry, Sully and Penarth areas.
    The Secretary of State responded to a point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) about the size of the Welsh Development Agency's budget. The right hon. Gentleman contradicted what he thought was an assertion by the hon. Gentleman that the WDA's budget had been reduced, but that was not what the hon. Gentleman had said. In fact, he said that the Exchequer grant to the WDA had been reduced, which meant that it had to fund more and more of this year's expenditure by selling more and more of its family silver. It can continue to do that for only so long.
    Obviously, the pearl in the oyster—if I can mix my metaphors—in the family silver of the WDA is the Treforest trading estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), which is either largely on the way to being sold or has been sold. The WDA has only so many Treforest equivalents that it can sell. Now, half the WDA's expenditure must be funded not just by the sale of the odd piece of land or by producing a bespoke factory for a client and then selling it when it is built, but by selling industrial estates that have been built up over many years—60 years in the case of Treforest.
    What the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said was correct. The amount of money that the Government put into the WDA each year is being reduced, so the proportion that the WDA must find from its own resources is unsustainable. If it continues at the current level, selling Treforest this year, Deeside industrial park next year and Fforestfach the year after, in five years it will have nothing left. It is not in a position to build up the asset base that would allow it to continue disposing of core assets.
    Mr. Rod Richards: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that selling industrial estates is part of the process of consolidating an economy that is becoming stronger, or does he want Wales always to have a dependency culture economy?
    Mr. Morgan: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has posed mutually exclusive questions that cover all the possibilities on the waterfront. If both rents and capital values for land become unrealistically high—rents in Wales are now above those in the London area—there will be a major squeeze on the ability of firms to fund expansion. Too much of their money will disappear in

    737
    rents, which have shot up to £4 or £4.50 per sq ft a year, which is much higher than in the London area. That is frightening because, if the grants are removed but the rents remain high, Wales will become a less competitive area for production. It will lose the low-cost advantage that the Secretary of State spent 25 minutes telling us was its most important asset.
    Again, the Secretary of State espouses the message that we must believe in the success of the Welsh economy and that it is incumbent even on Opposition parties to trumpet that. Anyone who doubts that or who believes that there is still a long way to go is somehow a traitor to the marketing effort of the Welsh Office and the WDA—the team Wales, of which he is the self-appointed captain. He was certainly not appointed captain by anyone in Wales; he was imposed from the outside. That makes us sceptical of his desire to lead us in a particular direction, for which most people in Wales did not vote and in which they do not want to go.
    We are also sceptical of the tendency of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors to overclaim success and to make the figures fit the marketing strategy. They believe that if we keep talking about success, success will come. We should look objectively at the statistics for employment and unemployment and for new factories and the jobs that they create, relative to the number of jobs being lost both through the closure of coal mines and in the steelworks and other traditional primary providers of employment in Wales. It is only by balancing the new jobs being created with the old jobs being destroyed that we can work out how well Wales is doing. During the last eight or nine years, hyping up the success of Wales has become an occupational hazard of being Secretary of State for Wales. We have seen another example of that tonight.
    My fundamental case is that the reason why the repackaging of Wales has been one of the great success stories of Europe is not what has been happening in Wales, but simply the choice of marketing strategy by Lord Walker and Dr. Gwyn Jones, the chairman of the WDA in late 1988 and early 1989. It was a deliberate decision to market Wales as the great success story of all Europe's regions. It involved all sorts of tricks of the trade in redefining what was an inward investment project, and the construction of dustbin lists of huge numbers of projects, many of which did not exist or were double counted so that they would appear simultaneously in two counties.
    Royal Air Force stations are now being counted as inward investment projects. There are two in the list produced for the past year—RAF St. Athan and RAF Sealand. Those are not conventionally defined inward investment projects. The list also includes brass plate changes in the ownership of firms that do not result in any gain of jobs—but sometimes result in a loss of jobs—being claimed as inward investment projects simply to reach the magic figure of the 201 such projects that apparently came to Wales last year.
    Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his marketing strategy for Wales would be to say that everything is wrong and nobody comes to Wales?
    Mr. Morgan: Absolutely not. We need an objective, balanced figure. We do not want a rapid growth in the statistical physiotherapy service of the Government,
    738
    massaging the figures and claiming that new jobs are being created when they are not. Those are not my words. Only the other day, I received a letter from one of the most successful counties in Wales about the claim to have 201 inward investment projects in the year from April 1992 to April 1993. Of the 201 projects, 40 were supposed to have come to the county.
    I wrote to the county's industrial development unit to ask what it could tell me about the 40 projects and whether it was aware of them. It sent a letter last week to say that it was not aware of 26 of the 40 projects. More than half the projects appear to be unknown to the unit. That is not to say that the projects do not exist, but it is likely that they do not exist given the knowledge base of the local county council.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that we object to neither the optimism nor the sense of the view that we have to sell Wales? That is not what is happening from my point of view. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties would not want the Secretary of State for Wales to believe everything that he hears from the Welsh Office. He could do worse than read the report of the Public Accounts Committee on safeguarding and creating jobs in Wales.
    The PAC exposed a case in my constituency of 1,000 jobs that were said to have been created or protected. In fact, all that had happened was that British Airways had sold the factory to General Electric in America. No new jobs were created. I am glad that the factory was sold, because the new owners look like being good employers. In that sense, the factory was safeguarded. But we shculd not play games with statistics. That is dangerous because it undermines the authority of the Government and of the Secretary of State among the people of Wales.
    Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about General Electric's takeover of the extremely successful British Airways engine overhaul plant. The factory was set up at Nangarw during the war as a shadow factory and has been an exceptional success ever since. That is typical of the kind of firms that we want to see in Wales. However, no new jobs arose from that takeover. It was brass plate investment.
    Another example is when, through compulsory competitive tendering, a hospital got rid of its local catering staff and employed Gardner Merchant. That was classed as inward investment. No additional jobs were involved. Health authority or local authority staff lost their jobs, and Gardner Merchant had a contract. That was one of the inward investment projects in West Glamorgan that was claimed by the Welsh Development Agency and Welsh Development International last year.
    Mr. Richards: One proposed project which the hon. Gentleman has campaigned against viciously is the development of Cardiff bay. The Government are to put £160 million into that project, which has been marketed throughout Europe. It will create thousands—probably tens of thousands—of jobs and make assisted area status unnecessary in south Wales and many parts of the valleys. How can the hon. Gentleman tell the House that he wants to bring jobs to Wales when he has campaigned so hard against the biggest and most important development in any city in Europe?
    Mr. Morgan: I am terribly pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on that point. He said that I had

    739
    campaigned viciously against the Cardiff bay barrage project. I must defer to his expertise in matters of viciousness. We are talking about whether the assisted area map of Wales is to be changed. The hon. Gentleman has ideas that that project could take the Cardiff area out of the assisted area map and mean that it would not need that status. I am sorry, but I think that assisted area status is needed in Cardiff and the other areas of Wales where the status presently applies.
    Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Morgan: No. I must get on.
    We are trying to work out objectively whether the jobs coming in equal the number of jobs going out. We are extremely pleased when substantial new employers move in. I cite the Bosch development at Pontyclun, the British Airways developments at Rhoose airport and Llantrisant on the way to Tonyrefail" the Trico development in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), the Sony expansion at Pencoed, the Toyota engine plant at Deeside and obviously the two new plants at Crumlin which were announced by the Secretary of State last week at or near Welsh Question Time. Those are eight extremely important new pillars of the 'Welsh economy. I am sure that they will provide hundreds of new jobs in the next few years.
    Those eight projects are the only ones of which I am aware that have been set up in the past three years that have the prospect of employing more people than a typical coal mine. I accept that Welsh coal mines are smaller on average than pits in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Welsh pits employ about 400 or 500 people. The problem is that we see coal mines closing and balance the job losses against the new projects of coal mine size that have come in.
    Is the hype justified? Is the success story that has put at risk so much of our development area status justified? Two points arise. If one packs out the inward investment to produce, say, the 201 projects last year, it has a depressing effect on encouragement of local business in Wales, to which the Secretary of State referred many times. If the Government keep emphasising the importance of one statistical indicator—inward investment—they make self-generated investment seem second-class.
    The Government's emphasis on inward investment has had a depressing effect and the Secretary of State should examine it. We now have a new chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and he should examine the psychology of encouraging the local business culture.
    We must also consider how unemployment is calculated. When the United Kingdom Government decide whether to reduce the number of areas covered by assisted area designation, 75 if not 80 per cent. of the weighted factors that they take into account relate to the headline count of unemployment. When the European Community draws the map of regional development and assisted areas, it looks much more at gross domestic product per head.
    Headline unemployment was a reasonably reliable indicator until about 10 years ago. It is decreasingly so. People might argue that the attacks on the validity and objectivity of the unemployment count should apply evenly across the regions and that, therefore, the relative status of Wales should not be affected.
    740
    However, we can see by comparing the level of employment with the level of unemployment in Wales that taking so many people off the unemployment register and putting them on to the sickness benefit register has had a particularly strong impact in Wales. It has not had such a strong impact on the south-east of England, largely because unemployment is so new that the area does not have a comprehensive employment service to get hold of the unemployed and say. "Wouldn't you rather sign on sick instead? It will get you off the register and give you more benefit."
    The ultimate hypocrisy of the Government is that, having successfully persuaded so many people in Wales to sign off the unemployment register and go on to the sickness register, the Prime Minister says that he cannot believe that so many more people are sick in the light of all the money that they are spending on the NHS; so he then attacks sickess benefit. People will then be pushed back on to the unemployment register in the autumn after the changes which we fear will come. That would be seen badly in Wales.
    The Government may have wanted to reduce the headline count of unemployment in the first three months of this year because they thought that it would make confidence lift off. It will be pretty tough if the Government push those same people off the sickness register back on to the dole once they think that the reduction in unemployment has taken off. We want objective data on sickness and unemployment benefit, so that there is an accurate measure across the country of which regions are doing well and which are doing badly and need assistance.
    Mr. Flynn: Another feature of the Welsh Office statistical massage parlour is that we arc told that we are the beneficiaries of economic miracles in our constituencies, whereas unemployment has increased 20 per cent. in my constituency and 22 per cent. in Monmouth. I asked the Government for figures on the number of jobs lost by outward divestment, through jobs moving overseas. The Welsh Office says that it cannot provide such figures because it does not collect them. It measures the jobs coming in, but not those moving out.
    Mr. Morgan: This is the good news only Government. They believe in purveying anecdotes as if they were objective statistics. My hon. Friend cites a classic example of the Government choosing not to consider outward divestment because it does not fit in with the marketing strategy. We want a statistically objective count of unemployment and employment, so that we may identify which areas need assistance.
    Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that manufacturing output in Wales has increased 25 per cent. since 1986? Is that not a general statistic rather than a detail plucked out of the air?
    Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that it is a general manufacturing statistic—but one can always pick out a favourable statistic as though it were a general principle. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the travel-to-work area that he represents can dispense with assisted area status? I will not press him to respond immediately because that could be embarrassing for him.

    741
    We understand that Newport is in peril of losing its assisted area status, despite the statistic that the hon. Gentleman gave.
    We further understand that it is possible that the Cardiff travel-to-work area will be split in two, along European regional development fund objective 2 lines, so that southern Cardiff and the southern part of the vale of Glamorgan will remain an assisted area, whereas the northern part will not. Presumably, the splitting of travel-to-work areas will occur in London, and that would set a precedent.
    We want to know how much assistance will be transferred out of Wales to the southern coastal towns. I see the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Ms. Lait) lurking on the Conservative Back Benches, and I do not imagine that she is doing so for no purpose. I do not think that it is out of her interest for Wales; rather, it is for what she can grab from Wales. Naturally, that worries us.
    Wales has a long way to go before it reaches the economic self-sufficiency that will enable it to do without subsidies. We noted all the exciting announcements made by the Secretary of State and his predecessors, and all the claims that Wales can be safely attached to the four great motor regions of Europe—Catalonia, Baden-Würtemberg, Lombardy and Rhone-Alpes. If they are the wheels of the Europe's motor regions, Wales is the exhaust pipe. We are getting there, but we have a long way to go. We cannot afford to leave it to a Secretary of State who is a bird of passage and who will be looking for promotion away from Wales. We need a Secretary of State who represents Wales and who is completely committed to the interests of Wales.
    9.2 pm
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is with some temerity that I intervene in a debate chiefly relating to Wales, but the motion makes reference to regional development in the United Kingdom and in peripheral regions, and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said that the southern coastal towns are quickly turning into peripheral regions.
    I am a great supporter of regional development. Coming as I do from Scotland, I remember when, 30 years ago, Rootes came to Linwood—two miles from my home at the time—and the destabilising effect that that had on the local economy. I remember also IBM moving to Greenock and providing jobs for many women whose husbands were working in the shipyards that so signally failed to compete.
    Later, there were road, motorway and other infrastructure developments, new factories, high-quality communications, land reclamation, tax breaks, rate relief and seedcorn capital—just the same as in Wales. The policy was very successful, despite the whingeing from the Opposition Benches.
    A graphic measure of regional development policy success is that historically, Scotland and Wales were the first to enter a recession and the last to emerge from it. This time, it is reckoned that, in general, Scotland and Wales were the last in, suffered less drastic recession than elsewhere, and are emerging from it earlier. Because of the success of the regional development policy, half the personal computers sold in Europe are made in Scotland.
    742
    It takes about an hour to drive the 60 miles from Glasgow to Perth. On a good day—perhaps I should not admit it—I can drive from London to Cardiff in under three hours. The train takes two hours.
    Unemployment throughout Wales is 10·2 per cent. There are only three constituencies where unemployment is above 13 per cent. In Hastings and Rye it is 13 per cent.; in Sittingbourne and Sheerness 14·6 per cent.; in Thanet 16·5 per cent.
    A comparison of the coastal towns of the south-east with Wales and Scotland is dramatic. For instance, Hastings is 67 miles from London, a little further than it is from Glasgow to Perth. During the day, it takes a minimum of two hours to drive those 67 miles. It often takes two and a half hours. The train takes an hour and a half—about the same time as it takes to get to Doncaster. The southern half of the A21 is still single carriageway. The A259, the route to the channel tunnel, the continent and prosperity, would be recognised, bar the tarmacadam, by the smugglers of the 18th century.
    Hastings has some home-grown companies, but it was a branch plant economy, which is how the Secretary of State described Wales historically. When the recession hit, there were the inevitable closures. Our biggest employers are the local council and the health service. While both are vital, neither can be called a wealth creator.
    We have high levels of drug and alcohol abuse, many single-parent families and alarmingly high levels of child abuse. Wages are well below the national average—reminiscent and indicative of inner-city problems. one of the indicators for assisted area status. The bleak s. atistics are similar to those in Scotland and Wales 30 years ago, when they embarked upon their regional development policy. We have seen that policy work. We must help other areas which need it now.
    While I understand and appreciate that the Welsh, the Scots and other regions like the north-east and the north-west would like to hold on to what they already have, places such as Hastings, Sittingbourne and Thanet need to benefit as well. We are not asking for much when we ask for assisted area status. We can only get selective and enterprise grants, help with industrial premises and the consultancy services of the Department of Trade and Industry.
    There are new poor areas in the United Kingdom. The south coast towns are part of them. We must adjust our development policies to take these changes on board. We must ensure that it is not only the United Kingdom Government who are aware of the empty factories, the length of the dole ques and the harm that is being done to the good and honest people we see around us.
    The EC Commissioner, who provides so much of the money now, needs also to be aware of those changed circumstances. Karel van Miert, the commissioner responsible, should visit the rich south-east, the area that he says is structurally and economically strong, and see the problems for himself. He must take on board the successes of the traditional development areas and learn about the difficulties of the new ones.
    We must change our regional devlopment policy, so that it recognises the new realities and enables areas such as the south coast towns, which are weak, to become as economically strong as, dare I say it, Wales and Scotland. We must refocus our regional development policy so as to enable all the British Isles, as they need it, to benefit from it.
    9.8 pm
    Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall be brief, because others want to speak in this short debate.
    The speech of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Ms Lait) was one of the best critiques and condemnations I have heard of 13 or 14 years of Conservative rule and of the kind of ideology that the Secretary of State—I do not want to be rude to him—has espoused since the early 1980s.
    Ms Lait: When the Labour party was in power many years ago, what did it do to help peripheral towns on the south coast?
    Mr. Davies: I find that interesting, but I do not think that unemployment was as the hon. Lady described. I mean no disrespect, but apparently Hastings and Rye are now on the periphery. That shows the general decline in the British economy, vis-a-vis the European economy, in the past 13 or 14 years. I cannot see how that decline will be arrested, but I shall return to that point later.
    I shall concentrate on assisted area status for my constituency and the effect that removal of intermediate status would have on it and on much of west Wales. I shall try to argue briefly that we deserve an uplift to the full assisted area status that we enjoyed until the early 1980s when, in his review, Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, removed Llanelli's full development area status.
    A few months later—I am not arguing cause and effect—a large private steel works, which had operated for a long time, closed for various reasons, with the loss of 1,200 jobs and ancillary jobs. Llanelli never regained its full development area status. The map that was drawn by Lord Joseph seemed to he cast in stone, and no changes were allowed to it.
    Mr. Richards: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when he was a Treasury Minister in the late 1970s, overmanning in the British steel industry was at crisis point—not unlike, perhaps, the present overmanning of the German steel industry?
    Mr. Davies: I do not dispute that many sections of British industry were overtnanned for a considerable time, and much had to be done to reduce that overmanning, but the point that I am making is that, in 1980–81 my constituency lost assisted area status. We have not recovered from the closure of the steel works, which was privately owned rather than nationalised—I do not want to waste time on an argument over its ownership, because it is not important.
    In 1979, fewer people were unemployed in my constituency than they are today, and income per head was higher. Economic activity rates were higher and—perhaps overmanning was a small part of this—40 per cent. of the work force in the Llanelli area were employed in production. The Secretary of State says that Wales is making it. That may be so, but in Llanelli they are making less of it today than they were 14 years ago. I accept that the statistics are somewhat simplistic, but the figure is now down to about 30 per cent.
    Since 1979, the standard of living in my constituency has declined. That industrial decline is mirrored in Wales, which is the poorest region of Britain, with the lowest income per head. Unemployment is higher than in 1979. Activity rates in Wales are lower than in 1979.
    744
    That also mirrors the decline in the British economy relative to western Europe, which was shown by the speech of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye. There has been a consequent effect not only for our economy and our industry but for our public services, with a breakdown in community discipline and family values and disciplines.
    The M4 motorway has brought great benefits, but the theory was that it would have a trickle-down effect. I see the Secretary of State nodding. In the 1980s, the teenage radical right advocated the trickle-down theory in the economy.
    I do not wish to be rude—not as rude as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—but I do not know whether those on the teenage radical right have grown up or whether they still believe in the trickle-down theory, which has largely been discredited. In any case, it has not worked with the M4.
    There has been little investment west of Swansea in places such as Llanelli, which has a great manufacturing, engineering and mining tradition. As we have heard, most of the investment has gone further east, so the M4 trickle-down theory has not worked. It was always argued that more factories would come to Bridgend, until all the land was taken, and that they would then go to Neath and Port Talbot—or vice versa—and then Swansea. My constituency has not received minor, let alone substantial, new investment in manufacturing since 1979.
    I do not believe that assisted area status, or inward investment, as it is called, is a panacea. We should begin by examining local industry in terms of sub-contracting, because many major firms, especially motor firms, sub-contract. Llanelli contains quite a few motor manufacturing and component firms. We should consider ways of improving the quality of what is produced by Welsh sub-contractors.
    Assisted area status is not a panacea, but it is of enormous help to a constituency like mine in obtaining manufacturing and engineering investment, which would not only provide jobs and hope for our young people but would preserve the many skills that we still have. Those skills will not last much longer unless we have the investment to enable us to take advantage of them.
    The Secretary of State will no doubt say that I am whingeing and offering nothing but doom and gloom. lie made great play of his years in the City and his time at Rothschild, which I am sure was valuable experience. However, I do not think that anyone from Rothschild or any other merchant bank who was considering the world economy would be too optimistic about inward investment to my part of the United Kingdom. The world economy does not look very good, and the unification of Germany does not encourage inward investment from Europe to the west of Britain.
    Perhaps the Secretary of State secretly agrees that the combination of a single market, the Maastricht treaty and the channel tunnel—the latter involves Hastings and Rye—will make it even more difficult to attract the investment that I believe we need, certainly west of Swansea and perhaps west of Bridgend.
    To me, the treaty means the centralisation even further away of economic and monetary power. It takes power from politicians and puts it in the hands of technicians. It means that politicians are unable to react to the problems caused by the marketplace. I shall not continue with that argument, because we have said it all before.

    745
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) did not seem to know where the periphery was. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye believes that it is in Hastings. I can tell the hon. Gentleman where it is—he is in it. Aberystwyth is the periphery; beyond Aberystwyth is Ireland and then the United States. We usually consider Britain in terms of north and south, but let us consider it in terms of east and west. East Britain does quite well but, if one draws a line down the middle, west Britain—especially parts of Wales—will find it extremely difficult to compete.
    The nationalists' motion states that the European Community is interested in the periphery. The Maastricht treaty is concerned only with the periphery in Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece but not in Wales. Wales does not feature in the infrastructure money, which, in any event, amounts to very little. It is no good the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) waving a document at me. I am perfectly capable of reading the Maastricht treaty, and I know that the motion would do nothing to alleviate the treaty's centralising tendencies. I would have thought that the fact that we are on the periphery is a strong argument for not changing our assisted area status.
    With great respect to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, if I was a young person at Rothschild carrying out an analysis of economic development, I would have examined the south and south-east of England. The President of the Board of Trade has advocated the east Thames development—which no doubt the Secretary of State considered in his previous position—quite rightly and logically in the context of the south-east of England. It is clear that that area will develop and benefit because it looks towards Europe, whether it looks east or south.
    In terms of the European Community, I would not be too worried about the south and south-east of England. It also has the channel tunnel. Boulogne is much closer to London than Llanelli. The problem is that the south-east will develop, as an economic area, as part of the Pas de Calais. Eventually, people will live in France and come to work in England or vice versa. That area will become partly English and partly French.
    We must consider the development of Europe and the centralisation that will inevitably take place as a result of the internal market and the Maastricht treaty. I accept that there is high unemployment in the south of England, but that is mainly due to a debt-ridden service economy which is no longer producing. Only about 5 per cent. of the people who work in the south of England actually make things, and that 5 per cent. are mainly engaged in armaments factories. The rest do not make anything.
    Although I have sympathy with the constituents of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye who may be out of work, we should not argue from the particular or on a short-term basis. The south and the south-east will develop as Europe develops. However, the areas that my colleagues and I represent will find it more difficult to develop.
    I make no special pleas for my constituency. However, I believe that we have a very good case for bringing back the full development area status to my constituency which we lost in 1980 before the major steelworks closed. The situation changed completely, and it has not returned to what it was in 1979. We should at least retain our intermediate status. I believe that there is a very strong
    746
    case to upgrade that to full development area status, so that we can obtain the investment to allow us to continue to make things and to make more things to contribute to the economy of Britain.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. Walter Sweeney: I was surprised that Plaid Cymru chose this topic for debate, in view of the central plank of its policy—that Wales should leave the United Kingdom. It seems to me that if that were to take place, investment in Wales would be decimated. It is very easy for a party with no prospects of forming a Government to argue for increased resources without saying where those resources will come from.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) described Wales, in his usual belittling fashion, as the exhaust pipe of the motor of growth. It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman, who has not stayed in the Chamber—[ Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He seems to have woken up. Would it not have been better for the hon. Gentleman to describe Wales as a fiery dragon on the bonnet? That is far closer to the reality of the current performance of Wales relative to other European countries.
    Unemployment in Wales is lower than the United Kingdom average for the first time since 1924. Is not that good news? Is not that something that the hon. Gentleman should mention so that the people of Wales will be encouraged to build on success?
    Since 1979, self-employment in Wales has increased by more than 36,000 to 158,000 people. During the 1980s, Wales gained an average of 1,400 new businesses a year, making a current total of 87,000 businesses. All that we hear from Opposition Members is about jobs lost. We do not hear about the jobs that have been created or that the number of employees in manufacturing has increased by 5 per cent. since 1986. We do not hear from them that manufacturing output is up by more than 25 per cent. since 1985. We do not hear from them that there are 800 new manufacturing plants in Wales since 1980, providing more than 50,000 new jobs, and we certainly do not hear from them about the 1,100 inward investment projects that have been created since 1983. Let us have an end to their doom and gloom and let us start fighting for Wales.
    9.25 pm
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I, too, congratulate Plaid Cymru on choosing this subject for debate. It gives us a valuable opportunity to discuss some serious points affecting the future of Wales. I intend to make more of a plea than an attack because, first, I believe the new Secretary of State to be a serious man who will understand serious points. Secondly, there might be some advantage in the fact that the new Secretary of State was not familiar with Wales. He might be able to take a fresher view of the development of Wales than has hitherto been the case—we shall see, but I shall be optimistic for the purposes of my short speech.
    We have heard much about infrastructure. I suggest to the Secretary of State that there are still serious problems with the infrastructure in Wales. There is much development to be done. I share the right hon. Gentleman's aspirations for Wales and his view that Wales should be inventive and that the best designs should come from Wales. Like the Secretary of State, I believe that

    747
    Wales has the best possible work force. However, we need to be able to build on the potential of that work force by ensuring that work can get to them and that they can do the work that is available.
    If I asked the Secretary of State how much freight is carried across central Wales by rail on the line from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth, would he know the answer? It is a very easy answer—absolutely zero. Petroleum used to be carried on a weekly train from Stanlow in Cheshire to Aberystwyth. British Rail put up its price by 50 per cent. I do not blame Shell for leaving that line when it faced a 50 per cent. price increase; it was a normal business conclusion that, it should transfer its fuel on to the road. However, the fact that it happened does not show a commitment by the Government to a rail infrastructure for Wales which central Wales deserves.
    Indeed, I suggest to the Secretary of State that there is a clear illogicality between the work that has been done by the Development Board for Rural Wales and the fact that the rural railway line that crosses central Wales appears to have been put in deliberate decline by British Rail and is no longer able to offer competitive freight rates.
    Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
    Mr. Carlile: I am delighted to see the Secretary of State nodding in agreement.
    The Development Board for Rural Wales has done an excellent job over the years within its terms of reference. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State endorse the future of the DBRW when I intervened on him. The DBRW has not had as full terms of reference as it should. Over the years, I have regretted—I have repeatedly made this point in the House—that the DBRW has not been directly involved in agriculture or in tourism. If the DBRVV had been able to build advance hotels, for example, just as it built advance factories, we should have seen a more suitable range of hotels in rural Wales. The development board appreciates the lack of hotels, especially those for people who want to do business in rural Wales, but the board has not been given the opportunity to take the initiatives that it might otherwise have taken in this context.
    It is wrong to look at tourism and industrial development as different species. I hope that the Secretary of State shares the view that they are both part of the same effort. I hope that he will regard it as logical to develop the rail infrastructure so that people wishing to go to those hotels when they are built, or those wishing to open research facilities in the great university town of Aberystwyth will be able to use a decent rail route to get there. At present, there is no such route.
    I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke. North (Mr. Dafis) about the need to ensure that economic development is sustainable and consistent with an environment which is acceptable to both the people of Wales and the Government's international treaty obligations.
    I ask the Secretary of State, especially in his appellate role with regard to planning matters, to ensure that, while the development of non-fossil fuel energy generation is a good thing, we do not face a future in which every hill top throughout Wales will have dozens of windmills on it. That matter is causing great controversy in my constituency and, indeed, in neighbouring constituencies. There is still room for more wind power development—we
    748
    have not yet reached saturation point—but I ask the Secretary of State to be conscious of the fact that we may reach saturation point soon and that that must be borne in mind as an aspect of the future of rural Wales.
    Mr. Dafis: I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, with only a few wind farms in existence, we are far from reaching saturation point. Does he accept the principle that we should be encouraging the establishment of small-scale wind farms of up to five turbines, which would blend in well with the landscape and make it possible for local companies to be involved in their development?
    Mr. Carlile: I suspect that it may be more realistic for developments of wind turbines to be economically based on somewhat larger wind farms than those to which the hon. Gentleman referred. But for the purposes of this point, I emphasise that I care not so much about the size of wind farms as the potential proliferation of them.
    Mr. Richards: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Carlile: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has already taken up a lot of time with interventions.
    A further point that I wish to make in my short speech relates to the agriculture industry. Agriculture is still the biggest industry in my constituency and, indeed, throughout rural mid and north Wales. But it struggles from crisis to crisis. Prices in the markets are a little higher at present, so the farmers are less pessimistic. However, they take it for granted that there will be another crisis around the corner and they are approaching that corner quickly.
    I have already made the point that I should like to see the Development Board for Rural Wales more directly involved in agriculture. The principal reason is that, for farmers living in rural mid and north Wales, diversification is difficult to achieve. There are only so many places where one can make love spoons and sell them to passing trade. There are only some parts of north and mid-Wales where one can grow pick-your-own strawberries, and even that season is short. There are dozens of country hotels and pubs on the market, so the potential for turning a farm into a holiday enterprise is strictly limited.
    We need to improve our road communications as well as rail communications to enhance the tourist potential. I ask the Secretary of State to see whether he can bring forward the development of a bypass for Newtown as quickly as possible to ensure that people have quicker access to those parts of Wales where tourism is especially attractive. I am not asking for a motorway. The last thing that we want is a dual carriageway to scar central Wales. We want adequate road communications proportionate to the problem.
    Some farmers are in a state, of desperation as they look for ways to diversify into tourism or otherwise. In my constituency, there has been an extremely sad and regrettable increase in suicides among farmers who face potential bankruptcy as the banks see the equity available against their loans diminishing.
    I hope that it is music to the ears of the Secretary of State to hear that the answer lies with him and the Welsh Office. They should be leading the fight to begin considering the common agricultural policy all over again.

    749
    As I go around farms in my constituency, I wonder whether the present system of delivering grants and subsidies, many of which are substantially defrauded—not in Wales, but in other countries—is the best way in which to sustain farming. I hope that, as Lady Thatcher has said on many occasions, the Government will encourage the expansion of the European Community to include countries in central and eastern Europe, those formerly in the Soviet bloc, and countries such as Romania, which I visited in the past week, and to give them a share of Europe's development. That may give us the opportunity to start with a clean sheet of paper for a new agricultural policy that could benefit Wales.
    I am fast coming to the conclusion that we could bring the price of food down and make contracts with farmers that would mean that, at the worst, farmers would not be worse off, and would mean that the housewife or the man who buys the weekly groceries would pay less for them. I see the future of a prosperous agriculture in Wales as one based on contracts with the farmer to produce the food needed and to sustain the environment that we love, not the situation in which we flounder between subsidies, arguing year after year about small changes up or down.
    I have raised three principal points about which I feel strongly. They are all worth considering as one tries to take a bird's eye view of the economic future of Wales. There are many other issues I would like to raise but there is not time. If we hear the Secretary of State or the Minister saying something positive in response about those three issues, I shall feel encouraged.
    9.38 pm
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: I shall follow my neighbour from Powys, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) by reacting to a couple of the points that he mentioned. He urged the Secretary of State to seek to take some role in the planning process of wind farming development. On the contrary, local democracy should decide where wind farms are placed and I applaud my right hon. Friend's predecessor for deciding that the decision in Radnorshire should be made locally.
    I endorse much of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales, and about the strong role of the development board throughout my area and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). If I have a criticism of the development board, it is that it is rather more active in the hon. Gentleman's constituency than it is in mine, but I hope to work on that in the years ahead.
    One change I urge my right hon. Friend to make is in the role of inward investment, which is rightly highlighted by Conservative Members. At present, inward investment goes primarily to north and to south Wales, not only because of the population, but because the WDA is the agency bringing in international investment. Although the WDA brings in investment on behalf of the DBRW, the board ought to have had more of a role in international consultation and in developing inward investment.
    My next observation is important in the context of this debate. Conservative Members are sometimes criticised for being too positive by Opposition Members who adopt
    750
    too gloomy a view. The motion has been tabled by Plaid Cymru. Recently, we had a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. Since the debate took place, unemployment in the constituencies of Plaid Cymru Members has dropped by 2,331. I am sorry that they have not found time to mention that in this debate.
    Today is the day that David Kerns, the chief economist of NatWest, says that we may see very much stronger employment growth in Wales than in any other region of the United Kingdom. We might have waited too long to hear that news from the Opposition. Yet again, it has had to be said by Conservative Members.
    9.40 pm
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones(Ynys Môn): As my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) said, this debate is opportune. It has been an excellent debate because it has given hon. Members from Wales and from outside an opportunity to discuss the important issue of regional development. In the time allotted to me, I shall not be able to refer to all the contributions. However, there are two points to which I wish to respond.
    First, the Secretary of State said that we in Wales must be ready to recognise that good ideas sometimes come from outside Wales. Let me put the Secretary of State right. We accept that point. Over all the generations, the Welsh people have accepted influences from outside. In the great tradition of Welsh culture and language, we have always accepted outside influences and have assimilated them.
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. I said that the European Community, when framing technology principles and policies, should understand that point. It was not a criticism of Wales; it was a specific remark about high-definition television.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for correcting my impression.
    Secondly, I shall respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). He said that he was surprised that my party wanted to discuss issues of regional development and he posed the question of where the money would come from. Increasingly, the money is coming from the European Community. The problem is that if the hon. Gentleman had had his way and the House had voted against the Maastricht treaty, Wales would have been cut off from a valuable source of investment and resources.
    Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jones: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has made a number of interventions. Indeed, he has almost made a speech through interventions.
    We believed when we set the topic for tonight's debate that it would be an important and timely debate. It is an important debate because of the European Community's recognition of the fact that countries such as Wales need assistance if they are to compete against the Community's core areas. The problem with the contribution by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who unfortunately is not in his place, is that the Community recognises the fact that Wales is a peripheral nation. That is why the structural funds, which are currently being reconsidered, recognise the need to reduce that peripherality. It is

    751
    because the European Community recognises that that we want to put the Secretary of State on the spot by asking him whether he agrees with that analysis.
    The debate is also timely because the Commission is currently considering the plans of the Department of Trade and Industry—not the plans of the Welsh Office—to ditch parts of Wales from assisted area status and to replace them with areas in the south-east of England. During Welsh Question Time, I referred briefly to an article in The Sunday Times on 20 June. The article says:
    "Brussels officials studying the proposals"—
    the proposals submitted by the DTI—
    "said yesterday they did not believe any area south of Birmingham should qualify for aid: 'I can see little reason that the British government should include any southern region, even if they have been particularly touched by the recession,' said one Brussels source. A spokesman for Karel van Miert, the Belgian EC commissioner responsible for competition policy, said: 'We feel the money should be concentrated in areas of maximum need. We want the weaker regions to get the money to enable them to move up to the national average. If they finish up getting less, the aid scheme is no longer viable.'''
    Can the Secretary of State for Wales tell us who speaks for Wales? Is it the European Commissioner, the Welsh Office or the Department of Trade and Industry?
    Mr. Richards: It is not the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Jones: I can only say, in reply to that interruption, that we are making the strongest possible argument that it is not the Welsh Office.
    What does the Commissioner mean when he says that he wants the weaker regions to get the money so that they may be enabled to move up to the national average? He means that the money that is earmarked for regional development should go to those areas whose economies have traditionally been weak and have needed support. I do not subscribe to the view that an economy can be improved only by pumping public money into it. I accept the analysis that there must be a partnership between the private sector and the public sector. However, I do not accept that parts of Wales should be ditched as the Department of Trade and Industry tries to save some Tory skins in the south-east of England.
    This is also a very important debate because it puts into sharp focus the need for the Welsh Office to speak in the Cabinet for Wales. Will the DTI succeed on this occasion'? The Secretary of State has told us that it will. He has said that, on the basis of unemployment rates in Wales, half of the assisted area status would be lost. Even if it were less than half, Wales would still lose. Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that no part of Wales will lose assisted area status? I am afraid that he is not prepared to give such an assurance. Brussels is sending the map back to be redrawn. We believe that this is an opportunity for the new Secretary of State to tell us where he stands on the issue. May we expect a response from his hon. Friend who will wind up?
    This is also an important debate because the Secretary of State could have told us whether he is personally committed to regional development. Does he support the notion that, owing to the disadvantages of location and infrastructure, areas must be given assistance to compete? If he believes that that is so, and if he rejects the notion that the market can deliver everything—the notion with which he came to the House in 1987—he has moved substantially along the road to the position taken up by his predecessors. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion
    752
    and Pembroke, North highlighted the problem: if the marketplace, and the marketplace only, were to determine where industry should go, the social and cultural upheaval in Wales would be enormous, and the result would be catastrophic. To succeed, Wales has always relied on a partnership between the private sector and the public sector. We want to see that continue.
    The Secretary of State said something like, "If only Opposition Members would spend time talking to business people …" But we do spend time talking to business people.
    Before he came to this place my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spent his life in industry. We speak to industrialists in our constituencies and we understand the problems of industry in Wales. The Secretary of State should recognise that.
    We gave the Government a test and they have failed it. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State chided the Labour party's spokesman for laughing, but now the right hon. Gentleman is laughing. He must listen to what hon. Members have to say. First, the Secretary of State failed to reassure us about his commitment to regional development. He failed to give guarantees about assisted area status and he failed to persuade us that the Welsh Office speaks for Wales in the Cabinet when it is faced with a challenge from the DTI. That is why we have no alternative but to challenge the Secretary of State in the Lobby.
    9.51 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Inevitably, debates on Welsh affairs follow the traditional pattern. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said last week, the Government side has been winning and the Opposition side has been whingeing, not least by way of the speech by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). Where failure is, failure sits—on the Opposition Benches.
    The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who started with the usual cheap shots about my right hon. Friend. I suppose that I could congratulate him, because for once he outdid the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who concentrated instead on doom and gloom. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North wanted to play down the successess that even he had to admit have taken place under the Government. The hon. Gentleman said, "That is not to whinge," and that shows that the point has struck home. But that was exactly what he did throughout his speech.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke twice about the significance of any closure or rundown of military establishments in Wales. That is in contrast to his apiration for an autonomous nation of Wales. If that came about, he would make sure that all military bases were closed without any regard for the consequences for the people of Wales.
    His protestations are totally hollow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with a wide range of positive and practical measures for the economic development of Wales. That is in stark contrast to the position in Wales in 1979, when it was not just dependent but dangerously over-dependent on a handful of basic industries that were rapidly declining. It had a legacy of

    753
    problems that were not addressed but deferred; that was confirmed by the past-tense remarks by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
    In Wales, we have a range of different programmes underlying the economic measures that we have consistently'and successfully pursued for 14 years. We do not propose to abandon them. My right hon. Friend's speech should have left hon. Members in no doubt that we are continually seeking to improve and adapt our programmes to meet the needs of the 1990s and beyond. Our objectives are clear: we want to broaden our recovery, widen our industrial base and build on our strengths in Wales.
    I welcomed the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who endorsed exactly what we have been doing by asking that more of the same should be done in his area. It is remarkable that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West belatedly welcomed the announcement of new jobs for Crumlin. He is a week late, and he kept his remarks to the singular.
    I remind the House that, in the past week, there have been 1,000 new jobs for ASAT, 480 for Aiwa, a possible 1,000 for British Coal Enterprise, 240 from six companies announcing expansion plans, 58 for Addis in Swansea, and another 160 are on the threshold of being announced. With the exception of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, who made a remarkable admission, no Opposition Member welcomed any of those announcements.
    I should record another positive contribution—from the right hon. Member for Llanelli, who suggested that more should be done to encourage sub-contracting in the motoring industry. I reflected on this when my right hon. Friend was talking about his vision and goal that Wales should lead in new products, quality goods and be at the cutting edge of innovation. But what did we hear from the hon. Member for Newport. West (Mr. Flynn)? He dismissed that goal as fantasy. He does not care.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jones: Many hon. Members referred to the reveiw of assisted area status. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye—
    Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The subject of this debate is assisted area status for Wales. I have listened very carefully to the Minister, but he has not mentioned it from the word go.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not a valid point of order.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not listening, because I had begun to talk about the assisted area review.
    I was reminding the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) has stated a plain and good case for assisted area status for her constituency in the south-east of England. I am sure that she will understand why I cannot respond specifically to her case, but I know full well that the representations she has made will be given the fullest consideration. I acknowledge her point about inviting Commissioner van Miert to visit the south-east of England.
    754
    At least my hon. Friend spoke positively about the need for extending assisted area status, unlike the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, who radiated gloom and doom in predicting that damage would be forthcoming for Wales.
    The Government's proposals were submitted to the European Commission 15 June. The Commission's initial criteria are based on local unemployment rates over recent years, compared to national and EC averages. The Commission will also be concerned with the overall coverage of any new map, compared with similar coverages in other member states.
    Our proposals for the new assisted areas map are based on a balance of all the factors—for example, unemployment, urban problems and, as Opposition Members have requested, activity levels. We hope that the Commission will feel able to approve it. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn asked me to respond to that point, but it has been covered by what my right hon. Friend said earlier. We have sought the right deal for Wales.
    The only issue now is the Commission's proposals. We cannot anticipate how long it will take it to complete its consideration. In order not to prejudice negotiations with the Commission, and to avoid uncertainty, no information on the proposed map will be made available until EC approval has been received. We must await EC clearance, but we are aware of the difficulties caused by continuing uncertainty, and we hope to make the announcement before the summer recess.
    As with earlier assisted area maps, measures of employment were the main criterion, although other factors were taken into account. While the exercise cannot be wholly statistical, we shall ensure that decisions are fair and consistent. There will continue to be two tiers of support—development areas and intermediate areas—and the travel-to-work areas will continue to be the main area unit. Once the announcement is made, the Government will set out clearly the basis for our decisions.
    The contribution of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West dwelt on his disappointment that unemployment has fallen and continues to fall. He dragged in the red herring that people were being made to go on sickness benefit instead of the uemployment register. He then accused us of trying to push people off the sickness register. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways.
    I contrast his remarks with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who spoke of the success in the reduction of unemployment figures. Unemployment in Wales is less than the national average. He rightly said that that good news should be acknowledged.
    In a telling intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) pointed out that, through our proposals for Cardiff bay, we seek to achieve more than 20,000 new jobs. He referred to the "vicious campaign" of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West against that. Significantly, the hon. Gentleman had no answer to that.
    We have had a varied debate. In the short time left for me this evening, I am afraid that it is not possible for me to respond to every point that has been made. Opposition Members have had their say, but actions speak louder than words. The Government will not be—nor would we wish to be—judged on our rhetoric. We want to be judged on our performance.
    We now have the lowest inflation for nearly 30 years, the lowest interest rates for 15 years, the fastest growth of

    755
    manufacturing productivity for more than six years, the best performance on unit wage costs in manufacturing and high business confidence, particularly in Wales. There can be no doubt that Wales is in a position to make the most of recovery and to continue the very real progress that has been made.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question—
    The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 150.

    Division No. 309]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Bayley, Hugh

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Caborn, Richard

    Mahon, Alice

    Callaghan, Jim

    Meale, Alan

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Michael, Alun

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Rendel, David

    Cryer, Bob

    Simpson, Alan

    Dafis, Cynog

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Dixon, Don

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Turner, Dennis

    Eastham, Ken

    Tyler, Paul

    Etherington, Bill

    Wallace, James

    Flynn, Paul

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Hanson, David

    Worthington, Tony

    Harvey, Nick

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Cash, William

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Clappison, James

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Ashby, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkins, Robert

    Congdon, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Conway, Derek

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bates, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Devlin, Tim

    Booth, Hartley

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Dover, Den

    Bowis, John

    Duncan, Alan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Dunn, Bob

    Brazier, Julian

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Bright, Graham

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Evennett, David

    Burns, Simon

    Fabricant, Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Butler, Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    756

    French, Douglas

    Paice, James

    Garnier, Edward

    Patnick, Irvine

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Richards, Rod

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hague, William

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Harris, David

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Hayes, Jerry

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Heald, Oliver

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Hendry, Charles

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Horam, John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Jack, Michael

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Sproat, Iain

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Stephen, Michael

    Key, Robert

    Stern, Michael

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Stewart, Allan

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Sumberg, David

    Knapman, Roger

    Sweeney, Walter

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Thomason, Roy

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Legg, Barry

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Lidington, David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Trend, Michael

    Luff, Peter

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    MacKay, Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Waller, Gary

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Malone, Gerald

    Waterson, Nigel

    Mans, Keith

    Wells, Bowen

    Marlow, Tony

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Whittingdale, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Milligan, Stephen

    Wilkinson, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Willetts, David

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Needham, Richard

    Wood, Timothy

    Nelson, Anthony

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

    Page, Richard

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the progress that the Welsh economy has made in recent years as a result of the Government's policies; and notes with approval that the Government intends to continue to pursue vigorously these same policies that have brought about this success.

  Members' Interests
  10.11 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests of Session 1991–92 (House of Commons Paper No. 326) relating to the registration and declaration of Members' financial interests, provided that the recommendation in paragraph 84 of the Report relating to the declaration of any relevant registered interest at the time of tabling an early day motion shall apply only to the Member in charge of such a motion.
  As the House knows, this is the first of two debates this evening arising from reports by the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It is appropriate that I should begin by paying tribute to the Chairman of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and his colleagues on the Committee for their careful consideration of the sensitive issues with which they deal on our behalf.
  I probably do not need to remind the House that the impetus for the report arose from an unhappy incident in the previous Parliament, following which there was a widespread view that the rules governing the declaration of interests needed some clarification. That view was echoed by my predecessor in his evidence to the Select Committee in 1991 when he said:
  "there is still uncertainty among a lot of Members about what should and should not be declared under certain headings …I think it would be a worthwhile thing …to go through the list and actually give Members rather more detailed advice as to what should be declared and what should not."
  The Select Committee's subsequent report on registration and declaration was debated by the House last year. The response on that occasion has led the Government to table a motion to give effect to its recommendations, with one modification, so that they can be effective in the establishment of the register for the next Session. The main purposes of the motion, therefore, are to authorise the use of the new registration form that the Committee proposed in its report and to give Members clearer and more explicit guidance as to the matter in which they should register their financial interests.
  I will briefly set out the main changes in practice that the report recommends. In many cases—this has perhaps not always been as clear as members of the Committee would have liked—the matters are of clarification rather than completely new provisions. Taking business interests first, a Member who has an association with a company is already required to name it, but he would now be expected to state briefly the nature of the company's business. Most people would think that that is reasonable.
  As for shareholdings, the existing rule is that a holding of 1 per cent. issued share value of any company must be declared. That rule would be modified to require the registration of shareholdings with a nominal value of more than £25,000, as well as those that constitute more than 1 per cent. of the issued shared capital of the company.
  The new form would also require clearer details about clients of consultancies linked to the work of right hon. and hon. Members in the House. Right hon. and hon. Members must already register any consultancy firms to which they provide advice. The Committee's recommendation is that, in future, right hon. and hon. Members should not only register any consultancy firm to which they provide advice but list any of the firm's clients to
  758
  which the right hon. or hon. Member personally provides any services. That, too, is more a matter of explicit clarification than of innovation, because I understand that at present the registrar advises right hon. and hon. Members who ask that they should register the names of clients on whose account they have worked.
  The report recommends that membership of Lloyd's should be more clearly described. Ever since the register was established, right hon. and hon. Members have always been advised to register their membership of Lloyd's. The Committee now proposes that they should detail the individual syndicates to which they belong. I understand that the Committee's view was that, just as right hon. and hon. Members should register the nature of the business of firms with which they are connected, so too should they register the number of their Lloyd's syndicate—a measure that clarifies the nature of the insurance business with which right hon. and hon. Members are involved.
  The report recommends also that the provisions relating to land and property should be clarified. Right hon. and hon. Members would not be required to list their individual holdings, but they would be expected to specify the nature and general location of any property other than—I emphasise this point—any home or second home that has a substantial value or produces a substantial income.
  A new provision recommended by the Committee is that gifts in excess of £125, including cash gifts, would need to be registered, as would hospitality, services or benefits in kind greater than 0·5 per cent. of the parliamentary salary, which is currently about £155. Those limits are broadly in line with those for Ministers and would avoid the obvious absurdity of requiring an entry every time that, for example, someone attended a lunch or dinner.
  As to the right hon. or hon. Member's relationship with his constituency party—there will be particular interest in this point in many quarters—the report proposes a clearer definition of sponsorship. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden may have something more to say on that. It may help the House if I explain the Government's understanding of that section of the report.
  The Committee's proposal on the registration of donations to associations applies only to donations from a company or organisation. It does not apply where the donor is an individual, and I am sure that it is right to maintain the privacy of such donations. Where a donation is made by a company or an organisation, the Committee proposes that it would need to be declared if it exceeded £500 and was made on a regular basis and was not just a one-off or occasional donation, and—perhaps this is particularly important—the donation was linked to an individual right hon. or hon. Member's candidacy or membership of the House, or if the right hon. or hon. Member himself acted as intermediary between the donor organisation and the constituency party.
  It is important to note that where a donation is made as an expression of general support for the party, as opposed to support or sponsorship of a particular candidate, it would not need to be declared. As the report states on page 17:
  "Donations made directly to a constituency party as an expression of general political support, not linked to the Member's candidacy or membership of the House, should not be registered: and similarly it will not be necessary to register a trade union donation to a constituency party which is not linked to the promotion of a particular parliamentary candidate."
  Ms Angela Eagle: I speak as a Member of Parliament who was sponsored by the Confederation of Health Service Employees—as it will be for only a couple of days more, because it will be named Unison thereafter—only after selection and election. What is the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the new rules in my particular case, as I was not sponsored through the selection process?
  Mr. Newton: Should the motion be agreed tonight, the hon. Lady may wish to obtain the registrar's advice. However, I understand that the hon. Lady would need to declare an interest only if the amount involved exceeded £500 a year and was linked directly to her candidacy or membership of the House. In other words, she would have to do that only if it were an annual sum that amounted to more than £500, which had been given on the basis that it related to her rather than to her constituency Labour party or association.
  I am sure that the House will think it right that where an individual Member is receiving what amounts to—this is the case that the hon. Lady put to me—substantial sponsorship from a company or an organisation on a regular basis, sponsorship that is related to his or her candidacy or membership of the House, that should be declared. Equally, where donations are in support of the party itself, whatever their source or size, they would not need to be declared.
  None of this affects the existing rules relating to contributions to a Member's election expenses, which are unchanged. Members should continue to register any sponsorship that exceeds 25 per cent. of their election expenses.
  There are also some provisions relating to Members' staff.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I own small amounts of property and I have always declared the fact that I own small amounts of property. Why is it relevant whether the property is in Lewisham or not?
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir. G. Johnson Smith) may wish to comment on that question. That is the proposal in the Committee's report. I did not feel that it was a sufficiently important point to justify a special departure from an all-party agreed report that has put these recommendations before the House.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister answer a, simple question that we argued long about in our Committee proceedings? Why should a Labour Member of Parliament sponsored by a trade union, who is under no particular pressure from that union—[Interruption.] That is the case. We are talking about £600 per annum. Let us move into the real world. The fact is that £600 a year is a very small amount of money. [ Interruption.] I agree that over five years, it amounts to £3,000.
  Why should a Labour Member of Parliament be required to register and declare that sum of money, while a Scottish Member of Parliament who received £10,000 from a property developer in Scotland—hon. Members know about it because it is in the report, and the House may wish to comment on it tonight—is not required to declare that sum? That hon. Gentleman did nothing wrong. He is a perfectly honourable Member of this House, but his constituency party received £10,000 in a
  760
  12-month period. I want to know why he does not have to declare it, while a trade union-sponsored Member who gets £600 has to declare it.
  Mr. Newton: It seems to me that the issue is whether that constitutes the regular annual sponsorship of a particular individual. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee that produced this agreed report. It is open to him to advance the reasons for a different set of recommendations during the speech that he will no doubt seek to make, if he is successful in catching your eye, Madam Speaker. However, I am setting before the House as clearly as I can the recommendations that are contained in the report.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask another question?
  Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may make one point before I give way again to the hon. Gentleman. As I have just said, the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in the matter is well known, was a member of the Committee, and he has pressed me to put its recommendations before the House. It would be more appropriate, I believe, for him to develop the arguments in favour of his alternative report to the one that he signed in a speech, rather than by putting points to me in this way. However, I do not want to prevent him from doing so, if he wishes. Therefore I shall give way to him again.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the difference between a trade union-sponsored Member of Parliament who receives £600 a year for his constituency party and a Conservative Member of Parliament who receives £600 a year from the local industrial council? Is there more pressure on a Labour Member than on a Conservative Member? We know that it goes on.
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden may wish to elaborate on the point, but I understand that the Committee was quite reasonably seeking a definition of regular annual sponsorship related specifically to a candidate or Member rather than to the constituency Labour party, a Conservative association or, for that matter, a Liberal association. That was a reasonable distinction to seek to draw; but if the hon. Gentleman thinks differently, he will no doubt elaborate on his reasons in the debate.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have been sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers for 23 years and have been a member of it for 44 years. It is proper for Members of Parliament to declare in the register that they are sponsored by a specific union. It is important to do that. Those of us who are sponsored in this fashion are happy to let it be known, and anyway I do not take all that much notice of the union's decisions. For instance, the year before last, it was in favour of proportional representation. I said, "I am not supporting that and, what is more, I will change the union's view." I campaigned in the union to get it back on the straight and narrow—first past the post—which the executive agreed by 13 votes to three. It was a great campaign. I am quite happy to do that, but if Tories are getting money from businesses, the amount of money should appear in the register, because then it is quid pro quo.
  Mr. Newton: I am rather more glad than usual that the hon. Gentleman's advocacy of a proposition was

  761
  successful. It is entirely open to him to advance that point of view. I do not agree with it and it was not what the Committee recommended.
  Mr. Skinner: What, first past the post?
  Mr. Newton: No, I am talking now about the hon. Gentleman's subsequent remarks.
  That was not what the Committee recommended. It is not what I am proposing and I do not think that the argument holds. If the union chooses to give money to Bolsover Labour party, I do not see why it should have to declare it any more than the report would require. If it is specifically related to the candidacy of the hon. Gentleman or his membership of the House, that is a different matter. That, as I understand it, is the distinction that the Select Committee was seeking to draw.
  The report proposes that visits and benefits provided for Members' staff should now have to be registered. I had some reservations about this proposal and whether it was really worth the effort involved, so my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden arranged to consult the relevant staff associations, neither of which, although he may wish to elaborate on this, has raised any objection. Holders of permanent passes as Members' secretaries or research assistants will have to register visits, gifts or benefits on the same basis as Members.
  The report proposes some administrative changes. The Select Committee would be authorised to make minor—I must emphasise "minor"—modifications to the rules, such as to improve ambiguities or to bring financial limits up to date, without the need for further recourse to the House. The scope of such changes would be strictly limited, which I am sure the House will think right. The last sentence of paragraph 66 of the report states:
  "other changes—and particularly any which involve a major alteration of the categories or definitions of registerable interests—will of course still require approval by the House."
  After a general election, Members would be given more time in which to complete the registration form. At present, they are allowed four weeks; in future, they will have three months.
  I draw to the attention of the House one issue on which the Government propose a slight change to what the Committee recommended in its report. Following an earlier recommendation by the 1974–75 Committee, which was chaired by Mr. Fred Willey, the Committee recommended that the sponsor and the first five supporters of an early-day motion, or an amendment to an early-day motion, should be required to declare any relevant registered interest verbally or in writing to the Table Office at the time of tabling. When the motion appeared on the notice paper, a symbol would be printed by the hon. Member's name to signal that an interest had been declared.
  I do not need to tell the House that the number of early-day motions has been growing significantly. I think that I am right in saying that, when I first entered the House just under 20 years ago, there were probably 500 a year. I know from business questions on Thursdays that there have been well over 2,000 in the present Session, and the flow shows little sign of stopping. Every day, the Table Office has to deal with several hundred added names—sometimes more than 1,000—most of which arrive in the post. The recommendation, if it covered all the names
  762
  suggested in the report, would therefore place a large additional burden of work on the Table Office and would divert the Clerks from the task of dealing with questions and offering advice to hon. Members, which I think the House would regard as more important.
  A further specific problem to illustrate the type of difficulty that could arise is that it might not be possible to tell hon. Members reliably whether their signature would be among the first six, as new signatures might already have been handed in which had not yet appeared on the computer. My advice to the House is that the main thrust of the Committee's recommendation can he achieved with an acceptable amount of extra work if the requirement is limited to the sponsor of the motion. That is the purpose of the Government's motion.
  I acknowledge that it could be argued that someone could circumvent the provision by getting someone else to table the motion in his or her name, but it would not be much more difficult to get six other people to table the motion and then to add one's name as the seventh. The practical gain would therefore be limited in following the Committee's recommendation as distinct from that suggested in the Government motion.
  Subject to the approval of the House, I understand that Madam Speaker has authorised the application of this procedure in relation to early-day motions—or acknowledgement of interests in respect of the first name—from the start of the new Session.
  As I said in response to an intervention, some people will no doubt have reservations about one or more of the report's recommendations, and in both directions—some will have wanted it to go further and some perhaps not quite as far. However, the report has been produced by an all-party Committee and was generally agreed, although there were arguments on one or two points. The Committee was chaired by a senior and respected Conservative Member. I believe that the House would be right to accept these useful improvements in our system of registration and declaration—
  Sir Roger Moate: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend. On that very point, if one does have reservations—one can discern possible matters about which one might have some, despite the general acceptance of the report—is it right to approve the report in full, bearing in mind that it is often the small points that give rise to problems of interpretation? When my right hon. Friend answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), he admitted to having a reservation himself. Is it right that we should give carte blanche approval, without further examination, to a report of considerable significance? Would it not be better to hear the views of the House and decide whether some of the points—
  Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions should be short.
  Mr. Newton: I shall make two points. First, we debated this issue a little less than a year ago in order to asses the House's general reaction. It would be fair to say that reasonable support was expressed. Secondly, I do not think that I expressed a particular reservation in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) but said that, if it were a matter of explaining the Committee's thinking, it seemed more

  763
  appropriate that it should he done by the Chairman of the Committee rather than by my attempting to interpret what was in the Committee's mind.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the report was compiled not on the initiative of Selective Committee, but in response to a request from the House following a debate about a former hon. Member who had complained about difficulties? The general view expressed by the House, through a vote on a motion, was that the Committee should clarify the rules. This report is a response to that request.
  Mr. Newton: Yes, I adverted to that at the outset of my speech.
  Clearly, several hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) sensed that I was trying to bring my—I hope reasonably brief—remarks to an end. The improvements to our system of registration and declarations are useful; they will remove some of the dilemmas that hon. Members have faced as a result of the lack of clarity in certain respects. I hope that the House will support their implementation tonight. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
  10.35 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I am pleased to be relieved of the necessity of continually asking the Leader of House, on behalf of my hon. Friends, for this debate. We are pleased to have tonight's debate and to deal with the matter before us.
  We are particularly pleased because the initial move to set up a register, as the Leader of the House recognised, was made under a Labour Government in 1974. There were then two parts to the resolution. According to the first part of that resolution, the declaration of Members' interests should be made a rule rather than a convention. The second part of the resolution set up the register itself so that hon. Members could assess any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which might be thought to affect the conduct of Members or the influence that they might exert.
  I wish first to refer to the emphasis in the initial report, and the emphasis in this excellent report, on the responsibility on individual Members to ensure that they satisfy the conventions and rules of the register and, if they are in any doubt, to err on the side of including matters in the register rather than leaving them out. As the then Speaker said in evidence to the Select Committee:
  "Members who hold consultancy and similar positions must ensure that they do not use their positions as members improperly."
  I am aware that many hon. Members, quite rightly, want to speak in the debate, so I shall be brief. With regard to the declaration of interest, when the register was first set up, many of the reservations expressed by those who were unhappy about the procedure were along the lines that it would be very important for hon. Members not to think that the register should replace the need for a declaration of interest.
  To a certain extent, for all of us, such declarations are subjective impressions. However, it is my impression that declarations of interest are hardly ever made these days. I understand how that has occurred, as there must be an instinctive feeling among many hon. Members that if the
  764
  matter is in the Register of Members' Interests, people are free to look it up. Indeed, one often sees hon. Members speedily consulting the register, particularly when debates on contentious matters are taking place.
  However, I wonder whether the Select Committee or the House should consider whether there is any way of reminding hon. Members afresh of their duty to make a declaration and that that duty is not extinguished by the existence of the register. For example, I want to declare an interest in that I am proud to be a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union. That interest is declared in the register. However, I rarely recall hon. Members making such declarations in the House or in Committee these days. We should consider whether we can improve that situation.
  Also, we are seeing a number of changes in public policy and in the assumptions and the conventions of behaviour which reinforce our concern about the register and also the need for hon. Members to consider whether they themselves would wish to make a declaration. If I may take an example from outside this place, increasing concern has been expressed about the way in which civil servants are seen to move—I recognise, of course, with the permission of the Government, with the waiving of the rules—much more directly than has been the case in the past, straight from Departments into private industries with which they frequently were dealing a short time before. That is becoming an issue of growing concern.
  Without wishing unduly to upset Conservative Members, I draw attention to the fact that, after a long period in government, people retire as former Ministers. Paragraph 15 of the Select Committee's report refers to the fact that the ministerial rules are so phrased that Ministers are discouraged from using information that they receive as Ministers for private gain, and quite properly.
  We all recall well-publicised cases in which hon. Members have gone very speedily—more speedily than would have been expected some years ago—from the Cabinet into private companies and, in some cases, on to the boards of companies over whose privatisation they had presided. There is nervousness and unease in the House about those matters, which. makes it all the more important that we should be vigilant and try to get the balance right.
  It is right—this theme runs through the report, and some hon. Members may have doubts about it—that such issues should remain largely in the control of hon. Members. That is my own point of view because, when we are dealing with such issues, we are conscious of the degree to which our common experience might make hon. Members share a view which might not be so widely held outside. That is natural among any group of individuals who have some common experience and who have, therefore, to some extent shared perceptions and understanding of the nature of the work and its pressures.
  I am reminded, for example, of a letter that I received the other day from someone who is not a constituent of mine, mentioning an issue for me to raise because it was a matter of great concern to that individual. I wrote back as courteously as I could explaining that, as the matter involved neither a constituent nor an issue which came within my own domain, I did not feel able to take up the campaign. I explained that all hon. Members receive requests and pressures to take up certain issues and

  765
  campaigns which they are simply unable to meet, physically or in any other way, and that everybody has to make choices.
  I was slightly dismayed to receive a prompt reply saying, "I had no idea that Members of Parliament could choose whaf aspects of their work they wished to pursue. I am delighted to hear that. I will now renew my pressure on everybody to whom I have written and say that they must take up this campaign." Every hon. Member is conscious that such correspondence is received almost daily and that it is literally impossible for any hon. Member to take up all the issues and raise all the campaigns that some people outside this place wish us to take up.
  For such reasons it is right that these matters should remain within the control of the House. However, while they remain within the control of the House and of hon. Members, it is all the more essential that it is seen that that control is not being misused and that we are vigilant about the standards that we apply. Otherwise it will be difficult to justify keeping the matter within the hands of hon. Members primarily.
  It is sensible—to some extent it might be an answer to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate)—that paragraph 66 of the Select Committee report suggests that it should be within the remit of the Select Committee to make minor modifications. That paragraph refers to the need to make minor modifications to the guidance in order to remove ambiguities as well as to deal with altering the financial limits without it being necessary to come back to the Floor of the House for full authorisation. That seems a sensible proposal, as is the idea of the pamphlet which might provide one route for highlighting the issue of an hon. Member's declaration, although I think that perhaps it might be better to look for a stronger route.
  Having identified some of the issues in the report which I unquestioning and wholeheartedly welcome, there are a couple of issues on which I wish to enter a caveat. The first is the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) in the previous debate on 23 June 1992, to which the Leader of the House referred. Indeed, the point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) a moment ago.
  I am sure that the Leader of the House was accurate in his reply to my hon. Friend: that the way in which these matters are defined in the report and the considerations of the Select Committee has led to the difference that he identified between someone who got perhaps as little as £100 or £200 a year on a regular basis from a specific organisation where it is regarded as a sponsorship link to that candidate, and someone who might receive substantially larger sums, perhaps not on quite the same basis—either it is not a regular donation, in which case one might imagine that it might come up under the next section headed "gifts" in the register or, alternatively, it is not seen to be linked to the candidacy of an individual but is given as a donation to the political party rather than as a gift to the member. There seems to be a real loophole.
  Without wishing to stray into other matters which are outside some of our deliberations tonight, I am reminded that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) suggested that much of the identified moneys
  766
  which go to the Conservative party go what he called "locally". How he defined "locally" is not entirely clear. I suspect that "within these shores" might be one of his definitions. However, if that is the case, as he implied—he suggested that perhaps even millions of pounds went to associations locally—that highlights the importance of that area to which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin referred in June 1992 and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington referred tonight. That seems to be one issue which bears further investigation.
  Mr. Tim Smith: I think that I can help on that last point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) told the Select Committee that, out of a total income of £26 million last year, £18 million was raised by local Conservative associations and only £8 million by Conservative central office centrally. That was the point—"local" meant local Conservative associations.
  Mrs. Beckett: That is a helpful intervention from the hon. Gentleman, both in clarifying the point made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and in making precisely the point to which I have just referred. If it is the case that sums of such magnitude are being given in a way which apparently does not come within the purview of the register as it has been described, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington is made in spades.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The figures that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) quoted are fascinating because when I wrote a paper on this issue for the Committee at no stage could I establish the figure. We are talking about large sums of money paid at a local level to constituency associations on a regular basis—payments of £500, £600, £700, £800, £900 or £1,000 a year are often made. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Why do we not see the accounts to establish that?
  Mr. Tim Smith: They are published.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, they are not. If the accounts are published, I can ask the hon. Gentleman, can I?
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): You can see the accounts of Grantham conservative association at any time, if you want.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will take the right hon. and learned Gentleman up on that offer. I hope that that will be recorded in Hansard.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have general conversations.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish to dwell on this any further, although I suspect that other hon. Members will do so on other occasions. If it is the case that £18 million was raised among some 650 associations, that seems to be a substantial interest which does not appear in any way to be covered by the register as it stands at present or, indeed, by the proposals before us tonight.
  The second issue that I raise is the more general issue, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in the Select Committee. The issue was whether the amounts that individual Members raised, rather than the fact that they received a pecuniary

  767
  or other reward, should be quantified either as a sum or as a band. I am aware that there was discussion HI the Committee and a vote, and that the proposal was defeated on two grounds. One ground was the general issue of individual privacy and the second was the ground that what might be a significant sum to one Member, because of his financial circumstances, might be of less significance to another Member in different circumstances.
  Although I can follow that argument, I point out that if a donation or gift of £10,000 or £25,000 is of no consequence to an hon. Member because his wealth is so great, the likelihood is that the sum would show up in the register because the hon. Member would list the other interests and concerns that had made such an amount pale into insignificance, in his terms. So the argument does not stand up in general terms
  We should consider putting the matter in the public domain, perhaps through a band within a certain range.
  768
  Such donations should not be excluded. I suspect that the Select Committee will have to return to the matter in the future, just as some of the issues contained in the report that we are discussing tonight are issues with which the Select Committee previously thought that it did not need to deal, but which it has over time come to realise are necessary.
  The issue of strengthening the register is important. The Leader of the House referred to the information coming from the register which exists for members of staff, such as researchers. That, too, is the right step. The Opposition take the view strongly that, although we all want to respect the proper privacy of hon. Members, on the other hand we are all working within the public domain and owe to the public their right of scrutiny and their right to information which should properly be available to them.
  10.52 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for moving the motion, with a minor modification, and for his general support. That was appreciated by all members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I also express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for giving a broad welcome to the report, although with certain more substantial differences of opinion.
  For the benefit of some new Members whom I see here tonight, I should say that we all recognise that having to register and to ensure that we have got it right is a tedious operation for some. We always feel that, if we have not got it right, we may be the subject of a complaint. There is also the feeling that it is something that we have to do because if we do not, some people might think that we are corrupt.
  I remind the House that when we agreed to introduce the register in 1974–75, we did not do so because we believed that there was corruption in the House. I believe that compared with any other Parliament or democratic assembly in the world, we are the least corrupt. We agreed to the introduction of the register because we believed in the need for openness and for transparency in a representative democracy. The point that has been made on other occasions—I do not apologise for making it again—is that in the absence of openness, rumour and innuendo can flourish, especially in the media. I leave it at that.
  It is not a pleasant task to look into complaints. We do not relish it at all. The House asked us to see how the duties of Members, under the regulations laid down, could be made clearer. That was the sole purpose of the exercise.
  Other matters had to be considered, of course. When there is some ambiguity, there is bound to be inconsistency in the way in which Members declare their interests. Making things more explicit was therefore another objective.
  As I have dealt with this matter at greater length on a previous occasion, I do not want to labour the point. I do not want to weary the House by going over ground that was covered a little more than a year ago. Nor do I want to duplicate the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I must emphasise that when we embarked on this exercise none of us thought that we would burst upon the House of Commons with a report setting out a whole lot of new and draconian rules. The objective is to make the existing rules clearer and more specific and to try to establish as the standard the current best practice in registering financial interests.
  We realise that some hon. Members would like to go further. The right hon. Member for Derby, South referred to one very important division in the Committee and, I expect, in the House as a whole. That division concerns whether we ought to recommend recording the actual amounts of remuneration deriving from outside interests. This is a delicate issue. It may not go away, but we have tried to proceed on the basis of consent. I very much appreciate the fact that, during my years as its Chairman, the Committee has been able to proceed with reasonable unanimity, helpfulness and co-operation across the often rather large gulf between us.
  I want to emphasise that the report was debated last year. It has been on the Table. I am grateful that it has now
  770
  come before the House for debate, but I should be even more grateful had it come sooner. Hon. Members have had time to consider what changes, if any, should be made in it. I wish that the Committee's recommendation about early-day motions could be accepted, but I appreciate the practical considerations that the Leader of the House has mentioned, and I should not want this comparatively minor point to be an obstacle to progress on the report's central proposals. The last thing we want to do is introduce some cumbersome bureaucracy.
  I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was totally satisfied with the reasons for registering a property in Lewisham. We found that there were often generic entries, such as ownership of a farm. Some hon. Members have registered properties that are apparently their private residencies, although that is not required. In the report, my hon. Friend will find these words:
  "We accept that it would be unduly burdensome to require Members to list all their individual land and property holdings in minute detail. This would, moreover, breach the principle of reasonable privacy, to which we attach importance. But we do consider that more uniformity of practice is desirable and that entries should be reasonably specific as to the nature of the property and its general location. For example, 'Woodland in Perthshire' or 'Six lock-up rental garages in Lewisham, SE London'''.
  We thought that that would be a perfectly acceptable form of entry.
  Mr. Marlow: Why does my hon. Friend think that it is useful to know that the garages are in Lewisham rather than Lambeth?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not think that I would go so far as to say that. Anyone with a hang-up about the geographical location could discuss it with the registrar. I do not see that, for these purposes, there is any difference between garages in Lambeth and garages in Lewisham.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Or London.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Or London.
  The little extra information enables us to judge the extent to which, for example, a farm is a smallholding in a rough area, such as the one I represent, with poor land and clay, as opposed to some of the lush pastures of the exquisite farmland in Perthshire. That is what we are trying to elicit from hon. Members who register under this heading.
  I should like to outline the next steps, assuming that the motion is accepted. The next printed edition of the register is to be published early next year. It is customary for the registrar to circulate all hon. Members some weeks before the register is reprinted to remind them of the need to update their entries. Without that annual reminder, it is amazing how forgetful we can be. That circulation, probably in November, will be the obvious occasion on which to send out the new registration form for the first time. Because the new form differs from the old one in some material respects, it will be necessary for hon. Members to return the completed form, just as they did after the general election, and not merely to amend their existing entries.
  In accordance with paragraphs 68 and 70 of the report, the registrar will also be drawing up an explanatory leaflet to assist hon. Members in completing the new forms. That is important. The leaflet will need to be examined by the Select Committee, but it should be ready for circulation at

  771
  the same time as the new form. After the first register the new rules will be published in January, following which the process of amendment and updating by letter to the registrar will continue in the same way as now.
  I recognise—there must be some humility about this—that although we believe that the rules are an improvement on the existing ones, and are more detailed and specific they still require judgment and interpretation when applied to particular circumstances. It is the role of the registrar, a senior official of the House, to advise on matters of interpretation in the first instance. Everything said to him is treated in confidence. He can call on the assistance of the Select Committee if he encounters a problem that he is unable to settle on his own authority.
  Paragraph 66 of the report gives the Committee the authority to make minor modifications. That is no thin end of the wedge but an attempt to deal with any wording of the rules that still results in some ambiguity. Such matters can come to light only when the rules are tested in practice. If it becomes apparent that the revised provisions have consequences that were not intended when the Committee agreed the report, there is machinery for putting matters right.
  There never seems to be a time to consider these matters in a calm and objective fashion. Much of the exchanges about the funding of parties had nothing to do with members of the Committee who were not concerned with that wider question that has attracted so much attention over the past week or so. In dealing with the serious business of how far we can he open with the public to avoid innuendo and criticism, I have been greatly impressed by the painstaking way in which hon. Members have risen to their obligations. As I have said, I greatly appreciate the help that I have been given over the years by hon. Members from all parties who formed the Committee. I hope that the House will approach the debate in the same spirit and approve the Committee's recommendations.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: We are debating the development of registration, which is a requirement on all hon. Members. The background is not simply that a Labour Government put that into effect, because in the early 1970s, and certainly when I was first elected, the general view was that this place did not need a register and that everybody knew the wrong 'uns. When I suggested a register, I was told by a Labour Member, "We don't need a register. We know all the wrong 'uns in here, old boy, and we can pick them out."
  The set of circumstances that produced the register were precipitated by a man called Poulson, a corrupt architect, who corrupted Members of Parliament, a senior civil servant and a varying number of councillors of all political persuasions. Because of the tide of criticism of people in public office, and because the wash swept over a large proportion of hon. Members who had behaved perfectly properly and with complete integrity but who were stained by the Poulson corruption, the House, following the report of Justice Salmond on "Standards of Conduct in Public Life", established the register. The truth was that, even if the House knew "wrong uns", there was little that it could do or wished to do at that time.
  The register has been a source of information and rightly so. Since its establishment, the House has set
  772
  standards of conduct for local authority councillors. It is now a criminal offence for councillors to fail to declare a financial interest. The standards of conduct for councillors are much tighter than those for hon. Members. If any Member thinks that the new rules represent an additional burden, he should bear in mind the fact that the House requires much higher and tighter standards from councillors. Should they breach the rules, they are also subject to criminal penalties.
  Councillors with a financial interest are also required not to take part in various committee and council decisions. A councillor who is a council tenant requires special approval from the Department of the Environment to take part in any discussion of proposed rent changes.
  It is also worth noting that the House sets the standard of conduct for people outside. We determine through delegated powers given to Ministers, and approved in orders passed by the House, the information provided by and standard of conduct expected from the poorest people in the land—those who are on income support. We do not allow them not to declare any bit of capital that they may have or any other income. That must he declared. It would be hypocritical if the House did not accept the need for better, clearer rules—which it has requested—on Members' interests, if, at the same time, it imposed draconian rules on people who are seeking relatively tiny amounts of money. They are certainly tiny in contrast to Members' salaries.
  We are in receipt of taxpayers' money, and our salaries are better than those of most of our constituents. If people outside, who put us here, want to know about the influences that shape our voting and, in particular, any financial influences that may shape our voting, we should accept their request. That is part of the process of democratic accountability.
  Although the report does not go far enough, it is a step in the right direction, and I support its general terms. On page xxxv, I proposed that the amount of money that hon. Members receive should be disclosed. The report does not require that, however, which is unsatisfactory. There is a marked difference between an hon. Member receiving 150 quid from the Women's Institute towards the cost of secretarial work, because that Member is interested in representing its case in Parliament, and someone who receives between £10,000 and £20,000 in personal income from an outside organisation. That should be known.
  The disclosure of such information is not an intrusion on Members' privacy. If we receive money as Members of Parliament, in pursuance of our duties, people outside should know about it. That might stop Members from voting on a issue in which they have a direct, pecuniary interest, as defined in "Erskine May". If they were to vote with a direct pecuniary interest, the vote might be invalidated.
  The declaration of the amount of income that Members receive would be a safeguard against their foolishness. That happened recently when the Select Committee on Member's Interests examined a complaint about the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who felt that he did not have to declare his part-payment of legal expenses to get rid of Miss Whiplash, because it was anonymous. The Committee was unanimous in the view that anonymous donations can be more dangerous than known donations.
  What if, for example, Asil Nadir were one of the principal anonymous contributors who then turned up, two years later, on the steps of No. 11, knocking on the

  773
  door and saying, "And by the way, Norm. Do you know that I made a major contribution and would like some little tax concessions in return."? That is a dangerous position for anyone to get themselves into, but it can happen without Members thinking too much about it, as clearly happened on that occasion.
  The declaration of the amount of money would therefore have been a safeguard and a benefit to Members, not a handicap. After all, some Members would positively like to boast of the money they receive from outside, so why should they not register it? However, the Committee has decided against that. There was a vote, and my proposition was defeated. That does not mean that I am against the report. I am disappointed, but I merely point out to those Members who think that this will be an additional onerous burden that, although the report does not satisfy me, I am prepared to compromise.
  There are improvements. For example, clients must be listed if Members of Parliament are employed by an outside organisation dealing with specific clients. That used to be the case. Clients were nearly always listed in the register, but it simply fell into desuetude, to use a good Church of England phrase, and people simply did not bother. That can lead people into all sorts of traps and difficulties, as we have recently witnessed. People should have to declare the clients for whom they are providing a service. That is incorporated in the report, and represents an improvement.
  Membership of Lloyd's syndicates was discussed by the Committee. A member of Lloyd's on the Committee did not like the view but did not take part in the voting, quite properly, and retained a neutral position. The Committee approved that the membership of a syndicate should be included. If Lloyd's were not a scandal-rocked institution these days, with Conservatives standing up in the House and making accusations about certain syndicates, it would probably never have been required to be incorporated. But it is a safeguard for Members against future accusations that they were voting to benefit their private financial interests. The fact that it is recorded will make their position much clearer. Thus, the Committee opted for openness.
  For the first time, the report defines the sort of gifts that must be declared. The figure is given as "over £125" and, as benefit in kind, 0·5 per cent. of the current salary of a Member of Parliament. That has never been adequately defined. It has been adequately defined for Ministers in the past. They have either had to return the gift, pay the balance—it used to be £30—or distribute the gift, if possible, around the members of their private office.
  Those rules arose on the basis of the experience of a silver coffee pot. Tony Crosland opened a school and was given a silver coffee pot. Several months later it was discovered that the coffee pot was donated by Mr. Poulson and there were a lot of red faces. It was then decided that Ministers should not receive gifts because it might be argued that those gifts were being used to corrupt them. Ministerial rules were therefore laid down for Ministers' protection and the better information that Ministers were conducting their public affairs with the best possible probity.
  That is really what the report is about. The rules represent an improvement and contain nothing to which
  774
  hon. Members should object. They mean greater accountability. They will apply to Members of Parliament who apply much tighter rules to those outside this place. It would be hypocritical and double standards if any hon. Member voted against the rules while applying tighter rules to those outside.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: It is never a happy experience to probe and discuss whether or not we behave properly. In my view, this is an open and honest House and the exceptions are very rare and well publicised.
  I shall restrict myself to only three points. First, what sort of control should there be? Should it be control by the House or statutory control? The Committee was guided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and by the previous Leader of the House, now my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who took the firm view that we should not have statutory control, with the inevitable judicial procedures that that would involve, but that as a House we should police ourselves and Members of Parliament should be judged by their peers.
  The Committee approached the issue on the basis that hon. Members are just that—honourable—and that the rules are there to guide them and give them protection. I join those who have urged hon. Members to rely on the registrar and, if in doubt, to register. The register should cause no fear. I voted against a register when it was first proposed, but I now recognise that the world has moved on and that the register exists to protect hon. Members as well as to police them.
  Secondly, we are discussing two reports, the second of which is arguably the more important in the longer term. I refer to the report dealing with lobbying, which in recent years has become a large financial practice. The lobbyists—those who specialise in public relations—have, as their best interests, maximising of the number of clients and claiming that they have considerable influence over hon. Members and therefore, through the vote, the House. I am not sure that lobbying companies have as much influence—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There will be a separate debate on that issue, so the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is immediately under consideration. Many hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Viggers: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that the two debates elided. Obviously, I was wrong.
  My third point is that in Committee reference was made to members of Lloyd's and there was a vigourous discussion about how they should declare their interests. That provided the opportunity for quite a lot of fruitful political digging because more Conservative Members than Labour Members are members of Lloyd's—I think by a majority of 47 to zero.
  I declare my interest as a member of Lloyd's since 1973, which predates my entry to the House, and an elected member of the Council of Lloyd's during the last 18 months. My guidance to the Committee was that it would be onerous to require members of Lloyds to declare their interests fully within the register. My view was based on a realistic premise of the way in which members of Lloyd's declared their interests in the working group on Lloyd's. I

  775
  said that I thought that the size of the register could be doubled if members of Lloyds declared their interests fully and in a manner that would fully explain their financial interests. My guidance was that that would throw the register out of kilter and put far too much on Lloyd's as against other matters.
  Other Members took a different view. They thought that at least Members of Parliament should list their syndicate numbers for the year in question. My advice then and now is that that is a pretty pointless and rather prurient exercise because it does not give any full idea of the results that the member will get from Lloyd's in any one year. The numbers alone do not give an idea of the amount of his participation in any one syndicate. Nor does it show whether he has any so-called "stop loss" on his investments or whether he has any open years from previous years.
  The issue has caused some concern and even anger among members of Lloyd's here. They feel that the exercise is prurient and pretty pointless. My considered judgment is that, as the world has moved on, there is keen interest in Lloyd's of London, which is an important and large institution. It is one of the largest single export earners in Britain. Individual participants inevitably receive some publicity if they participate in such an exercise. I say to my hon. Friends who are members of Lloyd's that the compromise on naming individual syndicates is not particularly productive, but perhaps it is a reasonable way of giving some further information on the membership of Lloyd's of Members of Parliament.
  I abstained in the Committee. I do not feel particularly strongly about the issue now. I would prefer that the requirement was not included. Nevertheless, other members of the Committee felt strongly on the issue and I therefore commend the point to my hon. Friends, although I do not do so with any great enthusiasm.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I shall be brief, having spoken earlier this evening. I wish to place on record the fact that we all regret the passing of Robert Adley, who was an active member of the Committee for several years. Fie played a major part in the formulation of much of what is in the report.
  I wish to qualify the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) about clients, in case some hon. Members are worried about the matter. The need to declare a client arises only where that client is being served by way of a Member carrying out his parliamentary duties. The form says that clearly in the box which deals with that matter. It does not require the registration of all clients of a Member of Parliament, who might well represent clients on matters unrelated to activities on the Floor of the House or the conduct of his work.
  I draw attention to the matter of sponsorship. Labour Members do not object to sponsored Members having to declare or register. That is not the issue. The argument in the Committee was about whether there was a level playing field and whether it was right that only Labour Members who were sponsored, or whose constituency parties received money from trade unions, should have to declare sponsorship, when Conservative Members whose
  776
  constituency associations receive money from organisations on a regular basis or, indeed, one-off payments, historically have not registered those payments over the years. We simply sought to set a level playing field.
  I went into the inquiry most worried about what I thought was happening in Parliament. One of the conclusions that I drew was that the problem was not so much the rules as the way in which the rules were applied in the form that Members are required to fill in annually. I concluded that, if we could simply redraw the form and marginally tighten up the rules, and if the rules were complied with, the form presented in the report would deal with many of the Committee's anxieties.
  When we took evidence from the former Member for Winchester, John Browne, he repeatedly referred to what he said were ambiguities in our rules. We did not accept that ambiguities existed, but he believed that they did. That was his defence to many of the allegations made about his activities. During the course of the inquiry, therefore, we felt that we should tighten up the rules about which John Browne complained.
  In the form that comprises annex I of the report, which makes the critical reform, the rules remain the same but they are presented differently—in the form of direct questions—which avoids any possible ambiguity.
  The Committee's purpose over a number of years was always to seek a compromise. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) sought the declaration of payments received by right hon. or hon. Members from outside interests. I was not prepared, in the spirit of compromise, even to go that far. I merely requested—an amendment in the report deals with this point—that where Members of Parliament receive more than £10,000 a year from any organisation, sponsoring body, consultancy or directorship, they should asterisk that in their report.
  There was never an attempt by some members of the Committee to pry into the private affairs of individual right hon. and hon. Members. We accepted that a balance had to be struck between privacy and the public interest. I believe that the report, which I hope will be approved by the House tonight, secures that objective.
  11.26 pm
  Sir Roger Moate: I want to place on record my deep unease at the manner in which we are asked to approve the report and some of its recommendations. That is not in any way to suggest that the Committee and its Chairman—my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—and others have not met their remit from the House. I do not doubt that they have done so thoroughly and conscientiously, but I feel uneasy about some of the features of the proceedings tonight—just as I felt uneasy, as I suspect did other right hon. and hon. Members, on those occasions when the House sought to pass judgment on the conduct of some colleagues, based on the Committee's rules and criteria.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the Poulson affair of some 20 years ago. I still feel that the House acted in a most unfair manner in the way that it treated certain of our colleagues. That is not to make a judgment about the merits of those individuals, but I felt that, when the House passed judgment on someone

  777
  such as Mr. John Cordle, it did so unfairly and rather heavily, without giving that Member of Parliament a full opportunity to defend himself.
  Mr. Skinner: He resigned.
  Sir Roger Moate: As the hon. Gentleman says, Mr. Cordle resigned—but, without legislation and the precision of law, peer group pressure and that of the media are brought to bear on certain Members of Parliament, without their having an opportunity to defend themselves in the way open to other citizens.
  We asked the Committee to make general recommendations with a lack of precision, and we are called upon to pass judgments on specific instances on the basis of very woolly laws and rules. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) might be surprised to learn that I go along with the line that he seems to recommend—that if one is to start on that course, one must be logical and precise, so that Members of Parliament ultimately know the rules on which we are supposed to opperate. That can only be done by the force of law, because we are determining the rules by which a right hon. or hon. Member can represent his constituency.
  My argument is borne out in some respects by the procedure. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicated that he had some reservations on certain points. None the less, it is right that we should accept this worthy report and pass it as it stands.
  In law, one cannot have reservations about certain points and say that nevertheless the general principle is right. Our job is to tidy up those points. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) welcomed the fact that the Committee had been given some flexibility to deal with minor adjustments. That is fine, so long as it adjusts matters that concern me, or other people, but we have no assurance about that.
  I want to draw three points to the attention of the House. The first relates to staff. The report says that there should be a declaration of gifts, visits and other benefits conferred upon staff. That is a wide-ranging remit. I just wonder whether we have the power, resources, facilities and ability to monitor staff. I am not aware of having conferred benefits upon any of those who might be described as my staff. Nevertheless, that question could arise. Therefore, I wonder whether we are entering an area that we have no real authority, skill or ability to monitor.
  The second point relates to consultancies. Again, I have no interest to declare. I wish, perhaps, that I had. The wording is still, I believe, ambiguous. People can be directors of consultancies, or consultants to consultancies. They can be very large or small firms. They can have a very large or a very small list of clients. The benefits—some would say the dubious benefits—that would result from a Member being a consultant would be conferred, presumably, upon all those clients.
  The report that we are being asked to agree to refers to clients who directly or indirectly benefit from the advice of a Member. That is a wide-ranging phrase. All I ask the House to consider is that at some stage in the future there will be a case that attracts a lot of media attention, in which some client is indirectly receiving the benefit of the consultancy of some hon. Member. If that does not lead to doubt and uncertainty, I do not know what will.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: If in doubt, go to the Clerk.
  Sir Roger Moate: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but in practice it means that if one has doubts, one must declare the list that contains the names of every single client of a particular agency. That is the only way ultimately to resolve the doubts. Every client of a consultancy or company must surely be receiving some indirect benefit from somebody, if that person is a director or consultant of that company. I do not believe that the House would accept such woolly phraseology in law. We shall get ourselves into difficulties by using such woolly phraseology here.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We are not talking about an indirect benefit in a general sense. We are talking specifically about the relationship that the member of the firm, who is a Member of Parliament, will have to that client, in pursuance of representations to a Minister or when speaking in the House, as a result of which he benefits as a consequence of his membership of that firm. We are talking about the active participation by a Member of Parliament in that relationship. It has nothing to do with the Member of Parliament indirectly benefiting for some other reason. It arises out of the work that he does for that client here in his parliamentary capacity.
  Sir Roger Moate: Whether it arises directly or indirectly as a result of all those things, it is unsatisfactory.
  My third point relates to our discussion about the location of property. There are reasonable interpretations of that, but we cannot leave it as wide as it is. We have left it very wide and very woolly, and it is still unsatisfactory. I hope that it will not happen, but in times to come we may find ourselves in difficulties because of the phraseology that we shall endorse tonight.
  11.33 pm
  Ms Angela Eagle: The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) has just made an interesting speech, which I suspect points towards a move to statutory control and away from self-regulation. Nevertheless, I welcome the report. It sticks firmly to the principle of self-regulation. I suspect that at this stage we ought to stick to it and ensure that it is tight enough to work. I welcome the debate on the report, which has already been delayed too long. Indeed, at least one register, possibly two, has been published under the old rules while the report has been in existence. I welcome the progress that we are making tonight in ensuring that we tighten the rules.
  I agree with hon. Members who have said that the report aims to protect Members of Parliament. I note that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who originally voted against, has now come around to seeing things that way, and I agree with his observation that the world is changing and that we need to respond to it.
  Why is it important that we do so? Given what we have seen in the past few weeks, we hardly need to ask that question. What we are discussing goes to the heart of our democracy, especially to its legitimacy. It is crucial to engender among the electorate trust in Members of Parliament and to counter a cynicism and disillusion with politics that has become obvious in some quarters in recent years.
  It was Woody Allen, I think, who said that politicians as a profession were one notch below child molesters in the public esteem. Perhaps he knew from experience, but I

  779
  hope that what we are doing tonight will raise the rather low esteem in which our constituents hold us. We are debating serious matters, and the onus is on us to prove our honesty in an open and transparent way that engenders trust.
  The report sensibly recognises the problem of self-assessment and the inconsistencies that result from it. It proposes to reduce those inconsistencies by sensible changes to the register. Only pecuniary interests are to be registered, which is absolutely right. We must maintain a register that is not too cumbersome but contains enough detail for it to be a meaningful document to which the public can refer when necessary.
  I wish to deal quickly with a few of the changes that the report proposes. It proposes to divide category 5, financial sponsorships, into two new categories—sponsorship and occasional gifts. A somewhat spurious distinction is drawn between what we call the Hastings agreement money that is paid to Labour Members who are sponsored by a trade union and private donations to local associations of other political parties. I welcome the fact that declarations of donations of more than £500 must now be disclosed, but I do not understand the exemption for donations and quotas that are not linked to a Member's candidacy.
  That spurious distinction caricatures the reality of trade union sponsorship and the way in which local branches of trade unions operate in local constituency Labour parties. The suggestion that union votes affect the outcome of parliamentary selections is not so true these days, and the charge that votes can be bought in a local constituency Labour party is wrong. I do not believe that I understand that distinction, and I should have preferred it if it had not been made.
  I strongly support the switch to the use of questions on the registration form instead of the descriptive headings which characterised the old form because they make it harder for ambiguities to creep in and for misunderstandings or obvious omissions to emerge.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but one has emerged in the debate, and it may also be on her mind. I refer to the role of an intermediary between the donor and a constituency party organisation. It must be made clear that, if an hon. Member associates himself with a fund-raising appeal aimed at potential donors but the resulting donations are then remitted direct to the local party organisation, it would not seem to constitute acting as an intermediary. I think that that has wide application for all parties.
  Ms Eagle: We possibly need to have a watching brief of what happens with various local methods of fund raising, which ties the debate to the issue of the funding of political parties and other matters, but I shall not stray from the motion. As a member of the Select Committee, I should want to keep a close eye on such matters for possible inclusion in future reports.
  I also welcome the change to category 9, under which shareholdings are listed. It was an anomaly that the holding of I per cent. of the issued share capital of a company had to be declared, regardless of the size of that company, whereas nothing below that had to be declared. Under the old system, substantial shareholdings in large companies, which were worth a great deal of money, could go undeclared, while smaller—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [24 June ].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests of Session 1991–92 (House of Commons Paper No. 326) relating to the registration and declaration of Members' financial interests, provided that the recommendation in paragraph 84 of the Report relating to the declaration of any relevant registered interest at the time of tabling an early day motion shall apply only to the Member in charge of such a motion.

  Lobbying
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  Mr. Bowen Wells rose—
  11.41 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend, but I believe that I have the floor.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the report on parliamentary lobbying. It is true that the report has been on the table for nearly two years, but a delayed debate is better than no debate. l imply no criticism of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. After we had completed part of our report on lobbying, we were interrupted by having to consider one or two complaints, which lasted a long time. We then went back to work, but, by that time, the election was nearly upon us.
  I do not think that anything fundamental has happened in the past two years which would alter or allay the concerns which gave rise to the Committee's inquiry and report, so let me try briefly to summarise those concerns. The first and most basic is that, over the past 15 years or so, we have experienced a significant growth in all types of lobbying activities. There is nothing new or intrinsically wrong with lobbying; it is probably the second oldest profession and, to my mind, it dates back to the time when King John was lobbied by the knights, who got the best of the bargain.
  Lobbying can be seen as the sign of a healthy democracy in that organisations, interest groups, charities and individuals want to bring their views and problems to the attention of Members of Parliament, Departments and Ministers. What is new, however, is the increased organisation and professionalism of that process. Much lobbying is conducted by or on the advice of professional consultancies, which charge substantial fees for their services—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat or leave.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  As I was saying, much lobbying is conducted by or on the advice of professional consultancies, which charge substantial fees for their services and are in competition with one another for the available business.
  Because of that competitive environment with large sums of money at stake, there is naturally a concern that traditional lobbying, which is undoubtedly an aid to healthy parliamentary democracy, may evolve step by imperceptible step, into forms of covert pressure and persuasion that could ultimately damage our democracy—[Interruption.] There seem to be two debates going on at the moment, and I do not know what is happening below the Gangway. However, I hope that hon. Members who are paying attention to this debate have heard what I have said.
  The next area of concern is the increasing use made of the facilities of the House for promotional or lobbying activities. I will say no more about that tonight. It is a matter more for the domestic Committees than for the Select Committee on Members' Interests. To some extent, that issue is already being tackled by measures such as the
  782
  limitation on passes for the staff of hon. Members. However, the issue figures prominently in the evidence that the Committee took during its inquiry, and that concern should not be discounted.
  The next concern is perhaps felt more keenly outside the House than inside. The dividing line between professional lobbyists and politicians is no longer perceived by many people outside this place to be clear. There is no law or rule of the House that prevents a Back-Bench Member from accepting paid consultancies, some of which involve work closely akin to that of professional lobbyists.
  Those links with the commercial world outside Westminster bring great benefits to the House in many ways. However, we must also recognise that the House is unusual among Parliaments in the developed world in allowing hon. Members such freedom. Some do not allow outside interests. I declare that I have a range of outside interests and that might prejudice me in favour of the report that we considered previously and the report that we are debating now. However, people will know where I stand, and if they think that I am influenced by outside interests, so be it.
  If that freedom is to be justified, freedom must be counterbalanced by adequate safeguards. Our rules for registration and declaration of financial interests are, as we have agreed tonight, the most important safeguard. To apply similar rules to the professional lobbying firms would, in the Committee's opinion, reinforce those safeguards and provide a cross-check for the register.
  The Committee's report is more in the nature of a Green Paper than a White Paper with a fully finished set of proposals. In the light of the concerns that I have mentioned, the report suggests that the House should decide, in principle, that a register of professional lobbyists should be established. Such a decision, which I am disappointed that we cannot take tonight because we are debating the matter on an Adjournment motion, would be a green light to the Select Committee to enter discussions with the lobbying profession about the details. We have drafted guidelines and a code of conduct in the annex to the report, which are intended as no more than a cock-shy.
  The report reaches three firm conclusions about the proposed register. First, like the Register of Members' Interests, it should be founded on a resolution of the House and not on statute law. Its enforcement would therefore be a matter for the House and not for the courts.
  Secondly, the register should, at least to start with, cover only professional lobbyists—that is, firms or individuals who are paid to lobby on behalf of clients or to advise clients on how to lobby on their own behalf. The report refers to a group of professional lobbyists including some household names which are in sympathy with the concept that we should enter discussions with them about setting up a register.
  If there were professional lobbyists, that would exclude two much more numerous classes: for example, those in the public affairs departments of some of the country's big firms, who lobby on behalf of their immediate employers rather than on behalf of outside clients. Hon. Members understand who we mean. The other group involves charities, professional bodies, industrial associations and similar pressure groups that lobby on behalf of the industries or groups that they represent.
  Thirdly, the register should list firms and their clients, but it should not follow the equivalent registers in the United States and Canada—we went to Canada to

  783
  examine the Canadian system—in attempting to record each individual lobbying project or act of lobbying. If that were the case, one would probably have a list as long as one's arm.
  As a result, the proposed register would be quite limited in scope and should not impose an undue administrative burden or costs on the Department of the Clerk of the House.
  Hon. Members who have read the report will have noticed that it did not pass through the Committee without controversy. There was a minority view, which might be expressed during this debate, that the House would gain nothing from the establishment of a register of lobbyists. It is argued, in particular, that registration by the House would confer recognition and respectability on the lobbying firms which they might not deserve but which would boost their credibility with potential clients.
  I remember that we came to the conclusion that that would be one of the drawbacks, but some hon. Members subsequently changed their minds. The House would be put to great trouble, so it is argued, and expense in establishing and maintaining the register, but its effect would be to encourage the development of professional lobbying rather than to control it.
  Those are the arguments, which I have fairly set out, against our proposal. I understand the arguments, but I do not regard them as outweighing the arguments for taking action. There seems to be a clear case for more openness about lobbying activity.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend referred to openness in lobbying. Paragraph 10 on page li of his excellent report states that the Committee took evidence
  "from three of the larger trade unions."
  In particular, it took evidence that the Confederation of Health Service Employees had six sponsored hon. Members and that the Transport and General Workers Union had 33 sponsored hon. Members. Paragraph 11 states:
  "Those questioned made no secret of what they expected from their MPs."
  Paragraph 12 states:
  "The TGWU official told us 'Clearly if a Member of Parliament…has failed to do that…it would be perfectly legitimate for us to say, "Look, the relationship isn't working".'''
  Paragraph 15 states:
  "What is more a paid lobby of 33 MPs is so huge as to make one wonder whether it does not constitute a political party in its own right".
  Would my hon. Friend be prepared to comment on that section of his report?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. If I were to embark on any comment, it might disturb the thread of my argument, and I prefer any points to be made in another way by other hon. Members. A little discretion at this point is important for me. I heard what my hon. Friend says. I understand and I am obliged to him.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has raised an important issue. After that evidence was given by, I think, Mr. Regan-Scott, the trade union official involved, the union dissociated itself from that comment. It is simply untrue. I must assume that he got out of bed the wrong side that morning.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. One can see how these matters lead to important difficulties, and I do not want to rehash strongly held points on either side of the argument. I want to stick to the general matter of the need for lobbying. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) might feel that my remarks only justify his point.
  Let me repeat that there is a clear case for more openness in lobbying and greater transparency. Members of Parliament and Ministers might be well aware who the lobbyists are and who the lobbyists' clients are, but, even if that is so, and I suspect that there are many gaps in most hon. Members' knowledge, the public also have a legitimate interest in knowing more about those who make a living out of influencing the decisions of Government and the Parliament which they elected.
  Several countries with comparable systems to ours have come to the same conclusion and have established a system for registering lobbyists. The report contains much evidence about that, particularly about the Canadian arrangements which are based upon an Act of Parliament and which came into operation in 1989. A committee of the Canadian House of Commons recently reviewed the operation of the Act. It stated:
  "Overall … the Act has added a measure of transparency to the activities of lobbyists. The public now has an opportunity to know who, for pay, is attempting to influence certain government decisions… The disclosure of lobbying activities is intended to increase public understanding of, and faith in, the operation of government. Ensuring that there is less secrecy surrounding lobbying activities will have the added benefit of discouraging lobbyists from engaging in unseemly behaviour."
  That leads me to the second consideration that weighs strongly with me. Lobbying in Britain today has reached such a level of significance that some basic ground rules are necessary to show the dividing line between what is acceptable practice and what is unacceptable. At one time, it was reasonable to hope that the profession might develop its own standards and guidelines, and the machinery to police them. During our inquiry, it became clear that that hope was unlikely to be realised. If there is to be a code of conduct, it would have to be either imposed by statute—I do not think that the Government or the House would support that—or introduced by the House with registration as the carrot and the powers of the House to punish contempt as the stick to punish any who may transgress against the code.
  That is the course recommended in the Committee's report. I await with interest the views of hon. Members on that central recommendation.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  11.55 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. There appears to be some confusion.
  Mr. Newton: The confusion is that I was told that it would be appropriate if I were not called next, in order to preserve the practice of going from one side of the House to the other. I had originally intended to speak at this

  785
  point, but the reason for my hesitation is that I received a stare of a different sort by a route that perhaps I should not describe—it was not entirely the usual channels.
  I am pleased to be able to respond to the requests, most notably those from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who must feel as though it is his birthday, having got two things that he wanted on the same evening after pressing for so long.
  My role in this debate, as may be the case for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), is one of listening to the views expressed on an occasion when, as with the main report on Members' interests a year ago, the purpose is to gain some idea of the feel in the House as a whole on the recommendations made by the Committee about lobbying. For that reason, I do not intend to say a great deal. As I said, I am in listening mode.
  In fairness to the House, I am a little sceptical about the strength of the case for what is proposed in the report. I make that observation as a personal one, rather than as a great statement of Government policy. Obviously, we will consider what is said tonight.
  Perhaps I can best give my reasons for approaching the recommendation in a slightly sceptical way by adverting not only to the two points that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) properly emphasised or rehearsed as reasons for the reservations expressed by some Members of his Committee—that is, the question of the considerable additional bureaucracy that almost certainly would be required to maintain such a register, and the possibility that the establishment of such a register would effectively be seen as giving a seal of approval to specific activities by specific firms in a way that might not be precisely what the House would wish. It may be that one could prevent people from putting "Approved lobbyist to the House of Commons" on their notepaper, but I am not sure that the House would generally regard that outcome with great enthusiasm.
  I must confess to having to question whether the real beneficiaries of this proposal would not be such lobbyists by that sort of route, rather than the House in gaining some great improvement in its protection from lobbying, or, indeed, an enhancement of the standards of lobbying. As I said, I shall ask questions, rather than give views that are set in concrete. Those questions will need considerable examination before the House would wish to go down this route.
  I am reinforced in my view by considerable doubt about whether the distinction, which I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden to be seeking to draw, between professional lobbyists and others who are engaged in almost the same line of business could be sustained for long. It is worth my placing on the record the second half of paragraph 2 of the report, in which the question of definition is approached.
  The report says:
  "We also use the expression 'professional lobbyist', by whom we mean someone who is professionally employed to lobby on behalf of clients or who advises clients on how to lobby on their own behalf. There is, in addition, another category of paid lobbyist, much larger numerically: those whose job it is to make representations on behalf of their employers or particular interests such as charities, professional bodies, industrial or commercial associations, or other pressure groups. We readily appreciate that some of those to whom we refer as 'lobbyists' or 'professional lobbyists' will
  786
  not recognise themselves as such, or consider that their actions amount to lobbying. We recognise, too, that apart from political consultants of various kinds, members of some other professions who arc most unlikely to consider themselves as 'lobbyists', solicitors or accountants, for example, may act in a representative capacity or give advice the nature of which amounts to 'professional lobbying'."
  That paragraph gives a pretty clear indication of some of the definitional problems that would arise in a restrictive approach to the register and of the immense practical problems that would arise if a more broadly based definition was adopted. It could easily produce a position in which almost every paid worker of every large voluntary organisation or national charity in the country, together with the public relations managers of many larger firms and a whole range of other people, extending at the extreme to solicitors or accountants, who are specifically mentioned as undertaking activities that amount to professional lobbying, would be on the register. The difficulties of a register that was as widely drawn as that, if it proved difficult to sustain the narrower definition, as I suspect that it would, would be immense.
  I make a last point about the questions that the House would need to think through before it went down that path. The Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden very fairly acknowledged, said in effect that it would be much better to have a voluntary code of registration by the industry itself rather than a register that was imposed, as is raised as a possibility by the report. I rather share the view that such a voluntary code would be better.
  As it could be argued that the main beneficiaries of the proposal would be those who wished to engage in this activity rather than those of us who are subject to it. I am inclined to think that the most appropriate course would be to make a further effort, if that were possible, to promote the establishment of a voluntary code by the industry. I recognise the reasons why the Committee shied away from that. However, the House as a whole may wish to consider whether the right next step would not be for the industry to make a further effort, with encouragement from the Select Committee, rather than for the House to go down the path that raises the difficult questions on which I have touched. I conclude where I began: I am listening, although I felt it right to express those causes of scepticism.
  12.2 am
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I was somewhat amused to hear the Leader of the House say that this was an issue that needed considerable consideration—a view with which I wholeheartedly concur. As the report has been around for two years, it has had quite a lot of consideration already. We are tonight only, after all, at the very preliminary stage of considering the issues raised in the report rather than proceeding to recommendations. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity for the House to make some observations on the report. I shall be as brief as possible so that hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate will have the opportunity to do so.
  I of course take the point made by the Leader of the House about the danger that having a register would confer status on the so-called "professional lobbyists" rather than act as a check on their activities. However, the

  787
  report makes it clear that these issues exercised the minds of the members of the Select Committee from the beginning and were given much consideration.
  I have to admit that it seems to me that, just as with the establishment of the very first register and the decision to establish a register of the interests of Members' staff, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, a register of this kind will be set up—and it may as well be sooner rather than later. I expect that, once it has been established, people will look back and wonder why we took so long to recognise the necessity and inevitability of such a scheme.
  Even though the report is two years old, one thing shines through. Of common concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House is the extent to which Members of Parliament are vulnerable, and becoming increasingly vulnerable, to the activities of lobbyists. This vulnerability derives primarily from defects in the services provided for Members. I realise that there have been substantial improvements, but we all know perfectly well that, given the work load and the volume and complexity of legislation, Members are simply not adquately staffed to enable them to give issues the scrutiny that they merit.
  Nor is the House itself staffed on the scale commensurate with the requirements. In a sense, this is rather like the old issue of gentleman and players. The House is still behaving like a bunch of gentlemen, dealing in a rather amateurish way with legislation, while hon. Members are continually and increasingly receiving the attentions of people who in this area are very much professionals.
  Running through many comments on this issue, although not necessarily through the Select Committee report, is the fact that particular danger and particular vulnerability to the professional lobbyist arise in respect of the provision of finance or services. That does not seem to me to be the case. It seems to me that the greatest danger to which hon. Members are exposed, the matter in respect of which they are most vulnerable, is the insidious service which can be provided to Members who want to scrutinise legislation conscientiously.
  I refer to apparently high-quality information, which seems to make an almost incontrovertible case and is presented in an easily accessible manner to a Member of Parliament who is not adequately resourced to check its quality properly. Professional lobbyists can make a case which seems so outstanding that the arguments must carry. Members are not adequately staffed to counter those arguments to the necessary extent.
  Members of Parliament are particularly vulnerable to the so-called professional lobbyist, partly because it is less likely that there will be a clear indication as to the identity of the person on whose behalf he is working. Referring to paragraph 2 of the report, the Leader of the House mentioned the concern about whether problems would be caused for trade unions, charities and other non-profit-making organisations. However, paragraph 53 makes it clear that none of those organisations objects to being included in a register or to the provision of a register. Indeed, they believe that lobbying, even of the kind that they undertake, should be fully in the open. They are not prepared to see themselves and their circumstances used as an argument against the existence of a lobby.
  The second matter in respect of which Members of Parliament are particularly vulnerable to the professional lobbyist is a refinement or extension—I do not know which to call it—of the issue of lobbying. I am thinking of
  788
  a group of individuals or companies who put their professional services at the disposal of a range of clients. That could make less clear the pattern of interests being built up and represented.
  A third danger could arise from the extensive development of lobbying firms, and it could take the form of a quid pro quo arrangement. Someone could say, "You did not support me on this issue, but perhaps you would like another client better. Surely you will not turn me down every time I come to you with a perfectly sound case." I am sure that all hon. Members can imagine professional lobbying companies, many of them skilled, putting such a case effectively because they represent a range of interests. Such a company is much more likely than one which represents just one interest, such as a trade association, to build up a more general acquaintance with hon. Members.
  By such means, a person who is associated with a professional lobbying enterprise is likely to gain access to this place. He could be an associate of a member of staff or use some form of pass which would afford greater access than the House would wish to see and which is not readily available to members of the public.
  I welcome the report's approach. There is merit in the suggestion that the firm rather than the individual lobbyist should take responsibility. That is a practicable and workable suggestion. We have recently seen the value of a proposal for a proper clients list published by those who lobby. The report contains words which were probably uttered by the late Robert Adley. In a passage about the growth of lobbying the report states:
  "I personally think it poses quite a grave threat to the working of Members of Parliament and the extent to which it has grown over the last few years is quite frightening."
  That was reported two years ago, and the words have gained increasing force.
  12.11 am
  Ms Angela Eagle: I support the proposal to establish a register of lobbying interests. Such a register is essential to ensure transparency so that people who have direct professional contact with hon. Members can be identified by the public. Relationships must be open and above board, and that can be proved by comparing the Register of Members' Interests and the proposed register of lobbying interests.
  The Select Committee report highlights the almost exponential growth in the turnover of the mushrooming number of professional lobbyists. It has risen from an estimated £3·25 million in 1983–84 to an estimated £9 million in 1991. Growth is at the rate of 20 to 25 per cent. a year, and that points to the urgency of the need to establish a system by which we can keep a check on what is going on.
  No one associated with the report or taking part in the debate would, I hope, deny the importance of lobbying or the fact that the right to lobby elected representatives is fundamental to democracy. An explanation of its growth is that the increasing complication of our legislative process has led to a multiplication of lobbying interests to deal with some of those complications.
  In addition, over the years, support facilities for hon. Members have become increasingly inadequate, despite the welcome interest in our office costs allowance. Our constituency work load has increased enormously at the same time as we have been arraigned by complex legislation, which we must consider at short notice. In

  789
  those circumstances, the support provided by a good briefing, whatever its source, can offer help and relief to anyone contemplating legislation in the Chamber or in a Standing Committee on a Bill or statutory instrument.
  Oddly enough, I gave evidence to the Select Committee inquiry before being elected. I drew a distinction between those companies that lobby, professionally, on behalf of a range of clients and sell their professional services, and those people who, like me, might pop into the House to organise a nurses' lobby, talk to sponsored Members or contact Back-Bench groups on a particular subject which was exercising the mind of the organisation for which they worked—in my case, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, COHSE. Professional lobbyists, however, are likely to be here day in, day out, dealing with the same hon. Members.
  The lobbying to which I have been subjected since I was elected varies depending on whether the lobbyist is a professional one, with a list of clients or a member of a particular trade union or professional association. My entertainment budget in my old job was extremely modest and hardly compares with that of some professional lobbyists, judging from the lunches and dinners to which I am invited on a regular basis. Those lobbyists also end up at our party conference and various other venues to establish their contacts.
  I agree with the distinction between lobbyists that the report has drawn. The register would be a welcome means of improving openness. It would also cast some light on the important issue of privileged access to Westminster, which some lobbying organisations may be acquiring for profit. If we are to protect the reputation of Parliament, we need to support the report's recommendations.
  12.17 am
  Mr. Bob Cryer: We are talking about bodies that are paid to influence Members of Parliament and Departments. We are not talking about the sacred right of ordinary people to write to their Member, get hold of him at his advice surgery and lobby him at Westminster. The hon. Member can then decide whether to take up the matter raised. That right to lobby remains inalienable. We are talking about those who are paid to lobby, however, and who do so because they have an interest in the revenue gained.
  When I was first elected to the 1974–79 Parliament, the then Labour Government were in the process of legislating to take into public ownership the ship repairing, aerospace and shipbuilding industries. They had a perfect right to do so. That policy was, however, opposed by the Conservative party.
  An organisation, International News Services, was employed by a particular ship repairer to ensure that ship repairing was excluded from the legislation. That organisation made use of fake shop stewards—all the genuine shop stewards who opposed the firm's policy and who believed in public ownership were sacked. It also hired the private Dining Rooms of the House. It is a continuing scandal that those rooms are hired secretly—a practice that should end. Nobody knows who hires them. They are used mostly by PR organisations who pay Members to get the facilities and all the panoply of the Palace of Westminster.
  790
  I object to that, but if people want to do it they should not be ashamed of it and do it in secret. It is time that those bookings were published. International News Services books those dining rooms and encourages Members of Parliament to attend dinners and lunches. It hired a yacht on the Thames and encouraged Members to go down into the Thames—[Interruption.] I should say that it encouraged Members to go to the yacht moored in the Thames, if hon. Members want to make little jokes about the matter. It also sent people to Heathrow because the Labour Government did not have much of a majority. When John Stonehouse disappeared, the majority disappeared entirely.
  When meeting certain Members from Northern Ireland, representatives of International News Services would bundle them into a cab and try to take them to a dinner and get them intoxicated so that they were not available to vote at 10 o'clock. They used to bring people to the House. I was with a group of Labour party Whips, who asked a group of people what they were doing here. The International News Services representative, a man called Alan Turnbull, went into the Strangers Bar and shouted. A Conservative Member came and he said that those five people were with that Member. Those five employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers turned round and said to the two Whips, "Watch out, we're going to get you for this." So threats were uttered.
  If Members went on the Terrace, half a dozen alleged shop stewards—who were not shop stewards at all—would come and say, "What about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers?" That was the background.
  When I raised the matter on points of order on the Floor of the House, the then Speaker referred it to the Select Committee on Administration. The Chairman of that Select Committee was an employee of International News Services. The Chairman of the Standing Committee that dealt with the legislation was a parliamentary adviser. an employee of International News Services.
  So the tentacles of lobbying ran deep in the 1970s, and that caused me concern. My interest has been encouraged ever since because, although the methods have become less blunt, the tentacles still exist.
  I go not by my own views but by those of lobbyists. Many years ago, the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, employed a head of press in his office at No. 10, a man called Trevor Lloyd-Hughes, who had been a lobby correspondent here. Trevor Lloyd-Hughes got to know all the ways of this place and No. 10, and when he left he established a public relations organisation with all the connections already to hand. A brochure that he put out to a restricted circulation said that he
  "Organised lunches and receptions, some within the Houses of Parliament, attended by important people. Arranged for business leaders, including the heads of American. French and British companies, to have private meetings with eminent personalities in London, including Cabinet Ministers, former Prime Ministers, the Queen's Principal Private Secretary, former British Ambassadors, and men at the very top of the United Kingdom diplomatic and Civil Service."
  According to Sir Trevor, his methods have been successful. He said:
  "We have obtained important tax concessions from the British government over their legislation on North Sea oil revenues. Saved the international motor car and motor cycle industries based in the United Kingdom millions of pounds by

  791
  persuading the government to exempt them from provisions in the Trade Descriptions Acts. Won British government financial backing for a major development in Turkey."
  Lloyd-Hughes is often dismissed as a lobbyist of the old school, now gone. But it is worth reminding Members that the constituency agent to a member of the current Government, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) produced a brochure offering
  "Contact with ministers and civil servants in departments such as the DTI and Energy in order to enhance their understanding of the needs of your industry and company. Arrangement of luncheons and dinners for ministers, MPs and MEPs to meet and speak to company directors and managers and, if desired, their guests. Arrangement of carefully tailored social events, such as theatre, opera and sporting occasions, affording seniro company personnel the opportunity to brief legislators…on the company's needs and interests."
  That was in 1989, so Trevor Lloyd-Hughes and his cohorts are not all that far out of date.
  The point is that, if certain people, by buying the services of a commercial lobbying organisation, can gain more than the ordinary person, that is wrong. It should not be possible to buy influence. It is one thing to give information and for members of the Government to make a judgment and come down on one side or the other, but Trevor Lloyd-Hughes said in his brochure that Ministers, having agreed on a decision with him, asked him how best to present that decision. That means that the PR merchants are getting to the heart of Government, and recent events do not contradict that assertion. Indeed, they show that a PR merchant had got to a number of Cabinet Ministers and a junior Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, who perforce has had to resign because of the exposure.
  How much is going on behind the scenes? That is the question that lingers in people's minds. The register would achieve two things. First, it is true that to be on a register with the imprimatur of the House of Commons would confer a cachet and prestige. Therefore, removal from the register would be an important penalty, as it would remove the cachet and the prestige.
  The code of conduct that would accompany the register would be scrupulously obeyed, because the danger of removal from the register would bring with it removal of the advantages conferred by registration. Although I accept that a cachet and prestige would be conferred, that would also mean a power in our hands, because removal would become a formidable weapon to enforce the code of conduct that we think desirable.
  The aim of a register and code of conduct is to ensure openness, so that people know what is happening. The reality is that ordinary citizens cannot buy influence—they can achieve it only by pressure. People often underestimate their ability to put pressure on Members of Parliament.
  The recent campaign by sub-post offices has been a masterly success. They did not employ any public relations companies or commercial lobbying organisations: they just put sheets of paper on the counter saying that the policy of the Department of Social Security could result in closures and asked people to sign a petition against that. They signed in their millions. Every hon. Member received letters from individual constituents. That sort of pressure still remains the best way to influence Members of Parliament.
  However, there are disturbing trends that I do not like, and which I suspect a large number of hon. Members do
  792
  not like. It is one reason why, two years ago, a Committee with a Conservative majority produced a report recommending a register. If people want to find reasons for a register, they need only look at Mark Hollingsworth's book "MPs for Hire".
  When I entered Parliament, an hon. Member could not say that Members of Parliament were available for hire. One did, and he was reported to the Select Committee for breach of privilege, and the Committee said that it was. I am referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who wrote in Labour Weekly that Members of Parliament were available for hire.
  Now it is a matter-of-fact phrase—people do not jib at it. Indeed, there have been scenes on television programmes of Members of Parliament saying, "Yes, I am open to offers for lobbying services." People take the view that Members of Parliament are, after all, for hire. That is another reason why we need a register.
  Some of the lobbying organisations are very arrogant indeed. Lloyd-Hughes claimed, for example, that he could set up all-party groups and have parliamentary questions tabled. It is interesting to examine the all-party groups. The secretariats for some of them are provided by commercial lobbying organisations. It is a strange business that such organisations can provide a secretariat for a lobbying group that is involved in the very subject for which the commercial lobbying organisation is receiving money.
  The report revealed that Ian Greer Associates, one of the biggest and, some would say, most powerful and influential lobbying organisations in this place, paid between £4,000 and £10,000 to Members of Parliament who introduced new business to the organisation. That is in the report. It is not anything fresh. The Committee asked Ian Greer Associates about declaration of the money. Ian Greer simply refused to give the High Court of Parliament any information. We asked whether he had advised the Members to declare the money. He said that he had not got round to doing that, but in retrospect he thought that perhaps it might have been a useful thing to do.
  So a person who was, it could be argued, buying influence by obtaining business through Members of Parliament and paying substantial sums of money for it, refused to provide a Select Committee with information about the numbers and names of people involved. That is an arrogant attitude.
  The other thing that grieves me is that we are here supposedly to represent the people who sent us. It seems wrong to me that people should seek to obtain financial advantage from commercial lobbying organisations over and above their salary. I consider the salary of a Member of Parliament adequate. I know that some Conservative Members of Parliament regard it as a foolish attitude to say that £30,000 a year is adequate, but I find it so.
  I believe that it is wrong that Members of Parliament should have outside interests, particularly interests related directly to their activity here. That is another reason why we should have a register. Large sums of money change hands in such circumstances. We can only guess what they are, but the Committee ascertained that amounts of between £4,000 and £10,000 were paid by Greer Associates for the introduction of new clients.
  I heartily recommend the book by Mark Hollingsworth. It points out that, for example, Ian Greer attended a private meeting of the Tory trade and industry

  793
  committee in March 1989. Some Conservative Members jibbed at that, because it was a private meeting. Ian Greer was there apparently because the chairman of Plessey was to speak and Greer was employed by Plessey against a GEC takeover and wanted to do some lobbying in the influential Back-Bench Conservative trade and industry committee. Again, the lobbyist claims that he does not pay money to Members of Parliament.
  The book refers to a letter from, as it happens, a Labour Member of Parliament, the former Member for Derby, South, Mr. Walter Johnson. It says:
  "In late 1983, after retiring from Parliament, Johnson wrote in appreciation:
  'As you will kindly recall, you agreed to pay me a fee of 1,000 for services to your company and that this would be paid in the form of paying a bill for a holiday.
  I very much regret that I have not been able to help you as much as I would have wished but, as you know, I have always been available if you wanted me, and this position still prevails.'''
  When people talk about Members of Parliament being available for hire, that is the sort of thing that they cite. The same Mr. Johnson was involved in maintaining Associated Octel's campaign to retain lead in petrol—arguably, not one of the most altruistic campaigns that a Member of Parliament could support.
  There is a powerful case for a register, which would help to curb the excessive zeal of some lobbyists. A code of conduct would also help. The Government ought to register the occasions on which commercial lobbyists meet Ministers acting as Ministers. They do not register them at present.
  When I was a Minister at the Department of Industry, I received a letter from the self-same Mr. Lloyd-Hughes inviting Ministers to a private dinner to discuss manning arrangements in industry. At least two Ministers accepted, but I was the exception. I would not have lunch with Lloyd-Hughes for all the tea in China. That was at the heart of Government. I have no doubt that that sort of lobbying still goes on, and it should at least be registered by the Government, so that it would be possible to identify the occasions on which commercial lobbying has taken place.
  Lobbyists can get to meet members of the Cabinet, Ministers of State, and Under-Secretaries of State—whereas ordinary people find it difficult to do so. Despite that difficulty, fortunately, some campaigns led by ordinary people have sufficient power and verve to be successful, and we want that to continue.
  Although we welcome this short debate, it is two years since the report. Some critics say that is because the Government do not regard this issue as important. I have been campaigning for a register of commercial lobbying organisations since 1974. Some lobbyists, to do them credit, are happy about accepting a register.
  Mr. David Harris: They would love it.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman says that they would love it. If they do, it will be that much more hurtful and damaging to lobbyists removed from the register, and that sanction is important.
  Because this short debate is two years overdue, the evidence to accompany the report is not available from the Vote Office but only to order. That is one drawback of a report appearing after a two-year gap. I urge the
  794
  Government to take action and to establish a register and a code of conduct—and let us ensure there are no grounds for outside criticism that Members of Parliament are for hire.
  12.37 am
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It is unfortunate that the House has had to wait two years for this important debate. I may point out that many of the abuses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred will be dealt with under the new registration arrangements, where they relate to Members of Parliament.
  I take a different view from my hon. Friend about the way the Government work. I do not believe that lobbyists necessarily corrupt or that the use of lobbying organisations is necessarily wrong. I see a positive and meaningful role for the lobbying industry in this country.
  My hon. Friend referred to the role of lobbyists in providing material to right hon. and hon. Members. Earlier this evening, the House debated the THORP issue, and a British Nuclear Fuels lobbyist was in the House and advised me during that debate. His advice was most important, and to some extent had some influence on the debate. It is important that people representing various industries and organisations are available to brief Members of Parliament, because they often provide critically important information that, even with additional research, right hon. and hon. Members would not be able to obtain.
  What worries me is that some of these lobbying organisations are shoddy. That was always Robert Adley's case in Committee. He stated repeatedly that some of these people are poor operators and waste people's money by pretending to sell a service when they have no expertise in how this place works.
  I have met lobbyists from lobbying organisations outside the House of Commons who really do understand how this place works. They have a better knowledge of how Government works than many hon. Members. They understand the pressure points in Departments. They understand how to obtain access to Ministers.
  Yes, they use Members of Parliament on occasion. I do not object to that. All I ask is that the whole process should be utterly transparent—this is what the debate in Committee was all about—so that we know when we meet someone who they are, who they represent, what their motive is and what they want. So long as we understand that, surely we are all adult enough to cope with the pressures that commercial organisations might exert on us.
  In many ways, therefore, I am a positive supporter of that industry. I see the lobbyist as the advocate. He is the advocate for a particular case, which people outside the House of Commons are often unable to put, because they do not understand the way the case has to be presented to government. I have seen cases presented to Governments by outside organisations whose presentation has been appalling. It has taken a lobbyist to come along, clean it up and present it in a far more effective way—often in an abbreviated form but hitting on the essential issues.
  That is only one way of influencing Government decision taking. There are other ways of doing it. The critical way is in Parliament. We are but one route. At the end of the day, we take the final decision on many issues. We vote in the House of Commons Division Lobbies on

  795
  recommendations put to us by Ministers. Of course, the Whips are there, but we have the right to stand up in Parliament and put our case.
  Furthermore, we have access to Ministers, in the same way as any outside lobbying organisation or any industry. It is all part of the balance in the operation of government. It is designed to ensure that all these organisations, Members oP Parliament and others can play their part in trying to influence the way in which decisions are taken.
  Mr. Cryer: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure he agrees with me that, even if we accept that commercial lobbying organisations can provide information to my hon. Friend and every other Member of Parliament, it should not be necessary to pay money to any Member of Parliament in order to obtain representation. A Member of Parliament should form his judgment on the strength of the case, not on the strength of any cheque that is presented to him.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I unequivocally and unconditionally subscribe to the view expressed by my hon. Friend. It is wrong that Members of Parliament should be paid by lobbying organisations. We are sent to the House of Commons to represent outside organisations and our constituents, and to ensure that the case is put to Ministers. However, it is a perfectly healthy part of the democratic process, when no remuneration is involved, for organisations to make direct representations to Ministers, or for them to come to us and ask us to put their case to Ministers. It was because we were of that view that many of us believed that it was possible to knock heads together in the industry and get them to come up with some arrangement whereby they would set up a voluntary register.
  I must draw the attention of hon. Members to paragraph 71 of our report. It is an indicator of how far we went to try to find another way of resolving this difficulty. I hope the House will forgive me if I read it:
  "We very much regret that the option of a Register, administered by the industry itself, and with an industry-wide code of conduct and effective disciplinary procedure seems not to be an option at present…since this would have many attractions. If the industry had a more unified and professional structure, it would be in a better position than anyone else to discern abuses and the House need not be concerned with the problems and expense of administration. Although such a Register would inevitably be voluntary in the first instance, it might be possible, given the emergence of a professional body of sufficient standing, eventually to establish a statutory framework, which would assist that body to administer the Register."
  That was what we set out to do. I know that the Chairman of the Committee held a number of discussions with outside organisations to try to knock their heads together and to achieve an arrangement that would avoid our having to take decisions in Parliament. We were perfectly prepared to accept and to back that arrangement with some statutory framework, but we failed.
  In responding to the previous debate, the Leader of the House said, " I think that the Select Committee should think again." I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I just do not think that it will work. I wish that it could be worked out on that basis, but there is not the will among organisations to get together on that basis. That is why many of us were driven into a compromise arrangement. We did not particularly want to go down that route, but, because we could not get them to stand together and take on the responsibility of policing the industry in a way that
  796
  was acceptable to Parliament, based on the transparency that people such as myself, who support the industry, wanted, we ended up taking this course.
  I am sorry to detain the House, but I asked for this debate at business questions for about 20 weeks. Each week, I asked the same question. The Leader of the House was used to my request for a debate.
  The Committee made a simple recommendation: that the House should take a decision in principle to establish a register of professional lobbyists. I shall tell the Leader of the House why it is important that that is carried. When lobbying organisations outside realise that we really mean business, which means that the Select Committee is faced by an instruction from the House to get this matter sorted out, they may then decide to agree an arrangement that would preclude Parliament from being involved.
  I am saying, give the Committee the power to get on with the job and take it a stage further by giving it the right to establish a register, and it may then be able to come back with a report at some stage recommending an alternative approach acceptable to Members. It would be acceptable to people such as myself, because we accept that, if such an approach is backed up by a statutory framework it will meet many of the reservations that hon. Members have expressed.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Lobbying
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) ( European Standing Committees).
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8487/90 and 5902/93 + COR 1, relating to plant variety rights; and supports the Government's intention of securing a system which is deregulatory in nature but which ensures a healthy United Kingdom and European plant breeding industry whilst safeguarding the interests of farmers and seed producers.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
      Question agreed to.

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

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
      CIVIL DEFENCE
      That the draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.

      OVERSEAS GOVERNMENTS (DEBTS)
      That the draft Debts of Overseas Governments (Determination of Relevant Percentage) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
      Question agreed to.

      NATIONAL HERITAGE
      That Mr. Paul Channon be discharged from the National UNESCO Heritage Committee and Mr. Michael Fabricant be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the
      Committee of Selection.]

  PETITION

    UNESCO
    12.47 am
    Mr. Bowen Wells: I have the honour to present a petition from the United Nations Association and friends of UNESCO that has been signed by some 25,000 petitioners who believe that Britain should return to full membership of UNESCO. The principle reason is best summed up in the preamble to the UNESCO constitution, which was adopted on 16 November 1945 at the United Nations conference in London and entered into force in November 1946.
    Crucially, the text, as amended in 1976, reads:
    "The Governments of the States, parties to this constitution on behalf of their people, declare that, since wars begin in the minds of men it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed."
    The petition reads:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled The humble petition of the people of the United Kingdom sheweth
    —that it is an increasing shame that the United Kingdom still has not joined UNESCO
    —that UNESCO was established in the aftermath of the Second World War for the countries of the United Nations to fight together against the evils of war and construct the defences of peace
    —that current world events show that UNESCO is needed as much as ever; 172 countries believe that UNESCO is a vital part of the UN family and actively participate in the organisation's work
    —that as a founder member in 1946 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK has a responsibility to join once more with UNESCO's member states and work with them towards universal literacy, scientific development, the promotion of a free press and the preservation of our cultural heritage for future generations.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House proceed with rejoining membership of UNESCO expeditiously
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Railway Jobs (York)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Arbuthnot.]
    12.50 am
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: At Question Time today, I raised the subject of the 532 recently announced redundancies at Asea Boveri Brown Transportation's York carriage works and a further 364 redundancies at the company's other works in Crewe and Derby.
    The redundancies are clearly a disaster for the individual workers and their families and are also a severe blow to York's economy and to the British balance of payments. They are, however, the reflection of a problem rather than the problem itself. Put simply, the problem is that the Government do not have, or at least do not appear to have, a strategy for rolling stock replacement and renewal or, indeed, a strategy for the railway manufacturing industry in general. If they do have a strategy, they are too shy to tell the public what it is or give it the necessary urgency to safeguard the needs of the travelling public and of the train builders—the companies and their work force.
    The reason a real strategy for rolling stock renewal is needed becomes clear when one considers the nature of the British Rail fleet of passenger vehicles. British Rail has 11,000 passenger vehicles, which typically have a life of 30 to 40 years. An annual replacement programme of some 300 to 400 new vehicles would be needed to retain the existing fleet with the existing age profile. It would require an investment of £250 million to £300 million per year. If, on top of that, one were to predict a modest increase of 1 per cent. a year in traffic on the railways as a result of the country pulling itself out of recession, we should need an extra 120 vehicles a year—an investment of some £90 million.
    If one believes what the Government say—I hope that it is true—about a shift of traffic from road to rail, and if one were to build in a further modest 1 per cent. increase in rail traffic each year, we should need another 120 vehicles, making a total annual investment in new passenger railway carriages of about £500 million. That compares with the Government's figure announced in the autumn statement for investment in new passenger carriages of £150 million. There is a large gap between the two figures.
    The kind of projection that I am suggesting is not pie in the sky. In the late 1980s, Network SouthEast estimated that it needed 400 new carriages to be built each year. It negotiated with ABB. On the strength of Network SouthEast's projection of its future needs, ABB invested £15 million in its York carriage works to meet the demand that Network SouthEast suggested that it would need to contract for in the years to the turn of the century.
    In terms of carriage building, ABB has created a rolling stock factory in York which is a centre of excellence not just in British or European terms, but on a worldwide basis. People from Europe who visit the factory say that they have nothing like that in Germany, Italy or France. The York factory is a world-class facility.
    The factory has the capacity to build 400 carriages a year. Until recently, it was operating at half-capacity. As a result of the redundancies announced two or three weeks ago, it is now operating at one-third capacity. It could soon be operating at zero capacity, because, if further
    800
    orders do not come through, the works will close. Despite all the investment, that factory will no longer produce carriages.
    What a shocking betrayal of British engineering that would be. What a dreadful waste of the £15 million invested by ABB. What kind of message would that send to other foreign companies considering investing in our country if a company takes the plunge, negotiates with customer, invests £15 million and then finds that the orders do not flow? What a damning indictment of Government policy that would be. The works would have closed, simply because the Government did too little too late to save them.
    The Government did too little because they came up with 150 million rather than the £500 million necessary for an adequate replacement programme for the existing British Rail fleet. The Government are too late because they dithered. They announced £150 million in November, but the following summer we have still no clear indication when or if an order will be placed.
    Mr. Mark Wolfson: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have a common interest in the issue, across the country and across the Floor of the House, particularly with regard to the speed or lack of it of the Government's announcing their decision to go ahead. I appreciate that it is for British Rail to make the decision, but I support the hon. Gentleman's argument that modern new rolling stock is long overdue for Kent commuters, for whom standards are still pretty appalling.
    The Budget contained a very positive announcement to opt for leasing. In my Budget speech, I clearly supported that leasing plan and I welcomed the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said that the Government were going to give a high priority to the future of manufacturing industry. On the issue of the works in York and the order that Network South East so badly needs, a number of points come together.
    Let us implement the Government's good decision in the Budget. The essential needs of Kent commuters should be met. The operational needs of Network SouthEast, with the coming of channel tunnel trains, should be raised to much higher standards than at present, and the hon. Gentleman's constituency should be assured of a better future.
    Mr. Bayley: I welcome that intervention by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and I absolutely concur with him. It is not just a Labour Member like me from a northern manufacturing constituency who believes that the order for Network SouthEast trains needs to be placed, and placed now. That view is shared by Conservative Members who represent constituencies in Kent and other counties served by Network SouthEast. It is also the view of the Railway Industry Association, and of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook). My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston wrote to his opposite number in the Department of Trade and Industry today to press the point. It is also the view of the Transport Select Committee and of the Engineering Employers Federation.
    I am not asking the Minister to back a lame duck. The class 465 vehicle which is built in York is the train to reshape the railways. It is the universal Networker. It will run equally on an old southern region third rail

    801
    electrification or north of the Thames on a pantograph. The Government say that they want a leasing market in secondhand trains, which implies an interchangeability of rolling stock between lines, and the class 465 developed by ABB will provide precisely that. It would bring London's cummuter services into the 21st century.
    The York-designed and York-built body shell of a 465 is the only body shell in Europe that has the European Community's full crash safety certification—none of its competitors has that. For the first time, this country has a train with major export potential to other countries in Europe.
    That is not a pipe dream. The York works has already won a European order. It is building the Strasbourg supertram, which it won in competition with many French rail manufacturers. Price and quality at the York works now have an international reputation which will be put at risk if the York works do not get what any other exporting industry in any other country would need—that is, a base load of home production to keep it secure and on which it can build for export success.
    British Rail and the Government are juggling with two orders—one for the west coast main line and one for Network SouthEast. I have called on the Government before to increase the amount of investment from the £150 million of leasing finance authorised in the autumn statement to £300 million. I repeat that bid now. If the Government want, as they say, to increase rail investment as they move towards privatisation, that increase in investment should happen. I do not want an either-or choice. Both the west coast main line and London commuters deserve a better service.
    If a choice has to be made, I urge the Minister and British Rail to opt for Network SouthEast, for four reasons. First, if the contract goes to ABB, Network SouthEast trains would be wholly built in the United Kingdom. Competitors would not build a UK train—they would buy half of it, the body shell, from abroad. Secondly, the York carriage works is a centre of excellence and will close if it does not receive an order. It is as simple as that. We cannot beat about the bush; that would happen. We would lose the last base in Britain at which whole suburban trains with modern aluminium carriages are built. That cannot be allowed to happen.
    Thirdly, Network SouthEast's London commuter services are clearly a public service railway. They cannot operate without Government support. The west coast main line is a commercial railway. Chris Green, the managing director of InterCity, says that it is completely commercially viable to invest in InterCity trains running from London to Manchester and further up the west coast main line. If that is the case, and if the Government are committed to private sector involvement in a privatised railway, they should give him the green light and say, "Go ahead, you have a commercial opportunity which yields a substantial return; go into partnership with the private sector, do that on your own account, and leave the Treasury-authorised £150 million for a public service, high-need railway for London commuters."
    Fourthly—the hon. Member for Sevenoaks identified this point—Networkers, if used on the Kent lines, would increase the capacity of those lines by about 50 per cent. because the trains are bigger and take more passengers and
    802
    also because they accelerate more quickly than existing trains, so one can fit more train movements on a single line within an hour. That extra capacity is essential because, when the channel tunnel opens, the train paths will be needed on existing lines between the tunnel and London for several years to come. That capacity must be freed up, and the Networkers at York could do that.
    In his statement on 3 June, the Minister announced that the Government were creating three passenger rolling stock companies. He said that the Government had two measures to encourage continued investment in rolling stock after privatisation: first, the £150 million which I have already mentioned and, secondly, a new clause in the Railways Bill to enable the franchising director to offer some sort of "comfort" to rail investors. I am not sure what "comfort" means. It is neither immediate nor specific. In terms of saving the York works and Britain's ability to build modern trains, an immediate and specific response is needed.
    I have two sets of questions that I want to ask the Minister. The first are short-term questions relating to ABB and the York works. What will the Government do to keep the York carriage works in business so that rail travellers in Britain and the British economy will continue to benefit from British-built trains? When specifically will British Rail and the Government decide how the £150 million will be spent? When will British Rail be able to sign a contract, and when will the contractor who wins the work be able to start construction?
    The second set of questions is equally important and relates to the longer term. Does the Minister agree that the country needs a strategy for rail investment and a clear programme for rolling stock renewal? Can he see a time when the railway industry in Britain will be able to plan ahead and we shall get the rolling stock necessary to meet the needs of the public, or will the Government allow the railway manufacturing industry to continue to lurch from crisis to crisis and have Members of Parliament like myself asking the House for emergency action to keep what could be a highly successful foreign exchange earning industry above water?
    We have the potential for a major British engineering manufacturing success, which could be put in jeopardy. We should not be lurching from crisis to crisis. For heaven's sake, let us not let the British train manufacturing industry go the same way as the British bus manufacturing industry went after deregulation. I have nothing against Mercedes or Volvo buses—they are fine vehicles—but, they do nothing for employment in Britain or for our balance of payments. It would be a tragedy if the rail manufacturing industry were allowed to go the same way as the bus industry.
    1.7 am
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I welcome the opportunity to answer the points made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). He stoutly defended the interests of his constituents who work in the ABB factory. I pay tribute to ABB for its investment in modernising that facility. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) stoutly defended the interests of his constituents, who are passengers. I have only 11 minutes in which to answer the key points, so I will concentrate on the main issues raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley).

    803
    I regret the loss of the 532 jobs at the ABB works in York. Those redundancies cannot be blamed on the Government's proposals for the reform of the railway industry. They have a lot to do with the recession in the United Kingdom and the consequences for British Rail—British Rail is not immune from the pressures of recession and with the understandable, but optimistic, expansion plans of the industry, including ABB, over the past few years.
    To answer one of the hon. Gentleman's points, I believe that Britain should have a domestic rolling stock manufacturing industry. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need that. We do not want, in five or 10 years' time, to have to rely on French or German manufacturers.
    The hon. Gentleman asked what the strategy was. The strategy is perfectly clear. We want to move increasingly to the private sector assuming responsibility for design, for the placing of orders and for the financing of rolling stock for the railway industry. That is a very clear objective. It will take a number of years, because British Rail has a number of obligations that it must continue to discharge. I do not rule out British Rail or the public sector placing further orders.
    It is important to step back and look at the present state of the industry. We undeniably have quite significant over-capacity, as the hon. Gentleman has been frank enough to admit in the past. The Railway Industry Association, in its publication "Beyond Future Railway", estimates that the present annual capacity of the industry is about 2,200 vehicles per annum.
    Over the past five years, between 1988 and 1992, the industry has delivered to British Rail about 500 vehicles per annum. That is one quarter of the present capacity, and includes a peak year of delivery in 1990. The association's most optimistic forecast of likely orders up to the year 2000 runs at about 1,100 vehicles per annum–50 per cent. of present capacity.
    I put it to the hon. Gentleman that that combination of circumstances has resulted in a position that does not present appealing options. As Minister for Public Transport, I accept responsibility, in working with the industry, to ensure as good a use of that capacity as possible. However, the industry will have to rely on orders coming from beyond British Rail, a point with which I shall deal in a minute.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me about the £150 million of special lease finance. I do not accept that as the sum total of orders that I should like to see placed in this financial year. The £150 million is not the ceiling for this year. It is not an annual figure, and it is not in British Rail's external financing limit. Undoubtedly, because it is the first major lease of its kind for rolling stock, special considerations will have to apply to the terms and conditions of the lease.
    It is up to British Rail to make a decision; it is not up to Ministers to decide between the two options. There had to be two options because, at the urging of both ABB and GEC, British Rail decided to hold a competition for value for money between two run-on orders. If British Rail had decided to use the facility for a brand new design of rolling stock, it would have taken a considerable time to draft a specification and to allow industry to prepare the necessary tools and jigs for manufacture. That is not the case here.
    I do not accept that there has been delay. British Rail decided on the two options to compare before Easter, as it
    804
    said it would. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a week when a conclusion will be reached; that is not within my gift. I cannot specify precisely when a conclusion will be reached. British Rail will decide on the best offer, and then, I hope, manufacture will start shortly. Once the decision has been taken—it is an invidious decision between Networkers and 225 stock—I shall immediately start work with British Rail on helping it to prepare with industry a true operating lease that meets the Treasury's criteria of a lease that does not count against public expenditure. That is a commitment that I have made.
    I do not regard it as a choice for all time between the Networkers or the 225 HSTs mark 4 stock for the west coast main line.
    I should like to see both manufactured in due course, but the condition is that if British Rail decides to pursue an order for the class not initially chosen, it must meet the Treasury's criteria, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, were laid out at the end of May.
    I have been asked what steps the. Government are taking to facilitate the development of this leasing market, which is most important. In its latter stages, the Railways Bill was amended to allow the franchising director to designate certain new rolling stock as what are called franchise assets. The Bill now enables the franchising director to require that successive franchisees use that rolling stock. The purpose, of course, is to extend the guaranteed lease life of the asset. That is most important, because it reduces the residual value risk to the lessor.
    We have taken those steps, but industry and, in particular, the private capital markets will have to accept some residual value risk. That is minimised if there is a standard design or one that does not require very much change from order to order or between the uses of rolling stock on different routes. It will be helpful if the manufacturer offers to maintain the rolling stock to a high standard and to carry out technological improvements throughout its life. I have offered to meet the Railway Industry Association, representing ABB, GEC and others, in July to discuss its views about how best to develop the leasing market for rolling stock.
    I turn now to the foreign market. As I explained earlier, even if British Rail and franchisees, through the leasing market, were to meet the most optimistic forecasts of the Railway Industry Association, only about 50 per cent. of this country's current capacity would be used. Thus, foreign orders are essential to the well-being of the industry.
    Within the European Community, of course, orders have to meet the requirement laid down in the utilities directive. In other words, British Rail, when it is placing orders for rolling stock of a new design, must advertise and must accept qualifying tenders from other manufacturers in the Community. That applies also to the nationalised railway undertakings in the EC. This will take time, as there are long lead periods in the placing of orders.
    As for the situation outside the Community, I have to say that the market is very competitive. I congratulate the British industry on winning some excellent orders abroad in the last few years. The pressure must continue. The Government and the Department of Transport will do everything they can to help ABB and the other manufacturers.
    I believe very strongly that we must introduce more long-term planning into rolling stock procurement. Assuming that the Railways Bill will be enacted, I can tell

    805
    the House that the rolling stock companies, initially under public ownership, will be set up by 1 April 1994. We want those companies to pass into private sector ownership in due course.
    British Rail will very shortly appoint advisers on the reorganisation of the ownership of rolling stock and on the move from public sector ownership to private sector ownership. But RailTrack has been asked to prepare a 10-year indicative budget for infrastructure investment.
    806
    There is a good case for the franchising director and industry to work together and to look forward by up to 10 years in making provision for new rolling stock.
    I look forward to the meeting that is to take place on, I believe, 6 July, when the wider issues of the railway industry will be discussed, as it relates to York, with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). We need the co-operation of industry, British Rail, the franchising director and the Government in planning for the future prosperity of the rolling stock manufacturing industry.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past One o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to impose upon the Legal Aid Board a duty to automatically provide all applicants with a complete breakdown of their assessment of resources determining legal aid eligibility.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Board or the legal aid assessment office will always provide this information on request. It would not be a sensible use of resources to require more than that.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Stations (Attacks)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Northern Ireland how many mortar and bomb attacks have been launched against police stations in Northern Ireland in each of the last four years.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Bomb Attacks

  Rocket/mortar Attacks

  1989

  22

  6

  1990

  23

  12

  1991

  41

  13

  1992

  17

  6

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many portakabin-type structures are still in use at police stations in Northern Ireland; and what assessment has been made of their vulnerability to mortar and bomb attacks relative to other kinds of structure.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  There are a number of portakabin-type structures, or sectional buildings, within the police estate. They are used mainly for storage facilities. For security reasons, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to specify the precise number still in use.

  All the buildings are nevertheless assessed as to their comparative vulnerability to mortar and bomb attack with particular consideration being given to their location and use.

  RUC Drug Squad
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Northern Ireland what plans there are to deploy greater manpower resources to the Royal Ulster Constabulary's338
  drugs squad; if other officers are seconded to augment the squad; and how many seconded officers have served six months or longer periods during each of the last four years.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The deployment of police officers is an operational matter for the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and I understand that the strength of the drugs squad is regularly reviewed by him. There is an ongoing programme of six-month secondments to the drugs squad; figures on secondments are not kept on a yearly basis but it is estimated that 90 officers have been involved over the last four years.

  Police Advisory Board
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how often the Police Advisory Board, as constituted under the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, is supposed to meet; how often it has met in each of the last four years; and if it is planned to meet in the current year.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  There is no statutory requirement for the Police Advisory Board to meet. The most recent meeting of the board was held in January 1988. It is intended to hold a further meeting of the board later this year.

  Muggings, Coleraine
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many muggings have been reported to the police in Coleraine(a) during 1992 and (b) in 1993 to date.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Thirteen robberies were reported to the police in the Coleraine sub-division in 1992, the circumstances of which approximate to what is generally understood by "muggings". In 1993, to 22 June, three such robberies have been reported.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by year for the last five years, and by water authority the number of(a) domestic and (b) industrial water disconnections made.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Water Executive, which is part of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, is the only water authority in Northern Ireland.

  The water supplied to a property which is used solely for domestic purposes is not metered and is not subject to disconnection for non-payment of an account.

  Information on industrial premises is not held separately and the figures for commercial, industrial and agricultural premises are as follows:

  Number

  1988

  408

  1989

  292

  1990

  258

  1991

  385

  1992

  211

  Public Bodies
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names, occupations and current employers of those who currently hold positions in
  339
  each public body to which he makes appointments; if he will make a statement on the considerations taken into account when making such appointments; and if he will list details of the posts and salaries or allowances payable which have changed since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992".

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: Information on the names, occupations and current employers of those who currently hold positions on public bodies to which I make appointments, and details of the posts and salaries or allowances payable which have changed since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992" could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In making public appointments, the prime considerations are the individual's ability or potential to contribute to the work of a particular body to which he or she is appointed and the need for each public body to have the range of experience and skills necessary to carry out its functions.

  Opsahl Report
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the report, "A Citizen's Inquiry: the Opsahl report on Northern Ireland"; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The commission provided me with a copy of its report when it was published. It provides a valuable record of the commission's work, which clearly did much to stimulate the submission of views from a wide range of individuals and organisations. In addition the commission itself made a number of recommendations. A number of these are clearly controversial and have provoked dissenting comment. Its value, in my view, lies principally in enlivening and developing informed public debate and in offering an important source of ideas, both from the commission itself and from the many submissions made to it.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have applied for British citizenship under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990; and how many have been awarded British citizenship so far.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As at 19 June 1993, 66,734 applications had been received from principal applicants. No record is kept of the number of dependants shown on the applications. A total of 30,762 principal beneficiaries had been registered as British citizens by that date together with 51,127 dependants.

  Cardiff Prison
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the age of the remand prisoner who attempted suicide at Cardiff prison on 22 June.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general for the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  340
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 27 June 1993

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the age of the prisoner who attempted suicide at Cardiff prison on 22 June.

  The prisoner was aged 18 and was discovered hanging from the window bars at about I am by the prisoner sharing his cell. He summoned staff who, finding no sign of life, resuscitated him while awaiting an ambulance. The prisoner was taken to hospital and, I am pleased to say, is recovering. He will return to custody as soon as he is fit.

  This young man was seen by a doctor on reception at Cardiff as part of the standard screening for potential suicides. He was considered not to be at risk and gave no indication that he would attempt to take his own life. Staff at Cardiff prison are to be commended for their prompt and professional action in saving this young man's life. The prisoner who summoned help has had counselling and I understand that both his father and solicitor have praised staff at the prison for their care and humanity.

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 279, what proportion of the clear-up rate for each police force in 1992 was accounted for by offences taken into consideration.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Notifiable offences cleared up by the police in 1992 Proportion of offences cleared up by being taken into consideration

  Police force area

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  10

  Bedfordshire

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  20

  Cheshire

  10

  Cleveland

  34

  Cumbria

  19

  Derbyshire

  14

  Devon and Cornwall

  12

  Dorset

  16

  Durham

  11

  Essex

  18

  Gloucestershire

  14

  Greater Manchester

  20

  Hampshire

  14

  Hertfordshire

  20

  Humberside

  15

  Kent

  18

  Lancashire

  18

  Leicestershire

  22

  Lincolnshire

  15

  City of London

  12

  Merseyside

  16

  Metropolitan police district

  9

  Norfolk

  16

  Northamptonshire

  15

  Northumbria

  18

  North Yorkshire

  24

  Nottinghamshire

  26

  South Yorkshire

  5

  Staffordshire

  11

  Suffolk

  14

  Surrey

  17

  Sussex

  17

  Thames Valley

  18

  Warwickshire

  11

  West Mercia

  14

  West Midlands

  12

  West Yorkshire

  15

  Wiltshire

  13

  Dyfed-Powys

  10

  Gwent

  8

  341

  Police force area

  Per cent.

  North Wales

  15

  South Wales

  6

  Total

  16

  European Election Boundaries
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason arrangements for the redrawing of the European parliamentary boundaries were not initiated shortly after the decision on extra seats at the Edinburgh summit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We thought it right to give careful consideration to the distribution of the extra seats to the various parts of the United Kingdom before bringing our proposals before Parliament.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he sought from the boundary commissions on their ability to redraw the European Parliament constituency boundaries in time for the 1994 elections; and what correspondence was exchanged.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no doubts about the ability of the boundary commissioners to carry out this work, if they had both the time and the necessary statutory powers. Consequently, no correspondence has been exchanged.

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

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We expect the European Parliamentary Constituencies Committee for Wales to complete its review as soon as possible after the European Parliamentary Elections Bill receives Royal Assent. It is our intention that the Opposition parties in the House of Commons will be consulted about the membership.

  Group 4
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) of 10 June,Official Report, column 297, when he expects the examination of the contract with Group 4 in respect of court escort services to be concluded.

  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. John Spellar, dated 24 June 1993.

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question pursuant to the Answer of 10 June to the honourable Member for Lewisham, Deptford [Official Report, column 297] about the examination of the contract with Group 4 for court escort services.

  The demands on the criminal justice system and the resources available to it are continually changing. To meet
  342
  these changes courts open, close, or change their use, and prison establishments change their catchment areas or functions. All such changes affect the resource requirements of the court escort service. It was to examine such changes that the work referred to in my letter to Mrs. Ruddock was undertaken. That work is still continuing (no contract changes have yet been made) and some aspects of it are likely to be concluded before others. At the same time, further changes in the prison population in the contract area are occurring and the effects of these too are being considered.

  The contract with Group 4 recognises that costs will vary with such changes in the requirement and mechanisms exist to adjust the contract accordingly. This will be a continuing process throughout the life of the contract.

  Police, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been(a) the establishment and (b) the number of police in post in North Yorkshire on 1 April in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on police strength is collected at the end of each month. The figures set out in the table give the information requested as at 30 April in each year.

  North Yorkshire Constabulary

  Year as at 30 April

  Establishment

  Strength

  1979

  1,328

  1,337

  1 1980

  1,368

  1,355

  1981

  1,368

  1,352

  1982

  1,368

  1,361

  1983

  1,368

  1,362

  1984

  1,368

  1,358

  1985

  1,368

  1,348

  1986

  1,368

  1,365

  1987

  1,368

  1,362

  1988

  1,368

  1,370

  1989

  1,383

  1,363

  1990

  1,408

  1,380

  1991

  1,408

  1,380

  1992

  1,418

  1,389

  1993

  1,418

  1,380

  1 The North Yorkshire Police Authority did not ask for an increase in establishment between 1980–81 and 1987–88.

  Obscene Publications Act 1959
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many publications have been confiscated in each of the last three years under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures for seizures and forfeitures under section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 are not collected centrally. However, from inquiries which have been made of the two largest forces in England and Wales—the Metropolitan police and Greater Manchester—both of which have dedicated obscene publications squads, I understand that a total of 264,504 items and 234,386 items were seized by them in 1991 and 1992 respectively. A total of 74,690 items have been seized by the same police forces so far this year.

  Betting Shops
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many betting shops are open for evening racing; and how many betting shops that were previously open for evening racing have now closed.
  343
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government do not collect this information.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the evening opening of betting shops has had on attendances at greyhound racing stadiums.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the greyhound racing industry is concerned that there has been a recent downturn in admissions, but that no figures are available yet.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names, occupations and current employers of those who currently hold positions in each public body to which he makes appointments; if he will make a statement on the considerations taken into account when making such appointments; and if he will list details of the posts and salaries or allowances payable which have changed since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992".

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Mr. Howard:
  [holding answer 3 June 1993 ] : The information is not recorded centrally and is not available in the form requested. The number of buildings owned or rented by the Home Office—on the prisons and non-prisons estates—is set out in the tables, together with details, where available, of the estimated value of the estate and the rents or leases payable.

  Prison Service Estate

  Number of Buildings

  Estimated Value

  Prison Establishments

  129

  £3–4 billion

  Prison Quarters

  2,296

  £110–140 million

  Other Buildings

  15

  £0·75–1·25 million

  Total

  2,440

  £3–4 billion

  The majority of the prison quarters and other buildings are freehold. A total of 127 prison establishments are owned by the Department and two are leased. The rents payable for prison service property and farmland in 1993–94 will be in the region of 1 million pounds. The accommodation and maintenance charges for the headquarters buildings, including prison service training schools and supply and transport branch, will total approximately £17 million and minor repairs and maintenance to prison establishments will cost about £18 million in 1993–94.

  Non-prisons estate

  Number of buildings

  Rent or leases payable per annum (£ million)

  Owned buildings

  16

  —

  Rented buildings

  97

  33·4

  Leased buildings

  34

  11

  344

  Non-prisons estate

  Number of buildings

  Rent or leases payable per annum (£ million)

  —

  —

  Total

  147

  44·4

  Of the buildings on the non-prisons estate which are not owned by this Department 88 are on the common user estate and are thus owned or rented by the property holdings directorate of the Department of the Environment to whom we pay rent to cover the costs of our occupations in the buildings.

  Information on the value of the buildings on the non-prisons estate is not readily available and a full valuation could be carried out only at disproportionate cost. The estimated cost of maintenance in 1993–94 is £17 million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Service
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries where restrictions exist on personal travel by members of the diplomatic service.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It has been long-standing practice to give advice to all staff on the problems they may face in travelling to certain countries, and to require them to give notice of such visits, particularly if they have access to classified information. On security grounds we do not publish the list of countries concerned, but it is kept regularly under review.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries where marriage to, or cohabitation with, nationals is prohibited for employees of Her Majesty's diplomatic service; and when that list was last revised by reduction or addition.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Diplomatic service staff are not specifically prohibited from marrying, or cohabiting with non-British citizens. However, depending on circumstances, such relationships might affect an officer's postability or security clearance.

  Haiti
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to assist efforts to restore democratic Government to Haiti; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Along with our European Community partners, we have consistently reaffirmed our commitment to the restoration of democratic government in Haiti. We support the efforts of the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the United Nations to bring about a political settlement. We are taking steps to implement UN Security Council resolution 841, which was adopted by the UN on 16 June 1993 to impose sanctions on Haiti.
  345

  Conventional Arms Register
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the Government submitted to the United Nation's Secretary General a return from the United Kingdom to the UN Register of Conventional Arms Transfer in New York; and if he will place a copy of the return in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 May 1993.]: The copy of the United Kingdom's return placed in the Library of the House on 29 April inadvertently contained some errors on page 5. A corrected version has now been placed in the Library.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has(a) to visit northern Cyprus and (b) to meet representatives from northern Cyprus during the Commonwealth conference in Cyprus in October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no such plans; the programme for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' visit to the commonwealth heads of Government meeting, has not yet been finalised.

  Somalia
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations the United States Administration held with Her Majesty's Government or its representatives at the United Nations concerning its military actions in Somalia in June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 25 June 1993.]: United Nations military actions in Somalia in June have been carried out in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution No. 837, to which we have given our full support.

EMPLOYMENT

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to improve the present programme of sheltered employment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, is publishing today a consultative paper on the arrangements for funding sheltered employment. The main proposals involve:

  introducing a more flexible system of block grants to providers which will allow a better response to client needs;

  improving performance and use of resource through having formal contracts with clear targets;

  better targeting of sheltered employment on need;

  arrangements to encourage more people with severe disabilities to move from sheltered workshops or factories to placements with employers and, where possible to full open employment.

  The document has been sent to the main interests concerned and comments requested by 13 September. Decisions will be reached as soon as possible after that.

  I believe that the proposals will address criticisms of the excessive complexity and inflexibility of current funding arrangements and will enable more people to be helped in better ways.
  346
  Copies of the document are available in the Vote Office.

  Oral Disorders
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for employment if he will publish for each of the last 10 years the number of working days lost through oral disorders.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's policy on the purchase and use of(a) recycled paper, (b) low-energy light bulbs, (c) tropical hardwoods, (d) peat and (e) cars with catalytic converters.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Department, in common with other Government Departments, has produced an environmental strategy which sets out our policy on environmental and energy issues.

  It contains commitments to purchase and use recycled paper wherever this is practical; to reduce energy consumption by, among other means, the installation of more efficient equipment including low-energy light bulbs; to purchase goods and services which avoid dependence on the production and use of non-renewable resources such as tropical hardwoods; and to fit all Departmental vehicles with catalytic converters where possible.

  Although we have no specific policy on the use of peat, the general commitment against the use of non-renewable resources would cover it.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been employed in abattoirs in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information on regional employment in abattoirs is from the periodic censuses of employment and is given in the table:

  Estimated number of employees in employment in Abattoirs 1 September of each year

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1984

  8,100

  1,500

  200

  1987

  9,400

  1,400

  400

  1989

  9,000

  1,200

  300

  1991

  8,300

  1,500

  600

  1 Activity heading 4121 of the Standard Industrial Classification 1980.

  Review Bodies (Staff)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are involved in servicing the review bodies on doctors and dentists' remuneration, and on nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine; how many NHS staff are covered by those review bodies; and what is the annual cost of running these bodies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration and the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions
  347
  Allied to Medicine are expected to be serviced directly by up to eight staff in 1993–94, shared equally between the two bodies and assisted by other clerical and secretarial staff of the Office of Manpower Economics.

  As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, there were some 112,000 doctors and dentists and the full-time equivalent of some 527,000 nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine in the NHS. This includes staff employed by national health service trusts, which are free to determine the pay of their staff locally.

  The annual cost of running the two review bodies, in respect of the salary costs of the eight staff and the travel and subsistence costs for members, who are otherwise unpaid, and staff is expected to be £265,000 in 1993–94.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the oral answer from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) of 14 December 1992,Official Report, columns 15–16, on the sale of the Professional and Executive Register, if he will now list the organisations which bid for the register; and whether the company which bought the register submitted the highest bid.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend, the previous Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on 15 February 1993 setting out the Government's position.

  Port Accidents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatal accidents there have been in United Kingdom ports since July 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) on 27 May 1993, Official Report, columns 655–56.

PRIME MINISTER

  Low-energy Light Bulbs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to install low-energy light bulbs at 10 Downing street and Chequers.

  The Prime Minister
  Following an energy audit of 10–12 Downing street high-efficiency, low-energy lamps have been installed where appropriate. Low energy luminaires and krypton tubes have also been installed.

  The Chequers estate is the responsibility of the Chequers trust.

  Slovenia
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions the Copenhagen EC conference held on closer links between the European Community and Slovenia; and with what result.

  The Prime Minister
  There was no discussion of this subject at the European Council in Copenhagen.
  348

  Cabinet Sub-Committee Decisions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions decisions of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on London have been made known to Parliament and the public.

  The Prime Minister
  I do not propose to give details of topics considered by individual ministerial committees, the timing of their meetings or their discussions.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to ensure that the question of the present division of Cyprus is included on the agenda of the Commonwealth conference to take place in Cyprus later this year; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The inter-communal dispute in Cyprus is the subject of intensive negotiations under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General. This process has our full support. It is important not to start new initiatives that may confuse or cut across the UN effort.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has(a) to visit northern Cyprus and (b) to meet representatives from northern Cyprus during the Commonwealth conference in Cyprus in October; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  There are no such plans; the programme for my visit to the commonwealth heads of Government meeting has not yet been finalised.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Prime Minister which department provides the cover for capital costs for three RECHAR schemes in east Durham.

  The Prime Minister
  Departmental responsibility will depend on the nature of the projects concerned.

  Doctors' and Dentists' Pay
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Doctors and Dentists Review Body will be invited to make recommendations for pay appropriate to 1 April 1994.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he will take to enable the Doctors and Dentists Review Body to propose measures to eliminate differentials between the earnings of doctors and dentists and comparable professions.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government do not consider it appropriate to determine pay rates for doctors and dentists by comparison with the earnings of other professional groups. Each case for remuneration should be considered on its merit, taking account of the terms and conditions of service enjoyed, the labour market in which the profession operates and what is affordable.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will include in his discussions with the Japanese Government in September the issue of the storage in Britain of nuclear waste resulting from the reprocessing of Japanese nuclear fuel at Sellafield.
  349
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: This matter is already dealt with in the contracts between British Nuclear Fuels plc and its Japanese customers and in the existing inter-governmental letters between the United Kingdom and Japan. Since 1976, BNFL's contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. The Government intend that these options will be exercised and wastes returned.

HEALTH

  GP Fund Holders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fund holders have had their recognition reviewed by region in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 to date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities are responsible for ensuring that all fundholders continue to meet the requirements of the scheme.

  Isobutyl Nitrite
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were attributable to isobutyl nitrite in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  In England and Wales during the period 1988 to 1992 there were no deaths where isobutyl nitrite was attributable, on death registrations, to be the cause.

  Information from St. George's medical school, which monitors all deaths in the United Kingdom associated with abuse of volatile substances, however, shows that during the period 1988 to 1991—the latest year for which information is available—there are known to have been five deaths in England and Wales that were associated with alkyl nitrites1.
  1 All the nitrite compounds involved are of commercial quality, not pure, and may contain several isomers. For this reason, the St. George's report "Trends in Deaths Associated with Abuse of Volatile Substances 1971–1991: Report No. 6", copies of which are available in the Library, refer to them generically as alkyl nitrites.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation she has had with ME Action and other myalgic encephalomyelitis associations about future areas of research.

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials from the Department met representatives of the main myalgic encephalomyelitis organisations last year. As a result, a task force is now preparing a report to assist consideration of a structured approach to myalgic encephalomyelitis research.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on research into myalgic encephalomyelitis in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. A number of research projects into aspects of the physical origins and treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis are proceeding within the national health service, some of them funded by voluntary organisations and one by 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.
  350

  London Amublance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 498–99, on emergency calls to the London ambulance service, if she will now make it her policy to require detailed records to be kept of incidents where response times of emergency ambulances in London exceed 25 minutes and for information concerning the number and nature of such incidents and the reasons for them to be placed in the Library each month.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. The London ambulance service is answerable to South West Thames regional health authority. The policy on requiring detailed records of response times is a matter for it.

  Quarry House
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to move staff from Quarry house to London in each of the next five years; and in what grades.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has only recently completed the relocation of the national health service management executive to Leeds. There are no plans to move work back to London.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many salaried dentists are employed by each family health services authority in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of 17 English family health services authorities currently employ 77 salaried dentists. Details are shown in the table.

  Number of salaried dentists employed by FHSAs at 18 June 1993

  FHSA

  Number of salaried dentists

  Derbyshire

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  9

  Essex

  3

  City and East London

  8

  Kent

  4

  Greenwich and Bexley

  6

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  30

  West Sussex

  1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1

  Wiltshire

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Liverpool

  2

  Lancashire

  1

  Salford

  1

  Total—England

  77

  Psychiatric Services
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her policy towards the long-term development on psychiatric services and care.

  Mr. Bowis
  Our policy for the long-term development of mental health services is set out in the report to
  351
  Parliament "Development of Services for People with Learning Disabilities (Mental Handicap) or Mental Illness in England" No. 342 printed on 16 December 1992 and the "Mental Illness Key Area Handbook" published in January this year. Both documents are available in the Library.

  Community Care
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about community care for the mentally and physically handicapped in the north-west; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have received a number of representations. The Government are monitoring the implementation and practice of the community care reforms which were implemented on 1 April this year. This monitoring is being undertaken by the social services inspectorate and regional health authorities.

  Eye Consultants
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has regarding the number of referrals by opticians to eye consultants in each year since 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Ophthalmic opticians do not, except in an emergency, refer patients directly to consultant ophthalmologists, but do so through general practitioners. In 1990–91 there were 599,520 referral attendances at consultant ophthalmologists' out-patient clinics in England, of which 478,141 were written referral requests from GPs. In 1991–92—the last date for which figures are available—there were 663,192 referral attendances, of which 529,243 were written referrals from GPs. We do not collect information about the proportion of referrals initiated by ophthalmic opticians.

  Dental Treatment
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many courses of dental treatment in each category under the national health service were performed by dentists for the periods from October to December 1991 and October to December 1992; and what was the percentage increase or decrease in the number of treatments provided;

  (2) how many courses of dental treatment in each category under the national health service were performed by dentists for the periods from January to March 1992 and January to March 1993; and what was the percentage increase or decrease of treatments provided.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  General dental service—England Number of courses of denial treatment

  Adults

  Children

  October 1991 to December 1991

  6,169,678

  721,014

  October 1992 to December 1992

  6,216,373

  673,528

  Percentage Change

  0·76

  -6·59

  January 1992 to March 1992

  6,440,445

  712,001

  January 1993 to March 1993

  6,452,325

  702,232

  Percentage Change

  0·18

  -1·37

  Notes:

  1. Under the new dental contract introduced on 1 October 1990, most
  352
  child treatment is undertaken under capitation a here no separate course of treatment is identified. The figures for adults and children are not therefore comparable.

  2. The reduction in the number of child courses of treatment is due to the inclusion in the figures of "entry payments". These are paid to a dentist on accepting for capitation a child whose teeth require active clinical intervention. The number of such payments is now declining sharply.

  Emergency Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of emergency admissions to hospitals in each health authority in England in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of non-elective admissions in the general and acute specialties provided by national health service hospitals in each regional health authority are shown in the table. information for individual districts is not available centrally.

  Finished Consultant Episodes

  Region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern

  255,904

  268,256

  Yorkshire

  291,537

  303,883

  Trent

  333,311

  348,327

  East Anglian

  147,956

  158,802

  North West Thames

  212,324

  233,643

  North East Thames

  290,206

  297,552

  South East Thames

  253,023

  261,727

  South West Thames

  189,820

  202,488

  Wessex

  199,196

  214,481

  Oxford

  155,603

  158,034

  South Western

  238,582

  242,902

  West Midlands

  382,176

  394,452

  Mersey

  210,107

  217,524

  North Western

  337,271

  343,605

  Special Health Authorities

  23,609

  23,651

  England

  3,520,625

  3,669,327

  Source: Quarterly Monitoring of Provider Activity.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names and occupations of the chairs and non-executive directors of each NHS trust in the Wessex region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The list of chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts in Wessex region, together with their occupations, where known, is shown in the table.

  Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. J. J. Thring

  Solicitor/Bank director

  Non-Executive directors:

  Mr. A. F. Fosler

  Chartered surveyor

  Mr. P. C. Allfrey

  Chartered accountant

  Mr. E. H. Lace

  Company director

  Mrs. C. A. Baynton Coward

  Social Worker

  Mrs. R. Baugh

  Physiotherapist

  West Dorset Community Health NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. R. Willis

  Farmer

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. G. Adam

  Retired company executive

  Mrs. A. J. Dupont

  Investment adviser

  Mr. G. Millard

  Healthcare management consultant

  Ms A. Neuberger

  Training director

  353

  West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Capt. M. Fulford-Dobson

  Retired naval officer

  Non-executive directors:

  Lady E. Barne

  Businesswoman

  Mrs. V. Pitt-Rivers

  Housewife

  Mr. J. C. Bones

  Stockbroker

  Mr. D. Revill

  Surveyor

  West Dorset Mental Health NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. E. Topliss

  Retired University lecturer

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. J. C. Day

  Secretary, Association of Councils

  Mr. C. Kirk

  Retired local government officer

  Mr. I. De Vere Moss

  Solicitor

  Mrs. A. M. Elwin

  Antique dealer

  Ms C. J. Legge

  Chartered accountant

  Bath and West Community NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. G. Chown

  Former managing director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. N. Brown

  Chartered accountant

  Mr. C. Streat

  Former company executive

  Mrs. G. Corney

  Former teacher/social worker

  Mrs. A. D. Orme

  Former nurse

  Mr. A. D. Aldrich

  Former youth and community worker

  Bath Mental Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. D. Howlett

  —

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. F. McNulty

  Solicitor

  Mr. D. Taylor

  Chartered accountant

  Mr. W. Shakespeare

  Former company executive

  Mrs. M. Hicks

  Retired social worker

  Mr. G. J. Hutton

  Clinical psychologist

  Dorset Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Dr. O. Ockelford

  Retired psychiatrist

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. P. Hickman

  Former sales executive

  Miss J. Wickenden

  Financial manager

  Mr. E. Wood

  Solicitor

  Mrs. E. Cook

  Retired nurse

  Mr. H. G. Prest

  Retired paper merchant

  The Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. R. Symons

  Managing director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. W. H. Matthews

  Former bank executive

  Mr. N. McCorkell

  Chartered accountant

  Mrs. P. Martin

  Former nurse

  Mrs. D. Hackforth

  Biochemist

  Mr. W. Hindle

  Retired consultant physician

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. S. Jackson

  Company manager

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. S. Collins

  Solicitor

  Miss J. Manning

  Education liaison officer

  Mr. M. S. Samuel

  Insurance company senior executive

  Group Capt. J. Rees

  Former company senior manager

  Mrs. M. Dayeh

  Estate agent

  Royal United Hospital, Bath, NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. B. Collins

  Businessman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. R. Mawditt

  University registrar

  Mr. J. Seed

  Deputy company chairman

  Ms S. Reiter

  Managing director

  Mr. D. J. Gay

  Solicitor

  Ms H. Williams

  Marketing services manager

  354

  Wiltshire Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Miss W. Watson

  Former nursing college principal

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. P. Robinson

  Chartered accountant

  Lady R. Hawley

  Housewife

  Mr. A. Warren

  Former naval engineer

  Mr. V. Prior

  Former senior company executive

  Mr. O. Strickland

  Solicitor

  Andover District Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. B. Brown

  Retired company chief executive

  Non-executive directors:

  Prof. B. L. Davies

  Management consultant

  Mrs. B. North

  Director of strategic planning

  Mrs. M. Fagan

  Voluntary worker

  Mr. D. L. Maynard

  Former company general manager

  Dorset Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. R. Burke

  Group managing director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. H. Malone

  Chartered accountant/finance director

  Mrs. C. A. Shaw

  Company chief executive

  Mrs. T. Slocock

  Company director

  Mr. K. Lomas

  Retired solicitor

  Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. K. Thornber

  Management consultant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. C. D. Fisher

  Director, social services

  Mr. B. G. Harris

  Insurance consultant

  Mrs. H. T. Allery

  Retired company manager

  Mrs. S. E. Telfer

  Community care groups adviser

  Isle of Wight Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Kingston

  Chartered surveyor

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. C. F. Rolf

  Solicitor

  Mr. S. H. Greenen

  Retired architect

  Mrs. P. Lee

  Head teacher

  Mrs. K. R. Daniell

  Former nursing officer

  North Hampshire, Loddon Community NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. A. Bennigsen

  Director, marketing company

  Non-executive directors:

  Dr. J. S. Lyon

  Psychiatrist

  Mrs. A. Borghgraef

  Relationship councillor

  Mrs. J. M. Nicholas

  Community centre manager

  Mrs. C. J. Tomkinson

  Housewife

  Mr. T. Sullivan

  Company managing director

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. V. Jenner

  Company managing director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. W. Evershed

  Company secretary

  Mr. W. Gardner

  Bank manager

  Mrs. J. Merritt

  Head teacher

  Mr. E. C. Cottle

  Retired naval commander

  Ms K. Glendinning

  Voluntary worker

  St. Mary's Hospital, Isle of Wight NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Major General B. Livesey

  Retired army officer

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. E. S. Giles

  Solicitor

  Mr. B. F. Langslow

  Management consultant

  Mr. J. H. Simpson

  Retired accountant

  Mrs. G. Cavaciuti

  Administrator

  Dr. D. W. Hide

  Retired doctor

  Southampton Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. D. Noddings

  Retired company director

  355

  Non-Executive directors:

  Mr. S. K. Sharma

  Chartered accountant

  Mr. J. R. Montgomery

  University lecturer

  Mr. A. E. Smith

  Civil servant

  Mrs. P. Cassy

  Director, voluntary agency

  Mrs. J. Buchanan

  Clinical data manager

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. E. Brodrick

  Accountancy manager

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. A. Davis

  Financial adviser

  Mr. D. A. D'Arcy Hughes

  Solicitor

  Professor C. F. George

  Professor of pharmacology

  Mr. L. F. Allery

  Former company executive

  Sir David Price

  Industrial consultant

  Wiltshire Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. G. Edward

  Retired company director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. R. Riseley-Prichard

  Retired RAF medical officer

  Group Captain E. Sandison

  RAF director of nursing

  Dr. J. Moxon

  Retired GP

  Mrs. G. E. Wookey

  Businesswoman

  NHS Treatment Abroad
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is collected centrally on the number of national health service personnel who go abroad to treat national health service patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No such information is available centrally because there is no general facility for national health service personnel to provide services under the NHS outside the United Kingdom.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the findings of the Government's review of aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The findings of the Government's review of the aid and trade provision were reflected in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on 17 June at column 679–80.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence the review on aid and trade provision received to substantiate the need and opportunities to improve effectiveness and value for money; and what steps are being taken to achieve such improvements.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the course of the aid and trade provision review, evidence was considered from a wide variety of sources. Important sources on the scheme's effectiveness were evaluation studies of past aid and trade provision projects including the "ATP Evaluation Synthesis Study", a copy of which is already in the Library of the House, and discussions with companies which had implemented contracts funded by ATP.

  In future, the Overseas Development Administration's appraisal, approval and monitoring procedures for ATP projects will be brought in line with those for other
  356
  bilateral aid projects. In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry is introducing more systematic appraisal of the likely commercial and industrial benefits to the United Kingdom economy, consistent with other schemes which pursue United Kingdom economic objectives.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, South, (Mr. Ottaway), on 17 June,Official Report, column 679, what date the new low-income criteria in respect of aid and trade provision will operate from;

  (2) further to his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, South, (Mr. Ottaway), on 17 June, Official Report, column 679, what exceptions there will be to the new regime for aid and trade provision during the transitional period; and when this period will end.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The new criteria became effective on the date of my answer—17 June 1993. Exceptions have been agreed only for projects on which companies have expended considerable time and effort, where expectation built up that ATP would be available if such projects satisfied the previously existing criteria. The projects in question are the Kuala Lumpur airport project in Malaysia, a water supply project in Thailand, and a few small technical co-operation projects.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which developing countries have a human rights record which adversely affects their eligibility for development aid under his Department's policy;

  (2) if he will list the developing countries which he treats as having good human rights records when they are considered for development aid assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The human rights record of a recipient country is one of several factors we consider when deciding overseas aid allocations. Amongst other factors we take into account the needs of the country concerned and how effectively our aid will be used. Where a country's human rights record is poor, we have a number of ways of urging improvement. We take every opportunity, often with our EC and other partners, to make our views clear to Governments which are abusing human rights.

  We are ready to help countries which show an intention to move to better standards of government with well targeted development assistance. In cases of persistent human rights abuse we are also prepared to restrict or withdraw development aid. Recent examples include Burma, Malawi and Sudan. Announcements are made when this is done.

EDUCATION

  Additional Educational Needs
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what representations he has received from local authorities on the disparity in standard spending assessments generated by the additional educational needs factor as it is currently applied; and what plans he has to
  357
  change the present arrangements for AEN methodology arrangements and the common funding formula for grant-maintained schools;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which application of a common funding formula for grant-maintained schools based upon the current educational standard spending assessment methodology would generate unacceptable differences in per capita funding in schools serving very similar districts; and what plans he has to improve the present arrangements in regard to the additional educational needs factor to ensure equitable allocations to schools of comparable site.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received various local authority representations about the additional educational needs—AEN—allowance within standard spending assessments. These will be taken into account in the review of the AEN allowance which is currently taking place as part of a wider-ranging review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95.

  We are also consulting widely on the common funding formula for grant-maintained schools. This will be based on the education element of standard spending assessments, as calculated in future. It will be introduced gradually with due regard to schools' needs for stability in funding and for additional resources to reflect additional responsibilities, as well as to the relative levels of additional educational needs among pupils attending particular schools.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the letter sent to Cumbria county council by his Department's LMS unit dated 7 May bearing reference S/P/6/131/587; and to which recipients similar letters were sent.

  Mr. Forth
  The text of the Department's letter to Cumbria county council was as follows:"I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the information sent under cover of the Authority's letter dated 30 March 1993, Part 4 having been received earlier.
  Whilst I have not yet had the opportunity of looking in any detail at the information provided, I thought you might nevertheless appreciate knowing that it had arrived within the Department.
  I really must apologise for the very long time it has taken me to write to you."

  The information in question was the LEA's LMS budget statement made under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988. The Department uses these statements for two main purposes. First, to monitor performance against the key delegation and pupil-led funding requirements under the national LMS framework. The second paragraph in the late acknowledgement letter from the LMS unit to Cumbria was intended to indicate that this particular analysis had not yet started.

  The second use to which section 42 statements are put is to help the Department's schools 4 branch calculate annual maintenance grant—AMG for grant—maintained schools in each LEA area. This process begins as soon as the statements are received. In the case of Cumbria a letter was sent on 19 April indicating that the budget statement had been examined and appeared to form a satisfactory basis for the calculation of AMG for the GM schools in the authority's area. Those schools are now being consulted on their budgets for the current financial year.
  358

  Grant-maintained Schools (Budgets)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 123, which of the grant-maintained schools with proposed final annual maintenance grant budgets listed received their final AMG budgets by fax on the morning of 23 June.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 123, if he will list, by local education authority area, and for each grant-maintained school, the proposed final AMG and the final AMG where this has been determined.

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

  Grant-maintained annual maintainance grant 1993–94

  School

  Proposed final annual maintainance grant

  Final annual maintainance grant

  Avon

  Beechen Cliff School

  1,952,184

  —

  Oldfield School

  1,628,128

  —

  Barnet

  Hendon School

  2,409,076

  2,440,651

  Queen Elizabeth's GM School for Boys

  2,685,434

  —

  Mill Hill County School

  2,881,500

  2,936,939

  Bedfordshire

  Queensbury School

  2,219,524

  —

  Thomas Whitehead CE School

  326,490

  —

  Manshead CE Upper School

  1,819,281

  —

  Sharnbrook Upper School

  3,082,414

  —

  Ashcroft High School

  1,699,750

  —

  Crawley Green GM Infant

  443,864

  —

  Icknield High School

  2,696,196

  —

  Lea Manor High School

  2,597,388

  —

  Lincroft Middle School

  675,363

  —

  Wootton Upper School

  2,386,232

  —

  Berkshire

  Southlands School

  1,388,715

  —

  Reading School

  1,625,933

  —

  St. Bartholomew's School

  3,432,434

  —

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  2,374,578

  —

  Denefield School

  2,100,230

  —

  Langley Grammar School, Slough

  1,526,243

  —

  Herschel Grammar School

  1,328,282

  —

  The Downs School

  1,319,024

  —

  Cippenham Middle School

  671,467

  —

  Priory Combined School

  818,634

  —

  Upton Grammar School

  1,399,355

  —

  Holy Family Combined School

  461,129

  —

  Whitelocke Infant and Nursery School

  268,260

  —

  Bexley

  Barnehurst Infants School

  270,593

  —

  Barnehurst Junior School

  385,918

  —

  St. Columba's RC Boys School

  1,728,391

  —

  St. Mary and St. Joseph's School

  1,604,686

  —

  Birmingham

  Baverstock GM School

  2,444,257

  —

  Small Heath School

  2,468,506

  —

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  1,759,199

  —

  Great Barr School

  4,260,290

  —

  Hall Green School

  1,555,385

  —

  King Edward VI Aston School

  1,381,228

  —

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Boys School

  1,480,522

  —

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Girls School

  1,420,988

  —

  359

  School

  Proposed final annual maintainance grant

  Final annual maintainance grant

  King Edward VI Five Ways School

  1,492,205

  —

  King Edward VI Handsworth School 1,850,229

  —

  Bolton

  St. James' CE School Bolton

  1,617,428

  1,794,487

  Crompton Fold Primary School

  639,332

  668,643

  Canon Slade School

  3,184,651

  3,344,288

  George Tomlinson School

  1,502,743

  1,340,663

  Bradford

  Bingley Grammar School

  2,107,250

  —

  Hanson GM School

  2,642,398

  —

  Laisterdyke GM Middle School

  678,103

  —

  Oakbank School

  2,463,211

  —

  Thornton School

  2,014,073

  —

  Brent

  Claremont High School

  2,883,678

  —

  Copland Community School

  2,930,432

  —

  Convent of Jesus and Mary

  2,205,616

  —

  Kingsbury High School

  4,931,819

  —

  Queens Park Community School

  2,178,054

  —

  Bromley

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  2,498,965

  2,498,965

  Coopers School, Chislehurst

  2,879,623

  2,879,623

  Langley Park Boys School

  2,756,105

  2,756,105

  Hayes School, Bromley

  2,906,576

  2,906,576

  Ravens Wood School, Bromley

  2,229,200

  2,229,200

  Kelsey Park School

  2,057,976

  2,057,976

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  2,300,643

  2,300,643

  Crofton Junior School

  1,048,129

  1,048,129

  Newstead Wood School

  1,855,892

  1,855,892

  Charles Darwin School

  2,411,849

  2,411,849

  Holy Innocents Primary School

  382,014

  353,295

  St. Olave's & St. Saviour's School

  1,619,235

  1,565,104

  St. John Rigby School

  2,117,319

  2,204,323

  Buckinghamshire

  Bridgewater Hall School

  3,204,466

  —

  Brindley Hall School

  2,431,157

  —

  Beaconsfield High School

  1,721,529

  —

  Brookmead County Combined Middle School

  339,118

  —

  The Chalfonts School

  2,152,263

  —

  Overstone Combined School

  443,334

  —

  Beechview Middle School

  392,261

  —

  Hamilton Combined School

  1,010,910

  —

  Lord Grey School

  2,367,618

  —

  The Radcliffe School

  3,660,581

  —

  Wycombe Royal Grammar School

  2,644,713

  —

  Calderdale

  Crossley Heath School

  1,501,989

  —

  North Halifax High School

  1,674,604

  —

  Salterlee Primary School

  131,837

  —

  Holy Trinity CE Senior School

  1,591,393

  —

  Rastrick High School

  1,937,528

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  St. Helen's Primary School Bluntisham

  401,047

  428,396

  Bassingbourne Village College

  902,676

  —

  Gamlingay Village College

  415,101

  —

  The Queen's School, Wisbech

  3,067,674

  —

  Park Lane Primary School

  390,793

  401,207

  Sawtry Village College

  1,354,921

  —

  Wheatfields Junior School

  505,856

  498,875

  Crosshall Infant School

  445,731

  472,486

  Crosshall Junior School

  518,051

  537,874

  The King's School, Peterborough

  1,834,790

  —

  Jack Hunt School

  3,071,177

  —

  Ailwyn Community School

  1,462,188

  —

  Deacon's School

  1,900,822

  —

  360

  School

  Proposed final annual mainlainance grant

  Final annual mainlainance grant

  Longsands Community College

  2,834,472

  —

  Orton Wistow Primary School

  372,322

  384,970

  Sawston Village College

  2,339,941

  —

  Stanground College

  2,779,761

  —

  Village College, Comberton

  1,543,918

  —

  Cheshire

  Bankfield High School

  1,279,547

  —

  Kettleshulme CE Primary School

  89,659

  —

  Fallibroome High School

  1,879,222

  —

  Henbury County High School

  1,774,896

  —

  Croydon

  Riddlesdown High School

  2,474,018

  —

  Edenham School

  2,549,918

  —

  Cumbria

  Kirkbie Kendal School

  2,212,594

  —

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  1,233,850

  —

  Hayton CE Primary School

  132,259

  —

  St. Aidan's School

  1,456,320

  —

  Trinity School

  3,787,687

  —

  Scotby CE Primary School

  268,313

  —

  The Queen Katharine School,Kendal

  2,618,932

  —

  Appleby Grammar School

  1,089,603

  —

  Dallam School

  1,457,983

  —

  Harraby School

  1,221,534

  —

  Kirkby Stephen Grammar School

  806,540

  —

  Derbyshire

  Netherthorpe School

  1,745,449

  —

  Ecclesbourne School

  2,794,799

  —

  Borrow Wood Junior School

  312,012

  —

  Belmont Primary School

  457,194

  —

  Chellaston School

  1,942,677

  —

  The Merrill Community School

  2,296,888

  —

  Belper Grant-Maintained School

  2,218,033

  —

  Heanor Gate School

  1,977,148

  —

  John Port School

  3,466,400

  —

  Murray Park Community School

  2,020,900

  —

  Noel Baker School

  2,772,186

  —

  Repton Primary School

  286,568

  —

  Devon

  Colyton Grammar School

  1,236,902

  —

  Torquay Boys Grammar School

  1,960,630

  —

  St. Boniface's College

  1,548,905

  —

  Teign School

  1,749,091

  —

  Dorset

  Bournemouth Grammar School

  2,099,218

  —

  Woodroffe School

  1,768,493

  —

  Budmouth School

  1,957,125

  —

  Avonbourne School

  1,896,285

  —

  Parkstone Grammar School, Poole

  1,582,203

  —

  Bournemouth Girls School

  1,899,453

  —

  Highcliffe Comprehensive School

  1,505,584

  —

  Poole Technical High School

  2,362,279

  —

  St. Walburga's RC Primary School

  519,550

  —

  Dudley

  Old Swinford Hospital

  1,353,932

  1,334,269

  Ellowes Hall School

  1,682,743

  1,748,389

  Kingswinford GM School

  1,496,201

  1,530,593

  Ealing

  Brentside High School

  2,527,864

  —

  Drayton Manor High School

  2,800,599

  —

  Ellen Wilkinson High School

  2,297,226

  —

  Greenford High School

  2,280,914

  —

  Northolt High School

  2,238,588

  —

  Wood End First School

  515,262

  —

  Wood End Middle School

  481,652

  —

  361

  School

  Proposed final annual maintainance gram

  Final annual maintainance grant

  Essex

  Chalvedon School

  3,094,319

  —

  Westcliffe High School for Boys

  1,983,393

  —

  King John School, Benfleet

  2,543,937

  —

  Beauchamps School, Wickford

  1,500,910

  —

  Bromfords School, Wickford

  1,728,843

  —

  Elmwood Primary School

  640,727

  —

  Newlands Spring Primary School

  441,625

  —

  Saffron Walden High School

  2,893,757

  —

  The Philip Morant School

  2,306,316

  —

  The Plume School

  3,729,556

  —

  West Hatch High School

  2,119,945

  —

  The Boswells School

  2,789,752

  —

  Chelmsford County High School

  1,551,437

  —

  The Eastwood School

  1,746,223

  —

  Furtherwick Park School

  1,877,288

  —

  Katherine's Primary School

  385,503

  —

  King Edward VI G School, Chelmsford

  1,668,285

  —

  King Harold School

  1,654,751

  —

  North Crescent Primary School

  331,361

  —

  Rickstones School

  1,401,333

  —

  Thurstable School

  1,759,796

  —

  Torells Comprehensive School

  1,361,449

  —

  Northlands Junior School

  422,835

  —

  Great Totham County Primary School

  519,880

  —

  The Appleton School

  2,352,865

  —

  The Deanes School

  1,378,823

  —

  The Hedley Walter School

  2,039,499

  —

  Castle View School

  1,677,326

  —

  Cornelius Vermuyden School

  1,626,928

  —

  Westcliff High School for Girls

  2,110,870

  —

  The Fitzwimarc School

  2,358,709

  —

  Westborough Primary School

  797,187

  —

  King Edmund School

  2,338,014

  —

  Belfairs Community College

  2,600,610

  —

  Chelmer Valley High School

  1,850,564

  —

  Davenant Foundation School

  2,191,067

  —

  Gable Hall GM Comprehensive

  2,082,047

  —

  Jotmans Hall Primary School

  391,615

  —

  Newport Free Grammar School

  1,373,664

  —

  Northwick Park County Infant School

  331,619

  —

  Northwick Park County Junior School

  447,237

  —

  Rainsford School

  1,908,746

  —

  Rolphe CE VA Primary School

  236,270

  —

  Southend Girls High School

  1,843,623

  —

  St. Andrew's CE Primary School

  213,082

  —

  St. Clere's School

  1,795,939

  —

  St. Martin's School

  2,261,601

  —

  Tendring High School

  2,737,470

  —

  The Grays School

  1,802,033

  —

  The Greensward School

  1,703,645

  —

  Thorpe Bay School

  1,514,686

  —

  William De Ferrers School

  2,893,884

  —

  William Edwards School

  1,722,225

  —

  Gloucestershire

  Ribston Hall High School

  952,515

  —

  Marling School

  1,589,093

  —

  Pate's Grammar School

  1,979,013

  —

  Stroud High School

  1,506,846

  —

  Robinswood Primary School

  504,800

  —

  Tewkesbury School

  2,191,122

  —

  The Crypt School

  921,601

  —

  Balcarras School

  1,385,422

  —

  Chosen Hill School

  2,269,284

  —

  Katharine Lady Berkeley School

  2,106,532

  —

  Churchdown School

  2,146,453

  —

  The Cotswold School

  1,172,924

  —

  Newent Community School

  2,308,178

  —

  Rednock School

  2,238,057

  —

  362

  School

  Proposed final annual maintainance grant

  Final annual maintainance grant

  Saintbridge School

  1,665,487

  —

  Chipping Camden School

  1,647,517

  —

  St. Gregory RC Primary School

  524,541

  —

  Blue Coat CE Grant-Maintained School

  330,774

  —

  Picklenash County Junior School

  332,954

  —

  Wyedean School

  1,262,851

  —

  Hammersmith

  London Oratory School

  4,254,240

  —

  Hampshire

  Hardley Secondary School

  1,651,981

  1,802,699

  Burgate School

  1,288,576

  1,363,405

  Arnewood School

  2,421,755

  2,514,246

  Ringwood Comprehensive School

  1,666,419

  1,759,723

  Crofton School, Fareham

  2,142,854

  2,160,203

  The City of Portsmouth Boys' School

  1,864,855

  1,955,989

  The Priory Primary School

  166,754

  190,383

  Testwood School

  1,850,730

  1,913,697

  Abbotswood Middle School

  844,731

  826,691

  Front Lawn Middle School

  431,852

  447,565

  All Hallows RC School

  2,258,710

  2,424,544

  Bay House Grant-Maintained School

  3,276,655

  3,203,364

  Blackfield Middle School

  586,385

  578,966

  Bohunt Community School

  2,167,405

  2,296,747

  Calmore GM Middle School

  535,464

  614,455

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  554,535

  685,197

  Havering

  Abbs Cross School

  1,726,574

  —

  Coopers Company & Coborn

  2,706,265

  —

  Frances Bardsley School

  2,648,292

  —

  Hereford & Worcester

  St. Augustine's RC High School

  1,604,896

  1,640,491

  St. Bede's School

  872,397

  886,339

  Hertfordshire

  Rickmansworth School

  2,349,929

  —

  Watford Boys Grammar School

  2,521,834

  —

  Francis Bacon School

  1,179,739

  —

  Watford Girl's Grammar School

  2,482,995

  —

  Parmiters School

  2,333,813

  —

  St. Mary's RC Primary School

  304,749

  —

  Christ Church CE JMI School,Chorley

  319,139

  —

  Parkside First School

  363,115

  —

  Hertingfordbury School

  244,250

  —

  Bishop Stortford's School

  2,310,664

  —

  Ashlyns Grant-Maintained School

  1,492,243

  —

  Bushey Hall School

  2,571,885

  —

  Bushey Meads GM School

  2,143,420

  —

  Dame Alice Owens School

  2,577,663

  —

  Mount Grace School

  1,214,475

  —

  Queens School

  2,738,038

  —

  School

  Proposed final annual maintainance grant

  Final annual maintainance grant

  Hillingdon

  Bishopshalt School

  2,403,584

  —

  Haydon School

  2,707,686

  —

  Queensmead School

  2,229,343

  —

  Vyners School

  2,161,804

  —

  Uxbridge High School

  1,714,649

  —

  Northwood School

  2,278,887

  —

  Hayes Manor School

  1,747,694

  —

  Mellow Lane School

  2,372,797

  —

  363

  School

  Proposed final annual mainlainance grant

  Final annual mainlainance grant

  Oak Farm Infant School

  503,191

  —

  Oak Farm Junior School

  578,099

  —

  The Douay Marthyrs School

  2,359,500

  —

  Abbotsfield School

  1,789,388

  —

  Grange Park Infant School

  435,117

  —

  Grange Park Junior School

  474,170

  —

  Swakeleys School

  1,856,814

  —

  Hounslow

  Gumley House Convent School

  2,251,140

  2,220,884

  Gunnersbury Catholic School

  2,208,717

  2,219,875

  Humberside

  Wold Newton Primary School

  151,221

  151,221

  Kensington

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  2,212,931

  —

  Kent

  The GS for Girls Wilmington

  1,101,219

  1,150,731

  The Cornwallis School

  1,826,773

  2,024,564

  The Maplesden Noakes School

  1,555,626

  —

  Wilmington Grammar School for Boys

  830,956

  974,986

  St. George's CE School,Gravesend

  2,330,199

  —

  Homewood School

  2,792,083

  —

  Thamesview School

  2,280,985

  —

  Dartford Grammar School

  1,811,268

  1,929,403

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  2,462,598

  —

  Dartford Grammar School forGirls

  1,707,230

  1,835,365

  Aylesford School

  2,085,430

  —

  Wrotham School

  1,024,272

  1,103,099

  Simon Langton Boys' Grammar School

  1,416,773

  1,417,655

  Snodland CE Primary School

  535,424

  —

  Oldborough Manor High

  1,537,167

  —

  Senacre High School

  2,067,367

  2,118,277

  Cranbrook School

  1,699,728

  1,760,629

  Angley School

  1,770,291

  1,776,358

  Fulston Manor School

  1,731,977

  —

  Oakwood Park Grammar School

  1,077,926

  1,005,749

  Rainham Mark Grammar School

  2,292,762

  —

  Robert Napier School, Gillingham

  1,754,076

  —

  The Minster School

  2,938,993

  3,010,954

  The Skinner's School

  1,501,127

  —

  The Canterbury School

  1,802,353

  —

  Borough Green Primary School

  424,435

  450,287

  Chatham Grammar School

  1,207,990

  —

  Sir Roger Manwood's School

  1,505,123

  —

  The Archbishop School

  1,382,493

  —

  The Malling School

  1,293,312

  —

  Sandown Court School

  1,881,011

  —

  Meopham School

  986,030

  935,095

  Holy Trinity

  349,381

  —

  The Bradbourne School

  998,561

  —

  Hugh Christie School

  1,995,981

  2,059,658

  St. Simon Stock School

  1,906,283

  —

  Mascalls School

  2,868,192

  2,848,129

  Roseacre Junior School

  454,503

  —

  St. Gregory's Catholic Comprehensive School

  1,888,110

  2,030,483

  St. John Fisher, Chatham

  2,422,432

  —

  Sutton-at-Hone, CE Primary School

  443,276

  455,039

  The Charles Dickens School

  1,657,401

  1,727,919

  The Folkestone School for Girls

  1,759,327

  —

  The Wildernesse School

  1,456,554

  —

  Westlands High School

  2,883,852

  —

  Kingston

  Tiffin School

  2,369,820

  2,258,964

  Holy Cross Convent School

  1,512,082

  1,605,165

  364

  School

  Proposed final annual maintainance grant

  Final annual maintainance grant

  Richard Challoner School

  1,569,710

  1,534,475

  Kirklees

  Heckmondwike Grammar School

  1,561,430

  1,658,905

  Castle Hall GM School

  957,073

  1,035,467

  Lambeth

  La Retraite School

  1,833,557

  —

  St. Bernadette Junior School

  458,829

  —

  Archbishop Tenison's School

  1,497,461

  —

  Bishop Thomas Grant School

  2,520,496

  —

  Dunraven GM School

  3,157,842

  —

  Lancashire

  Bacup and Rawenstall Grammar School

  1,860,719

  2,008,763

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  2,003,296

  2,056,092

  Lancaster Girls Grammar School

  1,634,088

  1,651,403

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School

  2,267,523

  2,398,360

  Newton Blue Coat CE School

  394,244

  399,323

  Baines School

  1,562,692

  1,615,217

  Archbishop Temple School

  1,232,110

  1,306,839

  Leicestershire

  Long Field High School

  861,669

  —

  Abington High School

  1,254,560

  —

  Bushloe High School

  1,468,582

  —

  South Wigston High School

  1,469,802

  —

  Uppingham Community College

  1,388,617

  —

  Lewisham

  Turnham Primary School

  985,962

  —

  Lincolnshire

  Queen Elizabeth's GM Grammar School

  893,067

  —

  Skegness Grammar School

  1,505,727

  —

  The Kings School Grantham

  1,916,942

  —

  Carre's Grammar School

  1,091,103

  —

  St. George's School

  2,232,973

  —

  King Edward VI Grammar School

  1,440,508

  —

  Caistor School

  1,045,148

  —

  Bourne Primary School

  689,316

  —

  Gartree School

  886,647

  —

  Magdalen CE/Meth Primary School

  348,144

  —

  Yarborough High School1

  2,415,986

  —

  Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

  2,726,583

  —

  Castle Hills School, Gainsborough

  1,146,804

  —

  North Kesteven School

  2,648,988

  —

  North Rauceby Primary School

  132,038

  —

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School,Horn

  1,341,978

  —

  Robert Pattinson School

  2,444,092

  —

  William Alvey CE Junior School

  680,349

  —

  Ancaster High School

  1,267,502

  —

  William Farr CE School

  1,735,540

  —

  Ermine School

  430,157

  —

  Gleed Girls School

  1,208,925

  —

  Monks' Dyke High School

  1,504,824

  —

  Lacey Gardens Junior School

  592,816

  —

  Malcolm Sargent County Primary School

  738,364

  —

  Liverpool

  St. Francis Xavier's College

  2,650,426

  2,650,426

  Newham

  Stratford School

  1,699,153

  1,681,318

  Norfolk

  Wymondham College

  2,341,738

  —

  Gresham County Primary

  175,466

  —

  Heacham Middle School

  390,702

  —

  Redgate Middle School, Hunstanton

  309,338

  —

  Loddon Middle School

  386,143

  —

  Costessey High School, Norwich

  1,563,502

  —

  365

  School

  Proposed final annual maintainance grant

  Final annual maintainance grant

  Cromer High School

  1,285,699

  —

  Dereham Church VA First School

  234,966

  —

  Downham Market High School

  3,162,712

  —

  Marshland High School

  1,445,781

  —

  Norwich Road School

  532,262

  —

  Robert Kett Middle School

  652,471

  —

  West Flegg Middle School

  678,538

  —

  Acle High School

  1,175,358

  —

  Sheringham High School

  1,273,388

  —

  South Wooton School

  200,679

  —

  Cliff Park High School

  1,537,831

  —

  Flegg High School

  1,204,462

  —

  Great Yarmouth High School

  1,616,159

  —

  Lynn Grove VC High School

  1,629,674

  —

  St. Clements High School

  1,196,550

  —

  Northamptonshire

  Southfield School for Girls

  1,457,522

  —

  Kingsley Park Middle School

  638,972

  —

  Kingswood School

  2,159,652

  —

  Moulton Primary School

  569,645

  —

  King John School

  489,239

  —

  Northampton School for Boys

  1,963,181

  —

  Lodge Park School

  1,876,194

  —

  Manor School

  1,524,610

  —

  Montagu School

  1,860,992

  —

  Weavers School

  2,558.02

  —

  Windmill Primary School

  617,400

  —

  Wrenn School

  2,252,542

  —

  Sir Christopher Hatton

  1,714,784

  —

  Danesholme Junior School

  515,961

  —

  Woodnewton Way Junior School

  548,394

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  Ravensdale Middle School

  663,989

  —

  Greenwood Dale School

  1,363,758

  —

  George Spencer School

  2,047,408

  —

  Oxfordshire

  Shenington CE Primary School

  125,756

  125,756

  Rochdale

  Crossgates Primary School

  336,367

  —

  Smithy Bridge Primary School

  550,873

  —

  St. James CE Primary

  333,743

  —

  Wardle High School

  2,142,932

  —

  Sandwell

  Manor High School

  1,848,555

  1,789,513

  Sheffield

  Clifford First School

  144,612

  120,602

  Shropshire

  Adams' Grammar School

  1,164,848

  —

  Corbet GM School

  1,242,066

  —

  Solihull

  Hatchford Primary School

  861,670

  —

  Somerset

  Sexey's School

  1,300,720

  1,300,720

  Bruton Primary School

  347,348

  347,348

  Southwark

  London Nautical School

  1,495,297

  —

  St. Francesca Cabrini RC Primary

  845,723

  —

  Staffordshire

  St. Thomas More School

  1,916,166

  —

  Cannock Chase High School

  2,087,964

  —

  Surrey

  Guildford County Secondary School

  1,828,343

  1,935,201

  366

  School

  Proposed final annual maintainance grant

  Final annual maintainance grant

  Collingwood School, Camberley

  3,452,755

  3,642,975

  St. John the Baptist School, Woking

  1,586,183

  1,646,877

  Glyn School

  1,978,289

  2,106,650

  Gordon's School

  787,666

  756,557

  Beacon School

  1,757,428

  1,894,525

  Epsom & Ewell High School

  1,979,606

  2,009,386

  Hawkedale First School

  182,746

  161,194

  Heathside Secondary School

  1,225,671

  1,465,192

  Manor First School, Byfleet

  259,389

  240,411

  Roseberry School, Epsom

  1,894,516

  2,039,296

  Stoneleigh First School

  308,014

  333,102

  de Stafford School

  1,193,336

  1,238,774

  Send CE First School

  243,980

  232,999

  Thamesmead School

  1,100,720

  1,295,916

  St. Paul's School

  1,480,782

  1,625,955

  Sutton

  Wilsons School

  1,741,804

  —

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  2,049,840

  —

  John Fisher School

  1,714,027

  —

  Cheam High School

  2,204,728

  —

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  1,461,957

  —

  St. Philomena's School

  1,907,056

  —

  Wallington High School for Boys

  1,454,128

  —

  Wallington High School for Girls

  1,703,895

  —

  Tameside

  Audenshaw High School

  1,637,607

  1,637,607

  West Hill School

  1,508,812

  1,508,812

  Tower Hamlets

  Raines Foundation School

  2,535,384

  2,752,152

  Trafford

  Ashton on Mersey School

  1,867,657

  —

  New Wellington High School

  1,883,460

  —

  Sale Moor School

  1,291,642

  —

  Walsall

  The Streetly School

  2,385,678

  —

  St. Thomas More RC School

  2,719,395

  —

  Shire Oak Community School

  1,459,790

  —

  Wallham Forest

  Highams Park School

  2,526,942

  —

  Wandsworth

  Graveney School

  4,595,017

  —

  Burntwood School

  3,593,918

  —

  Elliott School

  3,569,454

  —

  Salesian College

  1,513,423

  —

  Ethelburga Primary School

  443,315

  —

  Hillbrook Primary School

  764,600

  —

  John Paul II RC School

  1,524,504

  —

  Southnelds School

  3,571,491

  —

  Warwickshire

  Newbold Grange High School (alias Avon)

  730,195

  727,515

  Ash Green School (Exhall)

  1,111,820

  1,103,673

  Hartshill School

  1,350,262

  1,350,262

  Queen Elizabeth School Atherstone

  1,554,124

  1,552,689

  Myton School

  2,235,952

  2,226,965

  Alcester Grammar School

  1,262,526

  1,262,526

  Rugby High School for Girls

  1,230,469

  1,226,666

  Wirral

  Calday Grange Grammar School

  2,300,326

  —

  Wiltshire

  St. Augustine's School

  1,215,926

  —

  Aloeric School

  516,885

  —

  Highbury School

  1,158,555

  —

  367

  School

  Proposed final annual maintainance grant

  Final annual maintainance grant

  Lavington School

  1,107,939

  —

  Wolverhampton

  Moseley Park

  2,601,795

  2,926,515

  Wolverhampton GS

  1,412,918

  1,450,571

  Note:

  Only schools operating as GM on 1 April 1993 listed.

WALES

  Training
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to ensure that Wales meets the training targets set by the Confederation of British Industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) on 17 May 1993 at column 8 by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Wales.

  West Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if it remains his policy to announce his conclusion on the west Glamorgan health authority east unit review before the summer recess.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Yes.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money in(a) cash terms and (b) 1979–80 prices Wales has received in each year under the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 1979, the amounts allocated from the European regional development fund are given in the following tables:

  Cash Prices £ millions

  1979–80 Prices £ millions

  1979

  37·1

  37·1

  1980

  21·5

  18·2

  1981

  25·8

  19·9

  1982

  46·7

  33·6

  1983

  48·9

  33·6

  1984

  63·0

  41·2

  1985

  54·9

  34·1

  1986

  49·7

  29·9

  1987

  57·8

  32·9

  1988

  63·3

  33·6

  1989

  38·8

  19·3

  1990

  27·4

  12·6

  1991

  89·0

  38·5

  1992

  54·9

  22·9

  1993

  61·9

  25·2

  368

  EC Meetings
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the secretary of state for Wales if he will list, together with respective dates the EC meetings held in Brussels which were attended by senior officials from the Welsh Office in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Redwood
  In addition to a wide range of ad hoc meetings with European Commission officials on specific policy issues, senior officials from the Welsh Office were present at meetings of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels in July, September, November and December 1992 and in January, February, March and May 1993. They also attended meetings of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg in October 1992 and April and June 1993, as well as the informal regional policy council held in June 1992 in Lisbon.

  Officials have also been regular attendees at the meetings of the Objective 1/2 advisory committee, the structural actions working group, which is taking forward the work on the reform of the EC structural funds, and have attended, where necessary, meetings of the trans-European road network motorway working group, the DRIVE programme working groups, the STAR Advisory Committee on Rural Structures and Agricultural Development, and the VALUE II Management Committee.

  They were present at the conference on the LEADER programme for rural areas held in October 1992, the conference on inter-regional co-operation held in December 1992, the seminar on article 10 initiatives held in April 1993 and the conference on objective 5b regions held in June 1993.

  They accompanied the then Secretary of State to Brussels in December 1992 when he addressed the EC Economic and Social Committee's regional policy section, and again in April 1993 when he visited Brussels for meetings with key commissioners. They also accompanied the permanent secretary to Brussels in September 1992 when he met the director general of DG XVI as well as the head of the human resources task force and officials with responsibility for rural development policies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Printing and Publishing
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met representatives of the printing and publishing industries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade lunched with the newspaper conference on 9 November 1992. Ministers and officials in the Department frequently meet representatives of the printing and publishing industries.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the contribution of the publishing industry to the United Kingdom economy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Printing and publishing make an important contribution to the United Kingdom economy, accounting for 1·8 per cent. of gross domestic product (GDP) and 8·1 per cent. of manufacturing industry's share of GDP. Figures for the publishing industry alone are not available.
  369

  Auditing Practices Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for legislation under which the recognised supervisory bodies in the Auditing Practices Board can be sued by individual shareholders for promulgating passive auditing standards.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Member's question is based.

  THORP
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information has been received by his Department from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. regarding problems with the installation of wiring at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc. Any safety implications are for the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Nuclear Safety Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contribution is being made by the Atomic Energy Authority to the European Community's nuclear safety research project, the PHEBUS programme, at the Cadarache nuclear research centre in France; and how this involvement will assist in evaluating potential safety problems with the Sizewell B nuclear plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  The PHE13US programme comprises a series of experiments being carried out by the Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique—CEA—the French nuclear safety R and D organisation. The programme is part funded by the European Community with additional funding from other countries. The Atomic Energy Authority is participating as part of the nuclear safety R and D programme sponsored by the Health and Safety Executive. The PHEBUS programme is not expected to produce results which can be used in the production of the safety case for Sizewell B.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the contribution made to nuclear safety by research conducted at the Falcon facility at Winfrith by the Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The FALCON experimental facility at the Atomic Energy Authority's Winfrith site has been used to produce data to validate computer codes employed in the modelling of some aspects of the behaviour of a nuclear reactor in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident causing severe damage to the fuel.

  Atomic Energy Authority Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates the police committee of the Atomic Energy Authority met representatives of the Atomic Energy Police Federation, and the representative organisations of other ranks, to discuss matters of common interest over the past years.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no meetings between the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary—AEAC—Police 370
  Committee, which is a management advisory body, and representatives of the AEAC Federation. However, management—chief constable, deputy chief constable and a representative from the AEA's corporate personnel service—meets Federation representatives to discuss matters affecting the force at the AEAC joint consultative committee, which meets twice a year—most recently on 12 May 1993. There are also numerous other formal and ad hoc opportunities for Federation representatives to discuss matters affecting their members with the chief constable, other senior AEA managers and senior AEAC officers.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will detail the numbers, by rank and location, of the Atomic Energy Authority police since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The current strength of the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary (AEC) is 505 compared with 516 in 1979. More detailed information on the strength, structure and location of the AEAC is published in the AEAC chief constable's annual report and the "Constabulary Almanac Official Register 1993". Copies of the 1991 annual report are in the Library of the House and I am arranging for copies of the 1992 annual report to be placed there when it is published in July. The precise operational deployment of constabulary at British Nuclear Fuels plc and Atomic Energy Authority sites is restricted information.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates Ministers in his Department or the Department of Energy held a formal meeting with the Atomic Energy Police Federation during the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  There have been no meetings between Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary Federation representatives and DTI or Department of Energy Ministers during the past five years.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional help is being given to businesses to help them take advantage of the internal market.

  Mr. Needham
  The "Business in Europe" initiative was launched on 25 January 1993 to encourage United Kingdom companies to take advantage of the single market. Consultations were held with businesses and multiplier organisations to identify the most common problems faced by exporters. "Business in Europe" aims to provide a service which supplies only relevant information. It focuses on practical advice for exporters, information on the rules and opportunities in the single market and help in fighting barriers to trade. Access to the service is by a single 24-hour, seven-day-week, hotline number 0272 444 888, giving access to all of the DTI's overseas trade services. A range of promotional literature is available through the hotline, examples of which are available in the House of Commons Library. In addition, 20 export promoters, seconded from senior posts in industry, will be working in western Europe.
  371

  Manufactured Imports
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of imports in manufactured goods from European Community countries(a) in 1987 and (b) in 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1987, the value of United Kingdom imports of manufactured goods from the European Community was £39·8 billion. In 1992 it was £53·3 billion.

  Japan
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current trade deficit with Japan; and how much of the deficit is accounted for by manufactured goods.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1992, the United Kingdom had a crude deficit in visible trade with Japan of £5·22 billion. The deficit in manufactured goods was £5·45 billion.

  US-Germany Telecommunications Treaty
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking or proposing to take to make representations to the German Government in respect of the US-Germany telecommunications treaty; if he will challenge the legality of the same in the European Court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: Like all other member states, Germany is bound by European Community law. The European Commission has indicated that it is considering the legality of the action of the German Government in refusing to apply either article 29 of the Utilities Directive or the recent Council regulation implementing retaliatory sanctions against the United States in the field of Government procurement.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy on whether return of waste agreements between British Nuclear Fuels plc and overseas customers should entail substitution of equivalent amounts of radiocativity.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 7 June 1993, Official Report, column 161.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recent trend in coal imports and on the prospects for the remainder of 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  The level of coal imports has been declining since the middle of last year. Imports figures for 1993 are still subject to revision, but are estimated to be about 10 per cent. down on the comparable period of 1992.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 475, what arrangements have been made to obtain authorisation for access to information in oil and gas archives by the successful bidder.
  372
  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has already received the necessary written authorisations.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Departmental Speeches
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library copies of the speeches given by Mr. Leonard Beighton of the Board of the Inland Revenue and Mrs. Valerie Strachan of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to the Financial Times conference on international tax on 14 and 15 June.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Copies of the speeches given by Mr. Beighton and Mrs. Strachan are being placed in the Library.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much corporation tax was repaid in each year since 1986–87.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Corporation Tax Repayments

  Year

  Amount (£ million)

  1986–87

  619

  1987–88

  627

  1988–89

  733

  1989–90

  1,217

  1990–91

  1,762

  1991–92

  2,609

  1992–93

  3,226

  Civil Service Unions
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent meetings he has held with civil service trade unions to discuss industrial relations.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I, and other Treasury Ministers, meet civil service trade unions to discuss a variety of issues, where appropriate. I last met representatives from the civil service trade unions in January to discuss pay.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue change in a full year at 1993–94 income levels and assuming existing levels of personal allowances of replacing the present rates of income tax with a structure in which(a) the first £2,500 incurred tax at 20 per cent., (b) £2,500 to £30,000 at 25 per cent., (c) £30,000 to £40,000 at 30 per cent., (d) £40,000 to £50,000 at 35 per cent., (e) £50,000 to £60,000 at 40 per cent., (f) £60,000 to £75,000 at 45 per cent., (g) £75,000 to £100,000 at 50 per cent. and (h) over £100,000 at 60 per cent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated revenue cost in a full year at 1993–94 income levels from imposition of the specified regime is £420 million. This does not allow for any behavioural effect that might result from such changes to the tax system and does not include capital gains tax.
  373

  Contingencies Fund
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the occasions since 1979 in which use of the contingencies fund has been allowed in connection with expenditure over £200,000 on the establishment of a new statutory body before the relevant legislation has received Royal Assent.

  Mr. Portillo
  It appears from readily available information that there has been one advance from the contingencies fund since 1979 of more than £200,000 in connection with the establishment of a new statutory body before the relevant legislation has received Royal Assent: this was to the Department for Education in March 1993 in respect of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA). The use of the fund was fully consistent with the criteria concerning expenditure on new services set out in "Government Accounting".

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 258, what was the total turnover, profits and corporation tax liability of the largest 100 United Kingdom companies in each year since 1987 measured in (a) current prices and (b) 1987 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 22 June 1993]: Latest readily available figures covering five years for turnover, profit before tax, and corporation tax liability of the 100 largest United Kingdom companies and company groups, based on turnover in their latest accounts, are as follows:

  At current prices

  £ billion

  Turnover

  Profit before tax1

  Corporation tax liability2

  1987

  3—

  3—

  5·2

  1988

  360

  34

  5·2

  1989

  420

  41

  6·2

  1990

  490

  36

  5·8

  1991

  500

  32

  5·4

  1992

  510

  30

  4—

  At constant 1987 prices

  £ billion

  Turnover

  Profit before tax1

  Corporation tax liability2

  1987

  3—

  3—

  5·2

  1988

  340

  33

  4·9

  1989

  370

  37

  5·5

  1990

  390

  29

  4·7

  1991

  380

  25

  4·1

  1992

  370

  22

  4—

  1 Worldwide activity reported in published accounts.

  2 After relief for foreign tax.

  3 Not readily available.

  4 Not yet available.

  Tax Exemptions (Overseas Governments)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the gain to the Exchequer in each of the years 1991–92 and 1992–93 of tax exemption granted by overseas Governments to the income, profits 374
  and gains of the United Kingdom Government and United Kingdom Government bodies arising within the jurisdiction of those overseas Governments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: The United Kingdom Government are exempted from tax in all of the jurisdictions in which it invests. The amount of this exemption is of the order of some £300 million per annum.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the cost to the Exchequer in each of the years 1991–92 and 1992–93 of granting tax exemption to the income, profits and gains of Governments, foreign states and integral bodies of foreign Governments arising in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: Figures are not available of the total amount of tax which is not brought into charge because of sovereign immunity from taxation. However, income tax on investment income repaid on sovereign immunity grounds amounted to approximately £164 million in 1991–92 and £116 million in 1992–93. In addition relief was allowed at source of up to £5 million each year.

  Exchange Gains and Losses
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the direct effect on revenue in the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 of the introduction of the clauses in chapter II part II of the Finance (No. 2) Bill had they come into effect from 6 April.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: The Exchequer effects would be highly uncertain and would depend on movements in exchange rates and the location and volume of borrowing.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Documents
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the work of HMSO and the system of making Government documents available to the general public.

  Mr. David Davis
  In its role of Government publisher, HMSO maintains a distribution network comprising its own retail bookshops in six major cities, some 40 appointed agents throughout the United Kingdom, and a mail order service from its publications centre in London.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit Birmingham to discuss citizens charter issues.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I shall be visiting Birmingham on 5 July to take part in the second citizens charter forum.

  The first forum, one of a series of eight to be held thoroughout the country to discuss local implementation of the charter, was held in Manchester on 21 June and was attended by 230 managers of local public service organisations.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what principal conclusions he has
  375
  drawn from experience of the citizens charter programme to date; and how the lessons are being applied for future charters.

  Mr. David Davis
  Implementing charter principles is bringing about real improvements in public services. The principles will continue to be applied to all public services in the future.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Departments have introduced market testing of their activities; and what assessment his office has made of the annual savings from this policy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In November 1992, I announced that market-testing programmes of 36 departments, covering all the main Departments and most small ones. These programmes, for the period up to September 1993, amount to £1·5 billion, employing 44,000 staff.

  I shall report on the results of these programmes after the end of the period; but returns from departments indicate that in previous years savings from market testing have typically been around 25 per cent. of the original cost, even when the activity has remained in-house.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the names, occupations and current employers of those who currently hold positions in each public body to which he makes appointments; if he will make a statement on the considerations taken into account when making such appointments; and if he will list details of the posts and salaries of allowances payable which have changed since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992".

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster makes appointments to the following non-departmental public bodies:

  The Civil Service Appeal Board; Agricultural and Food Research Council; Economic and Social Research Council; Medical Research Council; Natural Environment Research Council; Science and Engineering Research Council; and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

  The members of the Civil Service Appeal Board are as follows:

  Mr. P. Adams, OBE; Mr. A. Bennett, MBE; Mr. M. S. Buckley; Mrs. C. Coltman; Mr. K. Crowley; Miss P. Downs (Chairman); Mr. F. W. Edmunds, BEM; Miss B. Findlay; Mr. M. T. Foulkes; Mr. W. M. Francis, BEM; Mr. J. H. Gracey, CB; Mr. T. W. Hall; Mr. G. Harpin; Mr. R. M. Hastie-Smith, CB; Mr. P. D. Jones (Deputy Chairman); Miss Kelley, CB; Mr. R. W. King, BEM; Mr. N. F. Ledsome, CB; Mrs. S. P. Maunsell; Mr. N. E. A. Moore; Mr. R. W. Morgan, MBE; Mrs. M. Morrison, BEM; Mr. J. Nicholson; Mr. P. Palmer; Mr. J. Pennington; Mr. J. Renton, MBE; Mr. K. Richards; Mr. M. Ridout; Mr. J. Roberts, CB; Ms S, Scott-Anderson; Mrs. A. B. Sloman; Mr. A. Smith; Mr. A. Stem; Mr. J. W. Stevens, CB, (Deputy Chairman); Mr. N. Tout, BEM.

  The members of the Research Councils are as follows:

  Agricultural and Food Research Council:
  Professor T. L. Blundell (Secretary and Deputy Chairman); Dr. P. J. Bunyan; Mr. C. R. Cann; Professor E. C. D. Cocking; Professor J. R. Coggins; Sir Sam Edwards; Professor W. P. T. James, CBE; Mr. D. F. R. George, OBE; Sir M. Alastair Grant (Chairman); Mr. E. Gill; Professor R. M. Hicks, OBE; Professor G. Horn; Mr. R. Knapman;
  376
  Professor J. R. Krebs; Professor C. J. Leaver; Dr. T. Little; Mr. K. J. MacKenzie; Professor T. A. Mansfield; Mr. J. L. C. Provan; Mr. G. T. Pryce; Dr. D. W. F. Shannon; Professor W. V. Shaw.

  Economic and Social Research Council:
  Ms J. Abramsky; Dr. D. Anderson; Professor M. Anderson; Professor J. M. Ashworth; Professor J. Beaumount; Professor V. Bruce; Dr. W. Daniel; Mrs. E. J. Filkin; Mr. J. Fox; Mr. N. Glass; Miss C. Hancock; Dr. J. Harbison; Professor D. Hargreaves; Professor A. Hay; Professor H. J. Newby (Chairman); Professor D. Kavanagh; Professor S. J. Nickell; Mr. G. T. Pepper; Mrs. M. Tuck, CBE.

  Medical Research Council:
  Professor I. V. Allen; Professor D. T. Baird; Mr. R. Bauman; Sir Colin Berry; Professor A. M. Breckenridge; Mr. K. C. Calman; Sir Michael Carlisle; Dr. J. T. Carter; Dr. P. Doyle; Professor C. R. W. Edwards; Professor J. G. Evans; Dr. R. E. Kendall; Sir Aaron Klug; Miss E. Nicholson, MP; Professor J. R. Pattison; Professor M. Peckham; Sir David Plastow (Chairman); Sir Dai Rees (Deputy Chairman and Secretary); Professor Sir Michael Rutter; Professor Sir David Weatherall.

  Natural Environment Research Council:
  Professor J. R. L Allen; Dr. P. J. Bunyan; Professor W. Chaloner; Lord Chorley; Professor C. D. Curtis; Dr. D. J. Fisk; Dr. I. Graham-Bryce; Professor M. P. Hassell; Professor B. J. Hoskins; Professor J. Knill (Chairman); Professor P. S. Liss; Dr. R. Jan Pentreath; Professor D. A. Ritchie; Mr. D. G. M. Roberts; Dr. G. W. Robinson; Dr. O Rogne; Professor J. I. Sprent; Professor S. A. Thorpe; Professor D. S. Wood.

  Science and Engineering Research Council:
  Professor Philip Burke; Mr. D. Davis; Professor S. Donnachie; Sir Gerard Fairtlough CBE; Dr. K. Gray CBE; Professor R. Hester; Dr. G. Higginson; Dr. S. Iverson; Dr. A. Ledwith; Professor S. Mason; Sir R. Oxburgh KBE; Sir Mark Richmond (Chairman); Dr. G. W. Robinson; Professor J. Stuart; Professor J. Thomas; Professor D. Wallace; Professor Arnold Wolfendale; Professor R. E. Smallman CBE; Mr. J. Spiers.

  Advisory Board for the Research Councils:
  Professor Sir Eric Ash CBE; Professor T. L. Blundell; Professor D. A. Currie; Dr. A. Ganguly; Professor R. L. Gardner; Professor M. Hart; Professor J. L. Knill; Professor H. J. Newby; Sir David Phillips; Sir Dai Rees; Sir Mark Richmond; Professor I. A. Shanks.

  It is not our practice to provide details about occupations and current employers. Such information is a personal matter for individual members. However, when making appointments, my right hon. Friend follows the standard guidance that a part-time member of a public board should not hold any outside appointments which would be incompatible with devoting due time and attention to public duties. Risk of conflict between a member's private interests and the requirements of the public service are required to be minimised and seen to be so.

  Members of the Civil Service Appeal Board are appointed on the basis of their past experience of civil service personnel matters. The daily fee changed on 1 April 1993 to £221 for the chairman and £113 for others.

  Members of the research councils are appointed on the basis of their expertise and experience in the field to which the research council relates. The current position regarding the remuneration of members of the research councils is as follows:

  Agricultural and food research council

  Chairman: £12,270

  Deputy: £67,482

  Members: £4,600

  377
  Economic and social research council

  Chairman: £62,504

  Members: £4,600

  Medical research council

  Chairman: £6,140

  Deputy: £98,328

  Members: £4,600

  Natural environment research council

  Chairman: £64,787

  Members: £4,600

  Science and engineering research council

  Chairman: £82,925

  Members: £4,600–£6,140

  Advisory board for the research councils

  Chairman: £69,470

  Members: £4,600

DEFENCE

  Gulf War (Illness)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what complaints his Department has received from service men who participated in Operation Granby in the Gulf in 1991 in regard to illness arising from exposure to(a) toxic chemicals from oil well fires and oil slicks and (b) uranium inhaled or ingested from uranium tipped shells fired in battle.

  Mr. Hanley
  No complaints of this nature have been reported by unit medical officers. Additionally, the armed forces medical services are not aware of any incidence of illness among service personnel, which could be attributed to either oil-well fires and oil slicks, or the inhalation or ingestion of depleted uranium from uranium tipped shells fired in battle.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making towards the Government's deregulation initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 May 1993 at column 148.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hectares are currently under agreement with the countryside stewardship scheme; how many hectares involve additional payments for public access in(a) England and (b) each county; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  None of my Department's land is currently entered in the countryside stewardship scheme.

  Land Training
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he is making into the needs of land for training by the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Work is in hand to assess the Army's training needs which will enable us to establish whether 378
  there is sufficient training land to meet their requirements. We do, of course, keep the size of the defence estate under continual review to ensure that it is no larger than is essential for military purposes.

  Nimrod (RAF St. Mawgan)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the role of RAF St. Mawgan in acting as the operating base for Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no such plans.

  Joint Maritime Communications Centre
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the(a) construction costs and (b) operation costs of the Joint Maritime Communications Centre at St. Mawgan for (i) 1991–92, (ii.) 1992–93, (iii) 1993–94, (iv) 1994–95 and (v) 1995–96; what proportion of these costs are paid for the United States and United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The construction costs for the Joint Maritime Communications Centre at St Mawgan are:

  Years

  £ million

  1991–92

  4·1

  1992–93

  22·0

  1993–94

  35·7

  1994–95

  14·0

  1995–96

  1·9

  Total operational costs have not yet been fully defined. The division of overall costs is the subject of a confidential arrangement between the two Governments.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the construction of the Joint Maritime Communications Centre to be completed; when he expects it to be operational; what changes have been made to its functions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Construction of the Joint Maritime Communications Centre is scheduled for completion on 30 September 1994. Equipment installation will follow and the system is expected to be operational during April 1995. There have been no changes to its function.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with local authorities and other statutory bodies concerned about the development of the Joint Maritime Communications Centre at RAF St. Mawgan; what arrangements have been made to conduct an environmental impact assessment of the development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  A notice of proposed development (NOPD) relating to the development of the Joint Maritime Communications Centre at RAF St. Mawgan was submitted to the local planning authority, borough of Restormel, on 8 February 1991. The NOPD was supported by an independent environmental impact assessment commissioned by my Department. Following a period of consultation with other statutory bodies and interested parties, the proposal was considered by the borough of Restormel on 26 March 1991 when no objections were raised.
  379
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the arrangements with the United States Government concerning the use and staffing of the Joint Maritime Communications Centre based at RAF St. Mawgan.

  Mr. Hanley
  My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) explained in an answer to the then Member for Cornwall, North (Sir Gerry Neale) on 25 July 1990—Official Report, columns 301–2—that RAF Mawgan is a main operating base for Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft and that in addition my Department was planning to develop a joint maritime communications centre (JMCC) in co-operation with the United States. The unit will provide an important link between United Kingdom and United States maritime forces and headquarters.

  As my right hon. Friend further explained the JMCC comprises a buried, hardened communications building approximately 70 m square within the existing perimeter of RAF St. Mawgan. It will be integrated with the existing RAF fixed communications system and will include two additional satellite ground terminals each approximately 3 m in diameter, also sited within the station boundary. It has been agreed with the United States that the United Kingdom will finance and construct the JMCC building and that the United States will provide the operational equipment. Once fully operational some 400 personnel will be associated with the JMCC including both operational and support staff. Approximately half of the operational staff will he provided by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and the remainder will be from the United States Navy.

  Since my right hon. Friend's answer, planning permission has been obtained and work on the construction commenced in 1991. It is expected that the JMCC will become operational in 1995.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sites of special scientific interest are located on land owned or leased by his Ministry in each region of England, Scotland and Wales; if he will give the hectarage in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total number of sites of special scientific interest—SSSIs—on land owned or leased by the Ministry of Defence is 224, broken down as 171 in England, 37 in Scotland and 16 in Wales. This includes SSSIs owned by Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations. Some of the larger SSSIs are owned by more than one organisation. Furthermore, the status and boundaries of SSSIs are constantly changing, as is the size of the defence estate. For these reasons the hectarage of the SSSIs on land owned or leased by my Department could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lumsden Road Estate, Portsmouth
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 651, what was the percentage difference in value between the successful bid submitted by European Developments and the bid submitted by Swaythling and Portsmouth housing associations.

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is commercial-in-confidence.
  380

  Swan Hunter (Type 23)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his time scale for the decisions as to whether Swan Hunter Shipbuilders will be allowed to complete the contract on the type 23 frigates.

  Mr. Aitken
  This depends on the outcome of negotiations with the receiver, but I hope a decision will be possible shortly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foodstuffs in Store
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the type and quantity of foodstuffs stored by the European Economic Community in each of the member states as of 1 June.

  Mr. Jack
  A table showing current levels of all produce held in intervention within the European Community is deposited in the Library of the House at monthly intervals, most recently on 7 June. Figures for individual member states are not available.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what quantity of intervention stocks by commodity is held in England; and what the figures were(a) 12 months ago, (b) 24 months ago, (c) 36 months ago and (d) 48 months ago;

  (2) what quantity of intervention stocks, by commodity, is held in Northern Ireland; and what the figures were (a) 12 months ago, (b) 24 months ago (c) 36 months ago and (d) 48 months ago;

  (3) what quantity of intervention stocks, by commodity, is held in Scotland; and what the figures were (a) 12 months ago. (b) 24 months ago, (c) 36 months ago and (d) 48 months ago;

  (4) what quantity of intervention stocks, by commodity, is held in Wales; and what the figures were (a) 12 months ago, (b) 24 months ago, (c) 36 months ago and (d) 48 months ago.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the Intervention Board Executive Agency and I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 June 1993:

  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your written Parliamentary Question (1836) tabled for answer on 25 June 1993:—

  "To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what quantity of intervention stocks by commodity is held in England; and what the figures were (a) 12 months ago, (b) 24 months ago, (c) 36 months ago and (d) 48 months ago".

  I have been asked to answer the questions which you tabled in respect of stocks held in Scotland (1854), Wales (1855) and Northern Ireland (1853) over the same time periods.

  The information is set out in the attached table. Current stocks are shown at 31 March 1993 and in earlier years, for all commodities except beef, at 30 June. Earlier year figures for beef are at 31 December, the only date which they are

  381
  available, because at the other times of the year they are collated only by intervention regions, Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You should be aware that intervention stocks are not always stored in the area in which they are produced.

  Intervention Stocks in the United Kingdom

  tonnes

  Country and 1 Year

  Commodity

  Wheat

  Barley

  Rye

  Butter

  Skimmed Milk Powder

  Beef

  England

  1993

  66,707

  896,150

  517

  7,246

  480

  91,345

  1992

  12,367

  409,476

  324

  12,755

  1,920

  93,956

  1991

  12,562

  346,034

  131

  25,922

  5,850

  83,463

  1990

  34,337

  271,021

  —

  12,639

  40

  32,026

  1989

  209,287

  297,707

  —

  7,698

  —

  1,081

  Scotland

  1993

  43,281

  448,581

  —

  —

  —

  11,286

  1992

  —

  351,379

  —

  —

  —

  10,518

  1991

  —

  329,046

  —

  —

  —

  9,017

  1990

  —

  301,741

  —

  —

  —

  4,991

  1989

  —

  318,033

  —

  10

  —

  292

  Wales

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  574

  —

  1,976

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  859

  —

  1,934

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  2,499

  —

  123

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  1,628

  —

  145

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  2,355

  —

  23

  Northern Ireland

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  3,208

  865

  60,535

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  2,893

  865

  61,117

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  8,716

  3,745

  51,767

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  4,514

  1,080

  40,646

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  2,153

  —

  7,334

  1End May 1993 and end June for other years except for beef which is end December.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her Department's policy on the purchase and use of(a) recycled paper, (b) low-energy light bulbs, (c) tropical hardwoods, (d) peat and (e) cars with catalytic converters.

  Mr. Jack
  It is the Department's general policy to give preference to the use of renewable natural resources, subject only to value for money and practical considerations. Non-renewable natural resources are used with care and economy when the use of natural renewable resources is not possible.

  With regard to the specific items listed, the Ministry:

  (a) currently purchases recycled paper and paper products, provided they are fit for the purpose;

  (b) has already converted many of its sites to low energy or reflector-lights as part of an ongoing energy efficiency programme;

  (c) aims to purchase and use hardwoods which are from renewable sources only;

  (d) uses peat alternatives wherever possible, the sole exception being for experimental purposes where peat is a comparative treatment;

  (e) has a policy of purchasing cars fitted with catalytic converters.

  Somerset Levels
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the current and future organisation and responsibility for flood prevention on the Somerset Levels.
  382
  I am sending a copy of this letter, together with a copy of the table to the House of Commons Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Jack
  Under the Water Resources Act 1991, the National Rivers Authority exercises a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence in England and Wales and is empowered to carry out works on designated main rivers. It discharges its flood defence functions through regional and, in some areas, local flood defence committees. In the case of the Somerset Levels, the relevant committees are the Wessex Regional Flood Defence Committee and the Somerset Local Flood Defence Committee.

  Under the Land Drainage Act 1991 internal drainage boards are empowered to carry out flood defence works in designated districts of special drainage need, while local authorities are empowered to carry out works outside these districts on watercourses which are not designated main rivers. There are 20 internal drainage districts in Somerset.

  The Government have announced that the NRA's functions, including flood defence, are to form part of the proposed environment agency. The Government have no plans for other changes to flood defence responsibilities at the present itme. Under current legislation it is open to the NRA to make proposals to Ministers affecting the structure of regional and local flood defence committees and internal drainage districts but at present there are no such NRA proposals affecting the Somerset Levels.

  Organophosphorous Sheep Dip
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 1 April to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer)Official

  383
  Report, column 330, what further papers and evidence on organophosphorous sheep dips have been received and considered by her Department and its advisory bodies; and what conclusions have been drawn.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A number of representations on the question of organophosphorus sheep dips have been received. These include a report from Friends of the Earth, which is being sent to members of the independent Veterinary Products Committee for consideration as part of its current review of these sheep dip products. The committee has already indicated that it wishes to conclude the review at its October meeting on the basis of the further data currently being generated. I look forward to receiving its advice on the future licensing of these products, which I will wish to consider carefully before announcing my decision.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 24 June.

  Mr. Jack
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Council of EC Fisheries Ministers on 24 and 25 June, together with My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

  The main decision taken at this meeting was on an improved system of control and enforcement of the common fisheries policy. I was determined to encourage the development of a Community-wide control regime that would address British fishing industry concerns to ensure that the control of the CFP was being undertaken uniformly and rigorously across the Community. This measure will open the way to greater transparency of control measures and give the industry more access to information on how the enforcement of the CFP is being managed throughout the Community.

  The regulation will require member states to have monitoring and control systems for ensuring compliance with quota, conservation, structural and market measures.
  384
  It will give greater powers to the Commission to supervise member states' application of the rules through their own inspectorates, and remove the previous bar on unannounced visits by Commission inspectors. Member states will be obliged to demonstrate that they have systems for penalising those found to be in breach of the rules. There is provision for future decisions to be taken on the introduction of continuous monitoring systems, including satellite surveillance, for fishing vessels. The regulation will come into force on 1 January 1994. While welcoming these developments, I made my agreement subject to seeing the text of the regulation, which is now being finalised for early adoption.

  The Commission is required to make proposals, for decision by the Council before the end of 1993, on the application of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal. The Council considered a report on the way the rules applying to Spain and Portugal have functioned to date. I set out forcefully the interests of Britain's fishermen in this matter and secured agreement that the Commission would make its proposals in a way which fully respects the reform of the CFP agreed last December, the improved Community control system approved at the present Council, and the principle of relative stability. The Council agreed that any increase in fishing effort must be avoided.

  The Council debated the present situation in the Community market for fishery products. The Commission and a majority of member states argued that the weakness of the market necessitated retention of the minimum import price and safeguard mechanisms which have been in force since February. I pointed out that the fundamental problem was one of over supply, and called for fuller analysis. The Commission will now provide a report for the next meeting of the Council in October. Meanwhile the Council decided that the current arrangements to protect the market should be kept in place until October.

  The Council discussed proposed fishing agreements with Canada and Argentina and the possibility of negotiating an agreement with the Russian Federation. it was not possible at this Council to reach final agreement on any of these matters.
  385

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of those who have applied for disability living allowance and who have undergone medical examinations are awarded disability living allowance.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 25 June 1993.

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what percentage of those who have applied for disability living allowance and who have undergone medical examinations are awarded disability living allowance.

  From 1 February 1992 to 31 May 1993 a total of 115,783 Disability Living Allowance (DLA) customers underwent medical examinations. Of these some 68,561 (59%) subsequently received DLA.

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

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy on the purchase and use of(a) recycled paper, (b) low-energy light bulbs, (c) tropical hardwoods, (d) peat and (e) cars with catalytic converters.

  Mr. Burt
  The Department of Social Security's policy on the purchase and use of these items are as follows:

  (a) Recycled Paper

  We already use a considerable quantity of recycled material and items made from recycled paper. As a matter of policy we already use recycled products where all of the factors including cost are equal.

  (b) Low Energy Lightbulbs

  We actively encourage the use of low energy lighting in the Department's buildings. When buildings are being refurbished or lighting is being replaced the provision of high frequency low energy fluorescent lighting is always considered.

  (c) Tropical Hardwoods

  The Department has deliberately phased out the use of topical hardwoods in its furniture.

  (d) Peat

  Peat is purchased for use in the gardens at two buildings managed by the resettlement unit. Peat is not purchased for fuel by the Department.

  (e) Cars with Catalytic Converters

  Since January 1991, the Department has only acquired diesel vehicles or cars propelled by petrol and fitted with catalytic converters. Over 80 per cent. of the petrol cars in the current fleet have catalytic converters fitted.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the BMA concerning possible changes to the rules governing eligibility for invalidity benefit.
  386
  Mr. Scott
  No discussions have taken place. We will consult fully on proposals for changing invalidity benefit if and when such proposals are developed.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in receipt of invalidity benefit prior to April 1992 have since been disqualified on medical grounds.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultation with clients and social services is undertaken before any invalidity payment is stopped.

  Mr. Scott
  Decisions about entitlement to benefit are made by independent adjudication officers. It is for them to decide what consultation may be necessary in reaching a decision.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made by his department working party to date on consideration of differences in tax and national insurance definitions of earnings and expenses.

  Mr. Hague
  The working group has already met four times and has a programme of weekly meetings through the summer. I look forward to receiving its report at the end of September.

  Quarry House
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants from his Department have been transferred from London to the Benefits Agency headquarters at Leeds.

  Mr. Hague
  A total of 324 civil servants have moved from London to the Benefits Agency headquarters at Leeds.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total number of people provided with relocation expenses in connection with the move to Quarry house.

  Mr. Hague
  A total of 513 staff have been given help with relocation expenses as a result of moving home to the Leeds area to take up posts in Quarry house.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library(a) a copy of the contract and budget for Quarry house between his Department and Norwest Holst and (b) copies of the original and final costings of Quarry house.

  Mr. Hague
  It is not possible to place a copy of the Norwest Holst contract and budget for Quarry house in the Library as the document is classified as being commercial-in-confidence.

  Following the signing of the contract with Norwest Holst it was estimated that it would cost the Department £57·3 million to build Quarry house but it will actually cost in the region of £55·5 million.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated costs for the relocation expenses of his Department's move to Quarry house.
  387
  Mr. Hague
  The move to Quarry house will cost approximately £12,900,000 in relocation expenses.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent in the construction and decoration of Quarry house in Leeds on(a) the heated swimming pool, (b) squash courts, (c) sports hall and gym and (d) hand-woven carpets.

  Mr. Hague
  These costs are included within the main building contract for Quarry house. It is not therefore possible to provide a precise figure.

  A hand-woven carpet, costing £14,410 excluding VAT, has been laid on a section of the ground floor of Quarry house as part of the Quarry house project's contribution to the "Percent For Art" initiative.

  Medical Assessments
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that medical assessments at DSS instigation are made accessible to the client.

  Mr. Scott
  Copies are made available to the claimant on request and are always included in the papers sent to the claimant if there is an appeal.

  Benefits (Voluntary Assistants)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from charitable bodies in respect of disqualification of voluntary assistants from unemployment, sickness and invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received a number of written representations from charitable and other bodies representing voluntary workers. In addition, on 24 November last year my noble friend the Lord Henley met representatives of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and the Volunteer Centre UK when their concerns were discussed. On 28 April, I announced proposals to extend from 24 to 48 hours, the period during which people registered as unemployed are allowed to rearrange their voluntary activities should a job opportunity arise.

ENVIRONMENT

  THORP
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the report submitted towards the end of 1992 by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee on waste issues arising out of the proposed thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer of 7 June Official Report, column 108, when he expects to reply to the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's proposals on nuclear waste management from reprocessing at Sellafield;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 27 January, Official Report, column 769, if he will publish the letter sent to him in October by the chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee about radioactive waste arising from the reprocessing of foreign spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield.
  388
  Mr. Yeo
  Since 1976, contracts by British Nuclear Fuels plc—BNFL—to reprocess overseas spent fuel have contained return of waste options. In 1986, the Government confirmed that it was their intention that the options should be exercised and waste returned. However, they indicated that the option of substituting an equivalent quantity, in radiological terms, of more highly radioactive wastes in place of wastes of lower radioactivity was worthy of study.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc has made proposals to implement the waste return options. These involve returning to each customer their allocation of vitrified high-level waste arisings, plus an additional quantity of vitrified HLW radiologically equivalent to the arisings of intermediate and low-level wastes which would be retained in the United Kingdom. British Nuclear Fuels plc has also made clear that its plans to operate the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield are not dependent on these proposals for substitution being agreed; nor would it wish to proceed with substitution if there were environmental detriment to the United Kingdom.

  The Government consider it important that the basis on which substitution might proceed is sound. Accordingly, the views of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee were sought on the technical basis of BNFL's proposals, and in particular on their likely radiological and environmental impact for the United Kingdom.

  The committee has produced a first report on substitution, and I am placing a copy in the Library. However, there remain a number of technical points on which we require further information before the Government can draw any conclusions and the committee will be asked to carry out further work and submit further advice. The technical advice of the Committee will be taken into account by the Government in deciding whether BNFL should be allowed to proceed with waste substitution.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he made of the corporate plan of BNFL in considering the authorisation of radioactive discharge from THORP.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Sewage Sludge Incinerators
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sewage sludge incinerators have been approved for construction; and what proportion of the funding of these incinerators will be borne by(a) the Exchequer and (b) the water companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  The construction of sewage sludge incinerators is not approved centrally. However, I understand from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution that 11 applications from water companies for authorisation of sewage sludge incinerators under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 have been, or are being, considered for approval.

  None of the funding of any of these incinerators is borne by the Exchequer.

  Litter
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what current steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities keep the streets free from litter.
  389
  Mr. Yeo
  A cleanliness survey carried out by the Tidy Britain Group last year, to measure the impact of the litter control measures introduced in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, showed an average 13 per cent. improvement in cleanliness in the sites surveyed. Most local authorities and other public bodies have responded positively to these new powers and duties with evident improvements to the local environment.

  However, there are still too many places with serious litter problems and much work still needs to be done. We are committed to reviewing the operation of the litter provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and as part of this process my Department has recently announced its intention to reconvene the litter code of practice advisory group to examine proposals for improvements in this area.

  Packaging
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage a nationwide system for used packaging to be taken back by industry for reprocessing.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government take the view that companies involved in placing packaging on the market should take a share of the responsibility for dealing with it after it has served its original purpose. We have therefore been conducting intensive discussions with a range of industries on how they might contribute to improved recycling rates. We are still considering how best to achieve this.

  Ministerial Correspondence
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the basis for the forecast in part 3 of the report of the private office directorate in his departmental report MINIS 14, that in 1992–93 it is expected ministerial correspondence will reduce from 35,000 to 30,000; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for his Department's failure to meet its target to reply to 65 per cent. of letters within three weeks of receipt.

  Mr. Gummer
  The forecast fall in correspondence was for the calendar year 1992 in comparison with 1991 and was expected mainly as a result of the calling of a general election, which normally significantly reduces the period during which hon. Members forward correspondence to departmental Ministers. The final correspondence total for 1992 was just over 29,500.

  The target of 65 per cent. reply within three weeks was an ambitious one as it represented a 20 per cent. improvement on 1991. In the event some 56 per cent. of my Department's Ministers' correspondence with hon. Members in 1992 was answered within three weeks of receipt. This represents an improvement of 4 per cent. over 1991, and I remain determined to continue progress towards the target of 65 per cent. in future years.

  Natural Resource Accounting
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on work carried out by his Department in preparing its report on natural resource accounting.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department are not preparing any such report.
  390

  Environmental Evaluation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been achieved in his review of the application of the guide to the use of economic instruments and the reform of the system for environmental evaluation across Government Departments.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are still preparing our guide to the use of economic instruments, and hope to publish it soon. We issued our guide to environmental appraisal at the end of 1991, and are currently looking at its effectiveness.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in which European languages his Department's booklet on the council tax is available; and what consideration was given to making it available in further such languages.

  Mr. Tony Baldry
  The information leaflets about the council tax produced by my Department are published in three European languages other than English—Welsh, Greek and Turkish—and nine other languages.

  My Department's main aim in producing these leaflets has been to make the council tax easily understood. The final choice of languages was made in the light of consultation with the Central Office of Information.

  Waste Management Papers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reasons for the postponement of publication of revisions of waste management papers.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 29 April at column 470. The delay to the regulations under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has meant the postponement of a revised edition of waste management paper No. 4 which will give advice on licensing of waste management facilities under the Act and the postponement of waste management paper No. 26A which will give advice related to section 39 of the Act.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the results of the national water metering trials.

  Mr. Yeo
  Two interim reports covering the installation phase of the national water metering trials were published by the water industry in 1989 and 1990. A final report covering other aspects of the trials will be published by the industry shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Architects
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the responses he has received to(a) the consultation paper on the issues paper of the review of the Architects (Registration) Acts 1931–1969 and (b) the Warne report; and if he will make a statement.
  391
  Sir George Young
  The responses to the issues paper for the review of the Acts are available for inspection by appointment in the library of my Department. We have received many comments on the Warne report, but it is for those making the comments to decide whether to publish. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 2 February, at column 89.

  Homeless People (Lincoln's Inn Fields)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people sleeping out were removed from Lincoln's Inn Fields in March; how many of these people have been found(a) hostel accommodation and (b) permanent accommodation; how many are still living in their allocated accommodation; and how many are receiving follow-up support.

  Sir George Young
  In November 1992, as a part of independent research into the Government's £96 million rough sleepers initiative—RSI—a count was made of people sleeping rough in central London. Around 100 people were found sleeping in Lincoln's Inn Fields. The Department provided almost £100,000 under the RSI to fund a team of outreach and resettlement workers to assess the housing and care needs of people sleeping rough in the fields, and to ensure so far as was possible that both were met. The Department also provided funding for extra hostel places, to help people sleeping rough in the fields to have the greatest chance of starting a new life away from the streets.

  The outreach and resettlement team contacted all those known to sleep in the fields and all were offered accommodation. They rehoused 91 people before the fields were fenced off by the London borough of Camden in March this year. Of those 91 people, 37 are currently in hostel or other temporary accommodation; 34 are in permanent housing, provided either by LB Camden or through the RSI; and 20 people have voluntarily left their accommodation, of whom eight are known to have returned to the streets. Resettlement support is availabe to all people who, in the opinion of the resettlement team, require it.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received the inspector's report following public consultation on the draft revised authorisations for the Sellafield site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I received the inspectorates' report on 21 May. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have been giving careful consideration to the report.

  The inspectorates, in discharging their responsibilities under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, have addressed in their report the issues raised during the consultation process which relate to the environmental acceptability of radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site. Having carefully considered all the comments made by the respondents to this consultation, the inspectorates have concluded that no points of substance have been raised that should cause them to reconsider the terms of the draft authorisations, save for some minor
  392
  amendments/corrections. In their judgment, the provisions of the draft authorisations would effectively protect human health, the safety of the food chain, and the environment generally.

  However a substantial number of the responses raised questions as to the justification for the operation of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—THORP—and therefore whether that part of the site's total discharges arising from this plant should be allowed. Other respondents expressed their support for THORP. These questions were not dealt with by the inspectorates because of the wider issues raised.

  In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend and I propose that there should be a further round of consultation in which these questions can be considered. My officials are writing to British Nuclear Fuels plc seeking further information. I shall make their reply available for public comment, together with other material. My right hon. Friend and I do not propose to take final decisions on the exercise of our functions under the Act until after this further consultation.

  Carbon Dioxide Conference
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the report of the carbon dioxide conference held at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre on 7 May.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have today placed copies of the report in the Library.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names, occupations and current employers of those who currently hold positions in each public body to which he makes appointments; if he will make a statement on the considerations taken into account when making such appointments; and if he will list details of the posts and salaries or allowances payable which have changed since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992".

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: No central record is maintained of all the names, or of the occupations and current employers of members currently holding positions in the public bodies for which I am responsible.

  Appointments are to a wide range of bodies and widely different qualities and experience may be required for different tasks. Some appointments call for relevant experience or expert knowledge of a specific subject or sector. Others require no particular specialist knowledge or experience. Interests, location and time commitments may also be relevant.

  Information on salaries or allowances payable which have changed since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992" has yet to be collated by my Department and could be provided now only at disproportionate cost.

  PA Management Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the projects undertaken by PA Management Consultants for his Department in the last three years.
  393
  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 15 June 1993 ]: The consultancy contracts awarded by my Department to PA Management Consultants over the last three years are as follows:

  List of projects undertaken by PA management consultants for the DOE in the last three years

  Provision of PSA (IT) Projects Board director

  Systems development for the PSA IT operational system (CONQUEST)

  IT support for the PSA PROMIS 1 and 2 systems

  Support in developing PSA Projects' marketing function and to marketing unit pre-sale

  PSA—IT and marketing support

  Performance of firms in rural areas

  Improving links between MINIS, line management systems and job descriptions

  Recruitment of inspectors for the Pollution Inspectorate

  Pollution control for pesticide production processes

  Microbiological treatment of low level waste

  Project management support to the RIMNET national radiological and nuclear emergency response system

  Extension of contract competitive tendering in local government

  Computerising the assessment of future need for subsidised housing

  Future needs for subsidised housing

  High technology factory case study

  Environmental management systems and the Building Research Establishment assessment method

  Scientific staff recruitment in the Building Research Establishment

  A review of computer security in the Building Research Establishment

  Recruitment of casual statisticians

  Studies of dishwashers and washing machines to provide information required to establish ECO-labelling criteria

  Treatment of programme expenditure in departmental resource accounts

SCOTLAND

  Timex
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what dates discussions were held between Timex and his Department with regard to the future of the plant in Dundee: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  There were numerous contacts in recent months between the Department and Timex management both here and in the United States of America, the latest of which was on the eve of the company's announcement on 15 June 1993 that its Dundee operation was to close.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance was(a) sought and (b) offered to Timex in recent discussions on the future of the plant in Dundee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  I can confirm that the recent discussions between the Department and senior Timex management covered the scope which might have existed to assist in the continued development of the Dundee plant, had the company decided to retain its operation there. These discussions were wide-ranging, but as is the case with all such contacts with companies, subject to the constraints of commercial confidentiality.
  394

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy on the purchase and use of(a) recycled paper, (b) low-energy light bulbs, (c) tropical hardwoods, (d) peat and (e) cars with catalytic converters.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office currently uses recycled paper for headed notepaper, office notices, envelopes and high-volume litho work. My staff monitor progress by manufacturers in this field and seek to extend the use of recycled paper when practicable. Low-energy light bulbs are used whenever that is feasible, and new energy-efficient fittings are installed as resources permit. Contracts for furniture and fittings specify that only woods from sustainable forests may be used in their manufacture. My Department does not purchase or use peat. Our policy is to replace petrol-burning engines with diesel across the full range of transport operations. All new vehicles are ordered with diesel engines wherever possible. Remaining petrol units operate on unleaded fuel and have catalytic converters fitted as standard equipment.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance he is giving to develop the second wood of Caledon; and if he will make a statement on progress to date.

  Sir Hector Monro:
  [holding answer 18 June 1993]: Special grants are available under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme to encourage the creation of new native pinewoods and the regeneration and management of existing ones. Some 4,200 hectares of native pinewoods have been established under the scheme since 1989.

  The Forestry Commission also has a programme to restore and extend native pinewoods on its own estate. By the end of the decade it aims to have protected the 3,000 hectares of existing native pinewoods and extended them by creating regeneration zones of a further 3,000 hectares.

  A Caledonian pinewood register is being compiled by the commission. When completed at the end of the year this will record details of all genetically sustainable pinewoods recognised as genuinely native and will provide the basis for future conservation work. Other recent developments by the commission in this area include the setting up of a native woodlands advisory panel to advise on ways of stimulating and encouraging initiatives intended to promote the establishment and management of native woodlands in the Highlands; the appointment of two full-time advisers on native woodland silviculture; and the launch of a Highland birchwoods initiative to restore and extend the birchwoods and to promote their sustainable management for timber production and conservation.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are directly employed by the Forestry Commission in each region and in total.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 June 1993]: The Forestry Commission does not maintain records of its staff numbers by local authority regions, and this information

  395
  could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The commission directly employs 2,095 staff in Scotland, of whom 364 work in its headquarters office in Edinburgh.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current value of the assets of the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 June 1993]: The latest valuation of the Forestry Commission's assets, as published in its annual report for the year ended 31 March 1992, was £2,949·5 million.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the accounted value of the assets of the Forestry Commission; and what advice he has received as to the current price obtainable on the market for these assets.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]: The latest valuation of the Forestry Commission's assets, as published in its annual report for the year ended 31 March 1992, was £2,949·5 million. This included plantations—£2,787·9 million—and other assets—net value £161·6 million. The value of the plantations was calculated from the expected future value of the wood production at the time of felling, less the management costs, discounted at the commission's target rate of return of 3 per cent. The market value of the plantations was estimated to be £1,700 million.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the various objections which can prevent public access to land sold by the Forestry Commission under the arrangements made in October 1991.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 June 1993 ]: The arrangements under which the Forestry Commission offers to enter into access agreements with local authorities in respect of woodlands to be sold cannot apply in the following circumstances:

  sales arising from the exercise of reserved powers in the commission's title, such as a landlord's right to resume possession of a leased area;

  sales to former owners under the Government's offer-back (Crichel Down) procedures;

  sales for public purposes such as highway improvements;

  sales involving a change in land use for which planning permission has been granted; and

  boundary adjustments which have no impact on public access.

  Some Forestry Commission woodlands are also subject to rights and interests held by third parties which could affect public access. In such cases, the completion of an access agreement with the local authority would be subject to the third party's acceptance. In addition, where the title to a woodland being sold contains reserved rights—to the working of minerals, for example—any agreement would be made subject to the exercise of those rights.

  Drugs and Alcohol
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health education professionals are advising on drugs and alcohol who are in touch with Scottish schools(a) currently and (b) for each year since 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: The information requested is not held centrally.
  396

  Forestry
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in forestry and forest nursery woodlands activities in each year between 1987–88 and 1991–92 in the United Kingdom.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: The estimated numbers of people employed in forestry in Great Britain are as follows. These include people working for the Forestry Commission, private estates, forest management companies, harvesting companies, forest nurseries and wood processing companies. Employment in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Year ended 31 March

  Full-time equivalent numbers

  1988

  39,850

  1989

  41,055

  1990

  40,245

  1991

  42,213

  1992

  42,040

  Assisted Areas
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he had with the European Commission prior to the submission of the assisted areas map on 15 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]: My officials, in concert with officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Office, held informal meetings with the European Commission prior to the submission being sent.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the criteria submitted by his Department to the European Commission in connection with the submission of the assisted areas map to the European Commission on 15 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]:In order not to prejudice negotiation with the European Commission no information on the proposed assisted areas map will be released until approval has been received.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he had with regional and district councils prior to the submission of the assisted areas map to the European Commission on 15 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 June 1993 ]: Discussions took place with a number of local authorities about the review of the assisted areas map. I had meetings specifically to discuss the review with delegations from Central region—including representatives from Central regional council, Clackmannan district council, Falkirk district council and Stirling district council—East Lothian district council and Midlothian district council. The views expressed at these meetings were noted and together with the written responses to our consultation paper, were taken fully into account in the review.
  397

  Non-departmental Organisations
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the operating costs for non-departmental bodies in Scotland individually and cumulatively for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: Information is not centrally available in the precise form requested. However details of staff numbers employed by each executive non-departmental public body are published annually in "Public Bodies" copies of which are available in the Library. This publication also contains the total expenditure of each executive non-departmental public body; and details of numbers and remuneration of the chairman, deputy chairman and members of each non-departmental public body. Most such bodies also publish annual reports and accounts, again available in the Library.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce new mechanisms within the Scottish Office to ensure that non-departmental public bodies in Scotland are properly financially accountable, in terms both of their operating costs and their expenditure.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: The arrangements for ensuring the financial accountability of non-departmental public bodies and that they comply with the requirements of "Government Accounting" are kept tinder constant review. In particular both the internal controls operated by each executive body and the relationships with the department are examined in depth in formal financial management reviews. These reviews are on a rolling programme, with each body being dealt with every five years. Advisory bodies do not undertake expenditure on their own account.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums of money non-departmental public bodies have spent in Scotland in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: Details of expenditure by executive non-departmental public bodies, that part of it funded by government, and other departmental expenditure on such bodies are published annually in "Public Bodies" copies of which are available in the Library. That publication also contains details of departmental expenditure on advisory bodies; such bodies do not undertake expenditure on their own account.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appointments he has made each year since 1990 to non-departmental public bodies in Scotland; and what were the financial consequences of these appointments.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 June 1993 ]: In 1990 I made 308 appointments to non-departmental public bodies, of which 48 were salaried and 73 fee paid. The total salary cost is £462,361. In 1991 I made 248 appointments of which 40 were salaries and 43 fee paid with a total salary cost of £421,218. Between 1 January and 1 September 1992 I made 267 appointments, 50 salaried and seven fee paid. The total salary cost is £289,998.

  It is not possible to give the total amount paid in fees. The rates of fee for fee paid appointments is published in "Public Bodies", which is available in the Library. The remaining appointments were unpaid.
  398
  The information held on the central database in my Department is as at 1 September 1992, and that is the date of the information I have just given. Because of the way in which the information is held, appointments made in 1990 and 1991 which had expired before I September 1992 are not shown and neither are appointments to children's panels, other than chairmen or deputy chairmen, or as justices of the peace, neither of which are held on the central database. Information on salaries and fees are also at 1 September 1992. Information on allowances and travel and subsistence costs are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what mechanisms exist within the Scottish Office to ensure that non-departmental public bodies in Scotland are financially accountable, in terms both of their operating costs and their expenditure.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: The financial accountability of non-departmental public bodies is assured by the provision of their governing statutes and the conditions set out for individual bodies in accounts directions, financial memoranda, and management statements under which they receive grants and other funding from my Department. These conditions apply the rules of "Government Accounting" and the provisions of "Non Departmental Public Bodies: a Guide for Departments" to the activities of such bodies. My Department also undertakes detailed monitoring of the activities of such bodies, the detailed arrangements depending on the individual circumstances of each body.

  Kingsmeadow School, Haddington
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Kingsmeadow primary school in Haddington has been destroyed by fire; and what arrangements he will make to help Lothian regional council to safeguard the education of pupils in Haddington and to rebuild the school.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: Both my right hon. Friend and I were saddened to hear of the destruction caused by the recent fire at Kings Meadow primary school and understand the distress which the loss of the building will cause to everyone associated with the school. We understand that the preliminary assessment is that the fire was malicious and is subject to further police investigation. Lothian regional council, as education authority, is responsible for alternative arrangements for the pupils and for decisions about the future rebuilding of the school.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives he is taking to increase the volume of freight carried by rail.

  Mr. Macgregor
  We have authorised British Rail investment of over £400 million in preparation for channel tunnel freight services and have asked British Rail to explore opportunities for involving the private sector to develop them further. Open access for freight will break
  399
  British Rail's monopoly and allow new operators to provide the services the customer wants. I have also announced three important new measures to boost the prospects for rail freight—improvements to the existing freight facilities grant scheme; the introduction of a new grant scheme to assist with Railtrack's charges; and consultation on a proposal for a lorry weight incentive of 44 tonnes for vehicles delivering to railheads.

  Bus Accidents
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fatalities and (b) injuries have occurred involving buses and (i) other buses, (ii) other road vehicles and (iii) pedestrians in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: Casualties in accidents involving buses are not readily available for the accident groupings requested. The table shows pedestrian casualties, and casualties in other vehicles and in buses, in those accidents involving at least one bus for the years requested.

  Casualties in accidents involving at least one bus with other road user groups, by casualty type and severity: Great Britain 1986–1991

  Casualties

  Pedestrian1

  Road user group Other road vehicles2

  Bus3

  1986

  Fatal

  78

  125

  0

  Injured

  2,160

  3,784

  373

  TOTAL

  2,238

  3,909

  373

  1987

  Fatal

  81

  103

  2

  Injured

  2,134

  4,012

  430

  TOTAL

  2,215

  4,115

  432

  1988

  Fatal

  87

  84

  0

  Injured

  2,127

  3,924

  438

  TOTAL

  2,214

  4,008

  438

  1989

  Fatal

  83

  120

  0

  Injured

  2,149

  4,226

  483

  TOTAL

  2,232

  4,346

  483

  1990

  Fatal

  96

  110

  0

  Injured

  2,171

  4,126

  675

  TOTAL

  2,267

  4,236

  675

  1991

  Fatal

  91

  73

  1

  Injured

  1,883

  3,680

  296

  TOTAL

  1,974

  3,753

  297

  1 Excludes bus user and driver casualties and casualties from other road vehicles which may be involved in the accident.

  2 Excludes bus user and driver casualties and pedestrian casualties involved in the accident.

  3 Casualties in accidents involving at least two buses, Excludes casualties in other vehicles and pedestrians which may also be involved in multi-bus accidents.

  British Rail Pension Fund
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to provide that the British Rail pension fund will be used for no other purpose than the provision of pensions.
  400
  Mr. MacGregor
  Yes. BR pension funds will be used for no other purpose than the provision of pensions.

  Bicycles (Rail Journeys)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what future plans he has for regulating the charging of the conveyance of bicycles on short rail journeys.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans for regulation of charges but where there is a reasonable level of demand, we expect privatisation franchisees to encourage cyclists to use the Railways.

  Trains (Leasing)
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects orders to be placed for rolling stock using the £150 million leasing fund made available in the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) earlier today.

  Wild Flowers (Highways)
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on wild flowers along highways.

  Mr. Key
  We carry out and encourage the planting of native species of wildflowers wherever appropriate. Last Thursday I launched the wild flower handbook. This will act as a welcome stimulus to road planners and designers in carrying out work which I regard as very important.

  A13 (Improvements)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date he expects the three road improvement schemes for the A13 in the London borough of Newham to be completed.

  Mr. Norris
  The Canning Town flyover and Ironbridge improvement schemes are expected to be completed by 1998. The junction improvements A13/A112 and A13/A117 are expected to be completed in 1997.

  The progress on all these schemes is subject to satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and to the necessary funds being available.

  West Coast Main Line
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss services on the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the chairman of British Rail to discuss a variety of railway issues.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what support his Department has given to British Rail's request to improve the rolling stock on the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  An order for new InterCity 225 trains for the west coast main line is one of two options currently
  401
  being considered to utilise the £150 million leasing facility made available to British Rail in last year's autumn statement. The choice between the two options is entirely a matter for British Rail in the light of their negotiation with the suppliers and their lessors.

  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the need for replacement of the rolling stock on the west coast main line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail to decide when rolling stock should be replaced. New trains for the west coast main line are one of the options they are pursuing for the £150 million leasing facility announced in last year's autumn statement.

  M5 Widening
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the widening of the M5 between junctions 6 and 8.

  Mr. Key
  Widening will relieve congestion on this important link and holiday route between the midlands, south Wales and the south west. Use of the parallel widening technique has avoided the need for contraflows and caused minimal disruption to traffic with the work being substantially complete within two years of the start of construction. I visited the site last week to unveil a commemorative plaque and was pleased to see that both three-lane carriageways will be open to traffic within three to four weeks.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to start on the Jubilee line extension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend, the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink).

  Coastal Waters (Safety)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in the European Transport Council regarding safety in British coastal waters.

  Mr. Norris
  At the June Transport Council, a resolution was adopted with the strong support of my right hon. Friend, which sets out an action programme of priority measures to improve the safety of shipping throughout the community, including our own coastal waters. We shall seek speedy implementation of the measures proposed. At the same council, my right hon. Friend announced that the United Kingdom will unilaterally pursue higher safety standards for ferries serving United Kingdom ports.

  Railways (Service)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many stations or railway lines won a cup from British Rail for service to customers last year.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail, in consultation with user groups and others, organises several categories of award to 402
  stations in recognition of quality and service to customers. In addition to the British Railways best station competition, there is the Glasdon award for environmental excellence, the Geoffrey Farr award for community involvement, the London Regional Passengers Committee award for best London termini, the Anglo-Irish best station award, and the Lord Mountevans trophy. A total of 24 such awards were made in 1992.

  Channel Tunnel Rail link
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit Thurrock to meet householders and representatives of industry affected by the alteration in the proposed line of route for the channel tunnel link which he announced in March.

  Mr. Freeman
  Union Railways is taking the lead in a full public consultation process on the channel tunnel rail link, including in Thurrock. A report will be prepared when consultation has been completed and so the Government will be properly informed on local opinion in reaching final decisions on the route.

  Ms Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the next Union Railways report on the channel tunnel rail link consultation will be published; and if he proposes to publish it in full.

  Mr. Freeman
  At the end of October Union Railways will submit a report to the Government on the options for refining the rail link identified during public consultation. Decisions will then be reached and most of the report will be published, but excluding commercially confidential material.

  Ms Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the railway inspectorate started work in examining the possible safety risks concerning the channel tunnel rail link running at high speeds through residential areas of the London borough of Barking and Dagenham.

  Mr. Freeman
  Discussions have already taken place between British Rail and the Health and Safety Executive's HM railway inspectorate about the various safety issues relating to the channel tunnel rail link. The assessment of safety risks for the route proposed by Union Railways is being carried out in a structured fashion. Union Railways intends to maintain a programme of discussions with the inspectorate and other authorities and is expected to present a safety case at key stages of the development of the project.

  Ms Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria were applied to the compensation and purchase schemes in respect of the channel tunnel rail link in(a) Kent and (b) the London borough of Barking and Dagenham; and what reasons underlie the differences in the criteria in (a) and (b).

  Mr. Freeman
  The proposed arrangements for the route of the rail link as a whole are set out in the paper "DOT—Paper for the High Level Forum: Property Purchase and Compensation Policy". Copies have been placed in the Library and I also sent one to the hon. Member. Earlier purchase schemes, which covered broader zones, were applied to Kent and the then affected part of London—mainly Peckham. The reasons for the proposed change in coverage are explained in the paper.
  403
  Ms Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a full environmental impact assessment has been carried out on the proposed channel tunnel rail link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Environmental appraisal is a continuing process throughout the development of the project. The results of the most recent stage in the process are described in the appendix "The Union Railway and the Environment" to the Union Railways' March 1993 report. Additonal appraisal is being undertaken which will enable the environmental statement to be produced, in accordance with standing orders, when statutory approval for the project is sought.

  Concessionary Fares (London)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current cost of the statutory London concessionary fare scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  This year the cost of the London boroughs' scheme is £116 million.

  Franchised Passenger Services
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has had from British Rail management and staff to running franchised passenger services.

  Mr. MacGregor
  There has been a very positive response. Management-employee buy-out teams have expressed interest in bidding for most of the 25 franchises we have announced.

  Signposting (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about signposting on the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Key
  My predecessor saw a deputation from the county council in March and I have received representations from my hon. Friend which I am looking forward to discussing with him shortly.

  Channel Tunnel (Rail Freight)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the construction of rail freight depots to take advantage of the opening of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government welcome the new opportunities presented by the channel tunnel for rail freight. Decisions about the number and location of terminals are commercial matters for British Rail and the private sector. British Rail has selected nine sites for intermodal terminals in the light of independent market research.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the pollutant effects of stationary and slow-moving traffic; and what plans he has to relieve congestion in urban areas.
  404
  Mr. Key
  The quality of urban air review group—QUARG—a group of independent experts, issued its first report in January of this year, and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Government are considering a number of initiatives which could have the effect in the longer term of reducing the rate of traffic growth.

  Pensioners' Travel Passes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure pensioners using London Transport continue to have a free travel pass when London's public transport is deregulated.

  Mr. Norris
  When we bring forward legislation to deregulate London bus services we shall include provisions to ensure the continuation of a London-wide concessionary fares scheme after deregulation. The level of concessions offered will, as now, be for the London boroughs to determine.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy on the purchase and use of(a) recycled paper, (b) low-energy light bulbs, (c) tropical hardwoods, (d) peat and (e) cars with catalytic converters.

  Mr. Norris
  Subject to securing best value for money, the Department's procurement policy is to promote the use of recycled paper, low energy light bulbs, sustainable alternatives to tropical hardwoods, peat free compost and cars with catalytic converters.

  Rail Services (Portsmouth)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements are in his Department's present plans for rail services between Portsmouth and London.

  Mr. Freeman
  Rail services between Portsmouth and London are at present operated by Network SouthEast's south western division. We announced in February of this year that the south western division is to be one of the first franchises to be offered to the private sector. We expect the franchise to start some time in 1995. We believe that giving the private sector the opportunity to operate existing services and introduce new ones is the best way to bring about the improvements to services which passengers want.

  Blackwall Crossing
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations underlay his decision to publish only section 12 of the cost-benefit analysis used in selecting his Department's preferred option of a bridge, rather than a tunnel, for the A102 Blackwall third crossing; if he intends to publish this analysis in full before the end of the consultation phase; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Copies of the full technical appraisal report for the A102 Blackwall third crossing river bridge are available for inspection at the Department's London docklands division, South Quay Plaza II, 183 Marsh wall, London. El4 9SH. As he requested, I sent the hon.
  405
  Member an advance copy of section 12 which deals solely with the cost benefit analysis. He is now being sent a copy of the full report.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 4, at what stage of a scheme a formal environmental assessment is prepared; when he expects to have one completed on the preferred option of a bridge for the A102 Blackwall third crossing; if he intends to make public this assessment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Environmental assessments are carried out throughout the development of highway schemes. The formal environmental impact assessment is prepared and published with the draft orders for the chosen scheme. In the case of the proposed third river crossing at Blackwall, this is expected to be in about two years time.

  Road Signs
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on keeping road signs clear of foliage; and how it is enforced.

  Mr. Key
  The trunk roads and motorways for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the highway authority are regularly inspected. We have issued instructions to our maintenance agents on the need to cut back vegetation where this obscures sight lines for drivers or their view of traffic signs. We have strongly advised local highway authorities to follow the Department's guidance and standards for maintenance of signs on other roads, and similar standards have been incorporated into the Local Authority Associations' "Code of Good Practice on Highways Maintenance", but we do not have powers to force local highway authorities to comply with them.

  Motor Insurance
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State of Transport what consideration he is giving to the introduction of a legislative requirement that motorists display proof of insurance on windscreens.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 June 1993 at column 171 to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).

  East-west Trunk Route
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department is giving to an alternative east-west trunk route to the A418 in Buckinghamshire.

  Mr. Key
  I expect to make an announcement this summer about alternative corridors for the east-west route to the west of Aylesbury. Elsewhere in Buckinghamshire a planning inquiry has just been completed into the county council proposals for an A418 bypass of Wing and we expect to consult the public about the A418 west of Aylesbury to Wing bypass section of the east-west route later this summer.

  Rail Travel Costs
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the likely change in the cost of travelling to work in London under rail privatisation; and if he will make a statement.
  406
  Mr. Norris
  The franchising director will be able to control fares through franchise agreements. and we have announced our intention to bring forward amendments to the Railways Bill to place a statutory duty on him to care for the interests of passengers using his judgment of what is a reasonable level of fares.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the comparative cost of travelling to work in London and other European capitals.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has not made comparative estimates of travel-to-work costs for London and other European capitals. Such a comparison would need to take into account a wide range of factors which vary from country to country.

  British Rail (Lease Finance)
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department is having with British Rail about further tranches of lease finance for replacement rolling stock.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on Friday 25 June 1993 at column 283.

  Petrol Facilities
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the distance on the A414 between the A414/Al2 junction and Sandon service station.

  Mr. Key
  Approximately 1·3 km—0·8 miles.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider the decision given to the hon. Member for Chelmsford in his letter of 11 June not to allow fuel pump flash signs on the junction of the A414/A12; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No. I am satisfied that the decision taken is the right one. The facilities provided at Sandon service station do not meet the criteria laid down by the Department. The Department's policy on such signing guards against a proliferation of signs to services at some distance from the trunk road.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what criteria emergency roadsigns have been installed on the M40 drawing to motorists' attention the availability of petrol for sale at distances of greater than a mile from the M40.

  Mr. Key
  Apart from a reduction in the minimum permitted spacing of motorway services announced August 1992, the longstanding criteria governing the location of services to be signed on a motorway remain unchanged. The 1991 decision to sign temporarily off-motorway fuel and lavatory facilities from the M40 in Oxfordshire and Warwickshire was taken to meet exceptional circumstances. The signs will be removed when permanent motorway service areas are available.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the level of traffic using the A414 from the A414/A12 junction to Sandon service station; and what evidence underlies his
  407
  conclusion that the installation of fuel pump flash signs at that junction would cause problems at the turn-off and in the local road network.

  Mr. Key
  Encouraging long distance through traffic to divert from the trunk road to Sandon service station would inevitably lead to extra pressure on the A12/A414 junction and adjoining local roads. When the A12 Chelmsford bypass was opened, temporary service signs were agreed only until such time as services with direct or easy access to the A12 were available. As other suitable facilities now exist adjacent to A 12 there are neither overriding grounds nor need to divert traffic from the main route.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what petrol facilities are available to motorists on the A12 between the M25 and the A414/A12 junction; and what is the distance between the M25 and the A414/A12 junction.

  Annual percentage change

  Fares

  Retail Price Index

  London Bus

  London Underground

  NSE

  1979

  13·7

  14·7

  9·6

  13·4

  1980

  38·1

  35·3

  22·3

  18·0

  1981

  6·6

  2·9

  18·3

  11·9

  1982

  24·1

  26·0

  8·5

  8·6

  1983

  1·9

  4·4

  7·4

  4·6

  1984

  -8·4

  -13·4

  6·7

  5·0

  1985

  9·1

  7·7

  7·2

  6·1

  1986

  7·0

  5·9

  7·5

  3·4

  1987

  3·0

  5·3

  5·0

  4·1

  1988

  10·5

  9·5

  6·2

  4·9

  1989

  11·8

  12·6

  9·2

  7·8

  1990

  8·5

  9·6

  8·6

  9·5

  1991

  10·9

  11·2

  10·8

  5·9

  1992

  7·6

  7·8

  7·6

  3·7

  Public Appointments
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names, occupations and current employers of those who currently hold positions in each public body to which he makes appointments; if he will make a statement on the considerations taken into account when making such appointments; and if he will list details of the posts and salaries or allowances payable which have changed since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992".

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: Lists of names, occupations and current employers of persons appointed to public bodies by my right hon. Friend are not held centrally and up-to-date lists could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The considerations taken into account by him when making appointments will vary according to the needs of the body concerned and any statutory requirements relevant to it.

  The main changes in data on posts, salaries and allowances, since it was provided for "Public Bodies 1992", is as follows:

  British Railways Board. All salaries were increased by 1·5 per cent. for 1992–93, giving a salary of £216,195 for the chairman; the person listed in the deputy chairman column has left the board and a new part-time vice-chairman has been appointed at a salary of £120,000;
  408
  Mr. Key
  There are services adjacent to Brook street interchange on the old Al2 and also at Brentwood North, Al2/A1023 junction. It is approximately 24 km—15 miles—between M25 and A414/Al2 junction and only a further 5 km—three miles—to Boreham interchange.

  Fares
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the annual percentage change in fares for(a) British Rail Network SouthEast, (b) London Underground and (c) London Buses for each of the years since 1979; and what was the annual rate of inflation for each of those years.

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

  one of the members in the £65,001–£70,000 salary band has left the board; and there are now eight members—six male and two female—in the £5,001–£10,000 band.

  Civil Aviation Authority. There are now no members in the £25,000–£30,000 salary band; one instead of two in the £20,001–£25,000 band; one instead of nil in the £15,001–£20,000 band; and five members, one of whom is female, instead of four male members in the £10,001–£15,000 band.

  London Regional Transport. The salary of the chairman is now £111,030; the part-time deputy chairman has retired and the salary of his successor, a full-time member who is also chief executive, is £100,000. Following changes to board membership and a reallocation of responsibilities, changes in distribution between salary bands are:

  3M £30,001–40,000

  1M £20,001–30,000

  3M, 1F £10,001–20,000

  1F £ 5,001–10,000

  Executive Bodies. The remuneration of the three part-time members of Trinity House lighthouse service nominated by my right hon. Friend is now £6,325; and the salary of the traffic director for London is £61,530.

  Advisory Bodies. Fee rates shown have been increased from £126 to £153 and from £96 to £117.

  Traffic Commissioners/Licensing Authorities. Six traffic commissioners now come within the £40,001–£45,000 salary band and one in the £45,001–£50,000 band. The fee rate for deputy commissioners—now 15 male and one female—is £177.

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

Armed Forces' Equipment: Maintenance Contracts
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria are used in the placing of maintenance contracts in the private sector for Her Majesty's Armed Forces' equipment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we have no separate criteria for maintenance contracts. As with all contracts, we satisfy ourselves that the potential contractor has the necessary technical, financial and management resources to carry out the work satisfactorily; that his quality standing is acceptable; and that his proposal meets our requirements in all respects and offers the best value for money.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed Answer. I thank him for the documents that his department sent to me this morning which, unfortunately, I have not yet had time to read. I am deeply concerned, as I believe the public are, about the contract that was awarded to maintain Tornado fighters—a £7 million contract awarded to Airwork Ltd. I understand that 16 or 17 of those planes had to be grounded because of shoddy work and that in order to make them airworthy it will be necessary to spend £6 million on each plane. Bearing in mind that the highest priority of any government of this country has been. historically, the defence of the realm, how could such a mistake have been made? I believe that it arose from a determination to continue with a policy based on political preferences alone —privatisation—rather than allowing the work to be done in the public sector where it should be done.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord but as my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made clear in another place very recently, that particular contract did not result from a market testing exercise. That form of maintenance has been standard practice carried out by the private sector for many years now, including under a Labour Government.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend read the press reports condemning the condition of the rifles supplied to the troops in the Gulf war? Has he any plans to improve the situation in that regard?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can tell my noble and learned friend that I have not only read the press reports but I have also read, as I am sure my noble and learned friend has read, the report by the House of Commons Defence Committee on that project. I am happy to inform my noble and learned friend that the Armed Forces who use those rifles say that they are now perfectly satisfied that they are at least the equal of other rival rifles in service with other forces.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, for several months our Armed Forces did not have adequate equipment. We are now told that it is adequate. Does not the Minister agree that the equipment should have been adequate at the time at which the troops were required to use it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is yes, it should have been adequate. It is for that reason, among others, that changes have been made during the course of the past decade or so to the way in which procurement is addressed in the Ministry of Defence. We are happy that such shortcomings would not be possible at present. Equally, I must say to the noble Lord that one of the reasons why the rifles did not perform satisfactorily in certain respects was not so much the shortcomings of the weapon itself but that certain units did not follow the drills prescribed for it.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, has any action been taken against the firm concerned?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the question of liability is still under discussion. It is a possibility.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Army has used contract repair services for the maintenance and repair of vehicles for many years? In many cases good quality repairs and delivery have been satisfactorily carried out.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he says. It is perfectly clear that the effects of "contractorisation" are almost wholly beneficial. Indeed, if there are weaknesses they are more likely to be found earlier under contractorisation than they would be if they were hidden in the internal processes of the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Public Accounts Committee of another place on 16th June reported that the Government had spent £224 million on refitting two nuclear submarines which were then decommissioned in the middle of the refit? Is that what the noble Viscount calls value for money?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be aware that expenditure has also been made on the RD57 facility at Rosyth. That has cost considerable sums of money. In our investment assessment for the future we take into account what will be the total cost of a project. In this instance, with the lesser requirement for submarines since the Berlin Wall came down, the net result is a gain for the British defence budget.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, which, if any, of the firms concerned have recorded contributions to Conservative Party finances?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am ashamed to say that I do not keep details of Royal Ordnance or Airwork Ltd reports and accounts at my fingertips, but since they are public documents I am sure that the noble Lord will find it easy to obtain that information in the Library.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reply to his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, do I understand that the rifle that was supplied to our troops was in fact quite all right and that the press reports were wrong in their assumptions? If that is so, why was it not denied at the time by the Minister concerned?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that there were defects in the rifle as originally supplied; but a greater number of defects than we like to accept. However, by the time the rifle was in service in the Gulf, after having been properly cleaned, it was clear that its performance was at least the equal of other rifles in use.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply to my supplementary question the Minister referred to the particular method of placing contracts that was used and went on to state the usual kind of procedural path involved even under a Labour Government. However, whatever way it was done, I am concerned that the order was given to a private contractor; that it did not perform; and that 16 of our frontline aircraft were grounded, which could have resulted in danger to the country. Will the Minister comment on the press reports that the order was given to a private company against the wishes of the defence officers involved? If so, is not that a very dangerous route to take?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, that four aircraft have been grounded and that a number of other aircraft, on which work had started, have been immediately re-examined. The noble Lord's interpretation could, in fact, be susceptible to another one: that it is perhaps more a tribute to the new procedures in operation for the Ministry of Defence that the problem was spotted so soon and immediate remedial action taken.

British Nuclear Forces: Deterrent Effect
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty'sLord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which countries might launch a nuclear attack on the United Kingdom but are deterred from doing so by the knowledge that the United Kingdom has nuclear weapons.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, British nuclear forces are the ultimate guarantee of the country's security, and contribute to the overall security of the alliance. They demonstrate that aggression of any kind, from whatever quarter, is not a rational option.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Viscount be a little more specific on the matter? For example, can he say whether he or the Government consider that the Iraqi nuclear threat is diminished by them becoming accessories to President Clinton's decision to become a war criminal?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall not attempt to dignify the second part of the noble Lord's question with an answer. I merely point out to him that even signatories of the non-proliferation treaty are at least under suspicion for developing nuclear weapons. With a little bit of a great deal of circumvention is possible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the fact that we have nuclear weapons has helped to keep peace in the world for a very long time? Would it not, therefore, be an abominable crime to send any future Foreign Secretary naked, as it were —that is, if we had no nuclear weapons—into any conference chamber?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, represents the finest traditions of Bevanite thinking in the Labour Party.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government have announced that there will be a maximum of 512 warheads on Trident as opposed to a maximum of 192 on Polaris? Can the noble Viscount tell us which countries will be deterred by 512 warheads as opposed to those which will. be deterred by 192?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, knows as well as I do that we have stated the figure of 128 warheads per boat as a maximum. I should also like to draw his attention to previous exchanges on many occasions in your Lordships' House as regards the other categories of nuclear weapons which this country has cut since the Berlin Wall came down. I merely repeat the advice that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on the last occasion that we discussed the matter during Question Time: one must look at the question in the round.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in asking a supplementary question I have to declare an interest—as, indeed, I always do—as chairman of VSEL. However, can the noble Viscount confirm to the House that there are 12 to 15 countries in the world at present that have either a nuclear or a potential nuclear capacity; that a similar number have either chemical and biological weapons or the capacity to produce them; and that a similar number will over the next five years develop a ballistic missile capability? In such a world, would it not be the height of foolishness to do away with our own nuclear deterrent?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that there is an unfortunate number of countries worldwide which possess nuclear weapons beyond the restrictions and the registrations of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and that that in itself is a potential for great instability in the world.

583
I should also like to draw the noble Lord's attention to previous exchanges in the House in which I think I detailed the number of nuclear weapons that we estimate are in the hands of former member states of the Soviet Union.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that certainly some of us on these Benches are puzzled at what conceivable constructive purpose such repetitive questions can serve in terms of the proper defence of the realm?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I may leave that to your Lordships' imagination and to that of my noble friend Lord Campbell. I welcome these exchanges because they enable me not only to listen to the sound of my own voice but also, more importantly, to reiterate the policy of Her Majesty's Government on these matters, which seems to me to be entirely rational.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the alarming state of affairs disclosed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, with which the Minister seems to concur, does he agree that in future the United Kingdom must be very careful to whom it supplies arms?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I neither concurred, and nor did I not concur, with my noble friend Lord Chalfont. The short answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is yes, and it has always been so.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords—
Lord Mayhew: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Mayhew!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I believe that we have time for both sides. Perhaps we could hear first from my noble friend on this side of the House and then from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it would be pointless to answer this Question as many noble Lords opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, never understood that the Soviet Union was a threat during all the decades that it was indeed a major threat to this country?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, yes. Of course, when rockets are pointing at one it is always more difficult to be courageous about defending oneself.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, with reference to a previous answer which the Minister gave, is he not aware that it is not only the right but the duty of Parliament to keep a close eye on the Government's nuclear weapon; policy? Does he agree that, on the one hand, there is little or no international opposition to the possession of nuclear weapons by this country but that, on the other hand, there is growing opposition, not least in the talks on non-proliferation,
584
to the Government's proposals for an overall increase in our nuclear fire-power and to our go-slow on a comprehensive test ban?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful for the first part of the noble Lord's question. I merely refer him to the remarks made some time ago by the Russian leader who accepted that the British deterrent was a minimum one.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if ever the occasion arises when my Questions please the Government and their supporters I shall begin to believe that I have been overtaken by senility? The Minister referred to the non-proliferation treaty. Does he agree that it is hardly compatible that, on the one hand, he should take refuge in that excellent treaty, which I hope he will soon discuss and improve while, on the other hand, we are increasing the size of our own nuclear weaponry and simultaneously asking other people to reduce theirs or not to have them at all?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, we have a mutuality of interest. Despite the great respect which I bear the noble Lord, the day when we agree will be the day when I shall have reached my dotage. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, I refer him to the exchanges which have been taking place, it sometimes seems to me, for months and months.

The British Wine Industry
2.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the European Community is seeking to interfere with the development of the British wine industry, and what action they are taking in the matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earll Howe): My Lords, the production of wine from English and Welsh vineyards has developed considerably during the past decade and the Government are committed to its continued success. The Government are therefore seeking to ensure that the interests of our industry are properly reflected in the Community's wine regulations.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer. Will he go a little further and say whether the press reports that objection is being taken in the Community, particularly in the French section thereof, to the expansion of the British wine industry are correct?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that the English and Welsh wine industries deserve all the encouragement that we can give them. That is why we have taken issue with the EC Commission on the terms of the rule prohibiting, the new planting of vines. We have done so on

585
grounds of practicality and fairness. We are producing some excellent wines in this country and we wish to see the industry develop further.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in the light of the Government's commitment to our wine industry, will the Minister specify how they are fulfilling that commitment and whether government hospitality serves English wines at their functions?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government take every opportunity to bring English wine to the attention of their guests by serving it at government functions. With regard to the rules of the EC wine regime, we do not believe that the ban on new planting is practicable because it can be introduced only after we know what the previous year's production was, which is after the planting season is under way. We have made representations to the Commission on that score. Nor do we believe that it is fair to introduce a ban on new planting on the basis of one year's figures alone. Again, we have brought that point to the attention of the Commission.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Brussels directive requires the British wine industry to plant no more vineyards until 1996 and then not to use the hybrid grape, which is most suitable to our climate, on the grounds that it would offer unfair competition to the other producers in the EC? Is the Minister also aware that the 3 million bottles which we produce annually would hardly make a splash in the vast wine lake which is maintained by the EC? Is he further aware that many jobs would be lost if the Government do not invoke the doctrine of subsidiarity and tell those in Brussels that it has nothing whatever to do with them and that we shall do exactly as we please about our own wine production?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we cannot cut ourselves off from Community rules relating to the wine industry, as the wine regime is part of the CAP, to which we are legally committed. The UK also relies on the single market and therefore we must abide by EC rules in that connection. The ban on new planting is not currently in force in this country. However, long-standing EC rules prevent quality wine being made from hybrid grape varieties, as the noble Lord correctly said. The Government wish to see that rule changed because those varieties can produce good, often excellent, wine in the UK.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, would it not be sensible if government departments in this country instructed themselves on the ways in which, for example. the French Government and the French wine industry construe and apply legislation coming out of Brussels?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I must point out to my noble friend that the major producers of wine in the Community are subject to a total ban on new planting in order to restrict production. During the past few years we in this country have seen a most impressive
586
increase in the acreage under vines and the Government are keen to see that development continue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this matter falls within the exclusive competence of the Community and that therefore, in line with the principles of subsidiarity, which do not apply within areas of exclusive competence, it will be extremely difficult to give effective support to our own wine industry?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in broad terms I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. However, we believe that there is scope for the rules to take greater account of UK growing conditions and of the fact that our production could not be said to contribute to Community surpluses.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that, despite the great support of all things British, it is a relief to Her Majesty's Government to know that we are not supporting the claims that elderberry wine can be champagne against the claims of the people from Epernay? That is becoming too presumptive on our part.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very interesting point. We have noted the conclusion of the recent court judgment and are studying it carefully.
Lord Carter: My Lords, why cannot English and Welsh wine producers be treated as generously as the French and Greek tobacco growers?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Community subsidy to the wine regime is almost exactly on a par with that to tobacco growers.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in his answer to an earlier supplementary question the Minister said that support was given to English and Welsh wine producers. Can he advise the House why the Government discriminate against wine producers in Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have no intention of discriminating. The fact is that the vast majority of vineyards are located in the southern part of the British Isles, as the noble Lord will be aware.

Bank of England: Accountability
3 p.m.
Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty'sLord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Bank of England should become more independent of the Government while remaining accountable to Parliament.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, in his Mansion House speech on 15th June my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had no intention of rushing into or anticipating future debate on the issue of an independent central bank.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that two recent Chancellors and the retiring governor, at that same function, spoke in favour of this proposition and that in a subsequent interview in the Financial Times the present Chancellor said that he had an open mind on the subject? Is the noble Earl also aware that an increasing number of countries are giving greater responsibility to their central banks in the control of inflation and of monetary policy? Is he aware that in New Zealand a successful regime has been introduced which is based on a contract between the Government and the central bank? Therefore, does not the noble Earl agree that it is timely that we should re-examine that issue in Britain? At the moment inflation is fortunately low, but our past experience in keeping it low has not beer, particularly good. Therefore would it not be appropriate to think again about the instruments that we use for that purpose?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is yes. The answer to his second question is yes. The answer to his third question is yes. As regards looking at the issue again, the noble Lord is one of the prime movers in keeping the debate going.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the character and attributes of the Governor of the Bank of England are just as important as the status of the bank? Will not the Bank of England have a governor, in the person of Mr. Eddie George, who will be prepared to give the Government independent, well-informed and robust advice? In short, he is an Emmanuel man.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the governor will continue to give the Government the very best advice that he can. However, the policies of the Government are also important.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 20 years ago next Wednesday I left the Bank of England, after 46 years? Is he also aware that not long after leaving the bank I was invited by the Royal Belgian Economic Society to deliver a lecture on the independence of central banks, which I did with particular reference to the independence of the Bank of England? That is a long time ago, and I would not like to say that it was the last word on the subject. However, if noble Lords would like me to put a copy of the lecture in the Library, provided I can find a copy, I would be willing to do so.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the House would be most grateful if a copy were placed in the Library.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I speak as one who is broadly in favour of the Maastricht Treaty and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Nevertheless, does the Minister accept that it would be quite wrong to give independence to a European central bank which does more than merely control inflation? Does he agree that control of interest rates
588
gives much greater power to an independent central bank, and will he confirm that that would not be the policy of the Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was particularly disappointed that the noble Lord was not with us on Wednesday of last week when we discussed this issue.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree with my noble friend that fiscal and monetary policy are interdependent and that the Government's decisions on taxation and spending affect interest rates and that the level of interest rates will affect both government spending and tax revenue? Does he therefore also agree that it is foolish to separate the determination of monetary and fiscal policy from one another? In particular, does he agree that it is notably foolish to charge an independent central bank with the task of managing monetary policy alone without any concern for other aspects of policy, as is so clearly illustrated by the devastation being wrought on the German economy by the blinkered policies of the Bundesbank?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we discussed that particular point on Wednesday. I believe that the noble Lord put exactly the same question to me, and I gave him a very good reply.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, does the Minister agree that it was the blinkered policy of Chancellor Kohl and not of the Bundesbank which led to the exchange rate of one for one of the German Mark and the East German Mark which has caused endless trouble throughout the European Community?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to remind your Lordships that that was a government decision and not a Bundesbank decision.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, considering the opposition of the Conservative Party, let alone of industry and commerce, to the nationalisation of the Bank of England, and the zeal with which they have privatised. so many nationalised industries, it is a little strange that the Government have not tackled the first nationalisation target of the Labour Party?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the Bank of England has been doing a very good job for the country under the 1946 Act. Of course, the bank is accountable to Parliament.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was one of the most, if not the most, vociferous and consistent among those who urged us into the ERNI? Bearing in mind the disaster which that policy caused for the economy of this country, will the Minister be very cautious about accepting any further advice from the noble Lord?
The Earl of Caithness; My Lords, we listen to all advice with great care, including advice from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as my previous advice is called in question perhaps I may make it quite clear that when I proposed that we should enter the ERM it was long before we did so and at a much lower currency value than that at which we finally joined.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I seem to recall general support for the Government when we went into the ERM, not least from the leader of the opposition party.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on Iraq.
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 Third Reading of the Osteopaths Bill, the Committee stages of the Local Government (Amendment) Bill and the Bail (Amendment) Bill and the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements Grants) Scheme 1993 will be taken.

Railways Bill
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Railways Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clause 3,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 4 to 42,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 43 to 53,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 54 to 90,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 91 to 105,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 106 to 119,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 120 and 121,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 122 to 138,

Schedules 11 to 13,

Clauses 139 and 140.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have no objection to what is proposed, but perhaps I may take the opportunity to ask when the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee relating to the Railways
590
Bill will be published, in order that noble Lords taking part in the Committee stage on Thursday may have the benefit of the wisdom of that Select Committee.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that the committee sat this morning and hopes to publish its report tomorrow.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Probation Service Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill consolidates the law relating to the probation service together with provisions relating to persons on bail and the rehabilitation of offenders. This consolidation will be especially welcomed since the principal enactment in this area—the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973—has been heavily amended over the past 20 years.
The Bill contains a number of minor technical amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission which are necessary to produce a satisfactory consolidation. Those amendments are contained in the commission's report on this consolidation. I should like to take the opportunity of expressing appreciation to the commission and to the draftsman for their work in producing the Bill.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Health Service Commissioners Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill consolidates the law relating to the Health Service Commissioner for England and Wales and the law relating to the Health Service Commissioner for Scotland. Work is continuing on separate consolidations of the rest of the health service legislation for England and Wales and for Scotland. For convenience these provisions relating to the health service commissioners have been separated off to form this single Bill for Great Britain.
The Bill contains a number of minor technical amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission which are necessary to produce a satisfactory consolidation. The amendments are contained in the joint report of the two commissions. Once again I am sure that I speak for your Lordships in expressing appreciation for the work of the commissions and of the draftsman in producing the Bill.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.

591
Moved. That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (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.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Treaty on European Union]:
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(p)").
The noble Lord said: The burdens on the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in dealing with the Bill have been heavy and I have agreed on this occasion to relieve him of his burden. I do so with pleasure. Remarks have been made by some noble Lords opposite in particular about many of the amendments being designed merely to promote debate and to have no specific thrust to them. Amendment No. 37 is an amendment which actually seeks to do something. It seeks to eliminate one of the major usurpations which the Commission seeks to make through the treaty. It is an area which was not covered or envisaged by the original Treaty of Rome and one can see no good reason for bringing it today within the ambit of the Community's institutions.
The area of education and culture is, of course, a matter of great general European interest. The contacts between the cultural activities and those who pursue them in various European countries, and equally in the spheres of science, scholarship and education, have been of importance for centuries. There is no obvious reason why those should now form the focus of activity by the Commission. It is not that there are no aspects of machinery which can facilitate the movement of persons in education or cultural activities across the borders of our respective countries. But that movement is not, and should not be, confined to the membership of the European Community, even were that membership to be increased.
Indeed, the main responsibility for oiling the wheels of education and cultural activity, as indeed is admitted in the text of the treaty, from the beginning has been a matter for the Council of Europe. There is no evidence that it has failed in those activities, that it needs replacing or that further activities of that kind require an administrative substructure.
On the educational side, there are certain points to emphasise. One is that, although in our different countries we all do much the same thing—we teach children; we hopefully teach students—we do it in many different ways. Our systems are much more
592
different in that field than, let us say, our systems in industry or commerce. Therefore there is a particular delicacy about trying to mesh those systems.
Furthermore, in all our countries, and most notably in this country, there are major changes in progress at almost every level of education, in particular but by no means exclusively, in higher education. We have run into some difficulties, as the Committee is aware, partly because the burden upon our Ministers in the Department for Education has been so considerable. I sometimes wonder how my noble friend Lady Blatch can summon up the energy that has been required to pilot successive Bills through the House. I see therefore no argument for, and very considerable argument against, imposing the further burden which falls on Ministers whose activities are in some way related to the activities of the European Community. The last thing that we want at a time of major change in our own education arrangements is to see Ministers for Education follow the flight-path of Ministers of Agriculture and of the Environment backwards and forwards to Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, scarcely touching ground in the country for whose destinies in that field they are responsible.
Therefore we require an argument which has not been put forward in any detail or concrete manner as to why the Commission should suddenly arrogate to itself powers in this field. I know that. as usual., we shall be told that there are limitations which it accepts on its powers that there shall be no forcible harmonisation by regulation or even by directive, arid that it is all to be done gently through incentives. However, I believe that those words, like so much else in this unfortunate treaty, are so vague and so general that they do not give us the reassurance that we seek.
What are to be the incentives? Let me take a concrete instance. We are exhorted in the treaty, arid by some of its supporters - I believe it is justifiable —to say that we are not doing enough about studying European languages. That charge, unfortunately, is one which sticks, even though some of those who make it are not notably fluent in many other languages than their own. However, perhaps they hope that their children will do better. What is to be the incentive for improvement in that area? Will children who pass GCSE in French, German, Italian. Portuguese, Danish or whatever it may be be summoned to Brussels and given a piece of cake, a T-shirt or something else by M. Delors in some great ceremony which can be televised and given greater public presence? We should like to know those incentives. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate she will explain exactly what should be done, how much money it is to cost and whether the burden is one that it is reasonable to accept for our education budget at a time when we are so pressed for necessary and immediate expenditure on school buildings and so forth. We need assurances there.
Furthermore, despite the disclaimer about harmonisation, we need assurances that no attempt will be made to insist, for purposes of recognition of our degrees, that our academic university years and programmes be assimilated to those of the Continent. They are different, more intensive and therefore

593
shorter. We have a wholly different tradition of looking after students, which is why there is such a demand from students from the European Community to come here. We would like to know that nothing will impede the autonomy of the British university system which we have been defending against other proposals from Her Majesty's Government over recent years. Nothing should come out of the accession to the treaty which will in any way interfere with that autonomy.
As regards culture, I feel that the argument hardly needs making. Everyone knows what official culture means: that some city will become the city of culture and M. Delors will visit it; some other exhibition will be put on, relevant or irrelevant to some great anniversary in the history of Europe. There are always ways in which money can be spent on manifestations, when what is primarily needed is the kind of society in which culture is reckoned as a value for its own sake. The further it is kept from official intervention and, above all, the further from international intervention —which is almost bound to be homogenising—the better. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I intervene briefly, tempted by the amendments on the Marshalled List which appear to me to focus an approach to the treaty which ought to be spoken to. It seems to me that many people in this country do not sufficiently know what goes on outside it. In support of that, I plead that in spite of the fact that the Stock Exchange, for example, has spent £40 million on the installation of a system which proved to be worthless and had to be scrapped, there are people who feel that we can tell Europe all it needs to know about financial systems. In spite of the fact that Lloyd's of London appears to be in the process of beggaring a great many of its members, there are people who think that Europe has everything to learn from us about insurance. In spite of the fact that our national football team was beaten in Oslo by a country whose population is smaller than that of London, while its supporters merrily wrecked the bars of the capital, there are people who feel that this country is the Mecca forall true sportsmen and football players. In spite of the fact that we were incapable even of getting the Grand National race started, there are people who feel that England is still the only true home of horseracing.
Baroness Trumpington: Hear, hear!
Lord Elton: Encouraged by that, I shall add a paragraph to my otherwise short intervention to say: in spite of the fact that we have a Press that delights in the destruction of privacy and personal reputation and appears to be trying to shake most of the major institutions of the country, we still feel that the freedom of that press is the model on which the whole of Europe should base its own institutions.
All that argues either great pride or a considerable ignorance of what goes on elsewhere on the Continent. I merely ask that Members of the Committee will observe that the amendments would be directed at removing, among other things, the ERASMUS
594
scheme and other schemes under which 70,000 students have been able to conduct their studies for a considerable time in other European Community countries, to the considerable increase of their understanding of the mechanism and culture of those countries.
I believe that this should not be a Little England looking inward at the sceptred isle, but a sceptred isle as part of the great concourse of nations with shared but differing cultures. I wholly oppose the intention behind these amendments.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in taking up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The latter is a distinguished educationist, but I was saddened to hear him speak in such a patrician and disdainful way of the efforts of people to learn other European languages. He himself may be fluent in many of them, but I do not believe that he should lightly pour scorn on the efforts that are made by parents to encourage their children to a fluency that they themselves do not enjoy.
Lord Beloff: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I made no such reference. I strongly approve of the efforts of parents—often thwarted but made nevertheless—to get their children to learn more languages. All I was asking is: what kind of incentives are proposed under the treaty to render their task easier? To that, I require a reply.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: If tomorrow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, examines the record of what he said, he may find that he has a manner of saying things, of which perhaps he is not always aware. I do not think my remarks were at all unjust. The answer I give him as to what incentive those people have who seek to improve the linguistic skills of the new generation in the country is that they have the best of all economic incentives. Like the United States, we have the tremendous advantage in this country of a language which has become a world language. However, we do not make the most of that advantage. If we are doing business in the rest of the European Community, it is not necessary to have a fluency in French, German, Dutch or Italian, in order to engage in the final negotiations, to do a deal on behalf of this country. But—my goodness! —it helps to make the deal possible to engage in some kind of civilised conversation over the dinner table. I put the matter no higher than that.
Despite having the advantage—or perhaps because of it—of being the home of a world language, we are the most linguistically illiterate of the nations in the European Community. It is in our national interest to seek to do something about that. The moves that are made within the European Community, signalled back in the original Treaty of Rome but set out in more precise detail now in the text of the Maastricht Treaty, are moves in our national interest. It is a major —perhaps the major—challenge for the nation to try to make itself more commercially and industrially competitive within the European Community. For

595
that, education and training, including a greater awareness of what happens in other countries, are very much needed.
Within the European Community, the Government are absolutely right—though I disagree with some of the consequences they draw from their social chapter policy—to emphasise not only the need for Britain to be competitive educationally within the European Community, but for the European Community to be increasingly competitive in terms of education and training within the global world community. That is what lies behind these moves on which the European Community has now embarked.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned the ERASMUS programme which is still modest, covering about 2 per cent. of the students within the European Community who might enjoy it. However, it is a very important development, as are the associated programmes. For example, the TEMPUS programme enables the European Community to try to serve the urgent educational needs of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. It also deserves our imaginative support and understanding. The motive behind this particular series of amendments stems from the worst kind of British insularity and nationalism.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: In support of my noble friend, I should like to remind the Committee of the very wise remark that while the Germans sell in English they buy in German, which can be a very useful guide. In the days of the Treaty of Rome, training was one of the subjects covered by the treaty and for which funds were available for schemes. Those of us who have collaborated in those schemes at one time or another have been well aware that there is a great illogicality and indeed a weakness in having training included but nothing for education. It means that the whole approach has to be geared in a way that one would not choose. Education and training should surely be so closely related that schemes do not have to be devised in order to make it clear that they are in some narrow sense "training", when what is required is a broader educational approach combining both conventional education and vocational training.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, recently instigated a short debate on the subject of a report entitled Education without frontiers, in which he had been personally involved. Noble Lords who listened to that debate or read about it will know that he put forward many interesting proposals for students in various countries to study in other countries. In that debate, I had the opportunity of saying a word about how the British Open University now recruits increasing numbers of students who live in member states of the Economic Community.
The rules of the Community at the moment make it very difficult for a university in one member state to charge more to students from another member state to cover the extra costs that that involves (for the Open University it involves extra costs). I need not go into
596
that. But this is an example of how co-operation within the Community on educational matters might sort out the charging anomalies that make this kind of highly desirable operation very difficult. I therefore believe that a small—not enormous —gradual development of co-operation on the universities front at least has much potential. I would be very sorry indeed to see this amendment carried.
Lord Desai: The amendments before us refer to the education of youth as well as co-operation. Some of the measures covered by Article 3(p), which Amendment No. 37 wishes to delete, are already in effect. Its main aspect is ERASMUS, which some Members of the Committee have mentioned. ERASMUS, looked at from the point of view of students, is a very good thing. I am involved at the London School of Economics in tutoring many ERASMUS students; and some of my children are about to enjoy ERASMUS. ERASMUS has a problem and we ought to note it. At this moment our balance of trade in ERASMUS is that lots of people come here while very few of our students go to other countries. To some extent therefore we are benefiting the Community at large. We ought to find ways of encouraging more of our students to go abroad—or, if that is not possible, to find a way of recovering the costs of training those extra students, moneys which at the moment the universities do not get.
There is also the problem of co-operation among educational institutions which is also a very important aspect. There is a programme called SPES, which I know that many of my colleagues have used. The whole discussion of the economics of transition in Eastern Europe is very much a co-operative effort among economists of many countries. These are just two examples. We are looking upon activities such as foreign languages, training, education and research in a much more European context. That cannot but be good. The fact that it can be financed from what is a very modest advance, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has pointed out, is a good thing.
Lord Annan: I am sure the Committee will agree with me that it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on education. Not only does he speak with such brilliance, but he always takes the line that on the whole our educational system is as good as it possibly can be and no change is really needed. That was certainly his view at the time of the Robbins Report of which he was a stalwart opponent.
I wonder whether we should not listen to the Continent when they advise us that our system is not always as good as it might be. It is now well over 100 years since Matthew Arnold besought this country to learn something from the French about their educational system. We did not do so and I believe that we have lost tremendously as a result. At that time the French had compulsory secondary education. We did not. In that respect, one has only to read the kind of essay which a boy or a girl in a French lycée has to serve up if he or she is reading Philo in the

597
baccalauréat to see how disciplined it is: introduction, first thesis, development, second thesis, development; conclusion.
If one took an A-level essay in any arts subject, I doubt whether one would find that discipline. It is true that the French are not interested at that stage in education in originality. They leave that to develop later, sometimes with fatal results in the Ecole Normale. But in the schools they are drilled in this way. That is why the French develop their great gift of logic which in our expositions we could do well to imitate.
I wonder too whether, in the debate which continues in this country about A-levels, we should not look more favourably than we do at the international baccalauréat. This is a way in which we get that spread of subjects in the sixth form which forces people to keep on doing mathematics however much they may dislike it; and it keeps on making them do languages, even though they are scientifically inclined, whereas under our system we still allow children to give up at the age of 15, and even earlier sometimes, because they are naturally inclined to drop subjects which will not be of use to them in the sixth form.
But I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when he spoke of the need for us to retain our own conception of university education. It is interesting that the educationists in France and in Germany look with envy at our system and very often say that they must reform their own system of higher education. It is at something like the age of 37 when in Germany a student—if one can call him that—is able to move towards Habilitation, which thereby enables him to teach in a university in a full professorial, or lower professorial level. Again, it is exactly the same in France, where the Doctorat de l'Etat is far too long and exacting.
I agree that Europe is looking to us to give a lead on this question. But there is one concomitant. If we moved to a broader-based subject in the sixth form, it is inevitable that we shall have to lengthen our university course which is the shortest in Europe for the very good reason that our children become more specialised and have a head start in the universities studying subjects which in other countries they could only begin to study when they get to university. I implore the Minister when she comes to reply to give a favourable answer to the fact that we could make some changes in our system of education which would bring us more into line with the European Community.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I am at the age when my children, aged 20, are just getting to the stage of university education—some of them have been through it. They, and an enormous number of their contemporaries, have learnt foreign languages. They did so not because they were told to do it by Brussels but because they see a commercial interest in doing so.
There is compulsion in these articles which raises a certain fear. The French know perfectly well that if every person in the member states has to learn to speak another language, that second language will be
598
English. Therefore there is a great fear that people will be forced to learn two foreign languages in order to preserve French as a European language. That will rule out the possibility for a large number of children of learning Japanese, Chinese or some other language —perhaps Portuguese for South America—in which they see greater economic opportunities (I think correctly so) than they see in Europe.
Lord Monson: I should like to concentrate on that part of Article 3(p) which enjoins the Community actively to make:
"a contribution … to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States".
That is an extraordinary phrase. After all, European culture has been blossoming and flowering fruitfully for over 2,500 years without the need of any assistance from a European superstate. The phrase "flowering of the cultures of the member states" sounds like a cross between Pseud's Corner and Orwell's 1984. The latter is not so fanciful since state directed culture is a feature of authoritarian and even totalitarian states. Unlike the French, and above all unlike the Germans, we do not often use the word "culture" in Britain or English-speaking countries because it sounds a little pompous in English. But when we do use it the kind of adjectives that spring to mind are "spontaneous", "individualistic", "voluntary", "innate" and so on. Culture is as much bottom up as top down. It is not something to be provided or fostered by bureaucrats.
It is interesting that Mr. Jacques Attali, until last week the president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, who dreamt he dwelt in marble halls—and indeed ensured that for a short period he dwelt in marble halls of unparalleled opulence—spent £1.25 million on works of art to reflect "Europe's cultural and intellectual diversity". Phrases like "flowering of cultures" often go hand in hand with empire building.
There is nothing wrong with German municipalities subsidising uneconomic opera houses, if German ratepayers, in these days of severe economic recession, are still prepared to foot the Bill; but it is quite inappropriate for that to be done at Community level where European taxpayers have no say in how their money is spent. One suspects that this article has very little to do with culture as we normally understand it and more to do with the ridiculous plans to force unwilling British television viewers to watch Eurosoaps on their television screens as a substitute for American soaps such as "Dallas". We have already seen one Euro-soap in the shape of "Eldorado", with its actors from many different parts of Europe. Surely one "Eldorado" is enough. The British viewers have given their verdict upon it and do not want it overridden.
I turn briefly from culture to education. My noble friend Lord Annan made an extremely good case for more ad hoc co-operation in matters of education. But, so far as I could see, he made no case at all for a rigid, institutionalised co-operation. I agree with him on the matter of foreign languages, which was referred to by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. It would be marvellous if we all

599
spoke western European languages better. But commercially and from a hard-headed practical point of view, it is often much more practical and advantageous to learn Japanese, Arabic, Russian and so on.
Finally, I turn to Article 57, which is the subject of Amendment No. 64. Under Article 57, which deals with mutual recognition of diplomas and degrees, would not Oxford and Cambridge Universities be obliged to accept that a first-class degree from some second rate university is equivalent to a good second-class degree from Oxford, Cambridge, or some equally fine university? Presumably those universities would be in breach of Community rules if they refused an applicant with what they regarded as an unsatisfactory degree, but a degree which the Commission regarded as satisfactory, a place to undertake postgraduate research. I should be very interested to have a reply from the noble Baroness on that point.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We all know what a politically hot potato education is. In this country we have had our fill of disputes between one party and another and between this party and that party and the Government and so on. It is a very important issue. It can move people to take all kinds of actions and to make all kinds of noises. I noticed that the head of co-operation in education, Dr. Lenarduzzi, proudly said at the conference at Madrid that the Commission had already been dabbling in education even though the Treaty of Rome did not give it sufficient authority to do so. But now, under Maastricht, he could influence education Europe-wide for he would now have the funding to do so.
The question is—this point has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—do we want the Commission and commissioner to intervene directly in out education process? Many of us—probably most of us—are very concerned about the increase in bureaucracy. It seems to us that here is another opportunity and another avenue for the intrusion of further bureaucracy into our education process.
looked at yesterday's Sunday Telegraph—I always read the Sunday Jrelegraph; I hope that I am a person who looks at all sides and weighs up all the arguments before making any decision—and was amazed to see an article which appeared to show that it was no longer elected Ministers, let alone an elected parliament, that was making decisions about education. It seems that decisions are not being taken by elected Ministers and our Parliament but by a bureaucratic conspiracy meeting regularly and secretly in All Souls. My noble friend finds that very amusing and so, too, do I. But the article is there in all seriousness in the Sunday Telegraph. As it mentions that permanent secretaries attend those meetings—I am sure that the noble Baroness will have seen the article—I feel that we are entitled to know whether or not there is any truth in the article. Perhaps the noble Baroness will mention it when she winds up.
Article 126, as we heard, requires the Community to develop the European dimension in education. We
600
do not yet quite know what that means. It mentions languages—other noble Lords have also mentioned languages—but how far are we going in the process of insisting that languages are taught? Does it involve Welsh? I sincerely hope it does. Does it involve Gaelic? Are those languages to be compulsory in the Community? I should also like the noble Baroness to tell me what is meant by the expression "distance education" in Article 126. For example, does it mean the Open University? If so, does it mean that the Commission will be able to intervene directly in the operation of that body? Perhaps the noble Baroness can answer that question.
I have read the communique issued at Copenhagen. Presumably, it was a document adopted by that conference. Paragraph 6 of Annex I to that communiqué reads:
"6. Profound changes in our education systems.
The priorities here are:
learning how to keep on learning throughout our lives;
combining knowledge with know how;
developing each individual's creativity and initiative;"
this is the most important one—
"establishing the right of each individual lo lifelong training (all young people would be given vouchers entitling them to initial education and/or training later on)".
Does it mean what it says, that we will issue vouchers to all young people which they can use for either education or training at any particular time of their lives? Is that an area into which the Commission, EC—or the European Union as it will be—should seek to intervene? Are we all in favour of training vouchers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I did not know that everyone in the Chamber was in favour of training and education vouchers. It is important to learn from the noble Baroness what the Government's view on this matter is and whether the annex to the communique means that it will be adopted by them because they are in favour of it.
These are questions that need to be answered. My noble friend appears to find it amusing that I ask these questions. The fact of the matter is that, if these questions are not asked and later on we find that they have gone by default, we shall be criticised. I do not believe it right that Parliament should be criticised for asking questions that should be asked at the time when they should be asked—that is, before the Bill passes through its final stages. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to answer the questions I have put and will be able to satisfy me. I assure her that they are not catch questions but serious queries in my own mind, and they will be in the minds of other people.
Lord Annan: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will explain why he believes that the very first question that he asks is a serious one. Is he aware that for years I have been attending clandestine and secret meetings—that is, they would have been clandestine and secret except that nobody from the press was interested in them? They were totally open meetings to discuss educational matters. Sometimes civil servants attended, but the last meeting of that kind that I attended in that subversive college All

601
Souls was organised by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, and he was there. I ask whether this is really a serious question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have asked the question and now I have the answer from the horse's mouth. That shows how good and proper the debate is. One asks questions and gets the answers. The Sunday Telegraph—from which I quoted—next Sunday will be able to quote the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and reassure its readers that there is no conspiracy going on and the Government are in full charge of education. I believe that this afternoon I have carried out a service to the House in getting an unqualified answer from one of the powers that be.
Lord Harris of High Cross: In the interests of further enlivening the debate, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 37, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Perhaps I may take as an example the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who in some respects is my old friend. He raised the question of whether we were in favour of training vouchers and got a reply from his Front Bench with which he did not agree. For me, the difficulty is that this is entirely a question for national governments. I happen to believe strongly in education vouchers more or less as a replacement for state secondary education. That is a battle I would like to fight out here and make progress upon, at times perhaps slowly and at other times more rapidly. But it seems to me to be quite pathetic to hear some speakers talk of good ideas that will improve European co-operation and also our competitiveness and then resort to compulsion. Let us embody these in this great statute. We are passing legislation, and it is a very solem n business. In dealing with the Maastricht Treaty we do not have infinite space and have to put into it those things which are of such overriding importance that not only can we get wide agreement on them—a consensus, if you will—but also we can give the proper time, attention and financial resources to support them.
The other day I noted that someone had rendered "acquis communautaire" as "le ragbag" in Franglais. We throw into the treaty everything that a pressure group comes along and tries to persuade us to entertain. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said —how irresistible he is when he holds forth on education, compared with when he holds forth on matters such as the smoking of tobacco—ministerial time is overloaded. Ministers are overstretched. They give an appearance of distraction and occasionally —indeed frequently—incompetence, but, if you raise a question with them, they will invite you to look at their diaries. Those diaries are kept by civil servants and are partly a reward and punishment system to keep them house-trained. Nevertheless, Ministers are overstretched, and we lightly throw in yet another activity so they can be called forth to meetings in Brussels to discuss what is perhaps a good scheme or a totally crackpot scheme. Ministers must be there to try to kibosh it. Perhaps time is the most limited of all resources as far as Ministers are concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, frequently admires
602
the orations of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I hate to have a disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, particularly on matters of education. He is right to make observations about the inadequacy of our efforts particularly in the teaching of languages and about how we can learn from the way things are done on the Continent. He said that it was partly a matter of competitive efficiency as well as educational competence. It is clear that nations do things differently. There are reasons in history and in their culture and political systems. Above all, the whole understanding of competition is, as Hayek said, a discovery procedure whereby we watch the way other people conduct their affairs and we may learn lessons from watching them. Then we can develop our enthusiasms and win support for those views.
I find one of the most depressing features of debates in your Lordships' House on matters of this kind is the resort to coercion, which, after all, is what government is—government is coercion; it is compelling people, and compelling them now from rather further afield than we have been accustomed to in the past—rather than the development of the great voluntary tradition and enthusiasms that led to much of our own welfare systems being created by individual enthusiasts.
We should look meanly at this new item (p) of extending the competence, or incompetence, or whatever it is, of the Brussels Commission and we should get some idea of what expenditures are involved. If great outcomes are to be anticipated, that sounds rather expensive. If minor improvements are to be anticipated, I suggest that we drop it from the treaty and think of other ways of advancing our ideas.
4 p.m.
Lord Aldington: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, made two points which I would venture to suggest to the Committee are not quite right. First, he said that the introduction of education into the Community sphere of activity is quite new. That to the knowledge of many of us and to most of your Lordships is simply not correct. For some time I have been a trustee of, and I am now chairman of, a little trust called the European Educational Research Trust, of which a number of your Lordships have been or are trustees. We have been very conscious of the assistance that we have had from the Community for many, many years—in the exchange of visits and in the learning of languages.
In fact, if I look at Article 126.2 I find an almost exact account of what the European Educational Research Trust in this country, set up at the time when the European movement was created, has been trying to do. We are no doubt matched in a lot of other countries. It is not correct to say that it is new. The reason why it is here is the same reason as my noble friend Lord Cockfield has given us as affecting a number of activities of the Community over the years which were started under Article 235. The Council of Ministers and the European Council, on the initiative of the Commission, have decided that there ought to be more specific and exact legislation setting out exactly the scope of the competence. That is what has come here.

603
The noble Lord's second point—I hope that the Committee has not been misled by the noble Lord —is that there is an element of coercion in this article. There is absolutely no element of coercion. The objectives are set out. Paragraph 4 states:
"In order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this article, the Council:—acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 1896, after consulting … shall adopt incentive measures, excluding" —
excluding, not including—
"any harmonization of the laws and regulations of the Member States".
I am very sad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, at whose feet I have sat on some economic matters for some time, making such gross errors. I hope that the Committee will take no advice from the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of High Cross: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him to carry my education a little further forward. At the end of my remarks I asked the Minister to tell us what expenditure, if any, is involved. If she tells me that there is no expenditure, I shall make a full retraction for the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. If she tells me that there is expenditure which is financed by taxation, that comes slap into the middle of my category of coercion. Taking money from people to do things that someone thinks are in their interests is to me coercion. Therefore I assume that no expenditure will be involved in this matter.
Lord Aldington: The Minister will answer the noble Lord's question, but if the Community has been conducting activities over a number of years, I should be very surprised if there has been no expenditure at all. All I can tell the noble Lord is that that expenditure seems, in my opinion and in the opinion of my colleagues who work with me, to have been very well justified.
Baroness O'Cathain: Most of the comments on this series of amendments have been about education but I must take issue with my noble friend Lord Monson about the flowering of culture. Culture knows no national boundaries. Culture is international and the European Community has done an enormous amount over many years to encourage the visual arts and particularly music.
The liveliest orchestra in the world is the European Community Youth Orchestra, which is directly sponsored by the European Community. It has the youngest musicians. It has musicians from all 12 member states. It has to limit the number of British players, I am told, because there is a preponderance of them. But it does us no harm at all, although we are the musical centre of the world—I say that advisedly —to listen to orchestras from other countries. The European Commission has made that infinitely possible, particularly through the grants it has given to allow the orchestras from the erstwhile Eastern European Communist states to come to this country and to other European Community countries. No one involved in the arts in this country would say that we do not want to see or hear these people. They play music in a different way. We learn from them. It is one
604
area where the European Community has worked and worked extraordinarily well. I think that scathing comments about European Community inervention in or messing around with the flowering of culture come amiss.
It is also the position with the visual arts. Some of the most exciting paintings from parts of the European Community have been gathered together by each member state into a collection of the European Parliament. The collection travels around the Community under the terms of the Twelve Stars exhibition. It is stunning and we all learn from it. It is an area where we ought to say that the Community has done a great job and we hope that it will continue to do so.
Lord Monson: Before my noble friend sits down, I too would agree that it is an admirable and pleasurable activity to listen to young musicians from other countries. However, does she not agree that this is already happening without any need for the Maastricht Treaty and with no mention of the flowering of cultures? Indeed, it could happen without the need for any Community participation. As it happens, the Community funds it, but it could well be funded from other sources. So although I agree with the excellence of the idea, it is not something that the Bill has anything to do with.
Baroness O'Cathain: I must reply. That is not true. When one finds that national governments, local authorities and companies which are the main sponsors of the arts are finding it increasingly difficult to find the large sums required to pay the salaries of the musicians, their travelling costs and their hotel costs, it is absolutely essential to have Community intervention in this area. Without the European Community the cultural life of this city would have been a good deal poorer over the past few years.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Baroness appears to have encapsulated one of the difficulties of this discussion. I have not previously intervened in the debates on this Bill, but on reading them it seems to me that they are so often couched in a yes/no answer to the question of whether what is in the treaty will be good for us without there being a great deal of evidence. The Community already provides support in various ways—not merely through the Commission —to, in my case, higher education. I am well aware that British higher education has been internationalised to a remarkable degree in the past 10 years. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that there are a good many things that need to be put right. He mentioned the sixth-form spread of subjects. There is the problem of the admission of students both from overseas and from this country. What the Government have to do in the face of these problems and this paragraph of the treaty is to say in what manner this part of the treaty will lead to an effective answer to or amelioration of those problems. It seems to me to be a pragmatic matter which is why I am opposed to the treaty without the social chapter. In my judgment it will be less than useful to the citizens of this country. It is a pragmatic issue.

605
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan said, that higher education, for all its problems—many of which have been created by the Government—is something to which those in France and Italy, about which I can speak with some experience, look with a certain degree of envy and sometimes affection concerning the exchange of scholars which is growing in number and continuing. It is true, for example, that the ERASMUS scheme has provided great support in money which otherwise would not have been there for the exchange of students and staff. It is also true that more people have come here than have gone to other countries.
But in what particular manner will all those problems be addressed by what follows in the treaty without—and this is a genuine doubt—undue bureaucratisation which, frankly, is something which the Commission itself knows very well holds up on occasions the ERASMUS scheme as much as our failings here?
The other feature of the debate which was expressed in response to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when moving this amendment, is highly extraordinary. I agree only rarely with the noble Lord, but in full only from time to long time. But to suggest from what he actually said that he was speaking as a little Englander was an atrocious misrepresentation and one which, when we read Hansard, we shall discover is not true. Therefore, it is necessary both for those noble Lords moving amendments and for those whose eyes are on the Community and sometimes on that alone, to give pragmatic answers and to put forward genuine proposals about what they believe will happen. I look forward with interest to what the Government can say in a really pragmatic way about this part of the treaty which seems to have been the subject of very little discussion prior to this debate.
Lord Monson: As it is Committee stage I believe that I have the right to speak again. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, told us that no coercion was involved in the group of amendments to which we are speaking. I revert to Article 57 which is the subject of Amendment No. 64 and part of this group. That article provides that there shall be directives enforcing mutual recognition of degrees and professional qualifications. I have already given instances of the kinds of problems that these directives might impose on universities.
But what about professional qualifications? I wish that I did not have to speak to this matter because I thought that some other Member of the Committee might do so. Under Article 57 Brussels will alter the training requirements of the various professions and alter access to them. Will the lawyers, doctors, architects and engineers of this country accept that their professional body should now be overruled by a directive from Brussels? Surely not. The only way to stop that is to exclude from the law this part of the treaty.
As I understand it, is it also the case that an English doctor will be entitled to practise anywhere in Europe even though he cannot speak a word of the local language? Conversely, will a foreign doctor from
606
another part of the EC be able to practise here even though he cannot speak or understand English? We deserve answers to those questions.
4.15 p.m
Lord Cockfield: I had not intended to intervene in this matter until I heard the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which is of course completely and totally inaccurate as usual. When we speak of education, what is needed is education in your Lordships' House about the provisions of the European treaties and the policies and practices concerned. I was directly responsible for the directives providing for the freedom of practice of the professions in the European Community. They arise under the specific provisions of the Treaty of Rome itself either under the right of establishment or under the right of the provision of services.
They have been enormously successful. They have opened up for this country great opportunities for professional men, trained in this country, to practise in the European Community. To the extent that we take pride in the level of professional competence in this country—and I am sure that we all do, including the noble Lord, Lord Monson—we should support these measures enabling our professional people to exercise their skills throughout the Community to the great advantage both of this country and of the countries in which they practise.
Lord Monson: I was not making allegations, but asking questions which I thought the noble Lord might answer thereby relieving the noble Baroness of the burden, but he has not done so. He has not answered my questions about language ability, for example, so I shall wait to hear from the noble Baroness the answer to my questions.
Baroness Elles: I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but in view of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for whom I have the greatest respect, perhaps I may respond to them. As an MEP of the Thames Valley and chairman of an organisation called Target, which was set up under the COMETT programme of the European Community to study across the Community the question of skill shortages and to look for best practises throughout those countries linking industry, universities and other training providers, I must say that from our side we have had the greatest co-operation and help from the officials of the EC and in particular from DG V. I make a particular point of that because the members do not necessarily belong to my political party. We have had nothing but good co-operation and help. Very productive studies have been carried out in the light of these particular problems.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I decided over the week-end to establish a prize which would be a small, non-monetary token, for the xenophobic remark of the day as this Bill proceeds through its various stages in your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, there has not been any candidate so far. I have decided to set up a second prize for the conspiratorial theory of the day. Without prejudice to whatever might happen later on

607
today, I say to my noble friend Lord Stoddart, that he is a strong candidate for the award from the start. If he from these Benches begins to take his conspiratorial theories from the Sunday Telegraph, then he really must be aware of the All Souls group to which he refers. It was founded by R.A. Butler in 1942. It has consisted of a distinguished and not particularly closed group of educationists working in schools, colleges and universities, education departments of local authorities, central government, journalists and education theorists, which is also a bad thing. They met not in All Souls, but more recently at Rhodes House, Oxford. That body has never been a secret and its membership has never been secret. The idea that the Sunday Telegraph should have discovered it yesterday and my noble friend today is a little disappointing. I will bear my noble friend's name in mind and unless something better comes along he shall have my prize for Monday 28th June.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in introducing this amendment, made a robust defence of Amendment No, 37 which he said was not merely a token amendment but one which contained something because it took out particularly objectionable words. I acknowledge his concern for the wording of the amendment and I wish to look at the amendments in this group. The meat of the amendment is not particularly in Article 3(p) which is simply a preamble to later articles. Neither is the meat in Article 57. That article, curiously and historically, is almost entirely about self-employment and the recognition of qualifications which would be helpful in encouraging self-employment. Much of Article 57 appeared in earlier treaties and is not new to the Maastricht Treaty.
The meat of this group of amendments is in Article 126 dealing with education; in Article 127 on vocational training and Article 128 on culture. I have to disappoint —or relieve the minds of—a number of noble Lords as regards what the articles actually say because the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has hopes from them while many others, including my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, have fears. In fact, paragraph 1 of Article 126 states that the Community recognises the responsibility of member states for the content of teaching, for the organisation of education systems and for the preservation—or whatever the word is —of "cultural and linguistic diversity". So all noble Lords who have spoken on the assumption that the Community will take responsibility either for the content of teaching or for the organisation of education systems are in for a sad disappointment because that is not what is intended.
Paragraph 2 of Article 126 refers to,
"the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States".
It then refers to encouraging the mobility of students and teachers and the necessity, for that purpose, of the recognition of academic qualifications across national boundaries. It refers also to promoting co-operation between educational establishments and to the development of youth exchanges and "distance education". That phrase caused some difficulty to my noble friend Lord Stoddart but distance education is,
608
I hope, one of the leading areas in which we are developing, and in which we need to develop, because one of the main problems of inequality of opportunity in education and of inequality of access to education is the lack of a coherent and universal availability of distance education.
The Open University is a distinguished example of that and I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, with her distinguished role on the council of the OU, is no longer in her place. The Open University is one such example among many others, including our traditional higher education institutions and many outwith those institutions. As all involved in distance education will recognise, national frontiers have no place in distance education. The support of European institutions right from the days of the 1950s and 1960s in the Council of Europe has been a major contribution to the development of distance education. It is only this Government, with their reluctance to ensure funding, particularly for adult education, who fall behind some of the praiseworthy experiments and developments which have been taking place in Europe.
Article 127 relates to vocational training. Again, I must disappoint those noble Lords who expect major and expensive initiatives from the European Community because paragraph 1 states that its function is to,
"support and supplement the action of the Member States '
Paragraph 2 refers to the need for training and retraining in order to adapt to industrial change, and for access, mobility and co-operation.
I confess that I am more doubtful about some aspects of Article 128 which relates to culture. I think that we all like to think of this article as relating to the arts. That is what, in normal English terminology, we mean by "culture". I have some doubts about whether European action can encourage, as the article states,
"artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector".
I do not think that artistic and literary creation are suitable objectives for government, whether European-wide, nationwide or even local.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, described those provisions as "usurpations" because he said that they were not in the Treaty of Rome. Turning to his area of expertise—I speak very delicately—I wonder whether he would recognise that since the Middle Ages there have been two models of university education in Europe and therefore throughout the world. One has been the Oxford model, which has been centred on individual institutions recognising their own qualifications, with lesser recognition of the qualifications of others. The other has been the Bologna model, which then developed in Germany and to a lesser extent in France. It has been predicated on the transferability of knowledge by the movement of students and teachers throughout the civilised world. I hope—it is no more than a hope—that these articles in the Maastricht Treaty will help us not to supplant the Oxford model with the Bologna model, but to recognise the virtues of greater co-operation and of movement and understandingetween peoples. I hope that the Committee will not see fit to approve the amendments.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: As we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, Amendment No. 37, which seeks to leave out the references to education, training and culture in Article 3(p) of the treaty, is perhaps less of a key amendment in this group. However, I should point out to the Committee that Article 3(p) limits the Community to making a contribution in these fields, thus leaving the primary responsibility to member states, which is exactly where that primary responsibility should lie.
Under the existing pre-Maastricht Article 128 of the Treaty of Rome (on vocational training), policy decisions are taken by a simple majority vote. On occasions, that article has been used as a legal base for Community activity on education. However, under the Maastricht Treaty that will be replaced by separate articles on education and training, each of which sets a clearer and narrower focus for Community activity in those areas, yet Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 seek to leave out new Articles 126 (which deals with education) and 127 (which deals with vocational training).
Before I answer noble Lords' questions, perhaps I may just say a few words about new Article 126. It sets out six areas for Community action: the European dimension in education; student and teacher mobility and mutual recognition of academic qualifications; co-operation between educational establishments; exchanges of information and experience; youth exchanges; and distance learning. I believe that that means real opportunities for UK education. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, we have things to learn from others, just as they have much to learn from us. The article will help to foster better co-operation between member states because it will give students and school children alike a European dimension to their education which I believe to be vital if we are to meet the challenges of the single market and all that that entails.
There has been frequent comment about one of the EC's education programmes, ERASMUS. Others include LINGUA and COMETT, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Elles. They have been adopted under the existing Articles 128 and 325 of the EC treaty to the great benefit of the United Kingdom's universities. Besides the excellent example which was given by my noble friend Lady Elles, COMETT has helped to link UK universities with industry across Europe. To my mind, that is a vital development in ensuring that all our universities teach the skills that are needed in industry. LINGUA has assisted the teaching of foreign languages and, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, ERASMUS has also helped greatly. More than 25,000 UK students have spent part of their time at university studying in the Community. That has been a real bonus for language training. The UK is a leading—often the leading—participant in all those programmes. One has only to look at the number of UK students who have benefited from those courses to know just how good they have been for Britain.
The advantage of setting out the EC's education target in a new article is that Article 126 makes it clear that the Community's role in the education field is to
610
encourage co-operation between member states. It states that the Community, "shall adopt incentive measures"—I shall come to those in a moment—and recommendations, but not measures to harmonise member states' laws and regulations. If Members of the Committee would care to look at any of the articles involved here they would read the words "excluding any harmonization". That is right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke about the importance of vocational training. Article 127 specifies five areas. We believe it to be an improvement on the existing Article 128 of the Treaty of Rome for two reasons: first, the voting basis will change the simple majority to a qualified majority voting; and, secondly, again the new article rules out harmonising measures.
My noble friend Lord Beloff asked me a number of questions when he moved the first amendment. He asked what Community co-operation would cover. It will cover the European dimension in education, particularly of language learning; the mobility of the students and teachers; co-operation between educational establishments; and the exchange of information and experience. I add, in response to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, that distance education and youth exchanges feature specifically as targets for Community action. I re-emphasise that member states will retain responsibility for the organisation of education systems and the content of teaching. The Community's role will be to support and to complement the action.
My noble friend Lord Beloff asked about the word "contribution". The key words in Article 3(p) are that the Community shall make,
"a contribution to education and training".
All that is meant by that is that the Community will continue the type of programmes that it undertakes currently such as ERASMUS. He asked me about the budget for ERASMUS. For 1993, the total budget is £54 million. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Highcroft, also referred to that topic. ERASMUS, which has so well promoted student mobility from which we have benefited more than anyone else, is considered to be good value for money. There is no question of the harmonisation of academic years. I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Beloff, or it may have been another Member of the Committee, who asked me that question.
There is no question of forcing the teaching or learning of any particular language. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, it is useful when one can converse in other European languages, not just in Council meetings but alongside them. I say to my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell that I have been grateful to those teachers who for many years, before ERASMUS and all the other schemes, forced me to learn languages which I use literally weekly and frequently daily in my work. I was one of those who perhaps had the luck to go to Heidelberg as a youngster. That has seen me through many difficult circumstances because I could understand what I was not supposed to understand. I could also ensure that

611
I spoke with a little more knowledge to those of my colleagues who had not had the good fortune from which I had benefited.
I was much amused by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about the Sunday Telegraph. I can assure him, as did the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that there is no conspiracy. Distance education is the Open University for us. But there is also one other scheme which is not essentially a European scheme. It is the Commonwealth distance learning scheme, which is just getting off the ground. There is no boundary to those schemes, but it seems to me to be common sense that other students within Europe should benefit from all distance learning schemes. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, has a conspiracy theory about all matters emanating from Brussels. But just let me tell him that there is no conspiracy emanating from the Copenhagen conclusions about which he asked me. He referred to Annex 1 to those conclusions. It was a paper presented by the President of the Commission to the Council. The Council's conclusions, to which the noble Lord referred, welcomed the presentation arid asked the Commission to present a White Paper on the medium-term strategy for growth, competitiveness and employment before the December Council. The Council did not decide to implement the Commission President's proposals. So it is not true that we have agreed a voucher system, as the noble Lord suggested.
There is a rolling programme of training credits. I believe that the UK was one of the first to try to ensure that young people could benefit from a variety of training opportunities. We are happy to share what seems to us to be good practice with others in the Community. There is no truth in what the noble Lord said about a voucher scheme being agreed across the Community. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I was not stating that; I was asking the Minister what the status of the document was. I am obliged to her for explaining it.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I apologise, but my shorthand is not as good as it used to be. I might need to go back to distance learning to improve it. One further point on distance learning was raised. It was whether the Commission would have any scope to intervene in the operation of the Open University. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the treaty does not give the Commission such scope.
There were many other interesting contributions. I must tackle one which was not answered by my noble friend Lord Cockfield when he put right the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on a number of points. It related to what languages would be necessary to practise with a mutually recognised qualification. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that it is not just doctors who have to be able to speak the language of the country in which they practise. It applies also to veterinary surgeons, because it is most important that a dog that understands commands in English should be spoken to in English. I hope that puts the noble Lords mind at rest.
612
A number of other points were made. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, answered the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I must say that I agreed with everything that the noble Baroness said, and I shall not repeat it. I found it amusing for Commission officials in Brussels to be blamed for "Eldorado". I doubt whether they, like the rest of us, have ever had time to see it. There were other comments about other languages. I have found there to be a great welcome not just for the learning of European languages but of Russian, Japanese and Arabic, because the most important thing is that we can communicate across borders: certainly education knows no boundaries.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, made some interesting comments about the schools system and the important discipline contained in the baccalaureate. I shall bring all his comments to the notice of my noble friend Lady Match because I suspect that she, like I, will agree with much of what he had to say. The question of how to get the very best out of education is the one that we must address, and I know that that is something that he does at ad times.
Amendment No. 150 which was dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is not quite the hotbed of trouble that I think the noble Lord, Lord Monson, believed. I agree that some of the language is not the language that we would choose, but I believe that Article 128 provides a clear definition of what it is appropriate for the Community to do in the cultural field. It contains some sensible areas: for example, the improvement of the knowledge of European culture, the conservation of the cultural heritage of European significance and so on.
The final point that I make is that not only is harmonisation of member states' laws and regulations ruled out but also the recommendations must be adopted by unanimity. That is very important.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked about Article 57, the subject of Amendment No. 64. I assure the noble Lord that it deals with the activities of self-employed persons. It provides for the mutual recognition of qualifications in order to help the free mobility of workers, something which the British Government and Her Majesty's Opposition have supported all along. It will not prevent Oxford and Cambridge giving whatever weight they choose to first class degrees, whether obtained at other universities in Britain or elsewhere in the EC. It is not the problem which the noble Lord perceives it to he.
The articles with which the amendments deal are ones where the Maastricht Treaty brings about a useful improvement in the existing situation. They set out the limits on Community action in areas that were previously too vague and elastic. Harmonising measures are specifically ruled out. That is one of the advantages which the Maastricht Treaty will bring. I urge the Committee to reject Amendment No. 37 and all that goes with it.
Lord Beloff: Because amendments are grouped together, the debate has ranged over a rather large number of issues. However, we can return to the central issue. First, there is general agreement that contact between the educational systems of different countries and the mobility of students, scholars and

613
pupils are and always have been a part of the European scene. If time were no object I might engage in a long and interesting discussion with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as to whether or not there were different models of that in the Middle Ages. The fact is that it exists and we all approve of it.
The only question is whether this is the appropriate machinery for conducting such activity or giving it support. The claim which I made—and so far it has not been challenged, and indeed it was echoed to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—was that the Council of Europe, with its much wider membership, has always been a more appropriate body than the Community to sponsor those matters. If the noble Lord would look at the report that I prepared for the Council of Europe in 1957, Europe and the Europeans, I think that he will find that argument set out at that time.
The difficulty is that, although I naturally accept the assurances of the Minister when she points out that there is no question of undue harmonisation were the Commission to take up these matters, there is within that organisation an instinct towards conformity. Indeed, one example was given by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour; that is, that the Open University is handicapped in spreading its offerings, which are of high quality, because the Commission insists that students living further away, whose tuition under the system is bound to be more expensive, may not be charged more than those who live within a mile or two of Milton Keynes.
That is the kind of problem which we shall continue to face in anything with which the Commission has to do. It seems to me that our principal need is not contacts with other members of the Community: the really important bridges to build at present are bridges with Eastern Europe and in particular with the countries now emerging from the Soviet Union. I believe that the accent of the narrow and inward-looking group of 12 is upon its own affairs. By all means let everybody learn French and German; but what about learning Russian? I believe that to accept that assumption of responsibility by the Commission is to repudiate the wider arena in which we need to act. I need not refer to our Commonwealth and American links on the education and academic side. Therefore, I feel bound to test the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 37.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 207.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Beloff, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jay, L.

Cross, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monson, L.

Galpern, L.

Moran, L.

Gray, L.

Morris, L.

Halsbury, E.

Onslow, E.

614

Orkney, E.

Sudeley, L.

Parry, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Sandys, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Addison, V.

Goschen, V.

Aldington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Grey, E.

Annan, L.

Gridley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hacking, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Arran, E.

Astor, V.

Hampton, L.

Attlee, E.

Han worth, V.

Auckland, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Barber, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Bellwin, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Belstead, L.

Harvington, L.

Bethell, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Birdwood, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley, L.

Blyth, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Borthwick, L.

Holderness, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Bridges, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Brightman, L.

Hood, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Hothfield, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cadman, L.

Inglewood, L.

Caithness, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Caldecote, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kintore, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Knollys, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Leigh, L.

Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chalfont, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Long, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chelmsford, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cockfield, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mancroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Manton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Marlesford, L.

Davidson, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Denham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Merrivale, L.

Desai, L.

Mersey, V.

Elibank, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nathan, L.

Flather, B.

Nelson, E.

Foley, L.

Nicol, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Oxfuird, V.

615

Palmer, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Stedman, B.

Pender, L.

Strafford, E.

Peston, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Plumb, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Porritt, L.

Terrington, L.

Pym, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Renton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Richard, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Torrington, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rodney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Ullswater, V.

Romney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Russell, E.

Wakeham, L.

Sainsbury, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

St. Davids, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Waverley, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Westbury, L.

Seccombe, B.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Shackleton, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Sherfield, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wise, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Slim, V.

Young, B.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 207 names. The Clerks recorded 208 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Iraq: US Military Action
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the. Answer to a Private Notice Question which has been asked in another place on the United Nations Security Council's consideration of the United States attack on targets in Baghdad. The Statement is as follows.
"On 26th June United States forces launched a military operation against the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad. The action follows discovery by the Kuwaiti authorities of a plot to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait City in mid-April by detonating a car bomb. The consequences if the bomb had detonated would have been devastating and would have lead to great loss of innocent life. On 27th June the Americans immediately reported the action to the Security Council as required by Article 51 of the charter and briefed it on the evidence of Iraqi involvement in the plot and the threat presented to the United States by Iraqi terrorism. The operation was a justified and
616
proportionate exercise of the right of self-defence and a necessary warning to Iraq that state terrorism cannot and will not be tolerated.
"That act of terrorism by the Iraqi regime has to be seen in the context of a pattern of attempted defiance and obstruction by Iraq of the United Nations.
"Iraq also continues to detain illegally nationals of Kuwait and other countries. Three British citizens, Paul Ride, Michael Wainwright arid Simon Dunn, have been given grotesque prison sentences along with nationals of the United States, Sweden and Germany. We are doing everything that we can to secure their release.
"The resolve of the international community has achieved much progress in dismantling the Iraqi regime's capacity to attack its neighbours and in deterring attacks on its own citizens. But the attempt to kill former President Bush is a reminder that the Iraqi state is still a sponsor of terrorism. Only through firmness can Iraq be persuaded to conform to the standards of behaviour required of it by the international community".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question. Will she accept that those of us on this side of the House who would claim to be the real friends of the United States and of President Clinton, and who also abhor the brutal Iraqi regime, are, nonetheless, deeply troubled by the unilateral action on the part of the United States?
Is the Minister aware that we take the view that the much-vaunted claim of the establishment of a new-world order during and after the Gulf War demands adherence to an international rule of law and the enhancement of the standing and authority of the United Nations neither of which, in our submission, has been sustained by this unhappy episode?
Is the Minister further aware that the strongest doubts exist about the legality of this raid, notwithstanding her own comments about it? That is so having regard to the fact that invoking the right of self-defence presupposes an ongoing or imminent armed attack, that in this case the alleged assassination attempt (which happily failed) occurred some three months ago, and that those accused have not yet been tried.
Moreover, can the raid truly be said to have been proportionate, as the Minister has alleged, taking into account that it took place on a crowded city centre and that, fairly predictably, some of the missiles missed their target and caused death and injury to a number of innocent civilians—a situation euphemistically referred to as "collateral damage"? Does the Minister not recognise that the alliance, which was painstakingly built up during the Gulf War, has now been damaged and that the situation has played into the hands of apologists and propagandists for the Saddam

617
Hussein regime, causing great political embarrassment for moderate Moslem countries, such as Egypt, already embattled with fundamentalism?
Will the Minister tell the House what consultation took place before the raid occurred? Was the Secretary-General of the United Nations informed, let alone consulted? If not, why not? Did the Prime Minister, who was evidently told about the impending raid a short time before, ask whether the United States proposed to seek the authority of the United Nations for this action?
The Minister referred to the cases of Paul Ride, Michael Wainwright and Simon Dunn who are imprisoned unjustifiably in Iraq. How is their cause likely to be supported as a result of this action? What do the Government propose to do about the situation which clearly has worsened as a result? Do the Government not have a scintilla of doubt about the legality, propriety, morality and good diplomatic sense of this unilateral action on the part of the United States?
5.2 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place. I wish to associate myself with a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Those of us who may express some scepticism about the American action should not be interpreted as in any way condoning the activities of Saddam Hussein, the terrorists activities in which he indulges or the policies which he pursues.
In judging the whole matter, two questions must be answered. First, what has it achieved? Secondly, how will it be perceived? One cannot deny that on the grounds of a precedent of some years ago it may have achieved something. I refer to the comparable attack on Libya. That appears to have had an almost measurable reduction in Libyan terrorist activities. However, it is unwise to see Saddam Hussein as a carbon copy of Gaddafi. The impact of the attack on Saddam Hussein may be very different.
I cannot see, as was suggested in the Statement, that the attack will in any way help the prospects of the prisoners wrongly imprisoned by Iraq. Indeed, I should have thought that it would hinder them. Certainly in many quarters it will be perceived to be as much of a response by President Clinton to the difficulties of his domestic situation, as a need to show that he is capable of taking a decision and making a proportionate and sensible response to a foreign threat. Certainly in the Arab and Moslem worlds it will he perceived as yet another demonstration of the double standards and the lack of even-handedness of the West in dealing with them.
It will be perceived as an immediate forceful and damaging response to an Iraqi plot but with no effective action to protect Bosnian Moslems from ethnic cleansing. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, it will put our friends in the Arab and Moslems worlds in some difficulty. Whatever the Statement may indicate, it seems to me hard to justify
618
under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves the right of any state to act in its own self-defence. That does not seem to me fully to justify an attack on a city centre which was bound, as it did, to involve civilian casualties. It does not seem to me a proportionate response to allegations of an assassination plot which has yet to be resolved in the courts. One's reaction to the event must be that of scepticism.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear on Sunday, we fully support the US action. We regard it as entirely justified. The reason we do so is that the Americans made it absolutely clear that they were acting in self-defence based on incontrovertible evidence of Iraqi intelligence involvement in the attempt on the life of former President Bush. The Iraqis deliberately took that action and that is why the United States has sought a proportionate response directed at the centre from which the assassination attempt was itself directed.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why not wait until the end of the trial of those deemed to be guilty of having perpetrated the attempt on the life of former President Bush? The Americans clearly had incontrovertible evidence of the Iraqi Government's intention. The individuals on trial in Kuwait were literally tools of the Iraqi regime. But it is also necessary to deal with the ring leaders in Baghdad, and that was exactly what the United States response was designed to do.
I was asked about consultations, and I can tell your Lordships that the US Government have kept closely in touch with us since soon after the assassination attempt was made. They told us that they would respond if evidence of the Iraqi involvement was clear. President Clinton sent the Prime Minister a message early in the afternoon of Saturday 26th June. The White House also spoke to Downing Street because it was impossible at that moment for the President to speak directly to the Prime Minister who was in Northern Ireland. The President sent a private message which was immediately relayed to Belfast.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked about civilian casualties. Of course, we are all anxious about civilian casualties. But I have to say to the noble Lord that this was a United States operation and it must justify the detail. The target of the operation was the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service. Her Majesty's Government much regret any civilian casualties. We know that the United States tried to keep to an absolute minimum the damage to places other than the Iraqi intelligence service.
I was also asked by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bonham-Carter, about the proportionate response and about the effect on the prisoners Ride, Wainwright and Dunn —and, I might say, other foreigners similarly unjustly imprisoned in Iraq. They have nothing to do with the situation, but I have no reason to think that their safety was in any way threatened because of the US action any more than Ian Richter was a casualty as a result of the Gulf War. He was not maltreated during the Gulf War. As

619
your Lordships will know, the Russians regularly visit Messrs. Ride, Wainwright and Dunn on our behalf, and we help where we can. In fact, the head of our consular department is currently in Iraq and will be seeking to visit them.
I was asked about the legal basis for the use of force in self-defence. Force may he used in the exercise of a state's inherent right of individual or collective self-defence, as recognised in Article 51 of the UN Charter. There are three instances in which that force may be used in self-defence. The first is where there is good evidence. There was evidence that the Iraqi intelligence headquarters would otherwise have continued to be used by Iraq to support terrorist attacks against nationals of another country—in this case America. The second circumstance is where there is effectively no other way to forestall further imminent attacks—on US nationals in this case. The third situation is where the force employed is proportionate to the threat. Because the attack was aimed at the Iraqi intelligence headquarters and because—thank goodness!—the main part of the attack landed there, we believe that it was proportionate.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us regard the maintenance of strong Anglo-American friendship as crucial to the future of world peace and of this country? In those circumstances, it is very important that Her Majesty's Government should act as they have and give and loyal and helpful support to the American Government when faced with the very difficult situation which confronted them over this incident. Is she therefore aware that many of us are very glad indeed that Her Majesty's Government have loyally supported our friend and ally?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for that comment. Of course it is right that we should act against an aggressor such as Iraq. That indeed is what the United States have done; and we have supported them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can we be clear on one point concerning a question of communication? Can the noble Baroness confirm that No.10 Downing Street was informed on the date mentioned by the noble Baroness that an attack was to be launched, that there was no consultation but that later the Prime Minister communicated with the President to say that he approved of the attack? Is that the position?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that I believe that to be the case. I have not spoken to the Prime Minister; but that is what I understand to be the position.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the monstrous conspiracy which it has now emerged was to have taken place against the former President of the United States very much aggravated
620
by the fact that Kuwait, in which the crime was to have been committed, was the target of the aggression which triggered the Gulf War and was entirely unable to protect itself without outside help?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is absolutely right. All the problems which still exist in relation to the demarcation of the border between Iraq and Kuwait and the fact that the Iraqi regime is not complying fully with Security Council Resolution 833 means that there is still a real problem in the area. It is not simply a question of what occurred in August 1990, it is Iraq's continuing failure to comply with Security Council resolutions which means that we must be ever watchful of what goes on.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some of us who have been involved in countering terrorism—especially state terrorism—for many years are astonished at some of the reactions to this act on the part of the United States of' America.? Is she aware that all the old arguments against doing anything against terrorists are being deployed over and over again: proportionality; wait until something happens? We have heard people say that we should not have retaliated because the attack on ex-President Bush was not successful. Were we to have waited until he was assassinated before taking this action?
We have also heard complaints that the attack was on a target in the centre of a city. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the Iraqi intelligence headquarters are in the centre of a city, and if one is going to attack them that is where they have to be attacked. Finally, does she not agree that the only way of getting rid of international terrorism, and especially state sponsored terrorism, is to terrorise the terrorist? Will she give the House an undertaking that whenever a civilised government takes action to bring these international criminals to order, Her Majesty's Government will strongly support them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for what he has just said. Countering state terrorism from any state is one of the most difficult but necessary actions of any sovereign state. I can give him the assurance that the British Government will stand firm against terrorists. That is why we have always sought to encourage our partners, whoever they may be, to stand firm and, in this case, to keep up the pressure on Iraq to implement all the UN resolutions in full. Iraq continues to defy the UN's authority across the board, including the mandatory requirements of Resolution 687 which established the ceasefire. I do not believe that the evidence of the past two years should give us any grounds for believing that Iraq will comply with Security Council resolutions while Saddam Hussein is in power.
We are not responsible for the fact that the Iraqi Government placed the headquarters of their intelligence network in the centre of the city. They placed it there. They must have known that if they

621
continued to use those headquarters against other nations, there was bound to be a danger to other buildings in the vicinity.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there is no division across the House about the iniquities of the Iraqi regime. I do not believe that there are any divisions across this House as to whether all the Security Council UN resolutions should be carried out and insisted upon by the Security Council. However, both the American administration and the Minister this afternoon have based most of their argument on Article 51 of the UN Charter. I believe that selective quoting is not adequate. Article 51 refers to:
"the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the security council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security".
It is quite clear that the article does not provide an opportunity for punishment or any other indication of dissent. It is based on the right of a country to defend itself. We applaud the fact that the brutally planned attack on the former President of the United States failed. We welcome the fact that a number of people are now detained awaiting trial for that crime. However, does the Minister recognise that the decision of the British Government fully to support the Government of the United States on this matter will be damaging, not only to the task of the United Nations in standing by its own charter but also in breaching the alliance which has stood together since Operation Desert Storm?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I do not believe that this action by the United States Government, which we believe was justified, puts the UN Charter in the difficulty he seeks to describe. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, expressed the matter correctly. Did we have to wait until the former President of the United States had been killed before the United States could take any action? It would have been quite ridiculous, when there was continuing evidence that the Iraqi intelligence headquarters was behind that and other actions to ignore the fact that that was where the trouble was most concentrated.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, the American action can no doubt be justified as an act of retaliation against a brutal and tyrannical regime. Do the Government really believe that the action is likely to weaken the tyrannical dictator? Is it not much more likely to strengthen him? Will my noble friend say something about the position of our prisoners, who she rightly said had been grotesquely sentenced? Is it correct that a Foreign Office official arrived in Baghdad yesterday to negotiate their release? If so, was not his visit rather ill-timed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I stated a little earlier that the head of our consular department was on his way to, and is now in, Iraq. It takes quite a long while to arrive in Baghdad via Amman in Jordan and then some 14 hours over land. It was inevitable that he would use Saturday and
622
Sunday for his journeying and would be well on his way before we had the slightest information about what was likely to happen on Saturday night our time. Therefore I do not believe that our attempts—they must continue—to try to help Ride, Wainwright and Dunn should have been interrupted. I made the point —my noble friend may note it—that when Ian Richter was in prison all through the Gulf War he was not dealt with any differently from before the Gulf War. I sincerely hope that the Iraqi regime will treat Ride, Wainwright and Dunn properly, in particular as it has served out to them completely disproportionate sentences. We shall do all that we can to keep in contact with the three of them and ease their conditions of detention.
My noble friend also spoke of the difference of opinion that he may have with me on this point. I can only say that in seeking to stop this state-engendered terrorism one has to take a strong stand. The United States Government took that. We believe that the only way to stop state-sponsored terrorism is to stand firm.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that, while we all greatly regret the civilian casualties referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, it should be remembered that hardly a week goes by without large numbers of Iraqi civilians, notably the Marsh Arabs in the south east of the country, being killed by Saddam Hussein's forces? That somewhat puts matters into perspective.
Having said that, does the noble Baroness agree that the effectiveness of the raid must be judged, first, on whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, pointed out, it strengthens or weakens Saddam Hussein—and on anything but a short-term point of view it seems unlikely to weaken him? Secondly, such a raid must be judged on whether it makes the Islamic world more friendly and well disposed to the West or less so. Because of the shameful failure of the West either to protect the Bosnian Moslems or to allow them the means with which to protect themselves, the conclusion must be that, unfortunately, the raid will make the Islamic world more hostile to and suspicious of the West.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right about the shocking behaviour towards Kurdish people in Iraq and the Marsh Arabs which continues all the time. The very way in which the marshes have themselves been drained, now denying a living to many of those Marsh Arabs, is one continuing instance of the Iraqi regime's attitude towards those who do not immediately support Saddam Hussein.
On the noble Lord's second point—it was a point referred to also by my noble friend Lord Gilmour—on whether the action by the United States will strengthen or weaken Saddam Hussein, certainly to have lost his rebuilt Iraqi intelligence headquarters must indeed deal him a blow. One cannot believe that the headquarters is duplicated elsewhere because of its size, extent and complexity.
In respect of the noble Lord's question on the Islamic world, let me say this to him. Many countries in the Islamic world have an enormous problem with

623
the actions of Iraq and certain other countries. While they will not be happy that this action was taken by the United States—no one would expect them to be so —I believe that many of them see that having moderate Moslem countries able to govern themselves properly is very important and that the very existence of Iraq is indeed a threat to moderate Moslem communities across the world.
This obviously has no relation whatsoever to the Bosnian situation. We shall continue to do our humanitarian work in Bosnia as well as trying to reach a settlement in the best interests of all the Bosnian people.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, one does not deal with terrorism by becoming a terrorist. One does not deal with a war criminal by committing a war crime. One does not benefit the United Nations by trying to pretend that Article I conceivably covers this action. There has been no support for the Government's action on this side of the House. I think that that must give them pause.
Finally. I say this. One does not really help one's friend when he commits a grave error by pretending that he has not done any such thing and is in the right. My noble friend on the Front Bench made the point, and it is most important, that those of us who respect America and who have American friends have the right to speak tonight and to say loud and clear, "This has been a dreadful mistake".
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would be the last to deny any of your Lordships or any citizen of this or another country the right to speak his mind on the issue. But I believe that so serious was the attempt on the life of former President Bush, and so conclusive the evidence in the hands of the United States of America, that, frankly, it had no option but to stand firm.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that, however well deserved and well intended may be American actions in the Middle East and towards the Moslem world—whether in Baghdad, Bosnia, Tripoli or with regard to the Arab-Israeli talks —they have had one inescapable result: they have embarrassed and weakened the friends of the West and they have greatly strengthened Islamic fundamentalism which is a grave and growing menace to peace? As Her Majesty's Government have greater freedom of action than the United States Government on some of those questions, I beg the Government not to follow American policy immediately and unreservedly as they have done in this case.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, let me assure the noble Lord that we have no intention of following American policy without question. In this case the Americans took action on their own account. We were informed about it. We had no say in what happened. On the other hand, I believe, and the Government believe, that it was absolutely right to strike this blow. It is a blow for freedom and against international terrorism. In that I cannot fault the decision that was taken in the United States.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will answer this question. In terms of international law and international relations, and in support of law and order in the world, would it not have been better for the United States, having obtained its evidence, to take that evidence to the United Nations Security Council to secure a resolution condemning Iraq and granting permission for action to be taken against it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has this wrong. I k now that many others may agree with him. But hindsight is the greatest gift—with which none of us is blessed in advance. Had the detailed evidence in the hands of the United States been taken to the United Nations, the whole heart of Iraqi intelligence would not have been stopped.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, given the crucial distinction between state terrorism and all other types of terrorism which has been emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, am I right in thinking that the use of state terrorism against another state gives to that other state an authority which predates the charter of the United Nations—an authority which may be supplemented by but is not replaced by the charter—to respond militarily against the state which has exercised the state terrorism?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am no expert in these long-established treaties. However, let me simply say that I believe that to be the case. I also believe that the real evil in the whole of the attempt on the life of the former President Bush and other matters which go on is that the Iraqi intelligence has been plotting day in and day out for whatever perpetration of terrorism it can carry through. One of the two main suspects in the attempted bomb action against President Bush, an Iraqi national, says that he was recruited specifically for the purpose of assassinating President Bush in Kuwait. The other has said that he was there to make sure that he guided people to the site of the plot and ensured that it succeeded.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
5.30 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause I.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 41 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 46 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Jay Lord Jay moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except for the following words in Article 3b: "In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence,"").
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. Amendment No. 47 is intended to strengthen the article which establishes the principle of subsidiarity. It attempts to do so by omitting the words in Article 3b:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence".
Not merely the principle of subsidiarity but the actual article of the treaty embodying the principle are of great importance for two reasons: first, intrinsically,

625
and secondly, because the Prime Minister claims the article as a great achievement in the Maastricht negotiations.
It is my firm conviction that on a point of law no British Lord Chancellor can be wrong. I am not sure that I would say the same of former Lord Chancellors, but I let that pass. I am delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is with us for this debate because he understands it better than all the rest of us. In his Second Reading speech, he accused me of not having read the whole article. On the point of mere fact, he was wrong; I had read it, but I took it to mean what it should mean in reasonably plain English. The words in the final paragraph are:
"Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty".
The phrase "go beyond" is perhaps rather imprecise in a formal document. I take it to mean, first, that the Community cannot act outside the limits of the treaty which I should have thought one would take for granted anyway. Secondly, the Community should not use tougher legislative methods when lighter ones would do. However, that is not the whole story and it is not what most people regard as the "principle of subsidiarity". Those words are used in paragraph 2.
To understand Article 3b fully it is worth while, since it is brief, reading it to the Committee. The first paragraph says:
"The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and the objectives assigned to it therein".
The second paragraph states:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
The third paragraph states:
"Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty".
The final paragraph applies to all issues, but the words of the second paragraph, including the expression "the principle of subsidiarity", apply only to issues not within the exclusive competence of the Community. The words of paragraph 2 surely cannot be supposed to mean anything else. That means that, for the purposes of the article, there are two classes of issues: those within the exclusive competence of the Community and those which are outside it. For those within the Community's competence, the Commission merely has to prove that the objectives of the action are objectives of the treaty. It does not have to prove what paragraph 2 calls "the principle of subsidiarity".
For those issues outside the Community's competence, the Commission would have to prove two things: first, that they were necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty; secondly, that they could not be sufficiently achieved by the member states. Most of us think that that is what is meant by subsidiarity.
It seems to me, therefore, that the upshot is that there are a number of issues to which the paragraph 2 criterion—that the objectives cannot be sufficiently
626
achieved by member states, which the article calls the principles of subsidiarity—does not apply. If that were not so, there could surely be no reason for including in Article 3b the words:
"In areas which do not fall within [the Community's] exclusive competence".
On Second Reading, some people may have misunderstood the exact meaning of the article and thought that all issues were covered by both criteria. For that reason, in judging the value of the article and the Prime Minister's negotiating triumph, it is essential for the Committee to know which issues or "areas", as Article 3b oddly calls them, fall within which class. I wonder whether the Government can publish a list of individual issues which are either within or without the exclusive competence of the Community.
As a matter of common sense, it would appear that there could be many issues which, though they could perfectly well be handled by the member states, could nevertheless be taken over by the Commission, simply because some action was needed to achieve the objectives of the treaty and because they came within the Commission's exclusive competence.
If the Government could publish a list, or at least a summary of the individual issues which fall into the two groups, then I think we should at least have made some progress in understanding exactly what has been achieved. If they cannot and they can only take refuge in some general statement which is only intelligible to the small core of great experts on Brussels theology who have sprung up around us, both here and in the heart of Europe, then it will not be possible for most of us to judge realistically how much Article 3b is worth. However, we should then at least have established that it covers a materially smaller area than some people have been led to believe.
Finally, who is to decide a dispute as to whether a specific issue falls into one class or the other. What is the procedure by which the Government, an individual or, say, a local authority can challenge a claim by the Commission? Amendment No. 47 (at least this is clear) by omitting the words specified limits the Commission's powers to claim exemption from the principle of subsidiarity. Because it strengthens that principle, I contend that it deserves the support of all those who want to strengthen and enforce the genuine principle of subsidiarity. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I support this group of amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 47, 397 and 430 to which I have put my name. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said at Second Reading that the principle of subsidiarity is:
"a complicated safeguard but one that lies at the heart of the British position in relation to the development of the Community at Maastricht and beyond".—[Officia/ Report, 8/6/93; cols. 712–713.]
In other words, subsidiarity is to be the vital shield which we can use to defend ourselves against the further erosion of our national sovereignty to Europe. The trouble is that unless the Government can tell us clearly when we can and when we cannot use that shield, it does not appear to have much value. Surely a shield is not of much help to a small man when

627
fighting against a larger, stronger and better armed man if the big man decides when his puny adversary can wear it, arid when he cannot. Unless the Government can define exactly when we can put the shield on and when we cannot, we shall be in the position of that small man.
I say that the Community is larger and better armed than we are because we have only 10 votes out of 76 on the Council, where 54 votes constitute a qualified majority. I say it also because the impartiality of the Luxembourg court is also in doubt. I shall come back to that point.
If we take some current examples which come at us from the defects of the Single European Act, if the Community wishes to have its way with us by imposing the acquired rights directive on us, which it has already done, or the 48-hour working week, or new rules limiting the time when our young people may work, then it does not seem that there is much that we can do about it. One hears rumours that other directives are hidden under the blotting-paper in Brussels which will be winging our way as soon as the treaty is ratified. Indeed, one hears dark rumours of a further 19 directives, mostly in the areas of social policy and working practice, which are being kept sedated until the treaty is ratified. I wonder if my noble and learned friend is in a position to confirm or deny that rumour. I should be most grateful to hear from him.
Amendment No. 430 seems entirely sensible. It would make sure that Parliament knew and approved the areas where we can use our shield and those where it is to be denied to us. If Parliament did not approve of the areas where we are to be left defenceless, the treaty could not be ratified. Surely that seems prudent. Again, if my noble and learned friend does not agree, can he say why he does not?
Amendment No. 397 is a milder form of protection of the last remaining vestiges of our national sovereignty. It would merely require an annual review of the areas where our shield had been taken from us, and of the areas where the enemy had managed to share it with us. It would also require the Government of the day to tell us how they proposed to re-acquire any of the powers which we had ceded to Europe and which we then decided we wanted to get back.
That may not be so easy. I understand that there is no possibility of taking back powers or areas of responsibility once they have been handed over to Brussels and Luxembourg unless the other members of the Community agree. I ask my noble and learned friend whether that understanding is correct, or is there something in the treaty which I have missed which enables us in future to change our minds and re-acquire what we have lost? I should be most grateful for my noble and learned friend's answer.
Amendment No. 47 would go some way to ensuring that we are better able to use our shield when we want to and not just when our larger adversary decides that he does not mind if we do. Even if we took out of Article 3b the words,
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence"
628
we would still be left with the problem of exactly who decided when we could use our shield and how. But we would have a more sporting chance of arguing our case, because there would no longer be the assumption that there are indeed large areas where we are to be left defenceless.
I fear that in order to see exactly how unsatisfactory is the proposed Article 3b in its entirety, we have only to examine a little more closely the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor at Second Reading. He referred to Article 3b as having three paragraphs, which sounds rather daunting. In fact, it contains only three sentences. The first sentence says that the Community shall not step outside the huge powers granted to it. That is obvious enough, one would have thought. The third sentence says that the Community shall not do more than is necessary to achieve the objects of the Treaty—being principally those of political and monetary union. I suppose that we should also all be grateful for that.
But it is upon the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when explaining the second sentence of Article 3b that I ask noble Lords to concentrate. On 8th June at col. 713 of the Official Report my noble and learned friend said:
"In the second paragraph"—
I believe that he meant "sentence"—
"there is a rule to answer the question: should the Community act? This paragraph applies to areas that do not fall within the Community's exclusive competence".
I have to say that that appears to be the best that my noble and learned friend could do to justify this extraordinary paragraph. The Committee will note that the question "Should the Community act?" is not answered. These are the vital questions when discussing the meaning and value of subsidiarity. Should the Community act? Who decides whether the Community should act? What can we do about it if we do not agree and we are up against a qualified majority vote?
I asked those questions in a debate in this Chamber on 17th February and did not get an answer. I asked them again in the early hours of the morning of 8th June at Second Reading (at col. 682). I asked them again in a Starred Question on 17th June (at cols. 1663–1664). On none of those occasions did I get a satisfactory answer. On the last occasion my noble and learned friend seemed to agree that in the final analysis it will be the Luxembourg court which decides all these questions. My noble and learned friend agreed that the procedures of the Luxembourg court are somewhat different from ours. I think he tacitly agreed with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General that our concept of judicial review is simply not available in the Luxembourg court. I thought that my noble and learned friend was less than reassuring that the Luxembourg court would decide matters fairly in the interests of the United Kingdom. Can my noble and learned friend give the Committee that assurance today?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: As has been said, these amendments relate to the concept of subsidiarity. That concept is enormously important to the way in which we should

629
look at the treaty. I should like, first, therefore, to draw the Committee's attention to an article which is by no means wholly favourable to the view that I should like to take of these matters. However, such important issues are raised in it that it is well worth examination. I refer to an article in the New Law Journal of 11th September last year by Professor Lasok. He observes —and I think it is important to have that in our minds right at the beginning—
"In the Continental legal systems, general principles fulfil two functions: as guidelines to legislation and as aids to interpretation and adjudication. They can be found in the written constitutions and codes of law. Thus the legislator is furnished with points of reference when devising specific rules.
If confronted with a novel problem for which there are no points of reference, the [continental] legislator begins normally by defining a policy which the new law ought to follow. In contrast, our legislation tends to reflect the exercise of power often motivated by party politics. Since, according to the Common Law doctrine, Parliament ought to deal with a specific social evil rather than indulge in purposeful legal engineering, it does not have to proceed from a philosophical starting point. Consequently our laws are tightly drafted and elaborate in detail but silent in matters of principle".
That is the introduction, in a sense, to the key parts of the article, which is headed "Subsidiarity and the occupied field". The author goes on to say:
"Continental codes of law are presumed to have no gaps but life is more inventive than the most far-seeing legislator. New problems are solved by the courts with the aid of general principles and teleological interpretation which enables them to divine the spirit from the letter of the law. However, they are not called upon to interpret or apply the general principles per se in isolation from specific issues. The EEC Treaty is a classic example of the Continental legislative technique".
The article now moves to the question of subsidiarity. I shall forbear to go through the whole of the matter, with its references to the activities of the Pope and other historical figures. But it observes that:
"it seems clear that, given the climate in which it [the Pope's encyclical] was announced, it implies less rather than more power to the higher ranks of authority and no more centralism than is necessary for the well being of society. It re-affirms the basic assumption of the Community, that its powers have derived from the Member States' delegation of sovereignty and have been circumscribed by the Treaties. It cannot he otherwise because, in the Community, power moves upwards from the base rather than downwards from the institutions which, but for the delegation, would be mere intergovernmental organs. However, any acquisition of power by the Community equals a corresponding diminution of sovereignty of the Member States".
That is where the doctrine of subsidiarity begins to arise, in trying to mitigate that circumstance. But again, the article goes on to remind us that:
"as stated by the Court of Justice, where the Community has acted within its competence the Member States must refrain from taking concurrent action … However, until the Community has claimed its competence by using it, the Member States are free to resort to their residual powers … This is the principle of the 'occupied field"'.
The main point which is then made further in the article is that:
"Maastricht, moving towards an economic and monetary union, does extend the Community competence. Therefore, given its historical and philosophical meaning, subsidiarity ought to be understood as a brake on the adventurism of the Community institutions and the ambitions of their bureaucracy, but not an obstacle on the road mapped out by the treaties … The Member States retain their residuary powers, albeit diminished by Maastricht, as well as their responsibilities to carry out their duties in their respective domain … Contrary to wishful thinking, subsidiarity will not disturb or diminish the occupied field but may prevent its
630
extension by the Community assuming that, within the parameters of the Treaties, certain responsibilities are best carried out by the Member States. It cannot be interpreted as a signal to claw back those elements of the national sovereignty which already have been, or will be in the future, given up in accordance with the treaties".
I dodged quickly through that article. The Committee will appreciate that it is relatively even-handed. However, the point that it makes overall is that subsidiarity will not and cannot limit the powers of the Community in moving forward into the areas over which it is to be given power. That is to say that subsidiarity will not be an obstacle on the road mapped out by the treaties. Those who fool themselves by believing to the contrary should make a sober reassessment, not least in the light of that article which, as I said, is not written generally from my point of view.
I turn to the amendments. Amendment No. 47 strengthens the role of subsidiarity by removing from the effects of that doctrine those matters which fall within the exclusive or sole competence of Brussels. To put it the other way round: were this amendment to be enacted, the doctrine of subsidiarity would apply across the board, for what it is worth, and not just to those matters where competence is shared.
I do not like the structure of government by Brussels which has given rise to the calls for a doctrine of subsidiarity. I should prefer to reform that very structure of government. There is little doubt that before long it will have to be reformed, not least as a consequence of enlargement. However, we have subsidiarity. The question is: does it amount to a row of beans?
The first limitation is in relation to competence. Until we know which matters fall within sole competence, those in which we share joint competence and those unaffected by Brussels' competence, how can we know whether subsidiarity will in any way be a helpful part of our future life in the Community? We do not know where it will be applied. As the Committee will know, the Government are unable to say which policy areas fall within exclusive or shared competence. Nor is it possible for the Government to say in clear words how such matters will be decided. Can we therefore make any assessment of the value of subsidiarity? We know not to which areas it will be applied, we know not what it is and we know not who will decide where it is applied and to what extent.
I must say that I find the use of the very word "subsidiarity" offensive, since it is based on the assumption that power now belongs to Brussels, that power over important issues will remain in Brussels and that matters of less importance—subsidiary matters—should be delegated to subsidiary authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, shakes his head. But we all know what happens in the world of business when companies merge. Gradually the old head offices of the individual companies are knocked away as an unproductive overhead and the power flows to the new head office. The subsidiaries of head office have subsidiary powers. The doctrine of subsidiarity is well understood by the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, in his business affairs. I would not wish to be part of a political system in which this kingdom was treated by

631
Brussels in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, treats his subsidiary companies down the road.
The Liberal Benches say "Hear, hear". But a company is unlike a nation. Companies do not have the democratic rights that should be accorded to nations. My point is that subsidiarity decides which powers shall be exercised by the subsidiary body. We should begin to get used to the idea that in this context we are not any longer head office. We are the subsidiary.
Even worse, there is dispute over whether the doctrine applies within member states. That matter is dealt with even-handedly in the House of Commons Library Research Paper 93/96 on page 16, which again I commend to the Committee because it is not written particularly from my point of view; it is written entirely without bias. On page 16 we find the question arises of subsidiarity and the regional dimension. I shall not go deeply into that except to say that, while the British Government have insisted that subsidiarity is only relevant 1.0 the question of whether to act at Community or national level, there have been various exchanges in the other place which suggest that views are divided upon that. Indeed, Mr. Charles Kennedy, speaking for the Liberal Benches, made the point that it was his belief that subsidiarity should be applied within this kingdom on the say so and at the diktat of Brussels.
I find that offensive; first, because I do not believe that it is any business of those in Brussels to tell us how we should run our internal affairs, any more than I believe that it is any part of our business to tell our friends in Germany, France or Italy how they should run their affairs; and, secondly, it is clearly in the interests of the European Community's machine, its bureaucrats—its "hangers on", if you wish—that the principle of subsidiarity should be dealt with in that way. So far as I can see, it would not be difficult in future years for it to enforce that.
Those of us who have seen Brussels in action know how it has set out to bypass national governments. It is a controversial matter across the Floor of the Chamber, but it is within the recollection of all Members of the Committee that the Commission sought to apply the doctrine of additionality to the manner in which regional funds were disbursed within the kingdom; that is to say, it is not content that those funds should be transmitted through the British Exchequer to the relevant local authorities. [Interruption]
Lord Tebbit: The noble Lord says, "Quite right too". I think that perhaps I should not have heard what he said because he is outside the Chamber. However, I recollect that that was not his view when he was a Member of the Cabinet in which I served with him.
Whichever view one takes of what should be done, the question is: who should decide? Clearly a European Community of Länder—I do not know how many there would be, perhaps 200—with national governments squeezed out and their powers squeezed away from them, some upward towards Brussels and some down to the regional authorities, would suit
632
Brussels very well. Those who have inhabited the corridors of Brussels will probably have met extremely nice gentlemen who have come to Brussels and explained that they are the Prime Minister of Catalonia or some such place. Again, it is for the Spaniards how they manage their country. But the European institution would welcome talking directly to the Prime Minister of Catalonia regarding its affairs without bothering to go through Madrid on the way.
I see the doctrine of subsidiarity being used in future years to consolidate that process; to eliminate this place from the exchanges between Brussels and Edinburgh, Brussels and Cardiff, Brussels and Belfast or Brussels and—I do not know how many institutions there would be for England but we could have Brussels and Manchester as well as Brussels and London. Surely those who are trying to bring power to themselves—there is no doubt about the direction in which power is moving in the Community; it is moving to the centre and that is what the treaty is about—would like further to speed that process by eliminating the obstacles to that movement. The principal obstacles are the national parliaments. If they can be pushed aside in deals under the heading of "subsidiarity" to regional authorities, then clearly that is in the interests of those who seek to concentrate power in Brussels.
I do not wish to be indelicate in regard to these matters. As the Committee is aware, I am a man of delicate tastes. But while the Prime Minister undoubtedly achieved the removal of the "F" word from the treaty, it has made no more difference to the plot than the removal of the "F" word from Lady Chatterley's Lover would make to that plot. The union would still have been enacted because that is what the plot is about.
We turn therefore to how subsidiarity is to be put into practice. Again, I look to the House of Commons Research Paper on page 18, which is well worth reading. It reads:
"The essential questions concerning exclusive competence, where and how subsidiarity is applied, have been raised but not yet fully answered. The extent to which the situation will change or has already changed as a result of applying new subsidiarity criteria to EC measures is still unclear, and there is still an inherent reluctance on the part of the EC institutions to alter the present balance of powers in the decision-making process. Although there appears to be agreement among the institutions on an overall approach to subsidiarity, it remains to be seen to what extent the proposed Interinstitutional Agreement will result in changes in decision-making and in the redistribution of competences between the Community and its member states. It is not clear how this will affect areas linked with the internal market which are in the exclusive competence area. Nor is it clear how far subsidiarity can be applied retroactively since there is nothing in the Maastricht: Treaty giving retroactive effect to Article 3b. This raises the question of whether the relegation of EC legislation to the national level would be necessary or desirable. Some have argued that it might undermine the Community's acquis communautaire, and there would inevitably be conflicts of interest between member states and the institutions and between member states themselves which could result in a fragmented á la carte approach to membership of the Community".
Your Lordships will have noticed the number of occasions in that paragraph—and it sums up the paper's views—that the words, "It is still unclear", "It is not yet clear" and "It is not clear" occur. It is in that

633
atmosphere of almost total fog on the issue that it is proposed that this Chamber should give its assent to the Bill and that Her Majesty's Government should ratify a treaty the meaning of which it appears nobody understands. There are those who claim to do so, but those who take an independent view come down firmly on the side of saying that it is unclear.
When we are normally considering legislation the charge from independent authorities that it is unclear and that its effects are impossible to gauge would be the kiss of death to that legislation. Yet this legislation rolls on, despite all that lack of clarity. It is part of the Government's case that those matters were resolved by declarations made by heads of government, most notably at Edinburgh and Birmingham. But they may only have compounded the confusion. If we take the Edinburgh presidency conclusions, we must conclude that they neither add to nor subtract from what is in the treaty, nor could they; nor can they have any legal effect. It would be strange if an informal group of Ministers, without recourse to any of their parliaments, could issue binding instructions which in any way altered the meaning of Community treaties. If they could, they would probably issue more binding instructions next week, next month or next year.
We can be absolutely sure that the views expressed by the presidency are merely that and cannot bind the European Court. What is more, nobody can use them against the European Court if that court's decisions appear to fly in the face of the conclusions of those heads of government or presidency since it is forbidden to refer any disputes of interpretation of the Treaty of Rome to any authority other than the Court of Justice. That court alone will interpret the treaty, and I believe that it will interpret it on the basis of what is in the treaty, vague, unclear and ill-drafted as it is.
Where have we got to so far? The Government do not know where subsidiarity applies. They do not have a legally binding definition of it. It is certain that this Parliament will have no say in deciding which matters fall to be governed by subsidiarity. It seems that there is no certainty as to who will decide that matter. I suspect that it will be decided in the Council of Ministers on the advice of the Commission after a political carve-up which may well finish up with an extra 1 billion going in tobacco subsidy to Greece, or something of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Healey, in his Second Reading speech said that that was exactly how decisions were reached and that it was disgraceful, but he went on to endorse the treaty. That is how we have lived in the Community all these years.
The Commission has decided in particular cases not to issue legislation at present. The Prime Minister made a good deal of this as a benefit of subsidiarity when he returned from Copenhagen. He arranged for a list of those matters to be deposited in the Library. I am not sure how many noble Lords have availed themselves of the opportunity to read it.
The cases where it was decided not to issue legislation on the internal market included the following: foam-filled furniture; travel agencies (the removal of national derogations); and suppliers to
634
ships, aircraft and trains (Community rules on VAT). Those are not absolutely earth-shattering matters. There is quite a large section on transport, in particular in the field of shipping and the protection of coastal cabotage. That was a matter discussed in this Chamber a few nights ago. The Minister did not refer to it. This was an area where most of us believed that there was a case in the interests of the creation of the single market for the Commission to get on with the opening up of cabotage. We now find that one of the successes of subsidiarity is that it will not be opened up.
We have raised the issue of air safety. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will remember this point most clearly. We find that it has now been decided not to issue legislation on various aspects of air safety, on the harmonisation of the rules on training and licensing of flight personnel and so on. That may be right or it may not be, but it seems extraordinary that we should have debated these matters only the other night and the Minister should have decided that this House thought they were of such little moment that they should not even be mentioned even in a ministerial reply.
When I look at the list, the thought in my mind is whether it is subsidiarity that has caused these items to be dropped. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, will recollect from his time as a Commissioner—when I was on the Council of Employment Ministers—that a lot of items were dropped because of inability to reach agreement. Do these matters fall into the same category, now to be cited as proof that the doctrine of subsidiarity is already at work? I should like to see something a little more substantial than that. It is a profoundly unimpressive list.
I believe that the conclusions that I read a few moments ago from the House of Commons Library research paper are the ones that we should accept as being representative of the views of informed and unbiased people on these matters. I would be far harsher in what I said, but I believe that, even if Members took note only of what was in that paper, they would conclude that the doctrine of subsidiarity was flawed and would be unlikely to make any real difference and they should not regard it in any way as a success.
Having said that, for what it is worth I believe it would be helpful to accept the Government's case on subsidiarity for the purpose of this amendment and to ask why, if the Government believe in it, it should not affect all items of business and not merely those in that ill-defined—indeed, undefined—area of shared competence.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: From my experience of Parliament in both Houses I am quite convinced that most, if not all, Members, whether they are elected to another place or are here under writ of summons to give their counsel, will do their utmost to preserve and enhance parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom. Much blood has been spilt in its defence. We have tried to resist every endeavour from outside to impose on us regimes which are completely alien to

635
the results of our experience gained over the centuries. I think that the things which divide us when we come to consider the Maastricht Bill are not all that deep.
Most of us have had experience of how difficult it is for elected Members of another place and for Members of this place to enable their parliamentary will to be translated effectively into legislation and action. This arises because of the ever-increasing complexity of modern life. Elected representatives and governments chosen from them have of necessity to rely upon nominated people—the Civil Service and so on—as the instruments for carrying out the policies that they have been elected to put into operation.
Most of your Lordships who have had experience of another place or have been in government will know that frequently it is very difficult to get one's will translated into action. Often there have been quite justified complaints about the excessive use of regulations by various departments under various items of delegated legislation contained in Bills that are passed. Inevitably, we rely increasingly on the non-elected part of the British Government structure to put into effect those things that we want to do.
I am suggesting to the Committee that this battle still goes on. The matters are so complex and this ever-increasing reliance on the Civil Service is so great that very often Ministers find it difficult to get their will translated into action and, through the sheer pressure of work and the volume of material that is presented to them by their civil servants, they do not always have the fundamental understanding of the legislation they are putting into operation. That very often happens. It is very difficult for people who have ministerial responsibilities, who run great departments and who still have to eat and sleep occasionally to keep abreast of the mass of paper that descends upon them not only from the civil servants in this country but from the various institutions of the Community.
Our anxiety—I speak for myself and, I think, for my colleagues—is that this battle for the will of the politician is very important indeed. Politics is a very reputable profession; it is the determination of policy; it is the parties' and the individuals' belonging to those parties response to what they conceive to be the will of the people. Those of us who look askance, as I do and as many of my colleagues do, at the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty do so because we are very wary indeed lest by default, by lack of vigilance, we allow powers to be given to non-elected bodies of people to bring into European legislation provisions that are automatically incorporated into British law if they are passed.
None of us in this Chamber—certainly none of those who are associated with me in this enterprise —wishes there to be any lack of co-operation with Europe or indeed with any other country. It is not as though the objections or the queries we are raising in relation to Maastricht reflect any desire other than to co-operate as closely as possible with Europe. There is no problem about that. I look back with very great pleasure to my own sojourn with the European Parliament for four years, where I learnt an enormous amount. In particular I learnt how people from the
636
other countries of Europe thought about things—their method of thinking, the motives that inspired them. Indeed, all this was very helpful.
Therefore, we are second to none—I repeat, second to none —in desiring to co-operate to the maximum extent within the control of those entrusted with political power in this country with the rest of Europe. It is just that when things are put into a treaty which was not circulated before the election to the electorate, which some Ministers admit they have not read and on which some Ministers admit they have had to be instructed since it was ratified, we have to be vigilant. I do not like powers being given to other bodies to put things into British law unless I myself have some reasonable understanding of them. One cannot understand everything, but one can try.
When we come to Article 3b, what do we find? With the Committee's leave, I shall read Article 3b because I want to set out the words which are put in the treaty and which designate the method by which powers shall be operated at Community level:
"The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein.
In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed actions, be better achieved by the Community.
Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty".
The first thing that anyone with a reasonable mind has to do is to ask himself just what that means. What is the real meaning of that article?
There can be no doubt of the opinion of one eminent European jurist, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, who was president of the European Court from 1984 to 1988 and is generally acknowledged an expert on Community law. If you are sitting in judgment with your colleagues on a Bench making decisions of very great importance, often resulting in the movement of quite large sums of money or the giving of powers which were previously not anticipated, you have to be a reasonably competent person. I have yet to learn of anyone who has seriously queried the ability of the noble and. learned Lord, Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, to arrive at sound judgments based on an intimate knowledge or European law into which the treaty and its provisions may ultimately be written.
He said in his letter to The Times on 15th June 1992:
"May I invite your readers to study the definition of' subsidiarity contained in the treaty? It is too long to quote here, but it is a rich and prime example of gobblecly-gook embracing simultaneously two opposed concepts of subsidiarity. To regard the chosen formula as a constitutional safeguard shows great optimism. Should Maastricht go ahead, the court's task is an unenviable one".
I do not say that we should follow that opinion slavishly. I do not say that we should accept it uncritically. But I do think that it is one which any reasonable person in your Lordships' House—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said the other day, based on the concept of reasonable men —ought to take account of.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Lord has quite rightly explained to us that the noble and learned Lord. Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, is an eminent jurist, and as the noble Lord has just put such store on his words, would he perhaps put equal store on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, subsequently wrote on 4th July? He wrote that he had not intended to suggest that Article 3b deficiencies should deter ratification. That suggests that if the noble Lord is praying in aid the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, he should be in favour of ratification.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am not saying, and I did not imply, that the noble and learned Lord was against the treaty and that he was recommending that people should vote against it. I am merely saying that his expressed view is one that should he taken into account. I still hold to that opinion. One of the difficulties that arises from Article 3b that I have just read out to the Committee is that it contains words about exclusive competence.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave his verdict on that in answer to a Question on 17th June of this year. The noble and learned Lord said, when asked what were the areas of competence within which subsidiarity would not apply:
"those where the comprehensive nature of the treaty's requirements for the Community to adopt a common policy prevents action within the ambit of that policy by member states".—[Official Report, 17/6/93; col. 1662.]
I do not really call that an adequate Answer. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord could have gone much further than that. Indeed, he will recall that Mr. Hurd himself went a little further when he said:
"In some areas, which I could expand on"—
and I paused with bated breath because I thought at a later stage he would expand on the matter—
"the Community has already exclusive jurisdiction on agriculture, trade and the single market".
Those are three which Mr. Hurd said he could expand on. I do not really know why he did not because all we really want to know are the defined areas of exclusive competence. I do not think that that would present very much difficulty. In any case the Commission had no particular difficulty because it defines the various areas itself in its communication of 27th October 1992:
"The removal of barriers to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. The common commercial policy which guarantees the unity of the internal market. The general rules on competition. The common organisation of agricultural markets. The conservation of fisheries resources and the essential elements of transport policy".
Therefore we begin to know what is the area. We also know that under the Maastricht Treaty additional competences were taken but not exclusively. But nobody has really explained why the competences of the Community should be increased to cover such a wide area as has now been accomplished under the Maastricht Treaty. We have citizenship of the union; economic and monetary policy; education; culture; public health; the trans-European network; industry; development co-operation and consumer protection. Those have now been brought into the Treaty of Rome in addition to those which were there
638
before the Maastricht Treaty came to be negotiated. Those are all additional since the Single European Act. There have yet to be convincing explanations as to why those matters should be brought in.
Baroness Elles: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Does he agree with me that many of the new areas of competence which have been put into the Maastricht Treaty are precisely to defend the principle of subsidiarity and that many of them had originally been dealt with in the Community by Articles 100 and 235 although they have not had proper scrutiny? However, now that they are in the treaty, they can at least be justiciable by the European Court of Justice. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that in some of the articles the words refer to contributing to policies and they are not exclusive.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I agree that none of them is exclusive. I thought I had made that quite clear. But they are additional competences, some parts of which are to be designated and, presumably, they are known to the Government. They can be termed to be exclusive.
Lord Tebbit: The noble Lord misses an important point. It is only three years to the next intergovernmental conference. On the form which has been established so far in the debates on the treaty in this House, if the noble Lord were to object to the items which have been introduced with shared competence becoming exclusive competence, I am quite sure that many noble Lords would say to him: "Didn't you know that that was the intention when we brought them in in the Maastricht Treaty? You should have been awake to that because that is the theme all the way through".
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am very glad that the noble Lord has amplified and clarified the observations which I have ventured to make to the Committee on the subject. All these issues were brought into the Edinburgh conference, which lasted for two days in December 1992. I do not know how many hours Ministers spent during those two days working on these matters. I do not know whether they followed an eight-, 10-, or 12-hour day. But certainly they deliberated on the matter. They came up with little that was new.
However, the Commission provided another memorandum on its general approach to the application of subsidiarity, which was Annex I to Part II of the Edinburgh conference announcement. It took me some time to go through it. I marvelled at how the 12 members at the conference managed to read the document before it was annexed to the communique. Apart from having taken part in the discussions themselves —which, on the basis of a 12-hour day would allow each of the 12 Ministers approximately two minutes each on each of the principal subjects —I do not know whether they ever saw this communiqué.
However, in case they did not or they may not have read it since, perhaps I may acquaint the Committee with some of the observations made by the

639
Commission on the exercise of its powers. That is vital for a proper understanding of the whole matter. The Commission indicates:
"The following guidelines should be used in examining whether the above-mentioned condition is fulfilled".
This is referring to the subsidiarity question. The quotation continues:
"the issue under consideration has transnational aspects which cannot be satisfactorily regulated by action by Member States".
A purely innocent question arises from that: who decides what is satisfactory? Is it left in a vacuum? Does the Council of Ministers decide? Does the Commission decide? Who decides what is satisfactory?
We are all right with the next part because the document then states:
"the Council must be satisfied that action at Community level would produce clear benefits by reason of its scale or effects".
That is all right because the Council has a specific responsibility on that one.
The next paragraph states:
"The Community should only take action involving harmonisation of national legislation, norms or standards where this is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty".
Who determines that it is necessary for the purposes of the treaty? The document does not state that the Council shall reach the decision or that the Commission shall reach the decision.
Another question then arises from a following paragraph which states:
"The reasons for concluding that a Community objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can be better achieved by the Community must be substantiated by qualitative or, wherever possible, quantitative indicators".
But who decides whether the objective can be better achieved? Is it the Council of Ministers—if so, that is not stated—or is it the Commission?
I must draw a whole series of criteria to the Committee's attention otherwise one assumes that everything will happen automatically or in an excess or flush of goodwill or by a general expression of sentiment or something of that kind. The document then discusses the nature and extent of Community action within the subsidiarity concept, stating:
"Any burdens, whether financial or administrative, falling upon the Community, national governments, local authorities, economic operators and citizens, should be minimised and should be proportionate to the objective to be achieved".
Who determines what is proportionate? It will not be the Council. The Council is probably unaware of it anyway. Members of the Council do not have the time, and will probably have read the papers only on the aircraft. What does the Council know about it? Very little. In short, once again it will be the Commission who decides.
The document then states:
"Community measures should leave as much scope for national decision as possible, consistent with securing the aim of the measure and observing the requirements of the Treaty".
Who determines the nature and extent of the national decision or the scope for national decision? I repeat that the paragraph states:
"as much scope for national decision as possible".
But who determines what is possible or desirable? Is it the Council of Ministers or, once again, is it the Commission?
640
The other reason for determining the nature and extent of Community action is stated as being:
"Where it is necessary to set standards at Community level, consideration should be given to setting minimum standards".
Who decides when it is necessary?
I could go on like this reading from the document that was issued following the meeting in Edinburgh at the end of December, but I shall not do so. I am, I think, showing the utmost consideration in refraining from pressing the point further. However, I hope that I have quoted sufficiently from the document, which I commend to the Committee. It is in the Library and those of us who consider ourselves to he eligible for consideration as guardians of the liberty of the individual and of parliamentary freedom might even consider it wise to read it. I am not trying in any way to suggest that everything that the Community has done is wrong. No, many beneficial things have been done. All that I am venturing to put to the Committee is that we should be very careful about this, particularly in view of the relative powers of the institutions which Maastricht is sworn to defend to the utmost.
I believe that the noble Lord, the Chairman of Subcommittee A of the Select Committee on the European Communities will recollect me questioning Mr. Lilley on the limitation of the powers of the Council. I put it to Mr. Lilley—this is all on the record and I can produce it if necessary—that the Council itself could not act save on a proposal from the Commission. I was somewhat surprised when he said that that was perfectly true. This is all on the record. Anybody who reads the Maastricht Treaty will find endlessly repeated, "The Council is acting on a proposal from the Commission". That happens in practically everything. Mr. Lilley also vouchsafed the information that when the Council wanted to change its mind, having had experience of a regulation for some months, it could do so only with the consent of the Commission. In short, even when there was complete unanimity in the Council of Ministers that its members wanted to repeal a regulation in the light of experience, the Commission could veto it.
Anxious to be helpful in these matters, I thought. that I could find a way round this that would enable the Council to be a little more free. I said to myself, "What is to stop members of the Council of Ministers from making unofficial approaches, behind the counter, and saying, 'We should like to put a proposal to you, are you prepared?' and, 'We should like you to make a proposal to us, will you do it?"' I thought that that would get round the difficulty, but no.
Annexed to the Edinburgh declaration—somewhat impertinently, I thought, as the declaration was supposed to be made by the Council of Ministers and governments—the Commission managed to insert the following on its own initiative. I do not know how it got passed, save on the basis that, in the same way as many members of the Council had never read the Maastricht Treaty, some of them probably never read the presidential declaration that was issued after Edinburgh. The Commission's annex states:
"In more general terms the Commission is intending to use its monopoly of the right of initiative by declining to accept

641
requests made by the Council at informal meetings that it makes proposals for Directives. In the same spirit it will be tougher about rejecting amendments proposed by the Council and Parliament that run counter to the proportionality rule or would unnecessarily complicate Directives or Recommendations that are in fact justified under the need-for-action criterion".
In other words, members of the Council are told by the Commission, "You do what you are told to do by us, and do it in the way that we demand that you should do it".
Surely that is not consistent with the British idea of parliamentary democracy. I think it a gross impertinence that an unelected body of people, composed largely of ex-politicians from the various countries, assembled together with very expensive directorates and other paraphernalia and entitled to remunerations at a higher level than most of the Prime Ministers of their various countries, should presume to dictate what the Council should do. That lies at the root of our anxieties about the whole of the Maastricht Treaty. It is that in allowing, or agreeing, that the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty which would enable regulations to be written into British law should be regarded with the utmost care by us, all that we are doing on this side of the Chamber is nothing more than our duty, to which we trust that Members of the Committee will subscribe, of ensuring that the role of the politician —it is no mean profession—shall prevail over the attempted rule by non-elected bureaucrats, or by those who are not subject to the will of the people.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as to the legal standing and abilities of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackenzie-Stuart. However, the fact that I hold him in such high respect does not mean that I have to agree with him on everything, or he with me. Having worked together for 11 years, neither of us would expect that. I should like to say a word about Amendment No. 47 which seeks to delete from the provision the words:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence".
As I understand it, the fear is that leaving those words in would in some way reduce the effectiveness of the subsidiarity principle. In my view, read in their context, that is not the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has just read Article 3b. I shall not read it again. It is plain that the first sentence of that article attributes powers, and underlines that the Community only has powers conferred upon it by the treaty. That is a strong and an important statement. It then goes on to say:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity".
Of course, it will be a question from time to time in the future as to whether it is appropriate for the Community or for the member states to take a particular action—action in a wide area, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, many of the things that will be introduced into the treaty, if it is ratified, by the Maastricht agreement.
642
The third sentence provides that the principle of proportionality shall apply. Action is to be taken only where it is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty. Against that background, it is inevitable that the words:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence",
should be included. I envisage those words as covering three matters: matters where competence has, by the member states, been transferred completely to the Community. There have until now been few such examples. The most obvious ones are the common commercial policy and the protection of fishery resources. Those are matters where the member states have accepted that only the Community has competence. The principle of subsidiarity does not have a role to play in those areas.
The second area is where the treaty itself has specified not just the objectives to be attained by the Community but the means which are to be used. The principle of subsidiarity cannot apply where those means are available to the Community only. The best example I can give is that of the CAP where Article 40 of the treaty provides that the objectives of Article 39 are to be attained by establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets, something which, by definition, individual member states are not able to initiate.
The third example is where the treaty imposes upon the Community a duty to achieve a specific objective. Article 8a (the internal market) is an example of that. So it is, to me, clear that in those areas the principle of subsidiarity does not apply, and so the words which it is sought to delete need to be in Article 3b.
I am well aware that Members of the Committee feel some anxiety whether the principle of subsidiarity will ever be justiciable. It seems to me, as an innocent in the political world, that it is likely that all decisions on subsidiarity will be taken by the Community's political institutions. I envisage that the Court of Justice will be reluctant to substitute its judgment for those of the political institutions on what is, essentially, a political matter. There may occasionally be a question of interpretation. There may occasionally be a question of proportionality. I hope that Members of the Committee will not fear too greatly that what was called the ceaseless imperialism of the European Court of Justice—a phrase which I regard as inapt in all the circumstances—will play its part here. For those reasons, I oppose Amendment No. 47.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can answer two questions, and two questions only. First, does Brussels and no one else, decide when subsidiarity applies? Having decided that it does apply, does that area remain for ever in the competence of Brussels? If the answer to both those questions is in the affirmative, it would seem to me that we have a creeping European sovereignty of which the Government may be unaware, as they have frequently said that sovereignty is not passing to Europe. It strikes me that they are as unaware of the creeping sovereignty that is occurring today as they were at the time when dry rot was discovered in the ceiling of this Chamber, and we nearly had a major

643
disaster when one of the bosses fell from the ceiling while this place was in session. If Lord Shinwell had been in his seat on that occasion, he would not have made a century.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: It seems to me clear that if the Council, or whichever political institution in the Community is appropriate—as I see it, the Council —takes a decision that something is within Community competence, it will rest with Brussels, subject to particular matters being attributed to the member states, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The noble Lord need have no fear that it is for the European Court to increase the sovereignty of the Community or to detract from the sovereignty of member states where under the treaty the member states have not already done so.
7 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I should have made it clear that I was addressing my questions to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: In that case, I withdraw everything that I said and leave it to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Hacking: In this my first intervention in the Committee I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Lord in the remarks that he addressed to your Lordships.
It has been something of a self-denying ordinance to sit through three long—and interesting—days of Committee and not to intervene. The last moment of that self-denying ordinance was during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Roughly 10 minutes before the end of his peroration to us, when he was addressing us about the virtues of the Community, I was tempted to rise to my feet to ask him to extend his peroration about those virtues but I resisted that temptation.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and my noble friend Lord Tebbit have criticised the conceptual approach contained in instruments of the Community, and, in particular, the conceptual approach which is contained in this treaty. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, earlier in our Committee deliberations took to task the words "trans-European networks". In other lucid interventions he has taken to task other phrases in the treaty which are based upon a conceptual approach. So it is that he has taken to task the principle of subsidiarity in our present debate.
The conceptual approach to the making of law may be alien to our current statutory law but it is not alien to the making of the law of England. The English common law is based upon a conceptual approach. The laws of negligence, duty of care and so on have evolved from a number of cases and from the concept of rights.
One could go even further back to biblical instruction. I do not know which of the Ten Commandments Members of the Committee would wish to be addressed upon, but perhaps I may choose quite safely, "Thou shalt not steal". That is a concept
644
which is readily and easily understandable. It was certainly understandable during my days at the Bar when I had clients like the noble Lord, Lord Williams. When my clients were faced with the Larceny Act 1916 or the Theft Act 1968, I confess that the clear concept involved in the words, "Thou shalt not steal", was not conveyed into the complexity of those two statutes.
We should look, should we not, through the other side of the mirror? Some of us—and I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Renton is no longer in his place —are not happy about the complexity and length of our statutory law. This Chamber goes through Committee, again in Report and again in Third Reading stages deciphering the words of our statutes. But that is not the end of the matter. I and Members of the House who are in professional practice then have to decipher —sometimes with uncertainty—the words of statutes when we are practising the law and advising our clients about the meaning of our statutory law.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Tebbit knows this, but recently in this Chamber I gave a helping hand to him and his fellow members of the board of British Telecom plc. I am always delighted to give my noble friend a helping hand. I gave him that helping hand when we discussed the procurement directive. It is interesting that it was not the procurement directive which troubled my noble friend Lord Tebbit and members of his board nor the concepts set out in the recitals of that directive but it was the statutory instrument—the Utilities Supply and Works Contract Regulations 1992--which caused the problem. It was our enactment of the EC instrument which caused the difficulty.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to my noble friend for the clarity with which he speaks and for the help that he has given to British Telecom plc. Is he saying that the concept of subsidiarity is crystal clear in this Bill and in this treaty and that it will become fouled up only if anyone tries to define it in law?
Lord Hacking: As I said, I do not believe that any Member of the Committee —and in that I include my noble friend Lord Tebbit—finds it difficult to understand what is the concept of subsidiarity. I am happy to leave the application of that principle to be enacted or followed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said, by national governments having a political sense of what is possible or, as a matter of last resort, by the European Court.
There is one statute called the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 which sets out in simple terms the principles on which the occupier of a premises shall be held liable. That is a rare example in our statutory law where we are led to what our law is not by complex legislation dealing with every point but by the simple setting out of principles. That is how I see subsidiarity. It will evolve in time in a way which will keep within the concept of that principle.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: May I ask my noble friend—
Lord Hacking: I shall not give way and in particular I shall not give way to a Member of the Committee

645
who does not rise to his feet. In my submission to the Committee the inclusion of the principle of subsidiarity in the treaty goes greatly to the credit of the Prime Minister and the British Government, who negotiated the treaty. It is a valuable part of the treaty and I find it very difficult to understand how Members of the Committee who are opposed to increasing centralisation and who see Brussels as a bureaucratic power spreading its fingers right into our national lives can wish to exclude that clause from the treaty.
Lord Clinton-Davis: This has been an extremely interesting debate. It is right that this difficult concept —because it is difficult—should be considered in the depth in which the Committee has undertaken that consideration. Indeed, we tabled our amendment, which we do not propose to move, in order to ensure that there is a proper debate on the matter.
There have been some strange notions advanced during the course of the debate. For example, it has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and supported in part by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that the role of the member state almost becomes redundant. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that power will reside with or belong in Brussels. The fact is that member states have control over their individual domestic policies and legal systems. It is only in relation to policies which are specified as common policies that the Community's decisions take priority over national law.
There are limitations imposed on what was once absolute sovereignty, but those have arisen due to unanimous decisions by member states and only for that reason. Therefore, no member state can complain that a common policy was imposed against its will. As regards new member states, they accept the full acquis politique as a precondition for membership. Therefore, common policies exist where there is unanimous consent. In those circumstances, I find it very difficult to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was arguing about.
It is clearly in the interests of the Community and its citizens that decisions affecting the Community should be made at the level best understood by people living in the Community. There is nothing new about that. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, argued—and I agree entirely with his argument—it is essentially a political rather than a legal concept. Indeed, it is a practice that has gone on since the European Community was established, in that the Community's competences are reasonably well defined and, generally speaking, quite modest.
However, having said that, I think it would be wrong to suggest that the enshrining of the doctrine in Article 3b is capable of any easy interpretation; nor is it other than facile to say that, at the end of the day, it will all be interpreted by the European Court of Justice and that all will be well as a result—suggesting, therefore, that the interpretation is justiciable rather than a political issue. Of course, there are different legal opinions in that respect, but I prefer the opinion just expressed in this Chamber, which has also been expressed by Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan.
646
Frankly, I do not think that it is quite so easy to compartmentalise the resolution of conflicts which are bound to arise in the sort of simple and convenient way that the Government have (at least, in many of the discussions which have taken place) suggested. Some have argued—and I believe that there is a good deal of force in the argument —that, therefore, subsidiarity should be determined on a case-by-case basis. I believe that that was the point of view expressed by President Mitterrand.
I should have thought that very few people would have disputed the desirability of taking decisions at the lowest appropriate level. That is clearly the best way of associating ordinary people with the decisions that are taken. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. But the lowest appropriate level does not necessarily mean at the level of the member state. One cannot help but feel that that is the position that seems to have been adopted by the British Government. I believe that, to carry credibility in adopting the principle of subsidiarity, one needs in certain circumstances to carry its implementation to lower levels of government, involving, therefore, far less centralisation of decision-making power than occurs in this country as a result of deliberate policies that have been applied on the part of the Conservative Government over the past 14 years.
You cannot have your cake and eat it as the Government seem to suppose. Subsidiarity means taking decisions at the lowest appropriate level. Consequently, in my submission, one cannot establish a presumption in favour of decision-making being taken primarily at national level or even—as some would say, at worst—at European Community level. Therefore, the situation of the regions and of local authorities is very important in that context.
I do not propose any more than the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, to examine the teleological origins of the concept, nor its applicability to the federal structure of the German Republic. However, what I believe to be significant is its meaning and how it is likely to be applied in the context of the Community. In the framework of Maastricht it is certainly not new; indeed, it was explicitly referred to in the Tindemans Report on European union back in 1976. It was used by Altiero Spinelli, a very great European, who defined it as:
"The Union acting only for effecting tasks which may be undertaken in common in a more efficient way than if Member States were to act separately".
That is to say, the concept defined in this way is designed to promote the efficiency and democracy of the European Community. It is a very different interpretation of the concept to the one that I believe the Government have promoted. Therefore, in that sense, the idea was promoted into the draft treaty establishing the European union in 1984 and then specifically into the Single European Act in Article 130R, dealing with the new environment chapter. As the Commissioner responsible for that area of policy, naturally I recall the discussions that took place on that particular topic.
In passing, I am bound to say that it does not seem to me that Article 130R has given rise to any problems. It has been followed very substantially by

647
the Commission; member states have certainly taken it very strongly into account in their deliberations about new environment policy since 1987; and, indeed, it does not seem to have given rise to any of the problems about which we have heard during the course of the debate.
Another important fact that is missed when listening to the presentation by the Government of the peculiar national advantages of subsidiarity is that the main proponents of the principle were the Commission and M. Delors. I have already referred to the 1984 proposal. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will remember the discussions that we had within the Commission which dealt with the issue in the context of the Single European Act 1986.
Of course, the debate at the inter-governmental conference has associated subsidiarity with debates about other concepts—for example, cohesion, sovereignty and the efficient running of the Community. But what has not been resolved thus far —and we are told with supreme optimism by the Government that all will be well at the end of the year —is anything like a true definition so that the word can he put clearly into the framework of future policy making. Such a definition is very elusive. In my view, it would be counter-productive to take it beyond a fairly general concept. In that regard, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. Moreover, as I have said before, I do agree with those who contend that it is not a legal or a constitutional concept; it is essentially a political one.
There can be no absolute distinction between what can be better achieved at Community rather than at national level. There are bound to be difficulties and areas of conflict in that regard. However, it is of major interest in its application to the German Federal Republic, where the Länder have been at pains to defend their legal powers under the constitution. Incidentally, that seems to me to be a factor which makes it virtually impossible to establish the sort of spectre of a supra-national government established in Brussels that has been so widely canvassed by some Euro-sceptics in this Chamber and elsewhere.
I should like to take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, about the difficulties facing the Commission in dealing with the Länder. There are no difficulties confronting the Commission in its dealings with the Länder. the Prime Minister of Catalonia or whatever. Of course the Commission may well see the Prime Minister of Catalonia, or representatives of the Länder just as it sees representatives of the various umbrella organisations, of business or of trade unions from time to time; but its dealings are with the member state. It is extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, should not, with all his experience, have understood that precise point. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I do not understand why.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, dealt effectively with the arguments affecting Article 3b and the points about the common policies. Therefore, I do not think that I need to speak further in that regard. All they are are general guidelines. There is nothing immutable about them. Of course, flexibility will demand change consonant with the development of
648
the Community over the years ahead. Therefore, in my submission, it comes to the fact that the European Community does not need in law to apply the doctrine in those areas which fall within its exclusive competence. However, what it may be wise to do—indeed, what I think it would be wise to do—is to take political account of the doctrine of subsidiarity even in those areas. So far as concerns areas of shared competence, there would be an onus on the Community to establish justification for action at Community level in preference to action at the other possible levels.
In those respects, the Commission has made it plain that it prefers methods that are less detailed and restrictive rather than to go for regulations and mutual recognition measures, and so on. The Commission set out clearly the guidelines that it suggests should be followed in dealing with cases arising in areas of shared competence. I cannot see anything wrong in that. That is all it did, although my noble friend Lord Bruce seemed to think there was something very sinister about it.
The Commission has always recognised that there is a "lack of precision" in trying to assess the need for action. It has proposed an inter-institutional agreement whereunder the subsidiarity exercise would have to satisfy certain imperatives. It includes more effective action at European level (summarised as "do less but do it better"); an assurance that the Commission has no intention of adopting a dominating situation; and the translation of good intentions into binding commitments and so forth. Therefore, subsidiarity is not a precondition for decision-making; it is an essential ingredient of it at a political level.
The Government appear to believe that subsidiarity implies that legislative initiatives from the Commission are to be based on something like a de minimis principle. That is plainly wrong. That was their argument before the Edinburgh Summit and happily they seem in part to have departed from it. The dangers of going ahead with subsidiarity in that kind of style would be to lead towards a destabilisation of the internal market if subsidiarity were to diminish European Community actions and replace them with national actions, particularly in fields affecting the internal market or in many areas affecting environmental and social policies.
There would be another danger in reducing the impact of desirable cross-frontier environmental legislation. At one stage the Government appeared to be demanding the repatriation of environmental legislation. Happily that has not occurred, although there are written into the Maastricht Treaty various areas in which it would not be appropriate for the Community to take action in the environmental field. And producing conflict with the competition articles of the treaty, which are designed to eradicate undesirable commercial practices arid to establish a level playing field, is an area in which we must proceed with great caution as regards the doctrine of subsidiarity.
Finally, I turn to the European Court of Justice, which will be dealt with in more detail in another

649
debate. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, that it is difficult to conceive of the court adjudicating essentially on political issues. How could the court determine whether it is more efficacious to take action at Community or some lower level? It would be a matter of political judgment. Therefore, it would scarcely be within the proper functioning of the court to do that. But there is an argument that has been used—it was referred to in the document cited by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—by Mr. Jeremy Lever QC. He argued that there might be a development of something comparable to judicial review; that is, applying subsidiarity only where the Community institutions have been guilty of manifest error or the misuse of powers or have otherwise misdirected themselves. In other words, the court's judgment would riot be substituted for that of the institutions but would simply undertake the traditional role of judicial review of the judgment of a non-judicial body. That is one possible choice which Mr. Jeremy Lever has argued might be taken. The alternative choice is to risk the politicisation of the court and to take up a substantive position of the court itself in the vested areas of state rights. That would be an extremely dangerous situation.
In summary, I believe that the doctrine of subsidiarity must be viewed as conceptual. It is essentially one which is not justiciable but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said, there may be areas in which the court may have to intervene. I would regard those as probably the minority of cases. That is the view that we would advance in respect of this most interesting debate.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to state as briefly as possible the position as I see it in relation to the amendment. It seeks to delete a sentence from what I shall continue to call the central paragraph of Article 3b. Although I agree that it is a sentence, the sentences are separated by what I normally regard as a paragraph delineation and therefore I shall continue to call it "the second paragraph". The deletion proposed is:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence".
Perhaps I may begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that when I said that he had not read the whole of Article 3b I was not suggesting that he had not read it during the course of his study of this important problem. I was stating that he had not read it during the course of his exposition to us of the effects of the principle.
When I spoke on Second Reading I was talking in relation to Article 3b generally. I was seeking to point out that in his argument the noble Lord, Lord Jay, had not taken account of the last paragraph of Article 3b. I consider that article to be important. Before dealing with that I wish to comment on the general scheme of things into which Article 3b is going.
First, if the Maastricht Treaty is ratified Article 3b will be incorporated as a term of the Treaty of Rome as amended. Therefore, it has legal effect as a binding term of the treaty. I do not believe that anything which my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn said sought to
650
contradict that. This is the first time that this has been done in a general way. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to Article 130R on the environment. That contains provisions which are to much the same effect but in relation only to the environment. This is a general provision.
Secondly, the whole structure of the treaties establishing the European Community and the other treaties is that the member states remain with all the powers that they had previously subject only to what has been transferred. The residue of powers remains with the member states. Therefore, before the Community can act in any matter it must be able to show that there is a power conferred upon the Community by the treaties. That is what is being emphasised in the first paragraph of Article 3b.
Some Members of the Committee appeared to say that that was obvious. It is not all that obvious and it is extremely important that it should be set out at the very forefront of this article. When powers are granted by the treaty to the Community those powers may be granted either on the basis that the Community alone will exercise them or on the basis that both the member states and the Community may exercise such powers. If the powers have been given to the Community on the basis that the Community alone will exercise the powers there is no point in the question of whether the member states can act in that matter because by agreement between the member states it has been decided that they cannot act. There is reference in the second paragraph to exclusive competence. "Exclusive competence" means that the member states have granted to the Community, and to the Community alone, the power to act in the area in question.
Where that has not been given and the member states retain a power to act alongside the Community the second paragraph comes into play. It states that:
"the Community shall take action … only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
I suggest to the Committee that those words are plain. I do not see any particular difficulty in any of those words. While I share the great respect of my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, who was a colleague of mine at the Bar in Scotland for many years before he attained the eminence of the Court of Justice, I cannot accept his view of this article. If necessary, I am prepared to take issue with him upon the analysis which his letter gives as the basis for his view. I notice that the letter referring to gobbledegook originated in France. When he moved to his home in Edinburgh, I think that he found that matters became clearer. The cold air of the North sometimes has that effect.
The second paragraph is intended to give a criterion for deciding when a member state or the Community should take action when both of them can act in the area in question.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Jay: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question. It is clear that he agrees that the words in paragraph 2 relating to the principle of subsidiarity do not apply to areas which are within the exclusive competence of the Community. That is what I said, and I gather that he agrees.
The Lord Chancellor: It is a question of precisely what is meant by the principle and whether one uses it to describe the whole of the article or only this part. In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, refers to the principle of subsidiarity as relating only to the second paragraph then I agree. There can be no question of allocation between a member state and the Community in a case where the member states have already agreed by treaty that only the Community can act. Therefore, the qualification is necessary and proper, but it is self-evident that such a qualification is required once one accepts that in the treaty there are areas of exclusive competence, as undoubtedly there are.
The point that I want to make, and the point that I made in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, at Second Reading, is that the third paragraph of Article 3b applies to any action by the Community. It applies whether or not the Community is acting within an area of exclusive competence or outside it. In that regard it states that any action by the Community, whether inside or outside that area, shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty.
I agree that if the Maastricht Treaty is ratified the whole of this matter is before the political institutions of the Community, the member states, the Ministers in the Council of Europe, the Commission and all others concerned. If that ratification takes place it also forms part of the treaty agreements between the member states. Therefore it falls to the Court of Justice to ensure that the law is carried out.
Of course I agree that when words such as "necessary" are used it is a matter of judgment as to what is necessary. However, that does not make the provision any less effective in law. Many of our legal provisions—and perhaps I may refer to Professor Lasok's article about our detailed legislation—contain references, for example, to "reasonable time". What exactly is a reasonable time is a matter to be determined in the light of all the circumstances. What is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty will have to be decided in a similar way.
It seems to me that this amendment has no real foundation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. What he has just proposed is the 64,000 dollar question. The important part of Article 3b is paragraph 3 because he has just told us—and perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that in the last analysis what will be considered correct under Article 3b is not what the United Kingdom feels is correct but what the Commission and the court feel is correct. It is they who will decide; what actions it is necessary for the
652
Community to exercise at Community level irrespective of what national governments may say. Because much of the treaty is concerned with qualified majority voting, it could very well be that the United Kingdom could be outvoted by the other members on what it feels should be a subsidiary matter.
The Lord Chancellor: The position is this. Assuming that the Maastricht Treaty is ratified, it becomes the law of the Community and is therefore binding on all the Community institutions. Of course member states will have a view as to whether action is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty in respect of a particular action. It will be for the member state to decide how the matter stands. If the member state were to be outvoted on any matter in the Community, it will have the ultimate sanction of the Court of Justice. It will not be the Commission which decides a matter finally. Community action in this respect will be a matter ultimately for the Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, there are provisions for qualified majority voting. There is a doctrine called the Luxembourg Accords which is unaffected by the treaty. However, if one considers the matter from the purely legal point of view, on the basis of the treaty the situation is that a member state could adhere to its view and, if necessary, have that view tested in the Court of Justice.
There is nothing new about that. Often a question may arise about the legality of a Community Act. In a recent example the United Kingdom declared that it will challenge the legality of a particular Community Act.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one further question. He has confirmed my view of the situation, arid the view of many others; that in the last analysis it will be the court which will decide a matter. However, is he saying that despite that fact the Luxembourg compromise could still be applied? Despite a court ruling could the Luxembourg Accords still be applied and the law as agreed by the court set aside so far as concerns the United Kingdom?
The Lord Chancellor: My understanding of the Luxembourg Accords is that they would operate when the question arose as to whether the Act should be passed at all and whether the Council should make the Act in question. If, as a result of the Luxembourg accords, the Act is not made at all then no question would arise for the court. The court would be brought in only if the Act became a legislative Act of the, Community and a question was raised about its propriety having regard to paragraph 3 of Article 3b.
Some of my noble friends have asked for lists of areas of exclusive competence. The proper answer is that in order to find out one reads the treaties as amended. I agree with what my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn said about those. The idea of a list is a very strange one in this situation. For example, one of the areas of common policy which would lead to the possibility of exclusive competence in the Community is the common agricultural policy. However, within agriculture there are a number of

653
areas in which member states retain the right to act. Therefore, a simplistic list such as is suggested would be misleading unless it were so elaborate and so long as to bore the reader before he got halfway through it.
I see this matter operating in this way. Someone will propose a legislative Act. Having a proposal, the question is: what is the power from which that proposal derives? Is it a power granted to the Community alone or is it a power which the member states could also operate? If it is the latter, you apply the second paragraph; and in any event you apply the third paragraph.
That is a simple application of this system to a specific legislative Act. The idea that one carries about in one's pocket a great list of very difficult to define areas strikes me as somewhat impractical.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He will recall that annexed to the original Treaty of Rome was a series of schedules of great detail defining matters of customs and quotas. What makes the noble and learned Lord think that a comprehensive list attached to Maastricht will be any less interesting than the mass of schedules attached to the Treaty of Rome?
The Lord Chancellor: The short answer to that is that there is no such list attached to Maastricht. I am talking about the suggestion that someone else should create a list. I state that the authoritative list is reached by a construction of the treaty documents—that is to say, the original Treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act, and, if ratified, by the Treaty of Maastricht.
Lord Tebbit: I understand, of course, what my noble and learned friend says. However, does he not understand the anxiety, not merely within this House but in the broader community outside, over his comment that it is just not possible to say where the Community's competence lies in these matters? He must understand that not everyone, not even Ministers, will read the treaty in great detail to discover which items are or are not within exclusive competence and therefore affected by subsidiarity. Yet it is a matter which must make a difference to one's attitude towards the treaty.
The Lord Chancellor: Obviously if someone wishes to attempt a list, I should be happy to comment on it. However, the idea of a simple list of a common agricultural policy, a common commercial policy, and so on. would be misleading because within areas which ordinary people might regard as coming within the common agricultural policy there is a great deal over which the member states have retained competence. I am not at all objecting to explaining the matter as fully as I can in relation to any area about which the noble Lord likes to ask me. However, the idea that one can achieve that satisfactorily by a list such as the noble Lord has in mind does not seem to me to be practical.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked me about creeping competence. (I believe that that was his phrase.) He asked whether that was in the control of
654
Brussels. I wish to emphasise, because it is extremely important, that competence is granted to the Community by a treaty or treaty amendment. In no other way can competence be conferred. Therefore the answer to his question is this. At any particular stage one considers the treaties. They define the areas of competence and, of course, also the areas of exclusive competence. The principle of subsidiarity operates only in relation to action taken within spheres of competence. Therefore there is no question of creeping competence of the kind to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend will give way. I asked him whether Brussels decided which areas came under subsidiarity and whether, once that decision was made, it was permanent and could not be altered.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I had sought to answer that aspect. I thought that I was answering a more specific point which was made. On that specific aspect, it is a matter for all those concerned to consider whether or not the principle of subsidiarity strikes down or modifies a proposed legislative Act. If there is an ultimate dispute about that, and the Act is made, then the dispute will be for the Court of Justice of the European Community. As my noble friend will know, that court is not in Brussels but in Luxembourg. It is not a matter that is decided ultimately without the protection of the Court of Justice.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked me whether I believe that the Court of Justice would give fair judgments in the light of the treaties concerning matters affecting the United Kingdom. My answer is, certainly, yes, that is the purpose for which the Court of Justice was set up and agreed to by all the member states when it was originally conceived.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend, but before he leaves this area I think that I should press a question that I and my noble friend Lord Swinfen put to him, and which I have not heard him answer. Can we take back these powers once they have passed the Community, even if we have agreed that they should pass the Community? Can this Parliament take back those powers, or, once these powers are in the occupied field, are they gone for ever?
The Lord Chancellor: I have tried to explain but perhaps I ought to make it clearer if I can. A power, a competence, is granted to the Community by treaty. If you have once granted a power to the Community by treaty, unless you denounce the treaty it remains binding. That is true so far as concerns the Treaty of Rome. There is no question of the Community being able to take power to itself except in so far as that power has been conferred upon it by a treaty between the member states. I think that that is undeniable.
I have tried to explain to the Committee the way in which that particular article operates. I hope that the explanation shows that this amendment is not

655
appropriate in the circumstances. Many questions have been asked. I hope that I have answered the principal ones.
One point was asked of me about matters under the blotting paper (or some such phrase). I believe that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch referred to 19 directives "under the blotting paper". I know of none such. So far as I am aware, they have remained under the blotting paper, if they exist. However, I understand that a Green Paper is proposed which would seem to suggest that there are no such documents under the blotting paper. However, my competence to look under the blotting paper is rather limited. Such information as I have, and the nature of the proposals, suggest to me that there are none such.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Onslow: At Committee stage one is allowed to talk after a Minister. I wish to make one, or possibly two, extremely short points. We have had two hours and 17 minutes of debate.
Lord Hailsharn of Saint Marylebone: Now we shall have even more.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble and learned Lord has taken to intervening while mobile rather than when sedentary. It is an interesting and novel development.
We have had two hours and 17 minutes of debate on what is subsidiarity, not whether or not subsidiarity is a good thing. I believe that we would all agree that subsidiarity is a good thing. We have had two hours and 17 minutes on what is subsidiarity and, rather like the numbers of angels on the head of a pin, I do not think that we are a great deal wiser. It is the same situation as we had regarding union. The dangers of passing unclear law need no emphasis. Eventually it will produce a revocation. Someone will say, "Up with this we will not put", and an Act of Parliament will be passed which will go against the Treaty of Rome and throw the whole of Europe into terrible turmoil. By doing things like that, we are sowing the seeds of dragon's teeth for our future.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may put one simple and short question to the noble and learned Lord. I have been trying to speak for half an hour. Will the manifest determination that the acquis communautaire shall be maintained in full, which is enshrined in Article 3b of the treaty, make it impossible for subsidiarity to apply to anything that has already been transferred to the competence of the Community, contrary to assertions made by certain Ministers of the Government?
The Lord Chancellor: I have sought to explain, but I have not succeeded in doing so fully to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Competence goes to the Community by virtue of treaty agreement and in no other way. The principle of subsidiarity, as set out in Article 3h, will become a binding part of Community law only when Maastricht is ratified and will apply thereafter. That does not in any way preclude
656
proposals to modify existing law by proper procedures, to take account of the principle thereafter. But the certainty of Community law seems to suggest that it is right that that be the procedure by which the principle should be given effect in relation to pre-enacted law. That is the law enacted under the existing treaties before amendment by the Maastricht Treaty, if ratified.
Lord Jay: Briefly, and solely concerning the amendment, a great deal has been said in the course of the debate but nothing said has altered my original contention that the central words in the second paragraph of Article 3b do not apply to areas or issues within the exclusive competence of the Community. The noble and learned Lord agreed with that. It follows that if, as the amendment proposes, we omit those words, we strengthen the effect of the working of the principle of subsidiarity. As I am strongly in favour of a really effective principle of subsidiarity, I certainly wish to press Amendment No. 47 to a vote.
7.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 47) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Marsh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Beloff, L.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Brookes, L.

Moran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morris, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Onslow, E

Clanwilliam, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cross, V.

Parry, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Gray, L.

Rankeillour, L

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon. L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Tebbit, L.

Jay, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Willoughby, de Broke, L.

Liverpool, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Addington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Airedale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Aldington, L.

Carnock, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Carter, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Arran, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Astor, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Barber, L.

Cockfield, L..

Belstead, L.

Colwyn, L.

Bethell, L.

Cranborne, V.

Blatch, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Boardman, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Borthwick, L.

Denham, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Desai, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elibank, L.

Brightman, L.

Elles, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ferrers, E.

Cadman, L.

Flather, B.

Caithness, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie. L.

Caldecote, V.

Goschen, V.

657

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Greenway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Grey, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hacking, L.

Prentice, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reay, L.

Renton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Robson of Kiddington. B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Russell, E.

Harvington, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hayhoe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Seccombe, B.

Holderness, L.

Seear, B.

Hood, V.

Selsdon, L.

Hooper, B.

Sherfield, L.

Hothfield, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Howell, L.

Stedman, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Stewartby, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kintore, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Thurlow, L.

Long, V.

Tordoff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Mancroft, L.

Waverley, V.

Manton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marlesford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mersey, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wolfson, L.

Palmer, L.

Wynford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Young, B,

Pender, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage does not begin again before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Osteopaths Bill
8 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
More than four years ago, through the initiatives of Mr. Robert Maxwell of the King's Fund, a working party was established to examine the process of regulation of the profession of osteopathy. That working party, which was nobly served by Mr. Norman Illingworth, as secretary, and chaired by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, produced a report upon which a Private Member's Bill was
658
produced. I had the privilege of introducing that Bill into this House. It had completed in part its Committee stage when it fell because of the election.
Subsequently, a much revised Bill was introduced into another place, and I wish particularly to pay tribute to Mr. Malcolm Moss for steering it through another place, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, the Minister, and her staff, for the way in which the Bill was greatly improved and greatly revised. Indeed, it passed the Second Reading in this House without dissent. No Committee stage was necessary. The great support which noble Lords have given to this Bill also pays tribute to the hard work done by Mr. Simon Fielding and his colleagues in the profession of osteopathy.
In many ways this is an historic Bill. It is the first Bill for the professional regulation and statutory regulation of one of the professions complementary to medicine. I believe that it is one which is long overdue. I trust that the move will be totally acceptable to Members of this House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Walton of Detchant.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall say just two sentences. First, we on this side welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. Secondly, we congratulate the noble Lord for all the work that he has done upon it.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, in my speech during the Second Reading of the Osteopaths Bill on 31st January 1992, I congratulated the Government on finding time for this particular legislation. I am delighted to be able to congratulate them again, and also the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on the way that he has steered the Bill through this House.
I am delighted that the Bill is now virtually completed, and wish to comment only very briefly on the undoubted change in attitude that has taken place within the medical profession towards natural medicine, and osteopathy in particular.
The infamous 1986 BMA report stated:
"There is no substance in the theory that advances manipulation as a system of healing".
In the much changed and welcomed report Complementary Medicine—New Approaches to Good Practice, published last week, everything has changed. I quote again:
"Practitioners such as osteopaths or chiropractors can, for example, treat the mechanical components of a muscular skeletal problem whilst the patient is concurrently taking prescribed medications from his general practitioner. I sense a very clear change of direction from the BMA and from the Government. There are so many ways in which therapies that are complementary to medicine can help patients and take some of the load from the stressed health service.
I welcome the Bill. I am pleased for the osteopaths and delighted for Simon Fielding. I welcome the Government's clear signal that they are now willing to support an integration of many of the natural therapies into orthodoxy and the NHS.
8.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords,

659
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on successfully steering this Bill through your Lordships' House. His success and that of those who have worked with him not only marks the first regulation of a healthcare profession in over 30 years, but by incorporating the most up-to-date thinking, the General Osteopathic Council will provide an exciting new model which other professions may wish to follow. With its additional responsibilities to promote and develop the profession of osteopathy, the general council will establish a single infrastructure, capable of meeting the needs of a small but dynamic and rapidly growing profession.
This moment is one which the osteopathic profession has been longing to see for over half a century. It marks the final stages of a long and cherished dream, the most significant stage in which will be the establishment of the first General Osteopathic Council. Another important stage will be to pave the way for a smooth transition from a system of voluntary registration to statutory regulation. In doing so, the new scheme will require the encouragement and support of every member of the profession. I am confident that the profession will meet this challenge with the same good-natured determination that it had in bringing this Bill to fruition today. I hope that industry, commerce, charitable foundations and possibly, too, individual members of the public, will rally round the profession and help support the new general council and the funding of continuing research.
The statutory scheme will provide effective safeguards for the public by ensuring that all those who practise osteopathy are fully competent to take on the responsibility for their patients' well being, and that their professional conduct and clinical practice are properly monitored and regulated.
I should like to pay tribute to all those who have enabled what began as a dream to be turned into reality. I am sure the profession would like me to thank His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for his interest and support; the King's Fund and the members of the Working Party on Osteopathy; my honourable friend the Member for Cambridgeshire North East and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who together have skilfully steered the Bill through its parliamentary stages; and Mr. Simon Fielding who has devoted virtually his entire professional career to this cause and has brought the profession to this celebrated place in its history today. I congratulate him and all those involved, and wish osteopathy, its practitioners and its patients, a successful and healthy future.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am glad to be able to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said; namely, that this important Bill —so important to the osteopathic profession—has the complete and unvarnished support of the medical profession, including not only the BMA but the medical royal colleges. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Local Government (Amendment) Bill
8.8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bail (Amendment) Bill
8.9 p.m.
Lord Bethell: 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 Bethell.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while wanting at once to pay tribute to the Minister who has taken semi-charge of this Bill, I want, on this Motion that the Committee stage be taken, to record my own disappointment, and I believe the disappointment of other Members of this House, at the way that the Government have failed to look at this Bill with the particularity and the concentration that they should have done in regard to its terms.
As to the policy behind the Bill, I think that noble Lords are possibly unanimous in supporting it. But the way in which the Bill has been treated, dealing as it does with the liberty of the subject, is something which I believe is not worthy of the House from which it came, or the House which is now considering it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Prosecution right of appeal]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("or convicted of").
The noble Lord said: It is in the spirit of my earlier remarks that I intend to move these amendments. It will give the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, an opportunity to answer the points that try to make in the amendments. But I announce beforehand that because I am told that it is essential that this Bill be passed without amendment (except the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. with which we shall be dealing), I do not intend to press any of my amendments to a vote.
The first amendment seeks to delete the words "or convicted of" when it comes to a question of the right of appeal. It is the tradition as I know it that, on conviction in any one of our criminal courts, the prosecution makes no submissions in regard to whether there should be bail or a remand in custody, it being competent for the court alone to deal after conviction with any prisoner before it. I should think it an odd situation where bail is appealed against when

661
the court which has heard the case and is dealing with the matter of sentence after conviction is told, "Well, you had better not proceed with your sentence because I shall appeal on behalf of the prosecution. Although there has been no submission by me to the contrary after conviction, I am going to appeal now against your award of bail."
Often that is done in order that the court may carefully consider the just sentence that it wants to impose. Sometimes bail is granted after conviction in order that further inquires can be made. But for there to be a right of appeal in those circumstances at least calls for an answer. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell: This is a revising Chamber and it is quite correct that any noble Lord should set down any amendment which he believes is essential before a Bill becomes law. When I took upon myself the task of putting the Bill before this Chamber, I was assured through various channels that there was only one way in which the Bill could become law; namely, if it were passed unamended. It is only because of the skill and persuasiveness of Members opposite, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we are considering amendments today and it may be possible to satisfy some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord.
I note with great care the comments made by the noble Lord. But I hope that he will concede that I took some care and pains to try to meet his worries, discussing them with representatives of the Benches opposite and with the mover of the Bill in another place. I hope that the noble Lord will find that the Bill, although perhaps not entirely satisfactory from his point of view, will be improved by this Committee stage. Despite the fact that there may be amendments later, I hope that the Bill will have every chance of passing through all its stages in this Chamber and in another place in time to obtain Royal Assent.
With regard to this amendment of the noble Lord, given that the possibility exists of granting bail in respect of those convicted but not yet sentenced, I see no reason to preclude such cases from the possibility of a prosecution right of appeal. On those grounds I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Viscount Astor: I have considerable sympathy with the timetable that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and indeed this Chamber, have faced on the Bill. This is a Private Member's Bill from another place and we have to deal with it as and when we find it on its arrival. I understand that, subject to the conclusion of the Committee stage this evening, we may, if it is agreeable to the Committee, be able to take Report and Third Reading together tomorrow in the dinner hour. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal intends to move such a Motion tomorrow to enable that to take place.
I turn to the amendment. In another place the logic of an extension of a prosecution right of appeal to those convicted but as yet unsentenced was accepted. That does not mean that the Committee should not now consider the point. But the Government's view
662
remains unchanged. We believe that if it is open to the prosecution to appeal against the grant of bail given to a person as yet unconvicted, then those already convicted by the courts must be in the same position.
The Government have no difficulty with the current position under the Bail Act in which the courts, having convicted a defendant, must consider whether there is a need for a remand in custody or on bail pending the compiling of reports for the purposes of sentencing. For many such defendants, even for some of those faced with a custodial sentence, the courts may safely grant bail knowing that community ties or other factors make it unlikely that the defendant will further offend, abscond or interfere with witnesses during that period of freedom. But, where the prosecution is sufficiently concerned that it opposes bail at this stage, it follows that it should also have a right of appeal.
I hope that that explanation goes some way toward reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Certainly, because of the recent provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, remands prior to sentence are increasingly required and mandatory in the magistrates' courts as well as in the Crown Court, notably for pre-sentence report. On occasions recently—there is a case in front of the courts at the moment which I do not specify—prosecutors have felt obliged professionally on instructions to object to the grant of bail. It is in those limited circumstances that I understand the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for the words "or convicted or' obtains, since in due time the prosecution right of appeal will be limited in effect to the Crown Prosecution Service or analogous bodies. My view is that "or convicted of" is a legitimate phrase to remain within the Bill.
Lord Wigoder: It is clear that the right of appeal under the Bill applies where a defendant in the magistrates' court is convicted and then remanded on bail pending sentence. I should like to ask what the position is where a magistrates' court convicts and sentences and then proceeds to grant bail pending appeal. Is the right of the prosecution to object to that course covered by the Bill?
Viscount Astor: I believe that we deal with that point in a later amendment. I do not have the number of that amendment to hand but I understand that we deal with the point and perhaps we could address it at that stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With respect, I do not believe that it is dealt with in a subsequent amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Both the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder, and Lord Harris of Greenwich, are right.
Lord Bethell: In that case I believe that the matter will be dealt with by the instructions issued to the court by the Crown Prosecution Service. As with a number of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, we hope to deal with the points raised by

663
instructions issued by the CPS to the courts. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigoder: This is not a matter of instructions being given by the CPS. There is a very clear difference in principle between a defendant who is convicted and then remanded on bail for sentence, where the Bill applies, and a defendant who is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment but then is granted bail pending appeal. That would not be a matter for instruction but of getting it absolutely clear in the legislation.
Viscount Astor: It will be possible for the prosecution to launch an appeal after the sentence is passed.
Lord Mishcon: The reply that was given to me by my noble friend Lord Williams is the reply that has convinced me to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("High Court or").
The noble Lord said: I can put this point shortly; I mentioned it at Second Reading. It involves the question of legal aid and whether or not prompt attention could be given by the courts to the appeal against bail with which we are dealing. As I understand it, if the matter goes to the Crown Court, the criminal legal aid certificate runs. In those circumstances the appeal in relation to the proposed prisoner applies. However, if the matter goes to the High Court, as I understand it—this was confirmed in a letter which the Minister courteously sent to me—then a civil aid certificate must be applied for. However, we all know how long a civil aid certificate takes to be considered and granted. In those circumstances it seemed to me only right to limit the matter to the Crown Courts and not to bring in the High Court.
Viscount Astor: Amendment No. 2 returns us to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, during Second Reading. He was entirely right in pointing out that where a prosecution appeal against a bail decision is to a High Court judge, the defendant would need to obtain civil legal aid, rather than criminal legal aid. But I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that where civil legal aid is needed, so that the defence has the proper amount of time to ready their arguments for the appeal hearing, the Government will ensure that applications for such aid will be dealt with speedily.
Bail proceedings under the Bill will be heard by either a Crown Court or High Court judge. In some cases, at the original bail hearing before the magistrates' court, the accused will already be in receipt of criminal legal aid which would cover bail proceedings before the Crown Court. If the accused is not in receipt of legal aid at the original bail hearing he may apply to that court for legal aid for the hearing itself and/or when the prosecutor makes his intention to appeal known.
664
If the appeal is to be heard before a High Court judge the accused will have to apply for a civil legal aid certificate. Emergency certificates can be granted over the telephone and do not take a considerable amount of time to determine. Legal aid regulations allow for payment to be made to solicitors for work carried out prior to the issue of an emergency certificate if the certificate is applied for at the first available opportunity.
I hope that that deals with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It does not really do so. I have not looked around too far, but I can see at least three practitioners present. One is the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, one my noble friend Lord Mishcon and one reflected in my spectacles, which is me.
When the Minister says that civil aid certificates can be speedily attended to, I wonder whether he was party to the correspondence which indicates that most civil aid officers have a system whereby they do not even answer letters for six weeks, never mind reach a determination.
This is a serious matter and underlines the moral purpose of the attitude of my noble friend Lord Mishcon. It has been made plain by me for our side that we emphasise our support for the principle of the Bill. But the Minister said that the Government will attend to or ensure that civil legal aid will be dealt with speedily. That must mean within 48 hours, or indeed less because the time limit for the first hearing of the bail appeal is 48 hours.
I do not want to be difficult; I want to be helpful. How will the Government bring about that wonder?
Lord Wigoder: I am not sure that Members of the Committee should go on about this matter. It may occur to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to remove legal aid altogether.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That has already occurred to him.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that the noble Viscount will look at the matter between today's debate, Report and Third Reading. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is intending to withdraw the amendment. However, a point of substance has been raised and I hope that between now and tomorrow evening the Government will consider the matter closely.
Lord Bethell: Any point raised by the Committee will be looked at between this stage and further stages. However, I wish that some of the points mentioned had been raised at Second Reading. It would have made it easier for us to tackle them and fit them into the tight timetable which, through no fault of my own, has been offered to me as a way of getting the Bill through.
Discussions have taken place between Second Reading and today. As I am sure noble Lords opposite will assert, we have done everything possible to meet the anxieties raised, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who took an effective and vigorous part in the Second Reading debate and who

665
tabled his concerns in the form of amendments. We on these Benches have done our best to meet those anxieties. I hope therefore that the Committee will agree to accept the assurances given by my noble friend and that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I must establish the facts. My noble friend Lord Mishcon raised this point in the clearest form; it is on the record. Indeed, because it was raised in the clearest form, on 22nd June a letter was sent from the Minister. That letter, both courteous and full as my noble friend said, dealt with the matter specifically in the first substantive paragraph on the second page. It is dealt with on the clearest basis. In the last sentence the Minister said:
"I may need to return to this point in Committee".
The point has not been addressed. No one is suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has not been under time constraints. We come back to the points raised by a number of us on an earlier occasion in your Lordships' Chamber; that is, that rushed legislation sometimes does not do the job.
Viscount Astor: I realise that I am perhaps the only Member of the Committee who does not have the legal background of noble Lords opposite. However, I said that I would return to the matter in Committee and I feel that I have done so. It is unfair for the noble Lord to say that I have not. I accept that he may feel that I have not gone as far as he would wish, but for him to say that I have not returned to it is perhaps slightly pushing the point.
The Legal Aid Board has given an undertaking that applications will be dealt with speedily. Of course, the undertaking given by the board must include dealing with applications over the telephone and retrospectively. I have gone as far as I am able. It is difficult with any situation to say that it will be dealt with at any specific instant or time. The Government are able to say only that applications will be dealt with as speedily as possible.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The point is that we are limited to only 48 hours. We are not talking of weeks or months; we are talking of 48 hours. The simple difficulty, sometimes, of getting hold of people in authority who are prepared to give their consent is obvious. In his letter the noble Viscount conceded—this is his language, not mine—that,
"It would be possible to remove the High Court from the face of the Bill to overcome this, but I think you will share my reluctance to see this happen, on the basis that the High Court has a supervisory role over the lower courts and it would be wrong to restrict, in this way, its jurisdiction over bail proceedings. I may need to return to this point in Committee".
A few moments ago we were told by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that that point had not even been raised on Second Reading. That seemed to demonstrate that the point was emphasised with some degree of clarity.
I am not an opponent of the Bill. We want to make progress with this matter, but we want guarantees that people who find themselves on their way to prison get immediate legal aid. I am bound to say that so far I have heard nothing that guarantees that. It is this
666
particular point that I have asked the noble Viscount to look at between this evening's and tomorrow's proceedings. I hardly need emphasise that it is most unusual for us to have Report stage and Third Reading 24 hours after the Committee stage of a Bill. I very much hope that the noble Viscount will agree to that.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I am quite prepared to look into the points that have been raised by the noble Lord between now and Report stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did not mean to be ungracious in saying that the Minister had not attended to the point. I should have added the qualifying words "to my satisfaction". The noble Baroness who sits behind the noble Viscount will know that on occasions magistrates' courts sit after five o'clock but I am not sure that Legal Aid Board offices are open after five o'clock. If prison is involved it is important that the ordinary, inarticulate, very often disturbed and unhappy, citizen should have access to sensible legal advice.
Baroness Seccombe: I am very conscious that these are people whom magistrates have decided should be at liberty. The prosecution then says that it wishes to appeal against that decision. I believe that it is even more important in that different situation to make sure that every opportunity is given to these people to have legal aid as quickly as possible. I believe that time is of the essence.
Lord Mishcon: One imagines that in most cases one is dealing with people who have not yet been convicted of any crime. Perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount whether in his efforts to clarify this matter between now and the next stages of the Bill he will seek not just the undertaking from the Legal Aid Board that he mentioned—that that body will deal with the matter expeditiously or as soon as possible—but also an undertaking that it will deal with these matters, if the appeal goes to the High Court, within the 48 hours stipulated in the Bill. That will make those of us who are very worried about this provision a little happier.
Viscount Astor: I fully accept that I will have to go back and look at this matter between now and Report stage. However, most of these cases will be dealt with within the Crown Court. In rare cases that go to the High Court the Legal Aid Board has agreed to grant emergency legal aid certificates over the telephone. They can be made retrospective to cover work already done.
Lord Wigoder: Perhaps the noble Viscount can tell us if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has been asked whether or not he desires that the High Court should be burdened with this particular duty?
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor I cannot at the moment answer the noble Lord's question. If I may, I will be in touch with him between now and Report stage in order to deal with it.
Lord Mishcon: In those circumstances, however unhappy I may feel, I beg leave to withdraw the arnendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, al end insert ("on the grounds that there is a serious risk to the public or that such person was likely to interfere with the course of justice.").
The noble Lord said: I can be equally brief in regard to Amendment No. 3. The Bill should give a clear indication to the courts and certainly to the Crown Prosecution Service as to the circumstances in which an appeal should take place. We are operating against a background in which under the statute there is a presumption that a defendant is entitled to bail. We are dealing with exceptional powers in granting a right of appeal to the prosecution. Therefore, I think it worthwhile to put into the Bill the grounds upon which an appeal could be brought; namely, that there is a serious risk to the public or that the person concerned is likely to interfere with the course of justice. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell: The Committee will share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to see that the use of this appeal is limited to such cases where serious consequences are feared if bail is granted. But I do not believe that it would be right by statute to fetter the prosecutor's exercise of the right of appeal. The Crown Prosecution Service has undertaken to produce such guidance to deal with this matter. In drafting it I am sure that the Government will wish to consult concerned parties. In those circumstances, I will be grateful if the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I recognise the assistance that has been given by the Home Office, in particular the Minister at the Home Office who has had extensive arid full discussions with, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and myself. The indication is that the Crown Prosecution Service will publish and be bound by certain guidelines. It seems to us at all events that if those guidelines incorporate a phrase like "serious risk to public safety or other significant public interest involved" they ought to safeguard everyone's legitimate interests. For instance, if there were a significant risk of the person absconding on bail in the case of serious charges that would come within "other significant public interest involved".
We should like to see the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines as soon as possible. If they are to be modelled upon the Scottish experience—on which we have been assured by the Home Office—there seems to be little reason why they should not be produced promptly—like tomorrow.
Viscount Astor: The circumstances of the offence which a prosecution right of appeal should cover is an issue on which there is no simple answer. Noble Lords familiar with Scottish law will know that the Act allowing prosecution rights of appeal in Scotland does not attempt to define these circumstances, beyond the point that the prosecution is dissatisfied with the decision of the court. But the Scots provide their
668
prosecutors with guidelines, and it is this course which the Government wish to emulate. The Crown Prosecution Service has already begun to draw up guidelines for its prosecutors as to the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to exercise this power of appeal. The Government believe it is better to proceed in this way than to attempt to draft an acceptable test which, while more than the original grounds for opposing bail set out in the Bail Act, can be couched in terms comprehensible to the courts.
As important a reason against this amendment is the fact that it would mean that appeals could not be brought where the concern was that a defendant might abscond while on bail. Your Lordships will not need me to remind the Committee of a recent example where such circumstances existed.
We have what may be called draft guidance for Crown prosecutors on the circumstances in which the prosecution's right of appeal on bail should be exercised. The guidance will emphasise that an appeal should not be lodged as a matter of routine simply because the granting of bail is opposed. The right of appeal will be used only in cases of greatest concern and will be exercisable by any Crown prosecutor but not by agents without specific authority. Factors relevant to the decision to appeal will include the seriousness of the offence and the risk of harm to the public. In assessing the risk that a defendant will fail to appear, commit further offences on bail or interfere with witnesses account will be taken of previous convictions for those matters.
All decisions to appeal will be reviewed in depth by a senior lawyer at the earliest opportunity. There will be power to discontinue appeals. In the event of an appeal being withdrawn the defendant will be released. The Crown Prosecution Service intends to monitor closely the exercise of the right of appeal and cases in which appeals are discontinued. This should ensure a consistent approach to those cases.
I hope that that explanation is somewhat helpful to noble Lords who appear to take a modest interest in this matter.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Before the noble Viscount sits down, would he be so good as to let us know whether these guidelines will be published?
Viscount Astor: Yes, they will.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As the noble Viscount has told us that a draft is available, can copies of that document be put in the Printed Paper Office so that we can have a look at it between now and Third Reading?
Viscount Astor: I am not sure that there is any document that takes the matter a lot further than what I have already explained to the Committee. However, if there is a document that takes us further, I shall certainly ensure that noble Lords see it before the Report stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Viscount: has said that there is no simple answer. There is of course. It does not need to be in statutory form. A simple answer is the one that I have offered—that there

669
should be no prosecution appeal unless there is a serious risk to public safety or other significant public interest involved.
Lord Mishcon: My silence is afforded to the Committee only in order to give the noble Viscount an opportunity of replying to my noble friend Lord Williams.
Viscount Astor: I am sorry if noble Lords opposite were expecting a reply from me. It would be fair to say that the Government's view is closely modelled on the law and experience in Scotland. That is what we hope we have taken as an example. As I said, the Scots provide their prosecutors with guidelines. This way works in Scotland and that is why we have chosen to follow that here.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: With great respect, I appreciate that the noble Viscount is doing his best. If the law works in a certain way in Scotland, it does not work on a statutory basis; it works on the basis of guidelines. I echo respectfully what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said—please may we see the guidelines tomorrow before we have to come to a definitive conclusion? I am sure that the law works in Scotland quite well. My suspicion is that it works by and large on the formula that I suggested.
Viscount Astor: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. I think that he was addressing what should be in the guidelines as opposed to what is in the Bill. When I replied earlier I thought that he was talking about what should be in the Bill. The noble Lord offers a solution regarding what should be in the guidelines. I can give him an assurance that some very similar form of words to that which he has suggested will be in the guidelines.
Lord Bethell: I wish to make an appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I realise that if he had drafted the Bill he might perhaps have used different words. On the other hand, he has made it clear that he supports the principle of the Bill. He has also made it clear that, while he has put down amendments, none of those amendments is so utterly and totally essential to justice in our land that he is willing to press it in the face of opposition from the Government and from this side of the Committee. Will he therefore consider whether he will accept the assurance given by my noble friend and in the interest of seeing this Bill reach the statute book withdraw his amendment?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, intervenes, perhaps I may make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in the most agreeable fashion possible. We are discussing the liberty of the subject. We are talking about situations in which people who have been given bail by a magistrates' court will find themselves in prison because of a decision of the prosecutor. As I and others have made clear already, we are not opposed in principle to the Bill; but what we are saying is that we must have adequate debate. The way in which we are proceeding and have proceeded on the Bill so far has been profoundly unsatisfactory.
Lord Mishcon: As I understand the position, the suggestion that was made by my noble friend Lord Williams has not only been heard by the noble Viscount but he has said—I ask him to correct me if I have misunderstood—that words very similar to those used by my noble friend will be in the guidelines. It would help tremendously, since the word "similar" can be interpreted differently by various people, if he could bring the wording to the House by having it put in the Printed Paper Office before we come to consider the further stages of the Bill. And then, on being satisfied that the words are almost identical to, and certainly having the spirit of, those suggested by my noble friend, we can rest in peace. I would then be able to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that on this amendment an essential point in my view has been raised but it has been dealt with. I would not like the noble Lord or anyone else to take it for granted that because I am not persisting in these amendments I do not regard them as of the gravest importance.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his agile legal mind, has rightly said that "similar" can mean many different things. I give him the assurance that when I said "similar" at the Dispatch Box I did not say it as a lawyer but as a straightforward person talking on behalf of the Government. If it would help the noble Lord, I accept the simple and straightforward solution offered by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I hope that that removes any element of doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has. Guidelines are issued by the DPP. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to have them by tomorrow. I shall do my best but I think that that might be pushing it. I hope that with the categoric assurance I gave to the noble Lord he might be satisfied.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I thought that the noble Viscount indicated that a draft document exists. I may have misheard him, and if I did so I apologise to him in advance. What we are asking is to have a look at that tomorrow. Many of our anxieties may be removed when we see that document. But given the fact that there is a draft in existence, we are asking only to have a look at it. And if I may say so, given the fact that we have agreed to this most unusual procedure of taking Report and Third Reading within 24 hours of the Committee stage of the Bill, it is not an unreasonable request to make.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Viscount replies—this may be the answer to the problem—I understood his undertaking to be that the formula I suggested—that there would be no prosecution appeal without there being a serious risk to public safety or other significant public interest involved —will be the basis of the guidelines.
Lord Wigoder: If that formula is to be the basis of the guidelines, as appears to be widely supported, does it not make nonsense of the suggestion that the prosecution should have the right of appeal where

671
someone has been convicted and sentenced and then granted bail pending the hearing of the appeal? The guidelines would not be applicable to that situation.
Viscount Astor: A draft of the likely contents has been approved by the Crown Prosecution Service, not finally approved by the DPP. What I tried to say to the noble Lord, Lore! Harris, is that we have established what the guidelines will address rather than there being a document of draft guidelines in existence at this very moment. But I give him that assurance and I will look into the matter and get in touch with him tomorrow.
Lord Mishcon: I do not want to be repetitive but I want to be clear. An assurance has been given on behalf of the Government that the guidelines which affect these appeals will state this perfectly clearly in the same words or similar words as those used by my noble friend Lord Williams. Upon that assurance—I notice that the noble Viscount is nodding his head —I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:
("(lA) Subsection (1) above applies only where the prosecution is conducted—

(a) by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or

(b) by a person who falls within such class or description of person as may be prescribed for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: I believe I am right in saying that it was this po..nt that was most forcefully urged by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in our debate at Second Reading. Following certain discussions, I have put down an amendment which I hope on this occasion will attract his unqualified support. The point of the amendment takes into account the fact that private prosecutors could bring appeals against bail under the Bill and that this might conceivably cause miscarriages of justice if they were brought in a capricious manner. Therefore, it has been decided that this amendment should limit the bodies which are able to bring prosecutions and to which appeals for bail may be made.
Prosecutors acting on behalf of the DPP would also be allowed to appeal under this provision, or other persons as prescribed by the Secretary of State. That approach observes the principle that individuals with prosecutorial powers bring prosecutions and not the state or public prosecutors. Allowing other types of prosecutor to be added by order allows time for fuller consultation than has proved possible so far with other departments as to who might be given such powers. It also means that the list of prosecutors can, with some parliamentary supervision, be more easily amended according to changes in circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and also for the assistance given by the Home Office in drafting this amendment. It deals with a number of the concerns which we mentioned earlier in your Lordships' House.
672
In particular the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, is indisposed but I record his continuing and helpful interest in this matter.
The understanding which we have from the Home Office in a letter from the Minister of State dated 18th June of this year is to the effect that, first, the Lord Chief Justice will encourage all presiding judges to make judge time readily available to minimise delays. Secondly, we would anticipate that the number of appeals would be relatively few. Thirdly, the Crown Prosecution Service is, I believe, willing to give an undertaking that it will have a brisk approach to the expedition of appeals. We wish for some indication as to the level of seniority within the Crown Prosecution Service.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon mentions the question of a branch prosecutor. It is said in the letter that they are few and far between. I simply suggest that these appeals too will be few and far between and one would have thought that the prosecutor, if his representations fail as to the grant of bail, should obtain precedent instructions from a branch prosecutor. That is a perfectly simple managerial task. Other than that, we certainly welcome this amendment.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5:
At end insert, ("and such appeal has been authorised by a person having at least the status of Branch Crown Prosecutor.").
The noble Lord said: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and to the noble Viscount that Amendment No. 4 comes before us today. It is an absolutely clear indication of the worthy part that this Chamber plays in revising legislation that this Bill came before us from another place with the support of the Government.
These are the circumstances which would have applied if the Bill had been passed in its original form. A and B start off by being good friends. A has a motor car which he allows B quite freely to use when he, A, is not using it. The two friends fall out. B does not appreciate that his permission to use the car has been withdrawn and he accordingly uses the car. A, now disliking B intensely, brings a private prosecution under Section 12; namely, taking a conveyance without authority. It comes before the court and B says that he wants to take advice as to his defence. The magistrate says that that is all right and releases him on bail, whether it is on his recognisances or whatever it may be.
Mr. A then says that he wants to appeal against the grant of bail. The magistrate has no power whatsoever to do anything other than commit poor Mr. B to prison for 48 hours. That is exactly how this Bill came before this House and those are the circumstances which could have applied. I am sure that Members of the Committee can think of more lurid examples than the one I have just given.
Now the opportunity has been taken as a result of this House, at Second Reading, pointing out some of the grave errors and omissions of this Bill. I wish to express my gratitude—I do not say this pompously —and to say that the lesson has been learnt. If it is a

673
lesson to another place and to the Government, then it is something which brings credit to this Chamber that we did not allow this error to go through.
I have tabled Amendment No. 5, which I would now like to move. It deals with the point which my noble friend Lord Williams mentioned; namely, that there should be an authority at some decent level in the Crown Prosecution Service to whom the appeal may be made. The Minister in his letter was good enough to indicate to me and to the other recipients of that letter, that this was a little difficult because it would add gravely to the burdens which fall on the Crown Prosecution Service.
That indicated to me, and filled me with fear, that it was envisaged by the Government that there would be a great number of these cases where courts are granting bail and where there is going to be an appeal. I hope that that is not right. I thought that this Committee was being assured that there were a number of cases, but not prolific by any means, where in the view of the Crown Prosecution Service the court had obviously gone wrong. I ask that, as part of the rules—otherwise I cannot effectively move this amendment in view of my promise—there will be an assurance that the rules which will be issued will say that the appeal has to be,
"authorised by a person having at least the status of Branch Crown Prosecutor".
I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I recognise that we are in a difficulty. There has been an expectation that we would now be discussing the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. We shall take more time with this matter and I apologise for the fact that we are in this situation. It is inevitable. We are talking about a substantial amendment to the criminal law of this country and no one should underestimate the significance of the issues we are debating.
I begin with a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, which relates precisely to the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. At Second Reading on 9th June, he said, on the subject of the amendment he has put before the Committee this evening:
"I think it right to point out that if any amendment should be passed in this House the effect would certainly be that the Bill would not reach the statute book. There would not be time available in another place to consider any changes made by your Lordships' House".—[Official Report, 9/6/93; col. 1006.]
Undoubtedly that was the advice which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was given. Notwithstanding that expression of view, I am delighted to say that the points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at Second Reading, by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, were so substantial that there has apparently been a change of attitude—namely, that amendments to the Bill can be proposed and accepted. I welcome the fact that that has been done. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just observed, were that not to have taken place the risk would have been that people involved in domestic and other disputes could, by the simple process of objecting to bail being given, put their neighbours or another member of their family in
674
prison for 48 hours. That is a total absurdity. It demonstrates a very worrying attitude on the part of our Home Office Ministers. Such points should have been seen before the Bill was presented, notwithstanding the fact that it is a Private Member's Bill.
I should like to make only one other point. I do not want to be boringly repetitive, but I very much hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will pass on what I am about to say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. The way in which the Bill has been handled has, frankly, been deplorable. As the noble Viscount will be aware, last Thursday there was to be a Government Sittings Motion to ask that all stages of the Bill should be taken today. After I and others had complained, the Government did not proceed with the Motion, and I welcome that. Like others, I agreed to take the Report and Third Reading stages 24 hours later. We would be most reluctant ever—and I repeat "ever"—to agree to procedures of that sort in future. It is no way to legislate. We are a revising Chamber and we must take our responsibilities a great deal more seriously than we have over this Bill—that is, as far as the timescale is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who has spent a great deal of time speaking on "his" Bill, if I may so describe it, will have to relax a little because we are discussing questions involving the liberty of the subject which require our attention.
I turn finally to the last point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which related to the level of seniority in the Crown Prosecution Service. I very much hope that the noble Viscount will look at this issue between now and Report stage tomorrow. If, by chance, he is not able to accept the amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I very much hope that he will consider an alternative, such as the requirement for three or four years' seniority; otherwise we shall have the position whereby a Crown prosecutor, with perhaps a week or six months of experience, will be putting people in prison for 48 hours on the basis largely of his own inexperience.
9 p.m.
Viscount Astor: First, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that I said on Second Reading that it was entirely up to your Lordships' House whether your Lordships wanted to table amendments in Committee, at Report or on Third Reading. The way in which your Lordships wished to deal with the Bill was entirely up to your Lordships.
My noble friend Lord Bethell took account of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which is why he tabled Amendment No. 4, which the Government support. I turn now to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 4. I am afraid that it would vastly and unacceptably increase the costs of the Crown Prosecution Service. It would be impossible to ensure that a prosecutor of such rank was either present at all magistrates' courts or contactable by telephone at any time to give authority to appeal. Your Lordships should know that in some

675
counties there is only one lawyer of such a rank. I hope that your Lordships can accept that this makes such a requirement unworkable in practice.
The Government recognise the concerns implicit in the desire to see authorisation given at a senior level, but we believe that the prosecutors in the court who are apprised of the facts will be best placed to make a decision on whether to appeal. They will be aware of the risks the defendant might pose if released on bail and of the arguments put by the defence in support of bail.
The Government propose in answer to this concern to ensure there are proper procedures within the Crown Prosecution Service by which senior prosecutors will be able to vet and, if necessary, discontinue appeals.
I hope that your Lordships can accept that the practical difficulties which I have mentioned make it impossible for the Government to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, but the assurance that there will be proper vetting procedures within the Crown Prosecution Service addresses the concerns behind the amendment.
Lord Williams, of Mostyn: The noble Viscount's reply addresses the concerns but does not deal with them. The appeals will of their nature be fairly limited. There is no difficulty in having precedent instructions from someone of branch Crown prosecutor level in these rather strange cases where the Crown Prosecution Service has legitimate concerns.
The noble Viscount said that there would be internal vetting or review, but that does not deal with the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. that a very inexperienced prosecutor may, by the mere circumstance of raising the appeal, condemn a citizen to perhaps 24 hours' imprisonment while the internal vetting goes on. That simply is not acceptable. It is quite easily dealt with by accepting the amendment or giving an assurance that no appeal will be raised without the authority of someone of at least the status of branch Crown prosecutor. I realise the difficulties about resources and staffing but, with respect, the answer is the one that I have suggested: "Get your authority before you go to court from your branch Crown prosecutor".
Viscount Astor: Paragraph (b) of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Bethell allows the Secretary of State to prescribe by statutory instrument which other prosecutors should have such a right of appeal. That means that the list of prosecutors given the power of appeal can be readily amended if circumstances change but that such an amendment would not be possible if Parliament objects. The prosecution cannot know what the defence will put forward when arguing for bail, so the decision has to be made by the person in court.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry to take up the time of the Committee. The answer which the noble Viscount gave in the first part of his reply simply does not deal with this question. It deals with paragraph (a) of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. Of course, the branch Crown prosecutor
676
cannot know the circumstances that will be relied on, but he will know the category of case for which an appeal is legitimate, and precedent instructions can be taken quite simply if, for instance, there is a danger that someone who may abscond may be given bail or that someone who is a dangerous rapist may be given bail. It is simple to deal with that position. I repeat, the first answer that the noble Viscount gave did not deal with that point, nor did it deal with the illustration given of the junior prosecutor who has a rush of blood to the head and by his own unilateral decision condemns someone to imprisonment, even for 24 hours.
Viscount Astor: I believe that I dealt with the substantive issue put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I accept that he has asked me to go further. The best thing I can do is to say that I shall obviously consider the matter and be in touch wit h the noble Lord before Report stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Viscount will do that, it will meet many of our anxieties. The point is one of substance, and I do not want him to go away this evening without recognising that many of us attach great importance to the issue.
Lord Mishcon: I detect a sense of urgency in the Chamber which, unfortunately, has nothing to do with the Bill. In those circumstances, and having heard the assurance that the noble Viscount has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 5, as an, amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("prosecution") to ("granted") and insert ("made representation that bail should not be").
The noble Lord said: Because of the urgency to which I drew attention, I do not move the amendment. [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("objection was") and insert ("representations were").
The noble Lord said: The same remarks apply.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 8 to 10:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert ("failing which, the person shall be released from custody and the prosecution appeal shall be null and void.").
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("commenced") and insert ("determined").
Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("excluding") to ("from") in line 4 and insert ("Good Friday, Christmas Day arid Sundays").
The noble Lord said: Unfortunately, the same remarks apply.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) The power to make an order under subsection (1A) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements Grants) Scheme 1993
9.10 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 21st May be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am pleased today to introduce this scheme under which the Government expect to commit nearly £4 million over four years in furtherance of safety on fishing vessels. The scheme is a successor to one which expired at the end of 1991 and is cast in terms which enable grant to be paid retrospectively to those who have carried out eligible works since the previous scheme expired. The scheme provides grants for equipment which is needed to enable vessel owners to obtain a Department of Transport safety certificate under the Fishing Vessel (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975.
Fishing is a hazardous occupation. However, this scheme expresses the Government's commitment to help minimise those risks and their effects. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 21st May be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the way he has explained the order. I shall be brief. There are some wider fishing matters which are outside the scope of the order; for example, matters such as days at sea and the level of the decommissioning grant. We are not involved with them this evening and can leave them for another occasion. I have only one question for the Minister. If he wishes, he can write to me about it and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
It is of concern to the industry—I know that the Minister is aware of this—that these grants are limited to vessels of over 12 metres. It seems that a large number of accidents occur in vessels under 12 metres. I believe that the Department of Transport is studying the problem. If the Minister will write to me to bring me up to date, and say whether and when the Government are prepared to change their stance on that matter, that would be extremely helpful.
We have no other comment to make. Anything which improves safety in this extremely dangerous industry is welcome. On this side of the House we support the order.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in deference to the wish of the House to save time, I shall write to the noble Lord in answer to his questions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
9.13 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 52 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 63 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 74 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 81 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 100c").
The noble Lord said: First, although the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is no longer in the Chamber, I extend my thanks to him. He was obviously extremely anxious to continue his remarks on what are matters of very great importance. He was extremely kind in his understanding of the arrangements which have been entered into as regards the business of the House. He moved on very rapidly and we are all grateful to him. We acknowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, observed earlier from the Liberal Benches, that the matter with which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was dealing was extremely important. This House must never give up its role as an important revising Chamber. Sloppily drafted legislation should not be allowed through.
That brings me immediately to the Bill and the treaty. There can seldom have been a more sloppily drafted piece of legislation placed before the Chamber than this treaty. The Committee turns for the first time to the question of the relationships between the Community and the Union and to different organisations, although they may seem to be superficially very close together. Amendments Nos. 293 and onwards are in that territory; namely, the relationship between Union and Community.
As I understand it, the Union embraces both inter-governmental co-operation, under Titles V and VI, and the machinery of co-operation within the Treaty of Rome. I shall return at a later stage to that point because it is important.
I shall briefly sum up the amendments. Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 are Treaty of Rome amendments. They relate to a number of important

679
issues. Amendment No. 85 would remove Article 100c, and I regard that as a matter of substantive concern. Amendment No. 86 removes Article 100d. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain to me what is the effect of Article 100d because I am not certain of that at this stage.
Amendments Nos. 293 and 295 to 302 relate to Article 100K in Title VI which is on pages 84 and onwards of the treaty. I deal first with Amendment No. 85 which would remove Article 100c. That is a substantive matter in relation to the treaty. Again, I emphasise that Amendment No. 86 is a probing amendment.
Articles 100c and 100d are new items within the Treaty of Rome. They are matters which were not previously there. They are completely new in relation to it. Above all, they deal with the sensitive issues of immigration, visa control and the rights of nationals of third states to enter the Community and therefore to enter our own country. Those powers were previously held by member states. That will no longer be so. Article 100c transfers visa policy from member states to Brussels. In future, the Council will decide which third country nationals will or will not need visas to cross the external borders of member states. From 1st January 1996 it is proposed that those decisions will be taken by qualified majority voting.
There are some intriguing smaller points within Article 100c, and I shall immediately ask one question of the Minister. What does it mean precisely when it says that the Council may,
"adopt measures relating to a uniform format for visas"?
What is the meaning of those words? Do they mean that the council will decide on a uniform format? If so, why does it not say that? If it does not mean that, what does it mean? Once again, clarity in legislation would be a very great advantage.
More important, do Members of the Committee wish it to be decided by the Council and Brussels that, for example, Australians and New Zealanders should in future need visas to enter the United Kingdom? As Members of the Committee know, there is no such requirement at present. In future, whether that privilege of entry to the United Kingdom without visas continues to be offered to those nationals will not depend on this place or this Parliament; as I read it, it will depend upon a decision taken by qualified majority voting. It is not merely a matter of such questions as to whether Australians and New Zealanders should require visas, but whether we wish the Council to decide that, say, Bosnians or Iraqis should or should not need visas.
Can my noble friend also tell me whether I am right to assume that, had the treaty been in operation during the Falklands war, it would not have rested upon this Parliament or our Government to decide that Argentinians did or did not need visas to enter the country; it would have rested upon a decision taken in a council where we would not have had the final say? I notice that paragraph 5 of Article 100c refers to the article being,
"without prejudice to the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of intern al security".
680
I doubt whether that could be stretched to a blanket requirement for visas for citizens of Argentina in such circumstances.
Again, we are all aware of the trade, for example, in arranged marriages between British Asians and citizens of the Indian sub-continent. But who in future, under the article, will decide if a visa regime would be appropriate to deal with problems that may arise from that trade? Further, can my noble friend the Minister explain to me what would be the effect of paragraph 4 of Article 100c which states:
"In the areas referred to in this Article, the Commission shall examine any request made by a Member State that it submit a proposal to the Council".
Does that mean that the Commission could in any way block or alter the proposal of a member state which was destined to go to the Council? If not, what does it mean? What would be the Commission's role in examining requests made by a member state that proposals should be submitted to the Council? It seems quite clear to me that if a member state decided that there was a case for instituting a visa regime —or, indeed, for eliminating such a regime—it would not be able to put that directly to the Council; it would have to go through what I shall call in neutral terms a "process" of the Council. What is the purpose of that Council and why is that particular provision there?
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 293, and 295 to 302 which relate to Article K of Title VI on page 84 of the Treaty. Article K.1 makes a huge extension to areas of "common interest". If Members of the Committee will glance at it, they will see what I mean. In future, among matters regarded as those of common interest will be:

"(1) asylum policy;

(2) rules governing the crossing by persons of the external borders … and the exercise of controls thereon;

(3) immigration policy and policy regarding nationals of third countries;

(4) combating drug addiction in so far as this is not covered by [other provisions];

(5) combating fraud [in similar circumstances];

(6) judicial cooperation in civil matters;

(7) judicial cooperation in criminal matters;

(8) customs cooperation;

(9) police cooperation for the purposes of preventing and combating terrorism, unlawful drug trafficking and other serious forms of international crime".

It is not necessary to be opposed to such co-operation taking place to question whether it is appropriate that all such issues should be regarded as matters of "common interest" in respect of the meaning within the treaty.
What is involved in the decision to make those matters of common interest? Will the hands of the British Government be in any way tied by such a provision, or will we be free to proceed unilaterally without regard to the interests of our partners wherever we think it is in our interests so to do? If that is the case, I do not know what Article K.1 means. If not, what are the limits upon our freedom of action in the future?
Article K.3 provides that member states will inform and consult—and I guess there is not too much wrong with that. But under Article K.3.2 conventions may be entered into and may be subjected to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is another new

681
departure. Not only the Council—although not under that name—but the European Court of Justice is introduced into this area of co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs.
So too under Article K.6 are the presidency and the European Parliament. Of course, the Parliament can discuss anything it wishes, as can this sovereign Parliament. But here we find it is provided in the treaty at the bottom of page 85 that each year the Parliament:
"shall hold a debate on the progress made in the implementation of the areas referred to in this Title".
In short, in this separate pillar, which according to the Prime Minister is so completely insulated from the Community, we find that every institution of the Community will have its role to play—every one. Here, therefore, we see some more of those pegs being placed into our laws ready for 1996. How soon will it be before Title VI is sucked into the Treaty of Rome? It is precious close to the Treaty of Rome in that all the institutions established under the Treaty of Rome play a role; even the European Court of Justice may play a role. Yet we were told that this was insulated and separate from the Treaty of Rome. I clearly recollect the speech of the Prime Minister in which he made the point, "Immigration? There is nothing about immigration in this treaty". Nothing about immigration?—except that the words occur time and time again.
Finally, I wish to inquire most generally whether there is a provision in British domestic law to cover the provisions of Article K.8.2 on page 86. It provides that:
"Administrative expenditure which the provisions relating to the areas referred to in this Title entail for the institutions shall be charged to the budget of the European Communities".
That is a matter to which I may refer and return at a later stage of our proceedings. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing what the provision is in British domestic law which covers that provision in the treaty. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I wish to concentrate on Amendment No. 295, which deals with Article K.1, and specifically paragraphs 6 and 7 referring to judicial co-operation in civil matters and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.
Superficially, that sounds reasonable, even beneficial. However, in fact the idea is both imprecise and open ended. As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked, why cannot such co-operation, to the extent that it exists, remain informal and voluntary?
In particular, what does co-operation in criminal matters imply? It certainly has no relation to a body such as Interpol, which we all know about and can all understand. In this country, or specifically in England and Wales as opposed to Scotland, we have an adversarial system. I am not a lawyer but I believe that that is the right word. In France they have the juge d'instruction, and on the Continent generally there is a totally different system which is designed to establish the facts of the case rather than having a prosecution and defence. How can those two different systems
682
co-operate in any meaningful manner? What are the implications of that phrase, "judicial co-operation in criminal matters"? How will it alter our own law?
Those are the questions I should like to have answered this evening.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 411 in my name. However, before doing so I should like to mention one matter in relation to Amendment No. 85 moved by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what would be the position of the 2.5 million or so residents of Hong Kong who will by 1st July 1997 hold British national overseas passports? I am sure that they would like to know what their position will be vis-a-vis visas within the European Community. Will they be allowed to travel freely within the European Community on a British national overseas passport without the requirement for a visa, and therefore into this country, or will they require a visa even to enter this country? It would be welcomed if their minds could be set at rest.
I should like to raise one other question in relation to Hong Kong. If at any stage the British Government decided to grant further British passports, for example, to ethnic minorities in Hong Kong—which we could do now if we so wished—would we be able to do that after 1st January 1996 if the Maastricht Treaty is ratified?
I turn now to Amendment No. 411, which is intended to ensure that should the Treaty of European Union be ratified the United Kingdom will retain the power to control its own frontiers and that that power will be recognised in the wording of the Bill. The present position of the Government on that subject has been made clear. As recently as December 1992 my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated in answer to a Question in another place that the Government expected to be able to maintain the current policy of passport and customs checks at our borders.
The provisions of the new Article 8a of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Maastricht Treaty, state that:
"Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States".
Her Majesty's Government's position is that we have another opt-out of that treaty requirement which is based on a declaration which was negotiated at the time of the Single European Act. That declaration states:
"Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques".
However, the value of that declaration, like other declarations and opt-outs on which we so trustingly rely, could well be open to interpretation and, in particular, legal interpretation by the European Court of Justice. That point has been made painfully clear in a long document sent out by the Euro-Commissioners

683
in May last year, prodding member states into action over new Article 8a which, as the document reminds them, calls for,
"abolition of all controls, formalities, procedures, checks, examination, inspections, etc. etc.",
and so on. The document goes on to state specifically that Article 8a should not be qualified by any of the declarations of the Single European Act on which the Government appear to be relying. It states:
"A declaration can never deprive an article of the treaty of its practical effectiveness".
It continues:
"If, after 31st December, 1992, Member states are still able to check whether a person wishing to cross a border is a national of a Member state and whether he or she constitutes a danger to public order, public security or public health, nothing will have changed and Article 8a will be a dead letter".
That, at least, is clear: the European Commissioners' view is that the declaration on which we rely is subordinate to Article 8a in the Treaty on European Union.
So who is right: the Commission or Her Majesty's Government? While asserting their right to control terrorism, drug traffic and criminal activities at their borders, the Government have been under pressure in the Commission in the person of Herr Bangemann —that well known releaser of cats from bags—who has called on the Government to modify their stance on border control. He has indeed threatened the Government with being hauled in front of that ultimate arbiter, the European Court of Justice. However, I believe that last September a compromise was reached with Herr Bangemann and the Commissioners whereby EEC nationals would give what has been described as a cursory flash, or wave, of their passports as they go through immigration control. That, I understand, has become known as the "Bangemann wave". I have not seen it in action myself yet; we seem still to be very delayed at passport control. Perhaps the Minister will give a brief demonstration of the Bangemann wave.
The adoption of the Bangemann wave procedure appears to accept the curious notion that drug traffickers, terrorists and criminals exist entirely outside the supranational boundaries of the EEC. As is all too often the case, when it comes to Community legislation, we are giving ground reluctantly, but, nonetheless, I fear, irrevocably.
Her Majesty's Government feel that they are right; that they will maintain our existing rights of control on frontiers. However, in order to avoid an eventual adverse interpretation by the European Court of Justice, would it not be wiser to lock into place in the Bill a guarantee in the form suggested by my amendment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had not expected to rise so early in the debate. I gladly give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Park.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I had not realised that we had reached the point where the noble Lord would rise to speak.
I have several anxieties about Articles K.1, K.3 and K.9 and about the extension of Article 100c to other matters beside a common visa form and a common list
684
of countries whose nationals will require visas. Even that worries me. What will it do to the present status of some of our long-standing Commonwealth relationships?
I recognise that action is inter-governmental, not supranational and that initially nothing can be decided without unanimous agreement and ratification by national parliament. The treaty states that,
"This Title shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security".
But just as there has been in other areas a drift from the Treaty of Rome, to the Single European Act, to Maastricht—a series of moves from unanimity to qualified majority voting in many important areas, as well as an increase in Community competences—so within this treaty and this Title there is such a drift. Thus under Article K.2(b),
"The Council may",
—and the Commission as well as member states is empowered to take the initiative—
"decide that measures implementing joint action are to be adopted by a qualified majority or in some cases by a two-thirds majority".
Under Article K.9 the formula is different. 'The Council, acting unanimously on the initiative of either the Commission or a member state, may decide to apply Article 100c not just to visas, but, among other things, to immigration, asylum and border controls.
Article 100c(3) provides that decisions on visas which must at present be by unanimity, shall, from 1st January 1996, be taken by qualified majority voting. Would that shift extend to decisions under Article K.9?
Article 100c(5) reiterates the safeguard about national internal security, but this move would enlarge Community competence to a significant degree. It all depends on whether we have the political will to maintain our veto by refusing to depart from unanimity and thus retain our control over decisions affecting immigration, border controls, asylum and measures to protect us from terrorism. The Declaration on Asylum proposes bringing that under the provisions of Article K.9.
So far, it is reassuring that the Government have refused to join the Schengen Group and have maintained our existing system of internal control, the Bangemann wave. But the pressure to abandon unanimity may very well grow.
Both the Select Committee of this House in its 10th report and the minutes of the evidence published by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place in February last year reached the same conclusion—it is essential that we retain our internal controls. That is, border checks at the point of entry. As the Home Office memorandum to the Select Committee points out, our overall system of immigration control at the point of entry has correspondingly less need for reliance on in-country enforcement, in contrast to the rest of the Community. It adds that any possible future weakening of controls at our internal frontier would mean that a battery of compensating action in terms of in-country controls would then have to be considered. These would not

685
only raise difficult issues (for example, identity cards) and the whole relationship of the police to the public, but would have potentially far higher resource costs.
As for illegal immigrants, the Home Office is in no doubt that it is more efficient and more effective to exclude unwanted persons at the point of entry rather than to attempt to detect and remove them once they are in.
We must resist pressure to move to QMV. We must not be persuaded by the argument that the decisions by unanimity inhibit action. There are some actions which we must inhibit. I also wonder whether we shall have the resources to keep control of what is happening in the co-ordinating committees, both financially and in terms of staff, the Committee on Justice and Home Affairs, and to insist on time for scrutiny of projects at an early enough stage.
I wonder too whether we shall be able to achieve and maintain genuine accountability to parliament, as opposed to the admirable specialist committees, so that legislation, when it is needed, is discussed and enacted with a clear understanding of the consequences and an opportunity to relate it to our national priorities.
Reverting to the issue of resources, one of the strongest arguments for enforcing subsidiarity and limiting unnecessary Commission initiatives, is that it will reduce the load of the detailed staff and paperwork which the relevant Civil Service departments have to do. Our own legislation already imposes heavy burdens. I cannot but feel that one of the worst aspects of the constant extending of Community competences and initiatives is that we ought to be being very vigilant about the knock-on effects on our own legislative processes and the urgent need to get all our civil servants trained in "Brussels-speak" as an essential measure of self-defence—a kind of political karate.
However, all this comes just as we ought to be spending time, energy and skilled professional know-how on the business of economic recovery and when, moreover, we are busily running down and breaking up the trained Civil Service by hiving off agencies hither and thither. If the argument for ratifying this immensely complex treaty, which seems to have some unfortunate elephant traps, is that we need to get inside the Community, both to make it work and to protect our interests, then I urge the Government most strongly to make sure that we are prepared to put in the necessary human resources to do the job and make accountability possible, and that we have the political will to use and not to relinquish such safeguards as our negotiators have built into the text.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This is indeed a very important provision of the treaty. It seems to me that once again we are on the "ratchet". What has consistently happened within the EC ever since we joined in 1972 is that there has been a ratchet effect. You take one step and the ratchet goes up. You take
686
another step. All the steps are relatively harmless, or so it seems—but each one is another ratchet towards the ultimate aim of a federal European state.
Why on earth do we need this particular title? It is perfectly possible to co-operate in all these matters without it. Indeed, it would be far better if we did co-operate without this title. We would then know that we were co-operating on the basis that each country would retain for ever and a day its independence of action within the areas which are laid down here.
It is legitimate for the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and other noble Lords to query matters within this particular title. Why is it that we need for our own protection—after all, that is what we are talking about; we are talking about this country and this country's borders—Article 100c.1, and in particular Article 100c.3? Why is it necessary to give over visa policy to the institutions of Brussels and the European Union? We need an answer to that question. Is it necessary for the protection of the borders of the United Kingdom to hand over policy relating to visas, who should have them and what form they may take, to what is a supranational organisation? Is it right that that organisation should decide whether citizens of our former Commonwealth countries should have visas or not? Is that not a matter entirely for this country? Why should it in any way be clouded? Why should it in any way be discussed with other countries? —which, I remind the Committee, are still aliens. Countries in the European Community are still aliens. We are told that they are our partners. Some of us think that they are our competitors. Nevertheless, in law they are still aliens. Yet we are proposing under this treaty to hand over to them the power to say who shall enter into this country. That must surely be a real loss of sovereignty. We are entitled to real answers to that particular question.
Noble Lords have been through the "K" section, if I may put it in that way, in great detail. I believe they are right to go through it in great detail. There is "judicial co-operation in civil matters" and "judicial co-operation in criminal matters". Just what does that mean? What sort of co-operation shall we have in these matters? There is co-operation between police forces. Why, we may ask, does that have to be in this treaty? Have we not been co-operating to date, not only with European countries but with other countries in the world as well—the United States and many other countries—on matters of mutual interest? Why does co-operation with EC countries have to be written into this treaty under Title VI? That is the question that we need to ask. What has gone wrong with the co-operation that we have had so far? Why is it necessary to extend it?
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner spoke recently about the introduction of weapons and predicted that the carrying of weapons by the police would happen within the next 10 years. I hope that he did not feel that that was the sort of co-operation that he wanted to see with the EC. Today new arrangements have been announced and there is a White Paper dealing with new arrangements for the

687
police. We are entitled—it is not far-fetched—to ask whether those new arrangements have anything to do with Article K in Title VI of this treaty.
Most people have never read the treaty. They would not know whether to make a connection between today's White Paper and Title VI of the treaty. But I can assure the Committee that if those people read the treaty they would be extremely worried about what might happen in this country in relation not only to immigration but to police powers, court powers and so on. There can be no doubt that they will be part of the whole rigmarole of the European Union because Article K.4.2 says:
"The Commission shall be fully associated with the work in the areas referred to in this Title".
It is not inter-governmental co-operation in the sense that we know it, because the intrusive Commission is there and has its role. It is not simply a matter of inter-governmental co-operation. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, mentioned Article K.6. In fact the presidency (no less) and the Commission:
"shall regularly Inform the European Parliament of discussions in the areas covered by this Title".
I do not know that it is normally the policy to inform the European Parliament of what is going on inter-governmentally. It certainly is not necessary. It might be necessary to tell this Parliament, but I do not know about the European Parliament. It seems to me, and I believe to others too, that Title VI, which for the purposes of this treaty is to be left outside the main body of the treaty and arranged on an intergovernmental basis, is the stalking horse for something else in the future. Indeed, this is Community competence by stealth.
I have no doubt that I shall be reassured that it is not so and other Members will be reassured also. They will be told by the Government, "Of course, we have no intention of allowing the Community to agree these matters by qualified majority vote in the future". But the Government have said that before and before very long we find that another treaty comes along which says, "Well, things like Article K etc. will now be decided by qualified majority vote within the treaty". So once again we give away competence, powers and another part of our sovereignty to the institutions of the European Union. That is the way it is done.
I have been speaking on this matter in Parliament since 1972 and outside Parliament since 1963. I know exactly what has been said, what has gone on and how governments of all persuasions have reneged on what they have previously said. I can remember being told by government Ministers in 1972 that there was never any intention to have anything other than a Common Market. That is what was put to the people in 1975, "All we want is a Common Market". We now have the Maastricht Bill. That is far away from the Common Market.
A Common Market does not need Title VI, or any of the K numbers. In fact, we do not need any of the titles in the treaty. I have heard it all before. I have heard the assurances being given that we are not on our way to a federal European state. I do not know about that. What is absolutely certain is that we are already part of a supranational organisation and we are on our way to a centralist supranational state.
Lord Dormand of Easington: A unitary state.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My noble friend is quite right. We are on our way to a supranational unitary state. The word "federal" is meaningless; we are not on our way to a federal state but to a unitary state with a central government. The trappings are already present. The people who man the institutions of the European Community know that. When one reads what is said, one realises that they are honest and open about it.
I hope therefore that the Minister will answer the relevant questions raised tonight, which are causing a great deal of worry. We need to know exactly what we are about before we can agree the treaty and the provisions in the Bill which give effect to it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The Government should keep in mind that the title covering immigration, customs co-operation and so forth is a sensitive part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the noble Lord would permit me to intervene. Title VI is not in the Bill.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps the noble Lord will contain himself for a moment. He too is diffuse at times. I merely wanted to say that there is some confusion about what is voluntary, where we have to arrive at decisions by co-operation arid agreement, and what is laid down in the Bill which must be adhered to, where the decisions as to how we will adhere to it are to be made by some outside body.
All I want to impress upon my noble friend is that, if there is still time to retain the powers that we already possess for dealing with immigration and the other matters, to do so may save a lot of heartache later when, if certain events occur, there may emerge a feeling which could be uncomfortable for the nation as a whole and for the continued co-operation of the Community if it is still in existence.
As one looks at Articles K.1 and K.3 and at K.6, which states that,
"The Presidency and the Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament of discussions",
one must ask what it is supposed to do once it has been informed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps my noble friend will oblige me by saying to which amendment he is speaking, since we are at Committee stage.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am speaking to the group. but Amendment No. 85, to which my noble friend has spoken, is the basis of all our discussions. I merely wish to help my noble friend and the Government by saying that full attention should be given to the dangers that flow from this provision if it appears that we are losing the power to decide who shall come into this countryand the terms upon which they shall come in if they are not nationals. It is not a slight part of the Bill; it is perhaps in many ways the most intimidating part of it and one that will have many repercussions. Therefore it is important that we get it right.
10 p.m.
Baroness Elks: I should like to make three points, the first in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I believe that the whole Chamber appreciates that he has vast knowledge of this subject. His interest and concern quite understandably go back many years. If he will recall the 1972 Act, our joining of the Common Market allowed for the free movement of people. Surely i t is better to have a joint policy on visas where people are moving about within the Community than to have Greece, Spain, Portugal and Germany with separate policies for people whom we would be obliged under the treaty and the Act of 1972 to let into this country without our having had any say in it whatsoever.
Secondly, with regard to the provisions of Article K, it is better to have them out in the open, when all of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Tebbit, will be aware that these matters have been discussed among Ministers of the Community for years. We have never been able to find out what has been discussed. It has been discussed in secret conclave such as the TREVI meetings. Surely in an enlightened democracy it is our duty as well as our role to put questions to Ministers on the basis of reports coming out from meetings under Article K.
Thirdly, I very much welcome the formation of Europol. I do not believe that any noble Lords in this Chamber need to be told that drugs, terrorism and illegal immigration are not confined to one country; they spread right across the Community. Surely it is better on certain major issues to have close co-operation within one system where different police forces of the Community join together and have a sensible exchange of information in order to catch the people who are destroying member states.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may add a little to what I have already said. It emerged clearly from the evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee that there was already great migration pressure, both east-west and north-south; that long land borders were very difficult to control, very porous and very vulnerable; and that several member states did not have effective controls in place. As examples of what was happening, the Committee was told there was no doubt that the relative weakness of frontier control arrangements on the Continent had helped the terrorist attacks by the IRA that took place in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium between 1988 and 1990. In addition, we would continue to need our border checks even for EC nationals because of the growing evidence of forged documentation. At one English port alone in 1991, of those refused entry there were 591 who had forged documents. Of those, 524 held forged EC documents. I make this point in support of the fact that we need to maintain our present policy of staying outside Schengen.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: I would have thought that there was absolutely no doubt that in recent years there had been much discussion as part of European political co-operation in the European Council of the matters that fell under Article K. Conceptually and
690
tidily there is much to be said for bringing it all into the Community pillar rather than having a separate pillar, but that has not been done. What is extremely important is that the provision for co-operation on home and justice affairs which has been considered by your Lordships' Select Committee is accepted as the proper course to take because it will bring a greater degree of accountability and transparency into these matters. Therefore, it seems to me that the idea of having these things in a pillar, with the kind of co-operation that is envisaged, is satisfactory.
I do not want to be thought of as always leaping to the defence of the European Court of Justice—I do not have a brief to that effect—but it seems to be thought that under Article K.3 the European Court is being given jurisdiction to implement the provisions of conventions decided upon by the Council. The Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but I do not read it in that way. As I read Article K.3, what is to happen is that the Council will draw up a convention which it will then recommend to the member states for adoption in accordance with their constitutional requirements. It is only then, if the convention is adopted by the member states, that the Council will decide what are the measures to implement the convention. It is only if the convention, as adopted by the member states, has a clause giving the European Court of Justice jurisdiction that the European Court will have jurisdiction.
I hope that I am not misreading Article K.3, but I read it as meaning that the European Court is to have jurisdiction only if the member states all adopt, according to their own constitutional provisions, the recommendation of the Council. If they do not adopt the convention, there is no convention, and therefore there cannot be any jurisdiction in the European Court. Therefore, for my part, I see no vice in this provision of Article K.3.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend Lord Stoddart is strictly legally correct in referring to citizens of other member states as aliens. But I must warn him that according to my rules the xenophobia prize for the day cannot be awarded to the same person who is going to win the conspiracy theory prize for the day. I do not think—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I took my noble friend's joke earlier on but I am not going to take this one. I am not a xenophobe. He admitted that I was absolutely correct in legal terms. I am not xenophobic —I tell him that absolutely clearly. I very much believe in co-operation among the countries of the world. That is what is meant by "international". What I do not agree with, because I have seen so many disasters arise from them, is supranational states. I believe in international co-operation among sovereign states. I have seen too many enforced federations collapse. That is why I would prefer to go along the confederal route rather than the federal or unitary state route. I hope 'that I have explained myself.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend has explained himself very well. Of course I accept—and I shall withdraw his name from the competition—that

691
he is not a xenophobe. All I would say is that the word "alien" is normally thought to have a pejorative implication. I would say to him on the broader issue that he believes in co-operation among sovereign states that my fear—and the reason why I take the consistent view in favour of the Maastricht Treaty —is that co-operation among sovereign states is not a sufficient guarantee of world peace and prosperity. I say that with very great seriousness.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on the way in which he introduced this group of amendments. He did what has not always been done in the introduction of previous groups of amendments. He considered each amendment in turn. He explained the provisions of the Bill and the treaty and he attempted to answer the arguments. The one thing that he did not say. which is of prime importance I should have thought, is that Amendments Nos. 293 to 303 all add in Title VI to the Bill where it is not at present seeking to take out particular articles of Title III of the Bill.
Therefore, what the argument assumes, and in some cases it has been explicit—that the provisions of Articles K.1, 2, 3, 4 and so on are part of the Bill—is strictly speaking and factually inaccurate. That is wrong. They are not part of the Bill and should not be considered as such.
However, if we allow the matter to be a legitimate debating device—heaven knows, I have taken part in such debates at Committee stages of Bills before—then let us take the debating device seriously and look at what Title VI says. As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, correctly said, it is presaged by Articles 100c and 100d. Article K.1 is predicated on the need for free movement within the Community. We have been moving towards that. I have not heard many Members of the Committee objecting to the idea of free movement within the Community. They have to accept that the extension of that provision within the Community carries with it certain obligations and that is what Article K.1 seeks to provide.
It provides that the following matters shall be matters of common interest—not of direction or of laying down the law from Brussels, as Members of the Committee are disposed to put it, but of common interest. There are the issues of asylum, immigration, combating drug addiction, international fraud, and judicial co-operation in civil and criminal matters. In view of the experiences of the past few weeks I should have thought that few of us, except perhaps the treasurers of the Conservative Party, would not wish for a greater degree of judicial co-operation internationally as regards civil and criminal matters. There are also the issues of customs and police co-operation.
Most significantly, Article K.2 states, in the context of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and that on the status of refugees—and I believe this to be the most important statement of all—that anything in:
"this Title shall not affect the … responsibilities incumbent upon Member Stales with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security".
I put it to the Committee that a considerable part of the debate on this group of amendments has been on
692
the assumption that the K articles in Title VI, even if it were part of the Bill—which it is not—affected the responsibilities incumbent on member states.
It is quite clear from Article K.2.2 that that is not the case. Article K.3 refers almost entirely to issues of co-operation and collaboration. Article K 4, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elks, has reminded us, refers to the role of the co-ordinating committee, which she rightly said was a secret committee in the past and which is now to be given official status and to be subject to interrogation and control. I believe that that is something which we would all wish.
Article K.5 deals with international issues and says that member states should defend their position on these matters. Again, I cannot see any conceivable objection to that. Some Members of the Committee have taken objection to K.6, which refers to the duty of the Council and the Commission to report to the European Parliament. Only those who take the view —which I understand and respect, although I disagree with them—that the European Parliarnent is not a valid body can object to it. Article K.7 says that other forms of co-operation outside the limits of the European Community—in other words co-operation between two or more member states—is perfectly legitimate and acceptable. Article K.8 refers to the division of responsibility for expenditure between the European Community budget and the member states. Article K.9 is perhaps the most important article for those who are concerned with these matters. It requires a unanimous trigger before there is action under Article 100c.
The amendments are not, in the first place, to the Bill itself and, where they are to the Bill, they are to provisions of the Maastricht Treaty which have been well heralded in international co-operation over a number of years. What the Maastricht Treaty would now do would be to legitimise and give increased power to necessary measures of international co-operation. It is my view that the Committee should reject the amendments.
10.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): In discussing this group of amendments, it may be as well to remind ourselves of a fairly elementary fact —that the Maastricht Treaty consists of. in the current jargon, three "pillars". One relates to the Treaty of Rome; one relates to common foreign and security policy; and one relates to interior and justice co-operation. It is only those aspects of the Maastricht Treaty which relate to the Community pillar which need to be in the Bill before the Comrnittee because that pillar is the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Maastricht Treaty and it is the amended Treaty of Rome which requires us to amend our 1972 European Communities Act.
The other two pillars deal with co-operation between governments—co-operation over matters which are outside the Treaty of Rome and which, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rightly said, have nothing to do with the Bill.
In the interior and justice area, there is already a great deal of' co-operation between member states on

693
a variety of different matters—for example, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded us, in police co-operation, in the fight against drugs and in the fight against terrorism, all of which come under the Trevi group.
The object of the interior and justice pillar is to allow this type of co-operation—over a number of different matters—to take place within a common set of procedures. In other words, the interior and justice pillar, like the common foreign and security pillar, is all about common co-operation, not about legal enforcement.
There are a number of amendments which are before the Committee covering these matters. Perhaps I may speak first to Amendment No. 411, in the name of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, which seeks to ensure that the United Kingdom's frontier controls will not be abandoned or restricted without the prior approval of Parliament.
The Government are at one with my noble friend over his wish to maintain frontier checks—including immigration controls—on all non-European Community nationals who are seeking to enter the United Kingdom. We have repeatedly made it clear that we have no intention of changing this. We will, though, continue to facilitate the entry into the United Kingdom of bona fide European Community citizens who wish to come here.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made that clear, when he said in another place:
"We believe that those frontier controls should be maintained, and we believe that the declaration that Mrs. Thatcher obtained in 1985 recognised that fact. We shall fight very fiercely … that that is the position in law". —[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/92; col. 271.]
But the clause which my noble friend seeks to incorporate in the Bill would be quite out of place. I assure my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that we are not losing our powers over immigration. The possession of a visa does not guarantee entry. The Maastricht Treaty does not alter the position regarding internal frontier controls at all, and the Bill will not be strengthened by inserting a provision like this into it.
Various noble Lords have referred to the "Bangemann wave". That would have enabled a Community citizen to pass through passport control showing merely the cover of a passport unless exceptionally he or she was challenged to open it. The United Kingdom considered introducing such a system last year, but decided not to do so.
The remaining amendments in this group refer to Article 100c and the interior and justice pillar of the Maastricht Treaty. I would re-emphasise that the matters covered by the interior and justice pillar are matters for co-operation between governments. They are not matters for Community competence, or for the European Court of Justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was worried about judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The Treaty of Rome has no locus in matters covered by the interior and justice pillars, such as immigration policies or customs and police co-operation. It is up to each member state to make its own decisions on those
694
matters. The important point is that the Maastricht Treaty recognises that member states can develop closer co-operation on matters which are sensitive and important to them, and that they can do that outside the Treaty of Rome. To seek to incorporate parts of the interior and justice pillar into the European Communities Act would create a legal anomaly and it would undermine all our efforts to keep those matters outside the Treaty of Rome.
The European Communities Act is concerned with only the Treaty of Rome. The amendments seek to impose elements of the Maastricht Treaty into the European Communities Act—elements which have been specifically excluded from the Treaty of Rome. The idea of those who do not like the Maastricht Treaty trying to put into the Bill something which the Maastricht Treaty does not even want to put in, really is bizarre and reaches the height of incredulity.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am sure that he is aware that we are in a slightly artificial form of debate. I should indeed be reluctant to load more into the Treaty of Maastricht. It would be helpful if my noble friend were to explain why the Government think that it is inappropriate to have those matters in the Treaty of Rome. What is the Government's case for keeping them separate from that lovely institution of the Treaty of Rome and the Community?
Earl Ferrers: I thought that my noble friend knew the Government's view perfectly well; namely, that there are certain aspects of our lives in the Community which are best co-operated on and co-ordinated and which come within the Treaty of Rome. There are others which are far better carried out outside the Treaty of Rome; but, nevertheless, they are matters over which we can co-operate. Those matters are ones in which we all have a common interest—for example, drugs or the police, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. Of course there is a common interest, but we do not want that regimented by the Treaty of Rome.
The Government also could not accept the proposals to remove Article 100c and its related provisions. The subjects which are within Article 100c are strictly limited areas of activity which have been brought within the competence of the Community. Article 100c merely provides a means for having a common list of countries whose nationals will require a visa to come to a member state of the Community, and it provides for a common format of visa. We think that that is desirable. My noble friend Lord Tebbit is wrong: the treaty is not concerned with the criteria for granting visas or with any rights which may be implied by the granting of a visa, and there is no question of any form of Community competence or involvement over which individuals should, or should not, receive a visa.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit was worried about Australians and New Zealanders requiring visas. It will continue to be entirely a matter for the United Kingdom to decide who should, or who should not, receive a United Kingdom visa. The visa, like the passport, will not be a European visa. It will only be of common European format as regards the shape,

695
size and colour. The entitlement to the grant of a visa will remain the prerogative of each individual member state.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit asked what Article 100d was for. Articles 100c and 100d stand together. Article 100d provides for a committee of senior officials to prepare the work of the Council as it relates to Article 100c. That is the same committee as the one which co-ordinates the work of the interior and justice pillar. It makes sense for the officials who have experience on interior and justice matters to deal also with the work carried out under Article 100c. The list of countries on the common list are only those whose citizens all European Community countries agree should require a visa if they visit any European country. In addition to that, each country can require other nationals to have visas. Each individual of those countries will have to have a visa.
Article 100c does not provide the power for the Community to decide which individuals should or should not receive a visa. Those will all remain matters for national decision.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit referred to paragraph 3 of Article 100c and asked why we should adopt measures relating to a common format for visas. This gives the power to adopt measures specifying the size, makeup, manner of information, languages and so on on the visa. It is only the format of the visa which will be of common European character.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am obliged to the noble Earl for giving way. What he has said takes some understanding. Is he saying that the Community can draw up a list of third countries whose nationals may have a visa but the United Kingdom, and for that matter any other member of the Community, need not take any notice of that list when it comes to deciding who shall be able to enter the country? In other words, although there may be an agreed list of countries, does that mean that each individual country of the EC can add or subtract from that list in accordance with its own desires as to who should or should not be allowed to enter that country?
Earl Ferrers: It can add, but it cannot subtract. I shall try to explain the matter clearly. There will be a list of countries agreed among all the 12 members of the Community whose nationals will require a visa if they wish to enter any Community country. For example, an individual coming from country A, wherever he is going to in the Community, will require a visa. In addition to that, the United Kingdom might say that it wants individuals coming from country X, which is not on the list, to have visas. Therefore, those nationals from that country will require visas. Whether it is a Community list or a United Kingdom list, each individual coming from a country on that list must apply for a visa. Having a visa does not guarantee him entry. I hope that that makes the position clear.
Lord Swinfen: I understand what my noble friend has said as regards an individual wishing to come to this country when this country requires a visa over and above the Community's requirement. But what is the
696
position if an individual enters the Community through a country other than the United Kingdom and then wishes to travel to the United Kingdom from elsewhere within the Community, bearing in mind that there is free movement within the Community? Once into the Community, what checks will there be as that individual moves into the United Kingdom, because I understand that there will be open borders.
Earl Ferrers: The United Kingdom has always made it perfectly clear that it intends to guarantee or look after its own borders. Therefore we intend to check on who is coming into the country. A person coming from the European Community has a right to enter this country. That does not mean that everyone else who comes along who happens to swim in the stream can also enter this country. If a person has a visa to enter this country, over and above the common list of countries which must have a visa, and then goes from our country to another country in the Community, then it is a matter for that country in the Community as to how it operates its own borders.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again but, if such checks are to take place, we cannot tell just by looking at an individual whether he ought to have a visa to come into the country. Will everyone have his documents checked? If not, the system will not work.
Earl Ferrers: There will be a system whereby people will have to have their passports checked. But where there is a common format of a passport, that would allow people to enter quite readily. If a person comes from a country which does not have a common European passport, then of course his documents will be looked at more carefully. Of course, there has to be a distinction between those who have a right to enter and those who do not, but who have a privilege of entry. That is a matter of individual application.
There is a provision in the interior and justice pillar of the Maastricht Treaty in Article K.9 for other subjects to be transferred to Article 100c in the Treaty of Rome pillar. But that is subject to a very important safeguard. I think that I can put my noble friend Lady Park at ease over the matter. A transfer would require two hurdles to be overcome: first, there would have to be unanimity in the Council—in other words, all member states would have to agree to the transfer—and, secondly, there would have to be ratification. in each member state. In the United Kingdom, that would mean an Act of Parliament. Therefore, no such change could be made without the agreement of Parliament. If I may say so, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, was quite correct. to say —as one would expect of him—that only then would the European Court of Justice have any jurisdiction over the matter.
There is a corresponding provision in Article 100c which will safeguard our ability to decide the appropriate voting method should any other subject be transferred from the interior and justice pillar into Article 100c. If that were to happen, we might want unanimity. It is an important safeguard that we should

697
be able to decide the voting rules. It is one that we wish to retain; it requires not qualified majority voting but unanimity.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit referred to Article K.1 and said that he thought that it was a huge extension of matters of "common interest". All matters in Article K.1 involve extensive existing co-operation. All those areas present member states with common problems where it makes sense for them to co-operate. My noble friend also referred to Article K.8.2 and asked whether there was a provision of domestic law which covers the payment of administrative expenses. I am bound to tell him that Article 199 of the Treaty of Rome (as amended by Title II of the Maastricht Treaty) provides for administrative expenditure and, if agreed, operational expenditure under Title VI to be charged to the Community budget. Section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 gives power to pay our share of the Community budget.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked why we needed Title VI. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that it is not actually part of the Bill. The United Kingdom was keen to establish this pillar of inter-governmental co-operation. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also asked why existing forms of co-operation were inadequate. The answer is that where we have common problems in the European Community it makes sense for us to tackle them together. A series of bilateral agreements is in fact less effective and joint ministerial meetings are less useful if they are not served by a secretariat of some kind. It is an inter-governmental pillar. Community mechanisms could only be introduced if the Government so decided by unanimity and if Parliament gave its assent.
The Government do not intend to seek or to encourage any transfers from the interior and justice pillar into the Community competence pillar; indeed, we shall resist them. The interior and justice pillar of the Maastricht Treaty is an important development: it brings countries together; it enables a better means of co-operation to take place, in contrast to the variety of arrangements which exist at present; and it ensures that such matters will continue to be for governments to decide between each other and together with each other. It will not be something which comes under the control of the Treaty of Rome.
The fact that this is so is one of our main successes at Maastricht. In the negotiations leading up to Maastricht a number of our Community partners were anxious to see the interior and justice pillars subsumed into the Treaty of Rome. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister argued vigorously against that and he won the argument. That is why the interior and justice matters are now a separate pillar outside the Treaty of Rome, one in which it is realised that these are matters for individual governments to decide but are so sensitive and important that they need co-operation among governments.
For all those reasons, I suggest that the Bill is best left as it is and should not be amended in the way in which the amendments propose.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for attempting to explain why the Government believe that formal judicial co-operation on criminal matters should be incorporated into the treaty. However, I am afraid that he has not fully answered all our concerns. Given that co-operation on genuine cross-border matters such as customs, terrorism and drugs is already provided for under the provisions of Article K.1—I have no objection to that and think that it is perfectly reasonable—why is there any need to mention judicial co-operation on criminal matters separately unless there is some future intention to extend the scope of judicial co-operation away from customs, terrorism and drugs and on to other criminal matters which may have no genuine cross-border implications?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is misdirected in his views. These matters, which are matters of cooperation, are not incorporated into the treaty. There is no intention of incorporating them into the treaty. If there were any such intention it would have to be the unanimous decision of the Council and then be ratified by Parliament. That is the reason why they are kept outside and we do not wish to see them taken into the treaty.
Lord Tebbit: I thank my noble friend for the way in which he has dealt with these inquiries. Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who is not in the Chamber at this moment, that he should not be so ashamed or afraid of the word "alien". We are all aliens the moment we leave this jurisdiction. If I go to France I am an alien and I do not feel bad about that. Why should we feel bad about making the observation that a citizen of France is an alien when he comes into this country? We are behaving as though aliens in this technical sense are somehow associated with science fiction programmes, have two heads and are green in colour. I believe that the noble Lord made an awful lot of a very small issue.
I share the hope of all Members of the Committee that through these measures the treaty will help us to fight crime. I must say that I should feel more comfortable about that if it had not been signed by Mr. Michelis, the former Foreign Minister of Italy, now under investigation for corruption and for milking funds from development agencies. Perhaps it is not ideal to have his thumb-print on this particular treaty.
Perhaps I may try correctly to encapsulate matters relating to visas, as my noble friend put it. It is clear to me that it will be the Community which decides whether, say, Australian and New Zealand citizens will need visas to enter the United Kingdom. But it is the United Kingdom which will decide which Australians and New Zealanders receive those visas. That is a clear division of powers.
Thirdly, as I understand it, we can decide that citizens of state "X" will need a visa to enter the United Kingdom even if it has not been required that they should have a visa to enter other Community states. I hope that I have understood that correctly, particularly in relation to the latter provision, because if one was looking at this matter without the

699
experience we have of the way in which the Community works and the way it keeps adding to its powers, one would say that that must be nonsense. After all, it would mean that that citizen of state "x" could arrive at Paris by air, enter the Community and wander at will. As my noble friend said, we would have to maintain our frontier arrangements and look at everybody's passport as they come in to make sure the gentleman who did not need a visa to enter the Community had a visa to enter the United Kingdom. I wonder how long that arrangement would last.
I noted what my noble friend said and the reasons for these matters being kept outside the Treaty of Rome. He said, very reasonably, that these are matters which the Government think should be outside the Treaty of Rome; they do not have to be inside the Treaty of Rome, I say, Amen to that. It is also a good argument for education, for example, because there has been no argument as to why the provisions relating to education should come into the Treaty of Rome except that it is thought to be a good idea that they should be in the treaty. It seems to me to be a highly subjective argument, and one which is scarcely an argument but merely a statement of opinion made as though it were fact.
I shall refer for a moment to provision K.9—which, as some wit observed, is a bit of a dog. It leads the way towards qualified majority voting on Articles K.1(1) to (6). That is the effect of Article K.9. On page 86 one finds that the provision states:
"may decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the European Community to action in areas referred to in Articles K.1(1) to (6), and at the same time determine the relevant voting conditions relating to it".
I know that it would be necessary for us to agree to that for it to happen, and I know that my noble friends on the Front Bench will say that once again I am afraid of shadows. However, I recollect the words of my noble friend Lord Cockfield in the Second Reading debate—or it may have been during the debate on citizenship—when he observed that we should have known that the words in the Treaty of Rome referring to an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe actually meant that sooner or later there would be a provision for citizenship of the Union. One does not have to stretch that provision very far to wonder how long it will be before all this is adopted into the mainstream of the Treaty of Rome.
I would not want to give my noble friends nightmares, but perhaps I may for a moment engage in a degree of political fantasy. Suppose that after the next general election there were to be a Liberal Democrat government. Indeed, there are fantasy merchants on the other side of the Chamber, and I am glad to see them there. Suppose they decided to trigger those provisions. Could we ever undo them? Or, in putting these provisions into this Bill and saying that the Trevi co-operation is not good enough and attaching them in this way to the institutions of the Treaty of Rome, have we provided a ratchet mechanism for a future government to pull on that ratchet?
I have always believed that it is a fundamental error to provide enabling powers for another administration to do that which one does not wish to be done.
700
But, of course, in terms of British domestic legislation until the Treaty of Rome one could always undo what had been done. It would not be easy to undo what might be done under these provisions in future. I give way.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrets: I thought that my noble friend had come to the end of what he was saying. If I may say so, he is looking at shadows and picking up stones and hunting for slugs underneath them. My noble friend was concerned that this was a move towards qualified majority voting. If he will read Article K.9 it states:
"The Council, acting unanimously on the initiative — may decide to apply"
—we all have to agree—
"and may at the same time determine the relevant voting conditions".
The Council has to agree unanimously about the voting conditions; and we would want those voting conditions to be unanimous. If others do not wish that, then, of course, it will not cone into operation. Therefore there is no question that this would be done by qualified majority voting because the requirement is that it should be done unanimously.
Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend. He was worried about putting obligations on to future generations. Any law that is passed by Parliament always binds its successors unless Parliament decides to unscramble it. The same applies here. If, unanimously, the Council of Ministers after ratification by members states agrees that certain conditions, shall come within the Treaty of Rome, of course they will be binding on our successors unless our successors unanimously agree to remove them; and that would require agreement by Parliament and ratification of the decision too. I do not see that that differs from the present position.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Perhaps I may—
Lord Tebbit: I shall gladly give way to the noble Lord in a moment. Perhaps I may take up what my noble friend says. He states, "if we agree". I very much pray that he is right and that we shall have eternal Conservative government. But I do not believe that he is necessarily speaking for a future Government Front Bench if there were to be a change of government. He has explained to us that the other member states were extremely anxious to get these provisions into the main body of the Treaty of Rome. It was only the gallant fight of our own Government, against odds of 11 to one, which prevented it from happening. It sounds as though it would only require this one Government—that is, the Government of the United Kingdom—to change their mind once and we should be stuck with it until we had the unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers to undo it or until we repudiated the whole of the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Like any other provision.
Lord Tebbit: From the noises that he emits, I believe that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham will suggest that there is some other path. I welcome his sedentary observations as much as I

701
welcome that new innovation today of ambulant interjections. However, I think I am right. That is why I believe that we have some difficulties with this legislation.
In conclusion, I would find it much easier to take in good faith all that my noble friend has said but for the fact that over the past 20 years I have seen the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act in operation. It just depends how often one wants to burn one's fingers, does it not?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I wish to remind the noble Earl, under pressure from his noble friend Lord Tebbit, that in picking up stones and finding slugs underneath, he ought to remember that so far we are on his side in the argument.
Lord Tebbit: I rather wish I had not allowed that intervention, I thought I was receiving support there! I cannot say that I regard my noble friend's answer on these matters as totally satisfactory, but I recognise that he is unable to give more satisfactory answers because he is unable to accept any of the arguments which were put forward in the course of the debate because of the nature of the treaty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 94 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 101 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 103 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 105 to 108 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 110 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 112 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 116 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 117 to 120 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 124 to 127 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 128:
Page 1. line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 109g").
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has been kind enough to write to me in response to the worries I started to express the other day about Article 109g, which has to do with the currency composition of the ecu. The noble Earl's
702
reply managed to satisfy between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of my anxieties, which, at this time of night, is good enough for me. Therefore, I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 129 to 133 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 134 to 139 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 140 to 143 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 144 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 145 to 150 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 151 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 152 to 163 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 164 to 166 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 167 to 173 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 174 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
[Amendments Nos. 175 to 177 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 178 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 179 to 189 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 190 to 197 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except the following words in paragraph 1 of Article 146: "authorized to commit the government of that Member State"").
The noble Lord said: I rise briefly to propose Amendment No. 197A, which is in my name. At this stage it is a probing amendment. It refers to Article 146 of the Treaty on European Union, which is a new article, the first sentence of which says that the Council shall,
"consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the Government of that Member State".
The amendment would remove the second part of that sentence; in other words it would still allow each member state to send one of its government Ministers to represent it on the Council, but it would not allow that Minister to commit his member state single-handed, as would appear to be the case from the wording of the treaty as it stands.
At first sight, it would appear that this wording must be some kind of mistake. It would not appear possible that it means what it seems to mean. After all, presumably Council meetings will take place, the outcome of which has not been entirely decided by civil servants in advance. Presumably discussion will take place, the outcome of which is not entirely clear. One dares to hope that that discussion may be held by real people, talking about real and live issues, and that it may on occasion lead to the Ministers in question having a new understanding of the subject under consideration. Indeed, if our Government's pretension to get into the so-called heart of Europe and fight to improve things there means anything at all, it presumably means that they can win arguments in the Council of Ministers. But can it be right in those circumstances that those Ministers can commit their

703
governments without referring back to them? That seems to me to be a recipe for muddle and disaster; yet that is what the treaty appears to say will happen.
This is an important new clause because it goes on to deal with the length of the time that the office of president will be held and the cycles by which the presidency will be held. The sentence, the meaning of which I query, comes right at the top of the new clause, so presumably it is more important than such lesser matters as Buggins' turn for the presidency of the Council, and so on. I can only imagine, therefore, that it does not mean what it says it means, like —let us pray—so much of the ill-drafted treaty before us. In that somewhat forlorn hope, I shall be most interested to hear my noble friend's interpretation of the sentence in question. I beg to move.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene at this stage. It is a rather unusual step; I try to listen to everybody's arguments. Amendment No. 197A, moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, focuses on the only change introduced by the Maastricht Treaty into Article 146.
At present, the article provides that the Council shall consist of delegated representatives of member states. As amended, it specifies that such representatives shall be at ministerial level authorised to commit the government of that member state.
it has always been the case that member states' representatives at Council meetings were expected to be able to commit their governments. We know in advance the business that is to be undertaken. We have certain briefing to cover the eventualities. If, as has happened to me and to many other Ministers, an eventuality occurs that has not been foreseen, there are such things as telephones back to London. I can remember many telephone calls at different times when I wanted further advice and further information —but all possible within the sensible running of a Council of Ministers' meeting.
The matter has been made explicit in this treaty in Article 146.1 because certain member states wanted to send regional representatives to Council meetings. In order to ensure that the Council could continue to function properly, we had to make it clear that such representatives would have the authority to commit their national governments. Thus the change, while it may apply to some member states, certainly does not affect the United Kingdom's position.
I can tell my noble friend, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Moran, several nights ago, that Ministers from Scotland and Wales already attend certain councils by arrangement with the UK Minister concerned when specifically Scottish or Welsh topics are to be discussed. I remember that my honourable friend from another place, the Scottish Office Minister Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, formed part of our UK delegation to the Council of Education Ministers in November last year. This is something which we have taken in our stride where our Minister has been fully briefed by his fellow Ministers, and therefore this is no problem and no change for us. In that spirit—my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch said this was a probing amendment—I thought that it might be
704
helpful to the Committee to have this answer at an early stage. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Jay: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask whether she can reconfirm the assurance that has often been given in this matter that any British Minister operating in the Council of the Community is just as responsible and accountable to the British Parliament for what he or she does and says there, whether committing the Government or not, as he or she is anywhere else in the world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I am happy to confirm that. Whether one is speaking in the United Nations, or the European Council of Ministers, in a NATO meeting or in any other body of which we are a member, that Minister goes to speak with the brief of the Government. Woe betide any Minister who ever tried to stray from it.
Lord Tebbit: I do not know whether or not it will encourage my noble friend, hut I believe that I can give her some support on these matters. It was a matter of extreme irritation for me at times, when I was in the Council, that Ministers from other member states would proceed in the negotiations all day long until one thought that one had an agreement, and would then suddenly say that they were terribly sorry but they could not give their country's consent to a matter because it had gone outside their negotiating remit. It was the usual story: that the smallest party in the coalition was not entirely happy about it, and so on. So they tended to get an advantage by claiming that they were not able to make a decision. l think that this provision is helpful.
But the one thing that would worry me a little—again recollecting my own experience—is that on many occasions towards the end of the day, as the less important items are dealt with, Ministers head away and leave officials in charge. Does that allow officials to speak for Ministers with the authority of Ministers? It would be a great pity if that flexibility were to be lost.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: It is my experience of council meetings over 14 years in four different councils that there are times when perhaps a vote in this Parliament would take precedence over remaining in Brussels until an ungodly hour, when one would not need to stay except for the length of some of the contributions of people who are not in one's own Government. On such occasions I have made absolutely sure that the permanent representative had my brief, used it and did not stray from it. Indeed, any representative at a council meeting must be in a position to commit his own Government. That has always been the case, even when it has had to be a permanent representative rather than a Minister, because of the duties of this Chamber or another place, which must take precedence.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As someone who has been a territorial Minister at the Council of Ministers, I agree with my noble friend Lord Tebbit that it is very irritating when other countries' representatives have

705
to 'phone back and we have to wait for decisions. But it is very important in this respect that this addition has been made at this stage because it clears up the matter. I for one know very well that we are responsible to this Parliament. Any territorial Minister in the United Kingdom would be responsible to this Parliament. It dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's" so far as concerns other countries.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble friend for her clarification of the procedure. I cannot say that the discussion has enamoured the organisation in question to myself and possibly other
706
Members of the Committee. But at this stage of the evening, I should be very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 199 to 203 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  REPROCESSED PLUTONIUM: WEAPONS USE
  REPROCESSED PLUTONIUM: WEAPONS USE
  THE MONROE DOCTRINE:
  THE MONROE DOCTRINE:
  CORPORATE JETS LTD: PROPOSED SALE BY BAe
  CORPORATE JETS LTD: PROPOSED SALE BY BAe
  ICE CREAM: WEIGHT LABELLING PROPOSED
  ICE CREAM: WEIGHT LABELLING PROPOSED
  SINGLE PARENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES
  SINGLE PARENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES
  PERFORMANCE PAY IN THE. PUBLIC SECTOR
  PERFORMANCE PAY IN THE. PUBLIC SECTOR
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 24th ANI) 25th JUNE
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 24th ANI) 25th JUNE