Sitting of 30 June 1993

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

    Ozone Depletion
    Mr. Fabricant:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet his EC colleagues to discuss measures to reduce the release of chlorofluoro-carbons and other gases causing depletion of the ozone layer; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Measures to protect the ozone layer were discussed at the Council of European Environment Ministers earlier this week. I hope that we shall agree a new European regulation on ozone-depleting substances in the autumn.
    Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and take this opportunity to welcome him to the Dispatch Box. He has made a seamless transition from agriculture to the environment. I should like to press him on the issue. Is there not more that we can do, especially in terms of recycling substances which are destroying the ozone layer?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. We are doing a great deal to encourage recycling. We have made the venting of waste chlorofluorocarbons illegal; we have allocated supplementary credit approvals to local authorities for investment in recycling facilities for 1993–94; and we have given special priority to schemes to help in that direction. As these substances exist, it is important to ensure that they are used usefully, but that, in future, they are not manufactured.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: May I associate the Opposition Benches with the welcome to the new Secretary of State for the Environment? He may be assured of the greatest collaboration from this side in every initiative that supports good environmental practice and sustainability. In the light of allegations about a firm in Leeds, will he make it clear that anybody who discharges into the atmosphere materials such as chlorofluoromethane is liable to be prosecuted under sections 33 and 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990? Can it be made clear that prosecutions will take place as the law permits, and is the Secretary of State quite clear that, under his administration in the Department, there will be no mild response if people flagrantly break the law, but that he will make sure that that Act is enforced in the way that was intended?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the part of his question that was helpful. I do not want to refer to the case about which he spoke in the second part of his question, because that would obviously be improper. In general, I take a strong view about the need for this generation not to destroy the next generation. Therefore, the kind of activities to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be dealt with using the full rigour of the law.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend take time to look at a report published in a national newspaper last week which casts grave doubts on the idea that locally produced, that is to say, earthbound-produced, chemicals have any effect at all on the ozone layer? The article said that the coming and going of holes in the ozone layer was a natural phenomenon. Before we begin to destroy the important refrigeration industry by banning one of its essential chemicals, we should take grave note of that report.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend and I have often sparred on matters not dissimilar to this one. I advise my hon. Friend not to base her arguments on a selective number of reports. It must be accepted that the dangers to the ozone layer are now pretty well attested. Even if the attestation were less, the dangers of getting this wrong for the next generation are so great that it is proper for us to take very tough measures. The fact that we are taking such measures in concert with our European partners and with other partners throughout the world enables us to ensure that our important refrigeration industry is able to compete on level terms with that industry in other countries. After all, there are alternatives for the refrigeration industry in most cases and they are now being put into place.
    Ms Short: May I join in welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new job? May I also welcome what he said about taking precautions for the next generation and say how genuinely sad I am that he has made a very bad start in that job? The previous Secretary of State promised that the United Kingdom would take the lead on tighter European Community regulation on ozone depletion. Is it not the case that we made no progress at the recent meeting because of the big row about carbon energy tax? Eleven countries in Europe want to make progress; the United Kingdom says no. Therefore, Europe cannot sign the climate convention and Britain is holding back progress on such issues for the whole of Europe. That is the start that the right hon. Gentleman has made in his job.
    Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. In our meeting over lunch on the subject of which she speaks, we ended up moving from 11 to I against the United Kingdom, to 10 to 2 in favour, because every other member, bar two, felt that the Danish proposition did nothing to help prevent climate change. We felt that we ought to work at those things together. She will find—especially if she gives me her help—no one more concerned to protect the next generation than I am. I hope that she will not start our negotiations and discussions by making party-political points when there is no basis for them.
    Mr. Salmond: May I join in welcoming the Minister to his new post? He will understand, however, in the light of his unfortunate radio interview, that many of us will be looking for some sign that he is now fully in command of the subject as regards the ozone layer. Can he tell us why

    951
    dry cleaning businesses in this country are not being offered any special assistance to convert machinery away from ozone-damaging processes, in accordance with the Montreal protocol, when my understanding is that assistance is available elsewhere in the European Community? When will the Minister consider assistance for dry cleaning businesses in this country?
    Mr. Gummer: I would not have expected an unremitting welcome from the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have fought long battles because I am in favour of sea fish conservation and he opposes it, for many narrow-minded, short-term reasons, so he has to find some comment of that sort.
    Britain's dry cleaning industry is as close to my heart as it is to the hon. Gentleman's and I recognise its difficulties. I am happy to consider whether other people benefit from things from which our dry cleaning industry does not, but it is not unreasonable to ask industry to meet requirements that are necessary for the protection of the future of this nation and the rest of the world. Businesses ought to meet those requirements and, in general, are doing so. They have been given time to do so and I hope that no one will take the hon. Gentleman's comments as an excuse for not proceeding as fast as possible.

    Council Tax
    Dr. Howells:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of local authorities to discuss the implementation of the council tax.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) discussed the council tax with representatives of local authorities in England in September 1992. My Department has continued to work closely with local authorities on all aspects of council tax implementation.
    Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that many thousands of householders throughout England and Wales believe that their homes have been placed in the wrong council tax band, and that they are still waiting for their cases to be heard? Can he tell the House what measures he is taking to speed up the hearing of those cases so that those householders may find some peace of mind? That will help revenue collection in hard-pressed local authorities.
    Mr. Baldry: Less than 3 per cent. of bandings have been appealed against and it is intended that the vast majority will be dealt with as speedily and effectively as possible. We anticipate that the vast majority of appeals will be dealt with during next year and many will be dealt with much sooner.
    Mr. Milligan: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that there has been a great welcome for the introduction of the council tax? In my constituency, in the first week, half the telephone calls to the local council came from people who wanted to know why their bill was so low, because they did not appreciate the generosity of transitional relief. Does he also agree that many people have been misled by Labour party-political broadcasts, which claim that council tax under Labour councils is £16 lower on average than under Conservative councils? Can he confirm that that is
    952
    extremely misleading? If one compares like with like for homes in the same band, the tax is much less under Conservative councils.
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes some extremely good points. Six out of 10 people will pay less under the council tax than they did under the community charge. Band for band, Conservative councils cost less and deliver better services. Of course, it is absurd to compare average bill with average bill when the average band in a Labour area is band A and in a Conservative area it is band D. If we simply take the average band in a Conservative area, the tax is £107 less than the Labour equivalent.
    Mr. Straw: Why does not the Minister wake up to the fact that the electors believed us on the council tax, not the Tories, which is why the Tory party was annihilated at the county elections and we had spectacular successes?
    While the Minister is singing the praises of the poll tax, is he aware that his Secretary of State, when he was Minister for the poll tax, screeched around the country damning any idea of a property tax based on capital values, such as the council tax? The right hon. Gentleman even claimed that the poll tax was the
    "clearest and fairest local tax ever"
    and that it was, "a morally superior alternative" to a property-based tax.
    Has the Secretary of State yet told the Minister whether he still holds such crackpot views, or does the Minister think that his right hon. Friend's desire to stay in office has got the better of his moral superiority?
    Mr. Baldry: Electors should be very wary of listening to any estimates from the Labour party on anything to do with local tax. For example, Labour-controlled Birmingham city council said that the introduction of the council tax and this year's settlement would result in 3,000 redundancies. It then revised that figure to 1,000. In the event, it increased its full-time payroll by 2·3 per cent. So much for Labour estimates.
    Mr. James Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main question was about implementation? I must say that, from my postbag, there appears to have been a very smooth transition from the community charge to the council tax. Does my hon. Friend further agree that if people have any complaints about banding, they should write to their Member of Parliament as soon as possible? The implementation has been so smooth that I believe that the council tax is one of the best policies that the Government have introduced recently.
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. As I said, only 3 per cent. of bandings have been appealed against. That is a sign that the vast majority of people accept that their bandings are fair and reasonable. As I also said, six out of 10 people pay less under the council tax than they did under the community charge. We must also take into account council tax benefit, transitional relief and discounts—all of which further reduce the bills that people have to pay.

    Water Disconnections
    Mr. Jamieson:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest information on the numbers of domestic households being disconnected from their water supply in order to recover debt.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Tim Yeo): In total, 18,636 domestic customers had their water supply disconnected in 1992–93 for non-payment of their bills.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency of Devonport and in the region covered by South West Water, water charges are rising more rapidly than anywhere else in the country? That will inevitably lead to more and more people falling behind with their bills and they will then face disconnection. Does he accept that access to clean water is a basic fundamental human right which is essential to health and life? Will he introduce measures to outlaw disconnections and ensure that water companies use more acceptable means to collect their charges?
    Mr. Yeo: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are doing everything that they can to ensure that price rises are kept to a minimum. The fact is that rates of disconnection in the south-west are barely half the national average. Whatever else may be the cause, it is clear that rates of disconnection are nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman's concern about prices.
    Disconnection must remain as a necessary last resort—a sanction on those who will not pay. It is not designed to dispossess those who cannot pay. In fact, over half of all households that are disconnected have their supply reconnected within 48 hours. No one who is seeking help from the Department of Social Security will be disconnected until his case has been investigated.
    Prohibiting disconnections would burden those customers who pay their bills, in order to help those who refuse to pay theirs. That is a policy which characterises the Labour party and it explains why it remains out of office.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that water disconnections last year were substantially down on the year before—by between 10 and 12 per cent.—and that a great many hoops have to be gone through before anybody can possibly be disconnected?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right; disconnections are down and so are court actions. She is also right that there are considerable obstacles to water companies disconnecting customers. They have to go through an elaborate legal process, and disconnection takes place only when all other routes have been exhausted. The overwhelming evidence is that it catches only those who have refused to pay and not those who are unable to pay.
    Mr. Chris Smith: May I first welcome the Minister to his new post? Does he agree that it is an outrage that every week 360 families in Britain have their water supply disconnected, while we heard only this morning that the chairman of North West Water received a salary increase last year of 43 per cent., bringing his salary to £238,000 a year? When will we end the barbaric practice of cutting off people's water supply, which is essential to their life and health, simply to recover a debt? Why do we not follow the example of other countries, including Scotland, I am pleased to say, and outlaw that practice?
    Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. In the case of North West Water, I have seen a letter from his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to the Prime Minister today about the pay of
    954
    the chairman of North West Water. Disconnections in the north-west are even lower than they are in the south-west; they are running at about a quarter of the level that prevails across the country. It is absolutely typical of the Labour party to make no mention of the huge increase in the investment programme of the water industry since privatisation—a £30 billion programme through the decade. The water companies invest £8,000 every minute of every day. The Labour party can think only about the politics of envy and their concern about salaries.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend accept that there ought to be a happy medium between the idiocy of free water advocated by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devenport (Mr. Jamieson) and the level of water charges in the south-west? Does he accept that while it is not the Government's fault that the European bathing water directive has brought about extremely high water charges in the south-west, ultimately only the Government can deliver a solution? While I do not suggest that we should have free water, as the hon. Member for Devonport did, will my hon. Friend at least take on board that there is a problem in the west country which has to be addressed?
    Mr. Yeo: Yes. I am grateful at last to have an intervention from my hon. Friend, who approaches the subject in a more rational light. Of course we cannot have free water; however, we entirely share his concern about the rate of price increases in the south-west and we are examining every possible option to find ways to restrain those price increases. I can assure him that, in complying with the European Community directives, we will make sure that we move no further or faster than we are absolutely required to do by law, and if there are any other ways of bringing those price increases under control and slowing them down, we are ready to discuss them with my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends from that region.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Nigel Jones:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in support of the Local Government Commission's report, "The Future Local Government of Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset".
    The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): At this stage of the review, representations are to be made to the Local Government Commission and not to me.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that his proposals have gone down like a lead balloon and that the commissioners have been lucky to escape alive from public consultation meetings? Will he change the guidelines to commission and explain why he is prepared to spend large amounts of money on the review at the same time as cutting spending on front-line services such as education and police?
    Mr. Curry: I have received representations from all over the House. Some of the recommendations have been well received—for instance in Avon, Humberside and Cleveland—and some have not been well received. However, we are only at stage 1 in a long process of consultation. The commission has to bring forward revised recommendations, the Government have to judge them and the House of Commons has to accept them.

    955
    People have plenty of opportunity to make clear their views. To write off the thing now would be silly and it certainly would not be the views of the Liberal councillors whom I met at the Association of District Councils meeting in Bournemouth.
    Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 2153, signed by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), which suggests that we should stop the local government review and retain both county and district councils? Does my hon. Friend accept that everybody in Gloucestershire wants unitary authorities, for their increased efficiency and the savings that they will make, and that that opinion is shared by the county council and the district council—everybody in the county except the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Curry: We should have to reflect hard before we decided that we were simply going to call the review off, as the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion says. It would be a wrong decision and it would be difficult to explain why in certain authorities, such as Cleveland and Avon, people were to have the opportunity of successor unitary authorities, but in other parts of the country that may have similar characteristics, that was not to be available. The sensible thing is to consider the review and how we should take it forward to ensure that it reflects local opinions and the need to deliver local services effectively, rather than to spend too much time on the competing territorial ambitions of councillors.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that the Labour party conference and the national executive have long and consistently supported the principle of unitary authorities and of the commission to examine those proposals? I therefore welcome what he has said. Does the Minister understand, however, that there is widespread anxiety about the commission's interpretation of its guidance, especially on the issues of cost and of community identity?
    Does the Minister share the Labour party's view that the commission's current policy for local elections to be held once every four years only, in place of annual elections in most places, would be a disaster for local democracy and would greatly reduce the accountability of councils to their local electorates?
    Mr. Curry: The Government have no religious views on how elections are to take place in successor organisations and we shall be willing to listen to representations on how that would make councils more accountable and effective.
    The hon. Gentleman's comments on unitary councils reflect the opinion of many people. It is important that people have the opportunity to express what sort of councils they want. In all the debate about the review, we should not lose sight of the fact that the essential purpose is the delivery of services to people. If there is an overwhelming feeling that the review needs to be looked at to see how it can be taken forward, the Government are open to that. Sir John Banham has made similar comments. We do not want to lose sight of the fact that the review is about the delivery of services to people, and how best that can be done in an efficient way that reflects the opinions, feelings and identities of people.
    Mr. Butcher: May I ask my hon. Friend to grasp Sir John Banham warmly by the throat and to ask him not to tinker with history and our heritage? He will be cheered to the echo if he gets rid of the aberration of Avon and
    956
    restores the traditional county boundaries for all purposes other than local government, but if he carries on inventing history, or reinventing history, by, for example, creating an East Riding of Yorkshire that bears no resemblance to the original, those proposals will be as hated as the current counties of Humberside and Avon are.
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the essential purposes of the review is to have regard to where people feel they belong and their identities. I know that there is a great anxiety over certain reunification movements. My hon. Friend will know that West Craven, in Yorkshire, has been put into Lancashire for reasons that—speaking as a Yorkshire Member—are always incomprehensible, but there is a move to return it to Yorkshire. It is up to people to express what they want from the review. It is at an early stage. The final recommendations must reflect local opinion and prove that they have done so. The Government have the discretion to accept the recommendations, to send them back to the commission or to make modifications within its spirit. There is a lot of work to be done. I listen carefully to what my hon. Friend and other hon. Members say about the feelings expressed by their constituents.

    Dioxin
    Mr. Skinner:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now meet a deputation of representatives from North Derbyshire to discuss dioxin and other related environmental matters.
    Mr. Yeo: A meeting is proposed for 5 July between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and elected members and officers of Derbyshire county council and district councils specifically to discuss dioxins in Derbyshire.
    Mr. Skinner: I call on the Secretary of State for the Environment to meet the representatives and not just Her Majesty's inspectorate. Two years ago, dioxin was discovered in the milk in Bolsover. It was then found in the beef cattle and then in the soil. It has now been found in the next door constituency of Derbyshire, North-East. I call on the Minister to understand that we have a right to have meetings and a public inquiry. If dioxin was discovered in the pond that belongs to the Secretary of State for the Environment, there would be health inspectors and public inquiries until the cows come home.
    Mr. Yeo: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is in characteristically courteous form. The report on the subject and all the relevant information will be published as soon as possible after a decision has been taken on whether to prosecute Coalite. Meanwhile, the Coalite incinerator has been closed for modification. Before it can restart operations, it will have to meet stringent standards. The House will also want to know that the Government's commitment to controlling dioxin emissions was demonstrated yesterday by our agreement in the Council of Ministers to the directive on the incineration of hazardous waste, which sets very demanding limits. Bearing all that in mind, no purpose would be served by holding a meeting at this stage.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to alter the help available to people living alone under the council tax.
    Mr. Baldry: People living alone are entitled to a 25 per cent. council tax discount. Many will also receive relief to ease the transition from the community charge. Households on low incomes qualify for benefit to offset part or all of their council tax liability.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful reply. Can he confirm that when the Local Government Finance Act 1992 was passing through the House, Opposition Members voted against the principle of a discount for those who live alone? Will he further note that many single-person households comprise pensioners? Given the Opposition's alleged concern for pensioners, does he agree that voting against a discount means voting against pensioners' interests?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party made it clear in Committee that it objected in principle to the discount system. Labour Members made it clear that an incoming Labour Government would do away with the discount. Anyone who has a discount for being a single person, whether a pensioner or not, knows that if the Labour party had its way, discounts would be scrapped.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that despite what he has said, many elderly pensioners living alone are angry about the situation in which they find themselves? They were told that they would benefit most when rates were abolished, but they paid a lot more under the poll tax. Many of them are now paying even more under the council tax than they were under the poll tax. Will the Government consider introducing a banding lower than band A which would help many single people living alone and others who live in areas where there are many band A properties? In 57 local authorities, more than 50 per cent. of the properties are in band A.
    Mr. Baldry: Pensioners must think it a bit rich for a party that did not want to have discounts at all to now act as the pensioners' friend.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken by his Department since April 1992 specifically to assist the United Kingdom construction industry.
    Mr. Gummer: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply on 27 January, Official Report, columns 762–63. Since then, the Government have introduced measures in the Budget to help the industry and my Department has undertaken a range of supporting activities including a review of sponsorship, three successful overseas trade missions, new consultative arrangements, an increased commitment to collaborative research and guidance on the involvement of private finance.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 500,000 people have lost their jobs in the construction industry during the recession, that housing starts are 46 per cent. down since 1988 and that
    958
    commercial output is down by 35 per cent. since 1990? Does my right hon. Friend agree with the House-Builders Federation, with the Building Employers Confederation, with the Federation of Master Builders and with the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance which urge the Government further to reduce interest rates modestly, to abolish stamp duty, to increase expenditure on the repair and refurbishment of public building and housing stock and to ensure that those measures are introduced by our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn Budget?
    Mr. Gummer: I will ensure that my hon. Friend's recommendations for the Budget are passed on to our right hon. and learned Friend. I agree that the construction industry has gone through a difficult time during the recession. It would be wrong of us to underestimate the degree to which that has harmed businesses. There is no doubt, however, that things are a little better. Total construction orders for the first quarter of 1993 are 22 per cent. higher than in the previous three months. Public works new orders are up 43 per cent. on this time last year. Public housing and housing association orders are up by 26 per cent. There is no doubt that the situation is improving after a very difficult time. What is important is that our right hon. and learned Friend should not take measures that would make even more difficult our exit from the recession. To burden us with greater debt would do that. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not seek to press our right hon. and learned Friend to move in that direction.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that only a few weeks ago the Employment Select Committee conducted an inquiry and that the chairman of Blue Circle Cement appeared before it? We were told about the crisis and the job losses in the cement industry, due to the fact that electricity costs had increased by 40 per cent., with the result that the company is closing down many of its establishments and is now importing cheap cement from countries such as Greece. What does the Minister intend to do about high energy costs that are affecting the construction industry?
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I think that he must accept the fact that the cost of energy is something which all industries have to bear. Energy costs are particularly difficult in the cement industry because of the very high degree to which its costs are affected by electricity prices. However, these are not costs which can be passed on to others. It is a natural part of the cost of cement production. What is really difficult for the cement industry is the fall in orders because of the recession. What is therefore most important for the industry is that the Government continue with their economic policy and get us out of the recession much more quickly than any of our competitors.
    Mr. Budgen: Ought not the construction industry and my right hon. Friend salute with gratitude Mr. George Soros and all those who saved the British economy on 16 September and gave us a new economic policy, lower interest rates and the construction industry the chance once again to play its important role?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not sure which people we should salute, but we should have saluted the exchange rate

    959
    mechanism which enabled us to bring down our interest rates in the way that we did. We began to come out of the recession before we moved out of the ERM. My hon. Friend's thanks should range more widely.
    Mr. Battle: The Secretary of State claims that, in his words, things are a little better. Is he not aware of yesterday's reports from the United Kingdom's largest housebuilders which show that the pace of recovery in the housing market has slowed down in the last four weeks, which is precisely the length of time that the Secretary of State has been in his new post? Is not the reality, as the Building Employers Confederation spelt out today, that the construction industry is one of the hardest hit industries in this Government-induced recession? Output was down by 14 per cent. between 1990 and 1992 and it is still on a downward trend. The number of new housing starts has fallen by 46 per cent. since 1988. Repairs, maintenance and improvement work is 18 per cent. lower than it was in 1989. Why does the Secretary of State for the Environment not take some responsibility for it? Why does he not use the recently published English house condition survey as a charter for renovation and repair and tackle the problem of the 1·5 million homes that are now revealed to be unfit? Why does he not re-employ the 500,000 building workers who are on the dole and ensure that sufficient homes are provided for all those who need them?
    Mr. Gummer: If I may take the House back to the hon. Gentleman's first sentence, his early seminary training will remind him that that piece of logic does not stand up. One cannot take four weeks and think that that will lead to any understanding of what is actually happening. In the three months to April, housing starts and completions rose by 20 and 14 per cent. respectively. That is a sensible measure and one which the hon. Gentleman would normally take.I am sure that if he were judging the circumstances of a local or national Government run by Labour, he would take that kind of measure.
    If we talk sensible measurements, the fact is that we are slowly but surely emerging from the recession. We shall get better. However, I am unlikely to have had the particular effect that the hon. Gentleman suggests I have over the past four weeks. He offers me the kind of power that would lead me to take credit for the good weather and that would obviously also be wrong.

    Local Government, Cleveland
    Mr. Mandelson:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the Local Government Commission's proposals for Cleveland.
    Mr. Curry: I am required to take a view on the final proposals which will follow further consultation of local opinion by the commission.
    Mr. Mandelson: Does the Minister agree that the Local Government Commission, far from being the political fix that some people have described it, carried out its work in Cleveland in a fair, rigorous and conscientious way? However, is the Minister aware of the disgraceful scaremongering and climate of intimidation which has been created by some people who are opposed to the commission's proposals? Will he take it from me that the majority of people in Cleveland want four unitary, local-based councils and that nothing else will do?
    Mr. Curry: We have had some extremely disturbing reports about intimidation by certain people, including the Labour-controlled Cleveland council which is fighting desperately for its survival. We have heard elsewhere of meetings being packed by local authority employees. Of course they have their voice and a right to express their opinions. However, so has everyone else and it is opinion as a whole which counts. If opinion as a whole wants the change in Cleveland as in Avon and in Humberside—and we all know that those councils perhaps never quite attached themselves to the affections of people in the way that some historical councils did—and if people continue to make their representations, they will get those changes.
    Mr. Bates: Is my hon. Friend aware that Cleveland county council's campaign of lies and disinformation, which has been deliberately designed to spread fear and anxiety among the council employees and among the public they are there to serve, has been condemned this afternoon on both sides of the House? Will he therefore give an undertaking that those responsible for the scurrilous campaign to save their own skins at the taxpayers' expense will receive the fullest possible scrutiny of the Department of the Environment and the district auditor?
    Mr. Curry: I wish to make it absolutely clear that the kind of activity that has been reported is clearly wholly unacceptable. Whether or not people like the proposals by the Local Government Commission, the commission is free of party political colour. It would be entirely wrong if we were to introduce any note of party politics into the way in which the commission goes about its work, no matter what opinions we may form about its conclusions. Therefore, if people are going to try to gerrymander local opinion and give a false impression, it is clear that we will know about that and form our conclusions about what we believe to be genuine objective local opinion on the ground of all people and not necessarily those who are councillors, who work for the council or who have a special interest.

    Urban Regeneration
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has to assist the regeneration of urban areas.
    Mr. Godsiff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current urban policy.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his urban policies.
    The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): The Government will continue to support the regeneration of cities through their main programmes and through special measures. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) welcomes the impact in his and other urban areas of measures such as city challenge, the urban development corporations, the urban partnership fund, city grant and estate action. The Tyne and Wear UDC alone has attracted more than £500 million to its area since 1987.
    Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware that, due to over-concentration in the property market during the late

    961
    1980s, six urban development corporations have made a loss of £67 million as a result of the drop in property values? What steps does the Minister intend to take to ensure that, in future, public money is used for job creation and not for property speculation?
    Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not running down the excellent work of the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation in his constituency. There has been a net increase of more than 9,000 jobs in that area since the UDC started work. It has a budget of £37·5 million this year and is making progress in creating wealth, creating jobs and promoting enterprise in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Godsiff: Is the Minister aware that about 10,000 jobs and training places will be lost in Birmingham as a result of his decision to cancel the urban programme? Is he further aware that the city council spent £120,000 at his request to prepare the bids which he then cancelled at the last minute? Will he now apologise to the people of Birmingham and refund that £120,000?
    Sir George Young: The urban programme has not been cancelled. It is spending £7 million this year in Small Heath and is sponsoring about 10,000 projects throughout the country, promoting enterprise and wealth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome Birmingham's success with city challenge, representing £7·5 million each year, a total of £37·5 million creating wealth, prosperity and jobs in Birmingham. He should look at the total investment in Birmingham from the Government and not concentrate on one small part of it.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Liverpool, £17 million of urban programme money is being replaced by only £1·1 million of urban partnership, with the consequent destruction of more than 3,000 jobs? Is he further aware that in Dovecot in my constituency, investment in housing stock will now not be able to be supported by commensurate investment in the environment? What ideas does the Minister have to help the people of Dovecot improve their environment?
    Sir George Young: Again, the hon. Lady's constituency was a successful bidder for city challenge, and the rewards for city challenge far outweigh the value of the urban programme. In addition to that, there is a housing action trust in Liverpool and we have the Merseyside task force and the urban development corporation. I urge the hon. Lady to look at the totality of investment by the Government in Liverpool. She will find that it has been very substantial indeed.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Government as a whole are now putting about £4 billion per annum through targeted initiatives into urban areas in this country? Will he look at the important priorities in many urban areas, including in my constituency, and the need to help target the relatively high levels of inner town urban unemployment? I appreciate the way in which his Department is assisting in that work.
    Will my right. hon. Friend also look at a matter about which he knows I am particularly concerned, and that is the difficulty with premises that are currently hotels which can be turned into hostels without seeking change of use planning permission? That issue is of great concern and is
    962
    having damaging effects on the legitimate tourism industry. I appreciate that he and his ministerial colleagues are aware of the position. I welcome their interest and hope that my right hon. Friend will examine the matter.
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He raised, in the latter part of his supplementary question, an issue that has been raised with me by a number of my hon. Friends who represent seaside resorts. I propose to discuss the subject with my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Social Security to see whether further steps might be necessary. I welcomed a note of sanity and perspective in the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question in relation to the debate on inner cities. It is indeed the case that since 1979 there has been a fourfold real increase in urban spending by my Department.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the better aspects, arising out of the list of grants to which he referred, is the flexibility with which grants are applied? Will he continue with that flexibility and imagination, especially as they are applied in Calder Valley?
    Sir George Young: Yes, indeed. The Department is anxious to get the best value from its programmes. We have a competitive regime which rewards local authorities and voluntary organisations that put forward value-for-money schemes which bring with them private funding and create jobs in their areas. I shall look with interest at any projects coming from my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary, for urban programmes to succeed, to have efficient and honest local authorities? Is he convinced that the local authority of Lambeth is efficient or honest? Does he agree that it is high time that the commissioners were sent in to run that council in the way it was once run?
    Sir George Young: Like my hon. Friend, I read the report prepared by the former chief executive, Herman Ouseley, on the London borough of Lambeth, and it contained a number of worrying allegations which, I know, are being followed up in the appropriate quarters. It is a matter for concern if any local authority misuses its ratepayers'; funds, and the appropriate avenues are available to people through the police or the district auditor.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister recall the last Conservative election manifesto, ironically entitled "The Best Future for Britain", which claimed that our cities had been transformed? After the abolition of the urban programme—as the Minister knows very well, there are to be no new schemes under that programme—and the loss of 34,000 inner city jobs, after the abandonment of city challenge, of which there is to be no third round, and after announcing savage cuts of more than one third in urban funding over the next three years, I am sure that the whole House agrees that our cities have indeed been transformed. Does not the Minister accept that it is high time the Government started to celebrate and support cities, instead of undermining them and denying them the resources that they so desperately need?
    Sir George Young: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to come to the House and say such a thing. I have here a copy of The Guardian of 15 June, which, referring to the hon. Gentleman, says:
    "He also said that Labour had been neglecting the inner cities and needed a new strategy."
    Those are not my words; they are the words of the hon. Gentleman. He went on to talk about the establishment of an inquiry called City 2020–2020 being, presumably, the earliest year in which he thinks a Labour Government will take office. This inquiry, for inspiration, is to start by looking at the socialist stewardship of areas such as Lambeth, Islington and Hackney.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend think again about his Department's refusal to grant housing action trust money to Copley close in my constituency, in respect of which a very good case was made? I hope that he will see that that very important and deserving estate is given the help that it greatly needs.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend and the London borough of Ealing are perfectly capable of putting forward another bid for estate action funds for that estate. We shall continue the estate action programme next year. If my hon. Friend would like to talk to the councillors and the director of housing of the borough and then resubmit the bid, we shall see whether, within resources, we can help.

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the environmental implications that may arise from the operation of THORP; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I have received a number of representations about the environmental implications that may arise from the operation of THORP.
    Mr. Bruce: What is the basis of the current consultation period, why has it been extended, and what does the Secretary of State hope to find out? Does he agree that, because the Government are not prepared to underwrite the contracts and because the electricity companies are not prepared to sign them, the Government are in a cleft stick, which will result in non-viability for THORP or in a blank cheque that will cost us all dear? Are there not real doubts about the economic viability and environmental safety of THORP? Should not the matter be cleared up sooner rather than later? Why should all those people have their agony and uncertainty prolonged?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must accept that Parliament has put me and my right hon. Friend in the very clear position of having to assure ourselves before granting, or refusing to grant, the necessary powers to start up THORP. I shall treat my responsibilities as the House would want me to treat them. I shall take as little time as is necessary to do the job properly. I shall do it as quickly as possible, but not in a slap-dash way. That is what the hon. Gentleman must expect. He does not help the case by making extreme allegations in either direction. Special interests are pleading on both sides. My job is to uphold the public interest, together with my right hon. Friend.
    Dr. Michael Clark: What representations about the environmental implications of not starting up the THORP
    964
    process has my right hon. Friend received? Does he accept that, even if we do away with THORP, the accumulated waste will not disappear and that, whatever we do in the future, it is far better to treat radioactive waste scientifically? THORP is a well-engineered, modern process intended to do just that, and it should be kept.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend expresses a particular point of view. Clearly, the Government and others put their particular points of view in the debate on THORP, and I know how strongly people hold their views. My job in these circumstances is clear: before I and my right hon. Friend allow THORP to go ahead, I must satisfy myself that it is in the public interest. That is what I intend to do and I shall do so in such a way that, whatever the result, people can see that it is done properly. It would be wrong for a parliamentarian to seek to hurry one beyond a point where one can take seriously the opposing arguments or to delay one, which would also be unacceptable. What I am trying to do is not easy; obviously it is not easy because both sides have strong views, and a great deal hangs on the decision. The one thing on which the public can depend is that the House has demanded that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are put in a quasi judicial position and that that position demands that we do not take a view until we have considered all the facts.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a constructive note, would the Secretary of State be prepared to consider supporting an authorisation to British Nuclear Fuels plc to undertake the commissioning of the uranium lines at THORP, particularly as it would mean that many jobs could be saved and also because BNFL has said that it is prepared to pay the £250,000 costs to decommission those lines in the event that, at the end of the day, THORP was not fully commissioned?
    Mr. Gummer: I confess that I have a difficulty because the hon. Gentleman has, rather less constructively, already said that the Government are the reason for the problems. He said that he did not blame the company but that he blamed the Government whereas his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is not a shadow agriculture spokesman—my right hon. Friend is a co-judge in the matter—said something quite different. He said:
    "I think the management of BNFL are using the workforce at Sellafield as a bit of a gun to hold to the Government's head."
    I therefore find it very difficult to decide what members of Labour's Front Bench are saying about this matter. I had better tell the hon. Gentleman that I shall do everything I can to carry out what I need to do with my right hon. Friend as rapidly as is consonant with doing the job properly. At the same time, if BNFL wishes a variation in its present authorisation, it must make the proposal to HM inspectorate as the law requires.
    I remind the House that the problem is that we have always known that this type of decision is not easy. We therefore have a very clear procedure to follow. Although I know that it is disappointing for members of all parties, I am determined to adhere to the rules and regulations; otherwise, what the House has sought as a protection of the public interest would not exist. My job is to protect the public interest against what are necessarily sectional interests, either those of Greenpeace or of BNFL.

    Government Building Contracts
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions he has reached on the need for a pay-when-paid clause in Government building contracts.
    Mr. Baldry: I am not considering any such clause. Government contracts are required to contain a clause committing the supplier or contractor to pay his subcontractors promptly.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that many companies across the country have full order books and are profitable but that they unfortunately cannot get paid? Will he assure me that the Government will set an example by paying their bills on time? Does he agree that the lot opposite know nothing about paying bills as their bills are paid by the National Union of Public Employees, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National and Local Government Officers Association, among others? Does he agree that the label "No say, no pay" hangs very well around their necks?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those who do good work deserve to be paid promptly. All Government contracts include provision for the prompt payment by main contractors of their subcontractors, usually within 30 days of receipt.
    Mr. Henderson: The Minister will be aware that there is a great deal of concern among many subcontracting companies, including small companies in the building industry, that they are not getting a fair deal as subcontractors to main contractors for Government contracts. Will the Minister be honest with the House and acknowledge that the reason for contractual arrangements
    966
    not being sufficiently tough is that main contractors, such as Tarmac, have received favours from the Government in their attempts to privatise the Property Services Agency?
    Mr. Baldry: That is a ludicrous suggestion. As a Minister who sponsors the construction industry, my only ambition is to see the healthiest possible construction industry. That aim is something which the Labour party would not understand, however, because when it was last in government, it introduced a moratorium on many infrastructure contracts. We have clear Government contracts that stipulate that subcontractors should be paid within 30 days of their bills being presented.

    Local Government
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what weight he will give to local opinion in Gloucestershire in arriving at decisions on local government structure in the county.
    Mr. Curry: The Local Government Commission's final reports must demonstrate that due weight has been given to community identities and interests.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities are packing public meetings with their own staff? Is he further aware that certain local authorities distribute their own counter literature when distributing the Local Government Commission's literature? Will my hon. Friend ensure that those practices are fully discounted, and that the public have their fair say in the commission's decision on local government reorganisation?
    Mr. Curry: I am determined that the final conclusion should rest upon the genuinely expressed wishes of local people, and not upon any rigging of that opinion.

Serious Fraud Office
3.30 pm
The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement following the resignation statement made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—concerning the conduct of the prosecution of Mr. Asil Nadir by the Serious Fraud Office.
As to the background, on 16 December 1990, and subsequently on 22 October 1991, Mr. Asil Nadir was charged with a series of serious offences. On 7 February 1992, the case was transferred to the Crown court. A preliminary hearing was held on 28 February 1992 in front of the trial judge. He indicated on that occasion that it was his view that trial should take place in September 1992. On the application of the defence, who sought further time, the trial date was fixed, first for 8 March 1993 and, subsequently, following a further application by the defence, for 13 September 1993.
On 4 May 1993, Mr. Nadir fled the jurisdiction and went to Northern Cyprus in breach of his bail conditions. It is the intention of the prosecution to bring Mr. Nadir to trial as soon as that can be effected, and a trial is still fixed for 4 October 1993.
One of my duties as Attorney-General, with an overall purview of the prosecution process in England and Wales, and statutory supervision of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office, is to do all that I can to see that the prosecution process is conducted fairly and properly, so that alleged wrongdoers can be brought to trial and that their trial, wholly under the control of the independent judiciary, can be fairly and expeditiously carried out.
It is essential to bear in mind the respective limits of my own role, the role of Parliament and the role of the media. The control of the conduct of the trial is for the independent judiciary. Ultimately, questions as to the propriety of the prosecution and the fairness of the trial, including decisions upon any representations by a defendant's legal adviser that a trial cannot fairly be conducted, are for the courts and the courts alone.
In the context of my role as Attorney-General, it is perfectly proper for an hon. Member to make representations to me about any anxieties he or she may have concerning the conduct of a prosecution. Such representations are carefully and dispassionately examined. Between September 1991 and 10 May 1993, initially with my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire did so.
On a number of occasions, both in writing and orally—on which occasions the meetings were carefully noted by an official—he raised with me a number of concerns and allegations, each of which I caused to be carefully examined with the appropriate authority or body, and following which I wrote to my hon. Friend in some detail.
Yesterday in his resignation statement, my hon. Friend made public his anxieties, going into a good deal of detail in his own way, and called for what he described as an independent inquiry. I wish to explain briefly to the House how his concerns have been dealt with to date and why I do not believe that any such further and separate inquiry
968
is called for or appropriate, and deal with the question of the publication of the correspondence, which I intend to place in the Library of the House in due course.
In doing so, I am intensely conscious, as the House will be, of the need to keep separate the roles of Parliament and the political process and the role of the judiciary. I believe, Madam Speaker, that you were entirely right to be anxious about potential breaches of our sub judice rule, and it is only in the exceptional circumstances that I ask your discretion to enable me to deal, albeit briefly, with the points raised yesterday by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend has, in summary, raised the following issues. He has accused the Serious Fraud Office of improperly seeking to harass and prejudice the defendant by allegedly tipping off the media as to the times and places of arrests and other aspects of the investigation; refusing to give proper consideration to a report prepared by the accountants Binder Hamlyn for the defence and failing to make proper inquiries in Northern Cyprus; improperly opening privileged documents; the allegedly improper seizure by the trustee in bankruptcy of Asil Nadir's papers and certain personal effects; and improper pressures allegedly brought by the Serious Fraud Office on the judge. I caused each of those matters to be investigated, and, in necessarily brief summary, the answers are as follows.
The assertions of improper briefing have all been carefully investigated. None was accompanied by any tangible or verifiable evidence from my hon. Friend. On the initial occasion involving the fall of the Polly Peck share price, the press were not even present until after that fall, and the raid had been in progress for some considerable time.
It is correct that two bags containing some privileged documents, among others, were opened in error by some police officers. The privileged documents were not copied; they were returned after the issue of privilege had been determined by an independent silk. The papers and effects seized by the trustee in bankruptcy were seized pursuant to an order of the court.
The report of Binder Hamlyn is part of the defence case. The Serious Fraud Office has had no opportunity to scrutinise the supporting documents. Assertions that their removal to this country would contravene local Cypriot law have been refuted by independent Cypriot legal advice. The Serious Fraud Office has been unable to obtain permission for its officers to investigate the case in Northern Cyprus, as each informal application has been met by the response that approaches must be through diplomatic channels, which the House will appreciate do not exist in the absence of formal recognition of the Republic of Northern Cyprus.
The alleged conspiracy to bribe the judge is the subject of a separate police investigation under the supervision not of the Serious Fraud Office but of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not propose to say more about it. as it has been dealt with in court, either in camera or subject to reporting restrictions.
With the exception of the publicity surrounding the arrests and other investigations, all these matters relate essentially to the court proceedings. Their substance and any effect that they may have on the fairness of the trial is essentially a matter for the trial judge.
Mr. Nadir has throughout, until he departed the jurisdiction, been represented by highly experienced solicitors and counsel; and, indeed, many of these matters have already been canvassed to a greater or lesser extent

969
with the court. I am of the clear view that it is mistaken and wholly inimical to our justice system to set up a so-called independent inquiry into the handling of such matters in parallel to a trial.
I now turn to the question of the publication of the correspondence. As the House knows, I have hitherto resisted such publication. The matters it contained were properly raised with me with the objective of seeing that the defendant's prosecution and trial were fairly handled. Inevitably, it deals with a number of issues that have been or may be raised in the preparatory hearings or the trial, which could run the risk of confusing the issues, or, from certain viewpoints, reflecting adversely on the defendant.
Thus, although the correspondence was not secret, and copies are undoubtedly in the hands of not only my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire my office, and the Serious Fraud Office, but Mr. Nadir's advisers, legal and otherwise, and Mr. Nadir, it did not seem to me at that stage that a responsible person should court unnecessary media attention by placing them in the public domain.
However, following the partial publication of so much of their substance by my hon. Friend yesterday in his statement, and the fact that the rest of the correspondence is likely to be the subject of intense search and speculation, it now seems to me that, subject to certain editing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—it is better that the correspondence should be published. I am therefore arranging to place copies in the Library as soon as possible.
Editing will be confined to two points. First, the names of individuals who happen to be mentioned but whose involvement is purely peripheral have been deleted in order to respect their privacy. Having taken the advice of counsel, deletions will also be made covering the alleged conspiracy to bribe the judge, which is the subject of the continuing police investigation under the supervision of the Director of Public Prosecutions and which has been dealt with in court, either in camera or subject to reporting restrictions. I make it clear at once that it has revealed no credible evidence implicating the judge personally in any way.
In conclusion, the matters raised by my hon. Friend in the past 18 months have already been carefully and dispassionately examined. There is no precedent or justification for an independent inquiry in parallel to the trial. There is no justification for the defendant staying away. Any submissions about the fairness of his trial are matters for the judge and the courts alone.
Mr. John Fraser: Attacking the integrity of the prosecution is a fairly standard line of defence. Can we assume that the Attorney-General considers such matters carefully and dispassionately, but also with a healthy scepticism, especially as substantial amounts of money have been paid by Mr. Asil Nadir in past years? Perhaps it is right to say that the integrity of the Serious Fraud Office was certainly not in doubt when it strongly opposed bail for the defendant in this case.
Having said that, does the Attorney-General recognise the legitimate anxiety about the use of the wide powers of the Serious Fraud Office, the width of the charges that it often lays and its potential to exploit the media, especially in high-profile cases?
I understand what the Attorney-General has said about alerting the media in the case, but I hope that he will recognise that there are three dangers. It is wrong for either the Serious Fraud Office or the police to give advance
970
notice. of high-profile arrests for two reasons. The first is that such publicity is often more akin to a big fight than a long trial. It can prejudice the case and cause the conviction of innocent people. But equally there is a danger that it could bring about the acquittal of those who otherwise might be found guilty. So there are dangers both ways.
Does the Attorney-General recognise that there have been many cases, including the Nadir case, in which there appears to have been far too much coincidence between a high-profile arrest, sometimes in the early hours, and the press, including television, being present? Will he give that matter serious attention, in view of the effect that it is likely to have on the fairness of trials?
I welcome the publication of the correspondence. I understand the necessity for some editing to preserve the possibility of a fair trial, if that ever takes place. Will the publication include letters from all Members of Parliament who wrote to him, and not merely the ones from the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)?
I repeat the question that I put to the Attorney-General last week on whether any of the letters contained declarations of interest by the hon. Members who made representations to him. I understand that it is our proper practice to disclose interests when we make representations on cases such as the Nadir case.
The Attorney-General dealt today with the allegations of bribery and of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice that were raised yesterday, and said that they were being investigated. We are dealing with a case where a substantial sum was paid to the Conservative party. With hindsight, one could say that it might well have been with some expectation. Substantial sums must have been paid to fly the defendant out of the country. There is a question mark hanging over the source of bail and surety moneys.
Under all those circumstances, the Attorney-General is right to examine these matters. There must be the greatest concern if there is also any evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I know that the Attorney-General wants to restrict himself on these matters, but can he say how much of a prima facie case there is? What is the strength of the evidence available to him? When—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] These matters concern the House. When will he report back to the House on these matters?
My last question is this: so that no cloud hangs over any of these investigations and no suspicion attaches to any Member of Parliament, will the Attorney-General recommend to his colleagues in the Conservative party and on the Front Bench that the £440,000 paid to the Conservative party is now returned?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has approached this matter, particularly in that his questions deal with the substance of the case. He is right to say that to attack the prosecution is a fairly standard form of defence. The prosecutor must look at the case dispassionately, and sometimes coldly.
Prosecutions are carried out without fear or favour, affection or ill will, and contributions to any political party in this country would not be taken into account by any Attorney-General or any independent prosecuting authority. I hope that I will continue to carry on what I consider

971
to be an unsullied tradition, which I am sure is carried on by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Serious Fraud Office. I rule that out utterly.
The powers of the SFO are wide and general. Although they do not arise specifically today, I believe that they are necessary. We are dealing with the investigation of frauds and potential frauds by people in the City and elsewhere who have the stewardship of enormous sums of other people's money. It is right that they should be open to careful, detailed and penetrating scrutiny.
The hon. Gentleman asked about advance tip-offs of arrests or other aspects of an investigation. I deplore, and the director of the SFO and the whole House deplore, any tip-offs that lead to unnecessary publicity. I have raised the matter with the director of the SFO and I know that he has raised it repeatedly with his staff. There is no tangible evidence to point the finger.
The House, and those experienced in criminal matters, will realise that necessarily some advance warning to people properly involved must be given of many or most of these matters. There are all too many areas from which either a tip-off can be obtained or a clever inference drawn by those with plenty of time and money to chase up these matters. I deplore that, and the SFO will do everything it can to prevent it. That is as much as I can say on that.
On the publication of the correspondence, I think that I am right that one should not publish the correspondence in general. Hon. Members should be able to approach me in private and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, if hon. Members wish to, that is entirely a matter for them. Issues in the trial should be capable of being investigated dispassionately and carefully without the waters being muddied by unnecessary publicity.
Whether any individual Member who makes a representation to the Law Officers chooses to make that public is for them. I do not intend to publicise or publish the other letters that have been sent, but from whichever part of the House they have come, they have come perfectly properly.
On the question of the police investigation into the alleged conspiracy relating to the bribery of the judge, it is a continuing investigation and will be evaluated when the police make a report. It would not be proper for me to say more about it at present.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept our thanks for a prompt, thorough and careful statement, in the best traditions of his office? Does he agree that there is always a danger, when Back Benchers of all parties get carried away with their enthusiasm for the rights or wrongs that may exist in some judicial process, that ultimately we shall achieve the pollution of the pure stream of justice? We must be careful that what we do is not counter-productive.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the fact that the best course in these matters is to let the lawyers and judicial process deal with all those issues at the time of the trial, if there is one?
The Attorney-General: I am most grateful for what my hon. and learned Friend has said. He is entirely right. Questions of justice and of trials are matters not for this House but for the courts.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has decided to make this statement to the House and to publish the correspondence, subject to the necessary editing to which he referred. However, I suspect that those will not be his final words on the working practices of the SFO.
Although we sympathise with and share his concern at present not to prejudice the criminal proceedings against Asil Nadir by widening and further opening up his own investigations of which he has spoken, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the disquiet about the SFO—not only in this case—will not evaporate without a timely and full inquiry into its modes of operation?
The Attorney-General: No. With respect, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. A great deal of inaccurate and unfair comment is made about the SFO's activities. It is not altogether surprising. One must remember that the people with whom it has to deal and who are charged with serious offences are capable of defending themselves at all levels—not improperly, but they are able to make representations about the kinds of questions that they are asked to answer, whether inside or outside a court. It was this House that decided that the powers should be given to the SFO, and I believe that those powers are exercised impartially and fairly.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: When my right hon. and learned Friend calls for an inquiry to be made into allegations about the operation of agencies under his responsibility, is it the agency that investigates itself? If so, is that the most satisfactory way of assuring public confidence that that is appropriate? Could it not be self-serving?
The Attorney-General: The straight answer to my hon. Friend is, very often, yes, it is. I went straight away to the director of the Serious Fraud Office and asked him to have these matters extremely carefully looked into. He is a very senior and independent public official. Just as his predecessor was a most distinguished Queen's counsel, now the Director of Public Prosecutions, so he was a leading member and senior partner of one of the largest and most highly respected firms of solicitors in the country. He did not come into his office to abuse his position, and he is the person who, inevitably, can best instigate an investigation in such a case.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General accept that the Serious Fraud Office should perhaps adopt the practice of the commercial division of the City of London police of yesteryear, who merely asked a defendant to attend at a police station with a solicitor? That got over all the publicity. Does he not also feel that asking the SFO to investigate itself is a bit like asking a police superintendent to investigate himself? Is it not wiser to call in outside bodies, just as we do with the police force?
The Attorney-General: I shall deal first with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It would seldom be wiser to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. While any public body and any individual must expect to be open to scrutiny if the House thinks it right from time to time, it would normally be extremely disruptive to the prosecution process, and would be an easy card to play by those who wished, for whatever reason, to avoid conviction.

973
The hon. Gentleman asked about arresting people or otherwise interviewing them by arrangement. That frequently happens, but whether it happens in any particular case—arrests are operational matters for the police—must be an operational decision on each occasion.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider that many of the activities, events and statements of the past 48 hours may be a smokescreen hiding the real issue? That issue is that many pensioners and shareholders in Polly Peck have lost £100 million or more in places abroad from which the money cannot be brought back.
In that context, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the objectives of the Serious Fraud Office, and whether it serves the public interest? Will he consider that what we want is a prosecuting organisation that can bring cases to trial sooner, and also take part in the recovery process in a more efficient manner than has been evident to date?
The Attorney-General: The object of the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate effectively and promptly very complex matters of national and international fraud. I have been involved, directly and indirectly, in these matters for more than 13 years, and I have seen developments through the original fraud investigation groups to the setting up of the Serious Fraud Office. For all the criticism, often uninformed, about the Serious Fraud Office, the speed and efficiency with which major cases are now brought to trial differ enormously from the position 10 years ago.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Attorney-General has raised the subject of publishing, I hope that he intends to publish the names of all those MPs from whichever side they come. Will he also publish a detailed account of what the Lord Chancellor and Asil Nadir said when they had that discussion? Is it not rather odd that the man who sits on the woolsack during the day turned up to meet Nadir after he had fled from bail, although nobody else would have the attention of the Lord Chancellor?
That is why, although the Attorney-General might convince some Conservative Members about what this is all about, the people out there in the country believe that the connection between Asil Nadir, the Tory party and all that money was why he was able to flee this country, with the help of the people in the establishment.
The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman would do a little more homework, he would not ask such idiotic questions in the House. There is no question of the Lord Chancellor having gone to meet Mr. Nadir, and if the hon. Gentleman had bothered to read any newspaper on the subject, he would know that, and would not have asked that question for the second time in about 10 days. I assure the House that the names that are edited out of the correspondence do not relate to Members of Parliament in any way.
Sir Anthony Grant (Carnbridgeshire, South-West): Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that concern about tip-offs to the press before a raid or an arrest are not confined to one side of the House? It is a matter of concern, and it damages natural justice. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear to the prosecuting
974
authorities that the person who is the head and in charge must take responsibility for such leaks, and that if he does not, he will have to go?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend also aware that there is concern about the way in which prosecutions generally have taken place in recent years? Although they have to be independent, there is an impression that sometimes they are rather like a loose cannon rolling about. In that context, will he have another look at the evidence given by Customs and Excise to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and at the evidence given by his predecessor in relation to the supergun inquiry, because that revealed a rather curious method of prosecution in our society?
The Attorney-General: I recognise what my hon. Friend says. First, I wholly agree with him—as do the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions—that those tip-offs are thoroughly undesirable. No member of their staff is under any illusion as to that.
Having said that, those matters have been carefully looked into, and it is often completely unfair just to point the finger at the staff. In cases where it is well known that an arrest is likely at some stage, there is close media attention and, naturally enough, the media make every possible effort to try to find out when the arrest will be and it is quite difficult to conceal. However, I entirely take my hon. Friend's point, in principle.
As to prosecutions by the Serious Fraud Office being a loose cannon, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would write or speak to me to let me know any particular points that he has in mind; they will be carefully considered. I think that many of the allegations are unfairly made, but I would certainly look at any that he has in mind.
In relation to the question of Customs and Excise and the DTI, that is already a matter of record, but I understand my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: What term is there to the pursuit of this projected trial, and when would this sub judice rule lapse? As regards the correspondence, why does the Attorney-General refer to "all parts of the House", when he knows perfectly well that no one on this side of the House put in any applications on behalf of Asil Nadir?
Hon. Members: How do you know?
The Attorney-General: The sub judice rule is a matter for you, Madam Speaker. Briefly, we regard matters as sub judice while they are outstanding matters before the courts. As to the question of who did or did not make representations to me, I am in a better position to know than the hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members: Name them.
Sir James Kilfedder: Will the Attorney-General tell the Serious Fraud Office that it should be more energetic in pursuing fraudsters who take tens and hundreds of millions of pounds from shareholders and others? Will he please assist the House by stating which members of political parties have made representations to him on behalf of Mr. Nadir?
The Attorney-General: Dealing with that second matter—it seems to be a matter of intense interest to the House—no representation that has been made to me has been in

975
any way improper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them, then."] No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because if I set a precedent of naming people—[Interruption.]—I can look round the Chamber and see people who have made proper representations to me on a variety of cases. I shall stick firmly to what I believe to be the proper procedure.
As to the question of the Serious Fraud Office properly pursuing fraudsters, that is its role. I believe that it does so carefully. If the hon. Gentleman knows of particular points where he thinks that it is not doing so, no doubt he will make representations to me and again I will look into them.
Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the right thing has been done through the publication of the letters. May I, however, refer the Attorney-General back to the publication of one of the letters in a newspaper last week? What inquiries have been made, or can be made, to try to trace the source of the leak? It must be a matter of very grave concern if there is any suspicion that a letter was leaked by public officials to get rid of an awkward questioner.
The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if there were any question of a letter being leaked by a public official, it would be very serious. I think that most, if not all, public officials fully appreciate that. Those letters were not secret. As my statement has already revealed, they were likely to have been in the hands of quite a large number of people. One has to be a little bit sanguine about these leak inquiries, which are not easy to carry out. I make it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that I deplore leaks.
In the light of the statement yesterday, it seems sensible to publish as a whole but, in principle, I believe, and shall continue to believe, that it is right that, if hon. Members make representations to me about the handling of an individual case, I shall not without their leave publish the substance of that correspondence, unless they choose first to make it public.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the sub judice rule, whereby we do not comment in this House on outstanding legal matters and criminal proceedings, is a crucial protection for the defendant and for the independence of our judicial system? Does he agree that this afternoon we have perhaps seen the tip of the iceberg of what might emerge if that rule were abandoned? Will he please ensure that he is not drawn further into the issue?
The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said. The separation of powers—the different functions, the different rules of this House and of Parliament, the political process generally and the independence of the courts—is extremely important, and our sub judice rule is designed to that end.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Attorney-General accept that some people believe that double standards are developing in serious fraud trials, with defendants able to plead temporary Alzheimer's to bring a trial to an end?
In view of the propaganda on behalf of Asil Nadir—a person who is not prepared to face justice, whose representatives asked for deferment of the court hearing,
976
and who fled bail in the most unscrupulous, unprincipled and disgraceful manner—can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that he will use every endeavour and will remain firm in his determination to bring serious fraudsters to justice?
In that light, surely he accepts that, to emphasise his independence in pursuit of that aim, the party of which he is a member should return all those moneys that it has received from people who are facing charges or have been convicted of serious fraud?
The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in my office, I shall do everything that I can to assist the administration of justice and the bringing to justice of wrongdoers of this sort and all other sorts. The last part of the question is not a matter for me.
On the hon. Gentleman's question whether a particular defendant should have his trial stopped or whether someone's prison sentence should be reduced because of illness, as perceived by the courts, that is entirely a matter for the independent courts.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that one of the worms in the fabric of government that needs urgent attention is the improper leaking of documents by people in a position of trust. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could say—it would be helpful if he could confirm—that neither his office nor the Serious Fraud Office had anything to do with the leaking to the press of the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates).
The Attorney-General: I have absolutely no reason to think that either office had anything to do with it, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend when he deplores it.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Can the Attorney-General understand that the nature and extent of representations made to him by Members of this House is a matter of public interest, because it enables us to determine whether the way that the matter has been treated is exceptional or normal? Therefore, can he tell us how many hon. Members have made representations to him, whether they are Ministers or Back Benchers—one Minister has lost his job—and whether he makes any distinction in the representations he receives between those that come directly from the hon. Member whose constituent is the subject of the charges, those that come from a public relations company acting on behalf of an individual, and those that come from an hon. Member who just happens to have a passing interest in the subject?
Above all, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us his assessment—people are entitled to know—whether what seems to be at any rate an exceptional degree of direct representation by letter and by personal meetings with him about this case is, in fact, exceptional or normal? If it is exceptional, he should tell the House.
The Attorney-General: On the last point, I can tell the House that the degree of representation was exceptional. I believe it to have been bona fide. Having heard the statement yesterday, I think that the House believes it to have been bona fide. As I have said in my statement today, the matter was carefully and dispassionately looked into.
On the question of how many other hon. Members have made representations, I have already answered a number of similar parliamentary questions, and I have nothing to

977
add to my answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). All representations, from whichever hon. Member they come and it-they seem to have substance, will be looked at with equal care.
Mr. Toby Jessel: On the question of how to bring Mr. Nadir back to Britain to stand trial, in view of Britain's non-recognition of Northern Cyprus but its excellent relations with Turkey, is my right hon. and learned Friend in a position to say whether our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is considering making further representations to Turkey with a view to the Turks also saying something to Northern Cyprus?
The Attorney-General: No. I do not think I can say anything on that subject. With some countries we have extradition treaties; with others we have not.
Mr. Tony Worthington: One can understand what the Attorney-General is saying about the undesirability of having an inquiry at the same time as a trial, but there is unfortunately one missing ingredient for the trial—we do not have Mr. Asil Nadir—and Turkey is not going to vote for Christmas. What will the Attorney-General do to investigate these serious matters if it is clear that there will be no trial?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. At the moment, it is certainly my hope that there will be a trial, and there is still a trial date fixed. I repeat that there is no justification for the defendant remaining away. Any representation that he wishes to make about the fairness of his trial should be made to the court.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Serious Fraud Office must be properly equipped and resourced to deal fully with rich and powerful individuals? Without the likes of Mr. Nadir, we would not need a Serious Fraud Office.
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Serious Fraud Office was set up partly because of a number of cases, which the House will have in mind, in which people who had at their disposal large sums of money—all too often, other people's money—departed to other parts of the world and managed to avoid prosecution. Since the Serious Fraud Office came into being, fewer of those people have been so effective. It has a very good record of careful and effective prosecution.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree that, for the Serious Fraud Office, which is an important institution, to be effective in the detection of serious fraud, it must have full public confidence? Does he agree that concern arises not only from the Nadir case?
I know that he is aware that, in relation to another matter which I will not name, last year a professional officer of the Serious Fraud Office forged a letter or fax purporting to come from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). Is he aware that the explanation given by the Serious Fraud Office for that outrageous forgery was that it was an April fool joke?
Is the Attorney-General aware that the lack of any disciplinary proceedings of any meaning in that matter is profoundly unsatisfactory, and does he not agree that the disquiet which was mentioned earlier about the
978
organisation and conduct of the Serious Fraud Office will continue at least until a thorough review of its conduct—perhaps a private review—is carried out?
The Attorney-General: Starting with the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, no, I do not agree with that latter point. It is easy and understandable that people should criticise the Serious Fraud Office, and that those who are under investigation by it, or whose friends are under investigation by it, should often feel critical and express that criticism. The Serious Fraud Office carries out its work professionally and carefully.
There was a serious lapse from that standard in a grave error of misjudgment, about which I have apologised personally to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. I have looked into it very carefully, and it was dealt with internally by the office. It was a very serious error of judgment, but it was not a matter of dishonesty or anything of that nature; it was a stupid thing to do, but the water should not be muddied. In general, the Serious Fraud Office does its work diligently and scrupulously.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Is it not clear that some elements on the Opposition Benches really want a system of televised political show trials, with the opportunity for them to play starring roles? In the interests of justice, will my right hon. and learned Friend resist that process with all the vigour at his disposal?
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes the important point that the House, which is normally restrained on matters of judicial proceedings, is wise to be so restrained.
Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend persist in not disclosing other names? All of us, myself included, frequently write to him and to his colleagues at the Home Office about our constituents who are in trouble. Frequently, we are also asked by other hon. Members to write on behalf of their constituents, and we are asked to write on behalf of constituents of other hon. Members in support of their Member of Parliament. If that system is to persist, and if that form of justice is to continue, we cannot have names leaked, either positively or secretly.
The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that people who have public jobs, whether that job is as the director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Attorney-General, should be trusted in their work. If they are found to have done their work improperly, they should resign. If hon. Members write to me in confidence, their confidence will be respected.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Reflecting on the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), the Attorney-General said that he hoped that there would be a trial. Is not that just a little disingenuous? What is the basis for that hope? If a Law Officer of the Crown says that there is a hope of a trial, presumably there is some basis for that hope. What is the basis?
The Attorney-General: There is no justification for the defendant in this case to stay away. There is no justification for any defendant to flee their bail. While I

979
cannot say whether the defendant will return, I hope and trust that he will, and if he does, I believe that he will be fairly tried.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No, not yet. I call Mr. John Fraser.
Mr. Fraser: Will the Attorney-General clear up one ambiguity that may have unintentionally crept into his answers? Can he confirm that he has had no representations from Labour Members of Parliament?
The Attorney-General: I think that I ought to stick to my principles and not say from where I have received representations. No representation that I have received from anywhere has been, in my view, in any way improper.

Points of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you explain to the House the proper way in which personal statements are made by hon. Members? Yesterday, I thought that, although the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) had matters of great importance to raise, they did not seem relevant to a personal statement.
I understood that such statements were meant to be explanations of why Ministers felt it necessary to resign. I thought that the statement yesterday put the House, and especially you, Madam Speaker, in a difficult position. It may be that the whole nature and purpose of personal statements ought to be reviewed, or at the least clarified.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall that I asked you yesterday to consider the way in which personal statements are vetted and agreed by the Speaker before their delivery and, in return, the personal statement is allowed to be made without interruption. I understand that that is not the case with personal statements about resignations. Have you been able to give some thought to asking the Procedure Committee to look into the matter, with a view to making all personal statements subject to the prior agreement of the Speaker of the day?
Madam Speaker: Let me try to help the House. Personal statements are vetted by the Speaker. Resignation statements are not vetted by the Speaker. I have no authority whatever to vet such a statement, nor did I vet the statement yesterday.
There is a lot of disquiet in the House about such statements. I have received a letter from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which I have not yet had the opportunity to read, but I believe that it suggests that the Committee may well look into that whole area. I am sure that many hon. Members will welcome the Procedure Committee's initiative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I hope that I have laid this matter to rest. I want no further points of order upon it.
Mr. David Martin: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that, yesterday, the Prime Minister raised with the Leader of the Opposition a document on Northern Ireland by the official Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, in which he proposed, in effect, constitutionally abandoning the Northern Irish people.
Since then, confusion has reigned, with some newspapers saying that his leader is going to back him, and others saying that he should be disowned. I wonder whether you have had a request for a statement, either from the Opposition's Northern Ireland spokesman or from the Leader of the Opposition, so that we can clear it up once and for all?
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me, but I have received no such request for a statement.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I refer you to the 21st edition of "Erskine May", page 230, where the manner of

981
taking the oath, affirmation in lieu of oath and the penalties for omission to take the oath are set out. The form of the oath is:
"I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
As you know, Madam Speaker, if a Member does not wish to take the oath, he or she can affirm.
The penalties for omitting to take the oath or to affirm are:
"any Member of the House of Commons who votes as such, or sits during any debate after the Speaker has been chosen, without having taken the oath, is subject to the same penalty, and his seat is also vacated in the same manner as if he were dead."
In the Commons it is necessary to move a new writ immediately the omission—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are very interested in what "Erskine May" says. I read it regularly, but I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would come to the point of order for me.
Mr. Garnier: You anticipated me, Madam Speaker, by two seconds.
In view of what is said in "Erskine May", can you advise the House whether the proposal mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin)—that Ulster should become an independent state and share sovereignty with the presidency of the Irish Republic—constitutes a revocation of the oath, and what consequences should flow from it?
Madam Speaker: That is a very interesting use of the time of the House before we reach the ten-minute motion.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There is no "Further to that point of order." If it is a new point of order, I shall of course hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hendry: It is on a different aspect of that point of order.
Madam Speaker: No, I have dealt with it.

Medical Act 1983 (Amendment)
4.21 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Medical Act 1983 to permit the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council to take action in specified circumstances in respect of conduct of a medical practitioner which they judge to be unacceptable professional conduct; and for connected purposes.
In simple language, the Bill would give greater optional and discretionary powers to the professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council than those that it currently possesses. I want to make it absolutely clear from the start that this is not an anti-doctor Bill or an anti-GMC Bill. It would give greater protection to the medical profession, and enhance whatever reputation the General Medical Council has at the moment.
The Bill further assumes that there is merit in, and that there will be a continuation of, self-regulation as a means of regulating the profession. That is considered by many to be preferable to any other alternative.
I am sure that the whole House agrees that only a very small number of doctors need to be involved in the sometimes controversial disciplinary procedures of the General Medical Council, and that the overwhelming proportion of the profession deserves the thanks and full respect of the public, whose protection is the advertised prime function of the GMC.
The Bill arises from two cases in my constituency, which I believe have revealed a lacuna in the aforementioned Act that gave the GMC its statutory powers.
Many hon. Members have had similar difficulties. I first introduced this Bill in the 1984–85 Session, and I introduced it in four subsequent Sessions. This is the sixth occasion on which it has been before the House. On 3 March 1987, I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute rule, as reported at column 757 of Hansard. This is an across-the-Floor motion, which has nothing whatever to do with other political matters.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) is in his place. He referred to a specific constituency case on 24 July 1985. On 25 March 1986, at column 842 of Hansard, he told the House about a distressing case in his constituency of the daughter of a well-known constituent of his, who had returned home from playing badminton. She was a healthy person aged 22. She had complained of pains and was given an injection for a strained ligament. Unfortunately, diagnosis did not take place, and the young lady died as a result of acute septicemia about three or four days later.
I have another sponsor in my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). He is known to us as "Mr." but in the medical world that title denotes a consultant neuro-surgeon. He is a former member of the General Medical Council. In the past, this Bill has also been sponsored by Dr. Maurice Miller, a former Member of Parliament well known to many here.
The British Medical Association has passed a resolution not to oppose the Bill, and I know of no Member of Parliament, other than those who for a time have sat on the Treasury Bench in a certain capacity, who oppose it. I rather suspect that, when the Bill has been opposed over the years—perhaps by a Treasury representative on a Friday afternoon—that was because

983
the GMC was not happy with the amendment of the Medical Act 1983, as it has other proposals which it believes would deal with the matter more effectively. I do not think that its view is correct, and I shall explain why.
The Bill, which the GMC has been preparing over the past two or three years, after extensive discussion inside the medical profession, deals with the related but not specific case of the performance of medical practitioners in respect of their general profession, and it might be able to take on board some of the complaints that reach the GMC. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, and to the House, that that is parallel to the disciplinary procedure and is not connected directly with it, certainly under current statutes.
To understand the Bill, I must explain what I regard as the lacuna within it, which I think was unintentional when it was passed in 1983. Under the Medical Act 1983, the only charge that can be made by the professional conduct committee against a medical practitioner is one of serious professional misconduct. The complaint reaches the PPC only after three stages of sifting. When it reaches the committee, those hearings are in public.
However, the problem is that, when the GMC conducts its own case against a practitioner, it says that the conduct must be related to certain forms of action. It says that the first consideration of the PPC is to determine whether or not the alleged misconduct has been found to be correct and proven. If the matters are found proven, the PPC has a further stage in its consideration: given that the allegation is proven, does it amount to serious professional misconduct? Only if it decides that it amounts to serious professional misconduct has it any penalties or sanctions of any sort other than the publicity available.
I am not a great one for penalties. I believe that remedies are sometimes better. The least remedy available to the GMC where serious professional misconduct is found is conditional registration or a reprimand. In effect, a conditional registration says, "Carry on doctor, but…" Certain actions are then specified for the doctor, such as to attend courses, not to perform certain activities, and to have conversations with the chairman of his local medical committee from time to time. Those actions can be varied case by case.
However, if the GMC does not find that the charges proved amount to serious professional misconduct, it cannot do anything, even if it finds that there has been professional misconduct as such or, as in the case of my
984
late young constituent Alfie Turner in 1982, if it finds that there has been unacceptable professional conduct. The council can say that that is the case, but it has no power, because there is no relevant power in the Medical Act 1983 for the GMC to act.
That lack of power, where there is manifest professional incompetence which is seen and open, and where the charges found have been proved correct, causes public disquiet and disquiet inside the profession.
I have discussed the matter with the GMC and its presidents over many years. I informed the current president of the GMC that I was going to move my Bill today for the sixth time. He sent me a letter which refers to a letter which he sent me on 29 September, in which he says that it would not be timely to accept my Bill because it would not
"be in the long-term public interest for the introduction of these procedures to be delayed"—
that is, while a new comprehensive Bill is being considered—
"or in any way hampered by the introduction of an alternative amending the Medical Act."
However, my Bill is not an alternative. It will remedy a manifest and continuing defect in our legislation.
I wrote to the president of the GMC on 10 June, and I have a reply dated 29 June, which I received in full this morning and in a faxed form yesterday. I understand that a copy was sent to the Department of Health. I want to quote that letter because it is very important. The president states:
"I … should like to make it clear at the outset that the GMC's Professional Conduct Committee"—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and I have been trying to catch his eye, but his time has run out.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nigel Spearing, Sir Anthony Grant and Mr. Sam Galbraith.

Medical Act 1983 (Amendment)
  MEDICAL ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Nigel Spearing accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Medical Act 1983 to permit the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council to take action in specified circumstances in respect of conduct of a medical practitioner which they judge to be unacceptable professional conduct; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]
Orders of the Day

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I stress at the outset that the Bill has no effect whatever on the powers of the European Parliament. The Bill is a consequence of the agreement reached at the European Council at Edinburgh that additional seats should be allocated to some member states. That agreement was a consequence of the large increase in the population of Germany arising out of unification of that country following the collapse of communism. The United Kingdom received six additional seats under the agreement. The Bill provides for their distribution within Britain and for the work needed to change the boundaries of European constituencies to incorporate the extra seats.
  Under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, which the Bill amends, representatives from Great Britain in the European Parliament fill single-member seats to which the candidate with a simple majority is elected. The Bill proposes no change in that system.
  In the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland, as in local government elections, Members of the European Parliament are chosen by the single transferable vote system. Northern Ireland is a single constituency for that purpose. That system was introduced in the Province in 1977 to ensure fair representation for both communities, and we do not propose to change it.
  We are prepared to participate in further Community discussions about electoral procedures for the European Parliament, but I must make it clear to the House that we see no case for departing from our traditional system. It is noteworthy that there is a movement in our direction in the Community, as people in other member states see the disadvantages of proportional representation. That hardly suggests that we should be moving in the opposite direction.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful, as many of my hon. Friends will be, for the strong words that my right hon. and learned Friend has used about our excellent system of voting for membership of the European Parliament. It is obvious that next year we shall be having an election in this country on the basis of the first-past-the-post system. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, so far as he is concerned. the European election after that will also be fought on the first-past-the-post system?
  Mr. Howard: I have answered my hon. Friend. I see absolutely no case for moving away from our first-past-the-post system. I am convinced that it is the best system and I am confident that, in time, our view will prevail in the Community.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have the impression that Opposition Members are sceptical when my right hon. and learned Friend speaks about people in other countries coming our way. Does he agree that there has been total chaos in Italy, but that Italy has now come our way?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to the extent that Italy is moving in our direction—not yet as far or as fast as I would like, but I live in hope. What we have seen are the first stages of a move in our direction. I am confident that in time we shall see more.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that the Community is shortly to extend itself from 12 to perhaps 16 seats, and given that the majority of countries use proportional representation, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile that with article 138 of the treaty, which says that we should move to a uniform electoral system?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady will be aware that all decisions on what that uniform system should be must be reached by unanimity. During the period when the movement in our direction which I described is still taking place, we shall rely on our veto to encourage those other member states to move further and faster in our direction.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: To avoid wasting time, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply confirm that Italy has changed from one proportional system to another proportional system?
  Mr. Howard: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), Italy is moving in our direction, away from a system of extreme proportionality to a system much closer to ours. I said that Italy had not moved as far or as fast as I would like, but I am an optimist.
  The effect of clause 1 is that next year's European parliamentary elections will be contested with the following number of seats for each of the four territories of the United Kingdom: 71 seats in England, eight in Scotland, five in Wales and three in Northern Ireland. That represents an increase of five for England and one for Wales.
  That distribution of the extra seats is, I believe, the fairest available, as the arithmetic clearly shows. I have put in the Vote Office—and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has copies available in the Chamber for hon. Members who wish to follow the matter—a note setting out both the current position and the effect of introducing the various options.
  At present, the average electorate of a European Parliament seat in Wales is 1 per cent. greater than that in England. In Scotland, the average electorate is 10 per cent. smaller than that in England. So Wales is slightly disadvantaged compared with England and considerably disadvantaged compared with Scotland. England, too, is disadvantaged compared with Scotland. If all the new seats were allocated to England the average electorate for Wales would be 10 per cent. greater than that for England. In Scotland, the average would he 3 per cent. less than that in England. That option would therefore increase the disadvantage to Wales.
  The most unsatisfactory change of all would be to distribute the seats on the basis of four to England, one to Scotland, and one to Wales—the solution suggested in the

  987
  Opposition's reasoned amendment. This would mean that Scotland's unfair advantage would increase from the present 10 per cent. to 16 per cent., while the average for Wales would go from 1 per cent. more than England to 15 per cent. less, giving Wales an unfair advantage over England almost as big as that of Scotland.
  By giving five seats to England and one to Wales, the most satisfactory result which does not disadvantage Wales is achieved. The average electorate in Wales would become 13 per cent. less than England's, but Scotland's would still be 4 per cent. less than England's, so both Wales and Scotland would still be advantaged over England, but to a much lesser extent than the four-one-one option favoured by the Opposition. The strength of the Union depends on all its parts being treated fairly. Once again, it is only the Conservative party that is prepared to stand up for a fair deal for England.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to take land mass into account? Does he appreciate that the existing Highlands and Islands constituency is larger than some countries in the Community? Is he not prepared to take into account the area that has to be covered by each MEP? Does he accept that if the Government's recommendation is adopted, Scotland's representation will be lower in Europe than in the House of Commons?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman anticipates precisely the point to which I was about to come.
  The largest of the Scottish constituencies, in geographic terms—the Highlands and Islands—is already the lowest in terms of population. It would be very unlikely to be altered were there to be an extra Scottish seat. It is far more likely that there would be an extra seat in the central belt of Scotland, where there could be no conceivable argument of geographical fairness or of fairness based on the size of the electorate or any other criterion.
  Mrs. Ewing: My House of Commons constituency lies within the Highlands and Islands European constituency, which is represented by my mother-in-law, Madame Ecosse. If the Secretary of State looks at the geography of the Highlands and Islands, he will see that the constituency's most southerly point is nearer to London than to its most northerly point. Thus, the servicing of the constituency involves a great deal of complication. Just getting to the islands is a problem. Indeed, the constituency has more islands than any other part of the European Community, and its land mass is bigger than that of Belgium. Does the Secretary of State not agree that it is desirable to take account of geography as well as of arithmetic?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady cannot have heard the answer that I gave a moment ago. In practice, what she wants would not make any difference. I should be delighted to take any possible steps to enable her to see more of her mother-in-law. Indeed, I can think of a number of ways in which the electorate could assist in that process—I am thinking not just of European parliamentary elections but also of United Kingdom parliamentary elections, in the next of which I hope that the electorate will take the necessary steps. However, this is not the best means of achieving that desirable objective.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Scotland is not the only part of the kingdom with very large constituencies. The constituency that I had the honour of representing years ago—then Cumbria, now Cumbria and North Lancashire—includes all of Cumbria and three very large House of Commons constituencies in north Lancashire, and is bigger than the rest of the north-west put together. I certainly had some travelling to do, but I loved it.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is completely right. She makes an entirely apposite point.
  Mr. William Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend referred very skilfully to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, but that Act was amended in 1981 and 1986. Has he not noticed the specific reference to the role of the Boundary Commission? It would not be right to say that the European constituency boundaries create more difficulty for the Boundary Commission than do the House of Commons constituencies, which have to take account of geography, shape, accessibility and so on. With regard to the European parliamentary boundaries laid down in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, it is provided that if at least 500 electors make any representation—not by reference to criteria laid down in respect of Westminster—there must be a local inquiry. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this Bill represents a step well away from arrangements enacted as recently as 1986?
  Mr. Howard: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me, as I am dealing at the moment with the distribution or seats in Great Britain. Of course there is an important point with regard to the role of the Boundary Commission and I shall come to that in due course.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend is being very brave in at last securing an element of fairness for England in the European Parliament. Will he go one step further and reduce Scotland's representation in the House of Commons so that England can have fairness here?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate that this is not an appropriate legislative vehicle for any endeavour of that kind.
  In the figures that I have given, I have made no mention of Northern Ireland as it is proportionately the best represented of the territories of the United Kingdom, with three Members of the European Parliament for a population of only 1,153,204. That level of representation is for good reasons. First, any fewer seats would result in Northern Ireland's being the least well represented of the home countries. Secondly, the three seats allow the communities to be represented roughly in proportion to their numbers.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State has been talking about the six extra seats—whether they be Scottish, Irish, Welsh or English. We are told that the extra cost will be £250,000. My understanding is that that sum would provide only one and three quarters MEPs. Is this bargain-basement Europeanism? How have the Government done their arithmetic?
  Mr. Howard: I am always keen to help my hon. Friend in his search for value for money. The sum to which he referred is the cost of reorganising the constituencies to enable us to implement the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: On the question of cost, I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend what I ought to say to those of my constituents who believe tht there are already too many MEPs, do not know what those MEPs do, and who say—perhaps unfairly—that they never see or hear of them. [Interruption.] I am expressing a view that has been put to me not infrequently by constituents. Are we justified in increasing the number of MEPs, who have very limited power and virtually no influence? Is there any point in having more of them before they have a real job to do?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is inviting me to dip a toe into some very troubled waters. I am a little reluctant to accept his invitation, although I realise that it was extended with the best of motives. I am sure that even my hon. Friend acknowledges that it is sensible for us to take advantage of increased representation for the United Kingdom when there is to be increased representation for other countries. No doubt we shall all do our utmost to make sure that the people who represent the United Kingdom will do so sensibly.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) misheard slightly and that most of the criticisms to which he referred were about Members of this House?
  Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I think that the sense of hearing of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) was probably accurate on this occasion.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, even after the proposed redistribution, the proposals will still result in a greater number of electors per seat in England than in Scotland? Is that not one of the reasons why it is appropriate for the seats to be awarded principally to England?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right. Even after the distribution of seats proposed in the Bill, England will still be at a disadvantage compared with Scotland and Wales, but it will be a much smaller disadvantge than that which would flow from the alternative arrangement suggested by the Opposition parties. That is why I said that only the Conservative party is prepared to fight for a fair deal for England.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Howard: This is the last time that I shall give way before dealing with clause 2.
  Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I can make the Secretary of State more comfortable by saying that, however unsatisfactory the position in the Brighton area, we in east Scotland get excellent value from Mr. David Martin and Mr. Alex Falconer.
  Mr. Howard: I note the hon. Gentleman's view on that matter.
  Clause 2 and the schedule to the Bill set out the machinery proposed for making recommendations for the constituencies for the 1994 European parliamentary elections.
  I now come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The recommendations
  990
  will be made by two special ad hoc European parliamentary constituencies committees, one each for England and Wales, appointed by the Home Secretary. It is a one-off task and does not form part of the duties assigned to the parliamentary Boundary Commission by the 1978 Act or, indeed, by the 1986 Act. That is solely because time does not permit that course to be followed.
  There is wide agreement that the process should be completed by the end of November. The Boundary Commission's procedures would not enable that date to be met, but it is my intention that, subject to those time constraints, the procedures that we adopt should follow as closely as possible the procedures which the Boundary Commission would adopt.
  The membership of the committees will be selected in consultation with Opposition parties, and I shall seek agreement with them on this matter in exactly the same way that I would if I were appointing Boundary Commissioners. I am delighted to say that, subject only to confirmation of the necessary timetable, I have the agreement of one existing Boundary Commissioner to sit on the committee for England and that of one existing Boundary Commissioner to sit on the committee for Wales. I certainly intend to appoint more Boundary Commissioners if it proves possible.
  Mr. Tony Blair: Let us be quite clear about this. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that, with regard to the appointments to and the independence of the committees, the process of consultation and agreement with other parties will be exactly the same as with the Boundary Commission?
  Mr. Howard: Yes.
  The committees will adopt procedures which—again, subject to time constraints—will follow the consultation arrangements which the Boundary Commission would have followed. Due to the time constraints, it will not be possible to hold public inquiries, but I am confident that full opportunity will be made available to all who wish their views to be taken into account.
  It is clearly important that the shape of the constituencies is settled as quickly as possible, taking account of the need for proper public consultation, so that the political parties can select candidates and prepare for the June 1994 elections in good time. I shall therefore ask the members of the committees to start work immediately on their appointment and before Royal Assent.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not recognise that an important point of principle is involved? Why is it right for us in the European context to abandon the traditional methods and safeguards that we observe when choosing or altering British parliamentary boundaries? Does that not tend to reinforce the fears of those of us who believe that every step down the European road tends to weaken this country's traditional democratic safeguards?
  Mr. Howard: I do not think that my hon. Friend's fears are justified by anything in the Bill. He talked about our traditions, but this will not be the first time there have been no public inquiries on the designation of constituencies for European parliamentary elections. When the first direct European Parliament elections took place in 1979, the process for drawing up the constituencies did not make

  991
  provision for public inquiries. So there is a precedent-this is not a novel departure in the context of the European Parliament.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: We were promised that it would never happen again.
  Mr. Howard: I do not conceal from my hon. Friend the fact that I would have preferred to appoint the Boundary Commissioners in the usual way and to hold public inquiries, but there is no time. We have checked carefully how long that procedure would take, and I am satisfied that time does not permit us to adopt it. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, that I proposed the alternative procedure and, as I have tried to say, I am attempting to mirror to the greatest possible extent within the time contraints the procedures which would be followed were the Boundary Commissions to be set up.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: If any Home Secretary of any political party were to say that the British parliamentary constituency boundaries were to be changed but that the traditional method of doing that was to be abandoned due to pressures of time, there would be an outcry from all parties and throughout the country, so why should the argument be acceptable in the European context, especially bearing in mind that in 1978 we were given an absolute assurance that such a procedure would never be followed again?
  Mr. Howard: I have made as clear as I can the reasons why we propose to follow this course on this occasion. I do not think that I can add anything to what I have said.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Howard: I am happy to give way, but I have already given the reasons for pursuing this course and I shall only be able to repeat them in answer to further interventions.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although the Boundary Commissions' reports for Europe were published in July 1983, because of the public inquiry system the boundaries were not finalised until March 1984? Would such a delay not make it almost impossible for candidates who are seeking to fight constituencies of 500,000 people, which is very much more difficult than fighting a Westminster constituency?
  Mr. Howard: I think that my hon. Friend is right. There was widespread agreement that we needed to have the constituencies finalised in good time before the election, for reasons that we all readily understand. As I have said, it was for that reason that I have included this procedure in the Bill.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: If we cannot do what is necessary through the Boundary Commission because of the lack of time, how do we explain to our constituents, who will surely want to know, that we are appointing a committee rather than referring the issue to the Boundary Commission when we have lost more than six months since it was originally agreed that the number of seats would have to be increased?
  Mr. Howard: I have a suspicion that the issue will not be uppermost in the minds of our constituents, but when it is raised we shall have to tell them—and there are few people better placed to do so than my hon. Friend—that we have had an especially heavy legislative timetable this Session and that we have been occupied with other matters, which has made it very difficult for us to deal with this issue until today. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to put that case persuasively to his constituents.
  Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 related to a tin-pot Assembly by no means the same as that referred to in the proposals contained in the Maastricht treaty concerning European political parties, the process of integration and all that goes with that? I therefore argue—and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree—that the requirements for greater control are necessary by virtue of the fact that the Maastricht treaty enhances the powers of the European Parliament. It is therefore essential that the criteria followed are no less significant than those which apply to the Boundary Commission. By bypassing the insertions in the 1986 Act, my right hon. and learned Friend is depriving 500 or more electors, notwithstanding the local inquiry, from having an opportunity to have their say on a far more important matter than that which applied in 1978.
  Mr. Howard: With great respect to my hon. Friend, he has got it wrong. The criteria that will be used to draw up the new constituencies will be identical to those that the Boundary Commissioners would follow. The procedures, however, will be different.
  Sir Peter Tapsell indicated assent.
  Mr. Howard: I am glad to have the assent of my hon. Friend.
  The 500 people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred will have full opportunity to make representations, which will be taken fully into account. The difference is that there will be no opportunity for a public inquiry. I wish that that were not so, but the time constraints make it impossible for such inquiries to be delivered.
  Mr. Bowden: Arising out of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and accepting that there are considerable time pressures facing the Boundary Commissioners at present, would my right hon. and learned Friend be prepared to consider that between the next two European elections the ordinary processes by which we decide our parliamentary boundaries should apply? That would enable local difficulties or complaints about relatively minor matters to be negotiated through public inquiries. The boundaries would be honed rather than decided roughly through the committee, as proposed.
  Mr. Howard: I very much hope so. I do not find it easy to look so far ahead in such detail, but I hope that we shall be able to do what my hon. Friend regards as important.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I intrude on this matter?
  Mr. Howard: By all means.
  Mr. Dalyell: Although I concede to the Home Secretary that this is not what Bernard Ingham, of happy memory, would call the
  "talk of Two Feathers in Hebden Bridge",

  993
  none the less, on what grounds will the criteria deciding the constituencies be different from the normal Boundary Commission criteria which decide parliamentary boundaries?
  Mr. Howard: The criteria will be those with which we are familiar and will include those which instruct the Boundary Commissioners or the members of the ad hoc committee to look at the numbers in and geographical configuration of a constituency. There will be no difference between the criteria employed by the committees and those employed by the Boundary Commissions. It is the procedures which are different and I want to make the differences as few and as small as possible. The criteria will, however, be identical.
  Mr. Blair: I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has grasped the force of the point about a public inquiry. He has refused such a possibility because of the problem with the timetable, but many people feel that that time constraint is due to the delay in bringing the Bill forward. If there were a way in which a public inquiry could be held and its recommendations published within five or six weeks, that would surely be a sufficient amount of time.
  Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman overlooks the practicalities of these matters. I have sought the most careful advice that I can obtain. I am clear that the timetable that is agreed as desirable simply cannot be met if we introduce public inquiries into the process. That is the only reason why I have been driven to the conclusion that I have explained to the House.
  Mr. Rooker: If my memory serves me correct, the right hon. and learned Gentleman entered the House in 1983. He may not therefore recall that it was just about two months—a matter of weeks—prior to the 1983 general election that the House approved the reorganisation of constituency boundaries. I did not know the constituency boundaries on which I would fight the 1983 election until the House had approved the order, just two months before that election. If that could be done for the House, surely it could be done for Euro-elections to be held in June next year.
  At the heart of the Bill is the integrity of our democratic procedures, which govern how boundaries are drawn. The Prime Minister gave his own word—I hope to deploy the record of that later—that the Bill would maintain the integrity of our democratic procedures. They will not be maintained by stamping out the possibility of a public inquiry, however tight the time scale may be.
  Mr. Howard: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The integrity of the process is guaranteed by the integrity of those who carry out the task. They will be independent and they will be selected in consultation—and, I hope, agreement—with the Opposition parties. I hope that many of those individuals will be Boundary Commissioners.
  As to what happened before 1983, the hon. Gentleman tempts me to remind him that, whatever the time at which the order providing for the constituencies was laid before the House, everyone knew what those constituencies would be because they had been agreed by the Boundary Commission in good time for the 1979 election. It was only on the basis of a disgraceful example of gerrymandering by the Labour party that those changes were not introduced
  994
  in time for that election. I do not believe that it does much credit to the hon. Gentleman or to his party to remind the House about what happened.
  Mr. Rooker: That is not true.
  Mr. Howard: Oh yes it is—that is exactly what happened. The Boundary Commission made recommendations in good time for the 1979 election, but the Labour party was terrified of having to fight the election on those boundaries, so it indulged in a shabby piece of procedural gerrymandering which made it impossible for the election to be fought on those boundaries. That is why we had to wait until 1983.
  Mr. John Maxton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got the wrong date.
  Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before I sought re-election to the House in 1983, I attended a public inquiry in Birmingahm of the Boundary Commission relating to changes made in 1981–82. How could that meeting relate to boundaries decided on before 1979?
  Mr. Maxton: The Home Secretary has got the wrong date.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. There seems to be a slight difference of opinion on dates. Perhaps hon. Members on both sides should do further research so that agreement can be reached.
  Mr. Maxton: It is the Government side that has got it wrong.
  Mr. Howard: I can quite understand the sensitivities of the Opposition about the gerrymandering exercise which took place immediately before the 1979 election.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Perhaps we can leave gerrymandering and get back to the criteria. The committees will apply the same criteria as the Boundary Commission. Does that mean that the new Euro constituencies in England and Wales will not take in parts of Westminster constituencies, but entire Westminster constituencies?
  Mr. Howard: Indeed it does. I will discuss the specific criteria in a moment, but I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's question in the affirmative.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the usual conventions will he followed and that those who have attended the Second Reading and shown their interest by making interventions and speeches will in due course be invited to form the Standing Committee?
  Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend will know, those matters are not for me. I understand that the Committee stage of the Bill is likely to be taken on the Floor of the House, so there will be ample opportunity for my hon. Friend to make his points.
  Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the opinion on his supportive Back Bench is that the event to which he referred, when Mr. Callaghan gerrymandered the boundaries in the belief that it would help the Labour party in the 1970 election, did not take

  995
  place in 1979 but in 1969? Of course, it did not help. Before my right hon. and learned Friend replies, he should have a look at the Box.
  Mr. Howard: It is not always easy to distinguish between one piece of Labour party gerrymandering and another. It comes naturally to the Labour party. Undoubtedly, if Labour Members were ever to sit on the Government side of the House they would be up to the same tricks again.
  I hope that the members of the committees to whom I have referred will publish their draft reports in mid-August. I then envisage about four to six weeks of public consultation and a further month or so of subsequent deliberation before final reports are published in November. Approval by Orders in Council would then follow.
  The criteria that the committees must follow in considering the distribution of seats will be the same as those laid down in part II of schedule 2 to the 1978 Act. They specify that each European parliamentary constituency must consist of at least two parliamentary constituencies, that no parliamentary constituency can be included partly in one European parliamentary constituency and partly in another, and that the electorate of each constituency must be as close as possible to the electoral quota for that part of Great Britain, having regard to special geographical considerations where appropriate.
  This Bill is not concerned with the powers of the European Parliament, but the extra seats for the United Kingdom will give this country a greater voice in the important jobs of scrutinising the Community budget, exposing fraud and calling European Commissioners to account. The Bill sets out the right way of allocating our extra seats to different parts of the United Kingdom. It deserves wide support, and I hope that it will receive it. I commend it to the House.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move, to leave out from "That to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill which has been delayed without justification; which does not provide for the Boundary Commission to establish new boundaries with the power to hold public inquiries and proper consultation; and which does not provide for an additional seat for Scotland."
  The first point that should be made about the Bill is that it is long overdue. Indeed, we have encountered some of the problems that the Home Secretary described precisely because of the delay in bringing the Bill to the House. On 14 December, the Prime Minister announced that the review would take place following the Edinburgh summit.
  At the summit, it was agreed that, as a result of unification, the German allocation of seats would increase to provide for proper representation for east Germany. Eighteen seats were agreed for Germany and six apiece for France, Italy and the United Kingdom. That means that the latter three countries, with populations of about 56 million or 57 million, will return 87 European Members of Parliament, and Germany, with a population of about 80 million, will return 99.
  I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary on 14 December asking for clarification of the procedures,
  996
  because we supported the principle of six extra seats but wanted to be sure that the proper procedures would be followed. It took almost six weeks for a reply to come through, on 27 January 1993. It is right to say—of course, this was before the Home Secretary took office—that there were fairly constant reminders and requests to expedite matters.
  There has been an enormous delay in bringing the Bill forward. That delay is relevant for reasons that I shall give in a moment. I do not simply raise it to make a point about the delay—it is relevant to the two principal points that we are discussing with regard to the Boundary Commission and the issue of public inquiries.
  There are three main aspects of the Bill that we should consider: first, it will not be the Boundary Commission but a sub-committee appointed by the Home Secretary that will draw up the new boundaries; secondly, there will not be the full process of public inquiry that is normally associated with boundary changes; and, thirdly, there is the issue of distribution of the seats, which the Home Secretary has done on the basis of five for England, one for Wales and none for Scotland.
  We believe that the Bill is justified if it provides for six extra seats, but it must be done on a proper basis. The reason for having the Boundary Commission draw up the boundaries is obvious-it is independent, it is respected and it has the expertise. It is also what the Prime Minister promised would happen when he announced the extra seats for Britain. He said:
  "The provision of six extra MEPs will mean that fresh boundaries are set across England, Scotland and Wales, which will be a matter for the Boundary Commission. not the Government."—[Official Report, 14 December 1992; Vol. 216, c. 35.]
  Today, the Government say that the Boundary Commission cannot perform the task, first, because the commission is too busy with the Westminster constituencies. However, I now understand that the reason is a technical one—the Boundary Commission, as a statutory body, would need specific parliamentary power to draw up the new boundaries. Because of the time problem as a result of the delay, work on the new boundaries would have to begin immediately. I understand that the Boundary Commission would be unable to do that work on an informal basis and, apparently, such considerations do not apply to any new and different committee that the Home Secretary appoints.
  Let us be clear about this. If it is merely a technical matter, that is one thing. But if there are any circumstances in which the independence or integrity of the process is called into question, that would be another matter. At the minimum, we would demand that, so far as the guarantee of independence is concerned, this must be the Boundary Commission in all but name if there is a genuine technical objection to the Boundary Commission pursuing it; where possible, Boundary Commissioners should serve; it should be effectively the same secretariat that services it and there should be the proper and normal process of consultation over any additional members so that we can be sure that this is the product of a cross-party agreement and there is no question of people who are susceptible to the Government or are supporters of them being appointed. That seems to be an entirely reasonable list of demands.
  I now turn to the question of the timetable. The big omission is the omission of any proper public inquiry. submit that the existence of the process of a public inquiry

  997
  is an important part—not merely a usual part—of the process of consultation when a boundary redistribution takes place. I do not believe that the House would for one moment contemplate allowing a redistribution of Westminster boundaries without a proper public inquiry.
  Therefore, it seems to be wrong in principle to say that we should have such a redistribution of European constituency boundaries without some public inquiry element. The process allows scrutiny and cross-examination and matters often emerge during public inquiries. Most people who have been through the process would recognise that it is a valuable and, indeed, integral part of the process of scrutiny and consultation.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, contrary to what the Home Secretary appears to believe, the trigger for a public inquiry, which is the 500 or more electors or an interested authority, under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, as amended by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, has been left out of the procedure, or am I wrong? Does he have a view on that?
  Mr. Blair: I understand that the effect of the Bill is that there will not be a public inquiry, whether or not there are 500 or more electors. Obviously, we wish to see that element of public inquiry inserted in the Bill. What I find unsatisfactory about what the Home Secretary said is that we have an assertion that there is insufficient time available. However, we must examine that assertion before we simply accept it at face value.
  Mr. Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman's amendment is successful as a result of a decision of hon. Members, abstentions or whatever, and if the Bill is voted down—even if the amendment were successful—would we have elections on the same basis as at present? What process would be used?
  Mr. Blair: The Government would have to introduce a Bill in consequence of the reasoned amendment. I hope that they would do that. That would be their clear conventional obligation in the House.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Some people, especially people outside the House, might think that the expression "public inquiry" is rather meaningless. But that is far from the case. The Boundary Commissioners have just been examining my parliamentary seat. The examination produced an initial recommendation which, after the public inquiry, was substantially changed because there was a local outcry in Lincolnshire. The commissioners have accepted the changes to their original recommendation suggested by the public. That would not be possible under the proposed procedures, and it is wrong.
  Mr. Blair: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has just reminded me that about 70 per cent. of boundary changes are altered after the public inquiry. Perhaps my mind is unduly concentrated on the matter because my constituency will go through the process of a public inquiry next Monday. The public inquiry is important because Members of Parliament, parties and people who have objections often attend, so there is necessarily much more detailed consideration, as anyone who has seen the process at work will understand.
  Mr. Howard: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this issue. The procedures will allow for consultation to take place and representations to be made after the members of the committee have published their provisional recommendations. There will certainly be opportunity for changes to be made to those provisional recommendations in the light of any representations that are made. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) is right to say that there will not be a public inquiry. However, all the people who would have attended the public inquiry and wanted to make their views known will be able to make representations. The members of the committee will be perfectly able to take account of those representations and change their provisional recommendations in the light of them.
  Mr. Blair: The Home Secretary is less than persuasive. Of course it is true that, according to his timetable, people will be able to make written representations. But the point that is being made to him is that in the process of an oral inquiry people can attend and the commissioners can be subject to proper scrutiny and cross-examination. I shall give evidence at the inquiry next week in my constituency.
  I suspect that what often happens—indeed, I am certain that it frequently happens—is that the proposals to change the Boundary Commission recommendations are driven by the interests of political parties. That is natural and entirely sensible from the standpoint of the political parties. In a process of public inquiry, such recommendations can be tested and the commissioners can decide whether they are merely a desire to sort out the boundaries in a way most convenient to a political party or whether there is a genuine objection about the way in which constituencies are represented.
  Therefore, I believe that the Home Secretary crucially underestimates the importance of holding an inquiry in public. We are on particularly strong ground when the reason for the truncation of the timetable is delay by the Government.
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman's figure of 70 per cent. may apply to reorganisation of Westminster parliamentary constituencies, in which a ward may be moved from one constituency to another, but in a reorganisation of European parliamentary constituencies whole Westminster constituencies may be moved. The number of changes that occurred as a result of the public inquiries after the 1983 review was nowhere near 70 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that under the procedures adopted in 1978 significant changes were made through the representation system? Does he agree that the system adopted in 1978 by the Labour Government was precisely the same system as that which is being adopted this evening?
  Mr. Blair: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right about the current boundary changes, but, in any event, it was made clear after the 1983 review that the process would have proper public inquiries built into it from then on.
  The Prime Minister said in the House back in December that the normal political processes would apply through the Boundary Commission. Paragraph 7 of the schedule—perhaps the Home Secretary or whoever replies to the debate could comment on this—says that it is for the Secretary of State to

  999
  "lay the report before Parliament together with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report."
  It is important to know exactly who will be responsible for making those modifications.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). Moving bits of constituencies is a vastly different kettle of fish. In the current boundary changes, I have been given some remarkable fragments which bear no relation whatever to each other. It is a different matter when one moves whole constituencies. It is a much simpler process.
  Mr. Blair: I do not understand why that should be a point against holding public inquiries here, because, if anything, it means that the process can be expedited in a sensible way. On any basis, there will be a relatively limited number of inquiries. In a moment I shall show how public inquiries could be built into the timetable. As I understand the Home Secretary's argument, he does not argue that there is any reason of principle for not having public inquiries. He says that he would prefer to have public inquiries, but that the time constraints simply do not allow him to do so. That should not pass without proper investigation.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people can attend a public inquiry and have a fair crack of the whip and that, even if they do not achieve what they hoped, they recognise that justice has been seen to be done? There is a vast difference between that procedure and some shenanigans of written submissions to a faceless committee which writes back a form letter saying, "Thank you very much, Guy, but push off."
  Mr. Blair: Whether that point will console me if the Boundary Commission plays around with my constituency next week, I do not know. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to have a public inquiry. Otherwise, the representations are simply written and the commission will not consider any oral representations. There is no opportunity for cross-examination of key witnesses, as there is in normal inquiries. The reason why oral inquiries are held on any matter is precisely that the scrutiny is greater and more profound than when written representations are handled behind closed doors.
  Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being patient. Has he realised that we are likely to have new boundaries for every European election for some years as a result of either boundary changes to the Westminster constituencies, which are likely to need to be reflected in the European boundaries, or the enlargement of Europe, which is the cause of today's Bill? If we are likely to have changes every five years, is it not about time that we developed some agreed system that would be a great deal speedier and cleaner than the attractive but leisurely system that we have for Westminster constituencies, which takes rather more than the 10 years that it is supposed to take?
  Mr. Blair: It is precisely such interventions which will worry many people in the House. The hon. Lady is saying
  1000
  that this is not an exceptional case and that the new procedures should become the norm. Yet the Home Secretary justified his position by saying that the new procedures were exceptional. Many people are worried that if the issue is conceded once, it will be accepted as something which should be conceded for a period of time.
  I return to the point that in the end the debate must be a matter of analysis of the timetable. If, as I hope to show in a moment, proper time can be found for public inquiries without undue delay, public inquiries should be held.
  Mr. Rooker: The point about paragraphs 7 and 8 of the schedule is crucial. Under the present arrangement, the Boundary Commission, not Ministers, will, after a draft proposal and a public inquiry, decide whether to issue an amended draft proposal. In this case, it is clear that the Minister, not the committee, will agree to issue the amended proposal. Opportunites sometimes arise for even a second public inquiry. That occurred on a previous occasion in the Finchley area, if I remember correctly. That point is crucial. It has to be transparently seen that the system has integrity from start to finish. The system will be damaged if there is no opportunity for a face-to-face verbal inquiry in which witnesses can be challenged and the commission that made the original proposal can decide whether, on the force of the arguments, to issue another proposal.
  Mr. Blair: I understood that drawing up the boundaries would not involve any ministerial decision. Perhaps the Home Secretary could confirm that.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) combined two points in his intervention. He made a point about face-to-face contact, which is obviously what one gets at a public inquiry. He also said that, as a result of the procedures that we propose, the original committee would not decide whether the representations that were submitted were such as to cause the original recommendations to be altered. On that, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Members of the committee, who will make their recommendations and receive representations in exactly the same way as the Boundary Commissioners, would decide, without a public inquiry, whether, in the light of the representations, they wish to change their original recommendations. The committee will have the power to do so. In that respect, the procedures that we expect to follow will be identical to those which the Boundary Commission would follow.
  Mr. Blair: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr will make that point again during the debate. Is the Home Secretary giving an assurance that there will be no ministerial involvement in assessing whether the provisional recommendations of the Boundary Commission are altered or modified?
  Mr. Howard: The procedures would be identical to those that would otherwise be followed. The procedures always provide that when either the Boundary Commissioners or the members of the committee make their final proposals, the Home Secretary can make orders in accordance with those proposals or modify them. That is always the case. There is no difference between what we propose in the Bill and what normally takes place.
  The procedures will be as follows: the members of the committee will publish their provisional recommendations; they will receive representations on those

  1001
  recommendations and decide whether to alter their original view in the light of the representations that would be received; they will then submit their final recommendations to the Home Secretary, who will then make Orders in Council. The Home Secretary has a discretion to modify final recommendations. I cannot remember when that discretion was last exercised.
  Mr. Graham Allen: It never has been.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman says that the discretion has never been exercised. He may well be right about that. I have no reason to suppose that that practice would be any different on an occasion such as we are debating. The form and the language used for that stage of the process would be identical. I repeat what I have said time after time. Although there would not be room for a public inquiry in the process, and subject only to that omission, the procedures will mirror as closely as possible those that apply when the Boundary Commission is involved.
  Mr. Blair: I accept the point that the Home Secretary makes. But the existence of the power to which he has referred adds weight to the need for a public inquiry. There is even greater pressure on the Minister not to exercise that power, because the full process of consultation will not have been completed.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member was probably still at school at the time and may not recall the occasion when a Labour Home Secretary had the audacity to lead his troops into the Lobby against his own orders.
  Mr. Blair: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I do not remember that occasion.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall try to seek some compromise in this difficult situation. Would not it be in accordance with the spirit of this excellent Bill if we were simply to go home now, cancel the debate and send a written representation to the Home Secretary about what we think about the Bill? He could carefully consider those representations and then—perhaps tomorrow—let us know his conclusion. Is not the issue of a public inquiry that there is a massive difference between having a debate about something and simply sending letters that are carefully considered? Is not the matter one of principle rather than a minor bureaucratic point as some people think?
  Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman has made his point well. The Opposition often feel that, even after a full debate, our points are not always taken on board fully.
  The timetable, I would submit, would allow for the public inquiry process. The consultation of the committee membership could be achieved, one would think, within days of the Bill receiving Second Reading. The committee could determine provisional recommendations certainly within a couple of weeks. Those provisional recommendations could be published, let us say, a couple of weeks later. There could be a final dale for representations. Notice of the public inquiry could be given—it could be four weeks on such a timetable. There could be then a week of public inquiries. We understand that public inquiries would be necessarily limited to a maximum of about 10 inquiries.
  1002
  There would be another month before final recommendations were determined, and another couple of weeks before publication.
  That process from giving notice of the public inquiry to the publication of the final recommendations would take about 10 weeks. Looking as reasonably as one can at the matter, it does not seem to be impossible to do that. If the Home Secretary had been able to give a clearer illustration of why that was genuinely not feasible, he would have found a greater echo in some of the comments that he made in the House. If the process were to be put back to mid-December, which is not impossible, that could be done within the proper time scale and would allow for the public inquiry to take place.
  I understand elements such as the transcripts and commissioners' consideration and other matters. I return to the powerful point that the Government, if anyone, are responsible for the delay. They have dragged their heels. [Interruption.] It does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to blame their own side.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We do.
  Mr. Blair: Well, the hon. Lady may do so, but she must sort that out with the Government.
  It cannot be right that the delay is used as a reason for not having a proper timetable for public inquiries. I have shown, or at least raised a prima facie case, that even with the constraints of time there is room for a public inquiry. We believe that it is important that the fairness of the procedure should not be a casualty of the timetable in the Bill.
  There are three effective reasons why there should be an additional seat for Scotland. First, there are the special geographical considerations. If we leave out the seat for the Highlands and Islands, on the current basis Scotland does not have a much lower average electorate than England. The effect of giving England four extra seats instead of five reduces the average by only 7,000 voters per seat. The effect of giving Scotland an extra seat would be to reduce the average electorate by 55,000. If the calculation were purely numerical, the outcome would have been six, nothing, nothing—six seats for England and none for Wales or Scotland. A seat has been given to Wales and we support that.
  If there is one for Wales, there should also be one for Scotland. That would leave Wales and Scotland similarly balanced. I am not suggesting that there is not a case for six seats to England, none to Wales and none to Scotland or even five, one, none, but there is a strong case for the position that we are advocating. Indeed, if the Secretary of State looks at his own table, he will see the strength of that case made out, because Wales and Scotland are treated differently.
  We ask support for the notion that there should be an equitable distribution of the seats and a proper way of determining the redrawing of European seat boundaries. They are important matters when new boundaries are drawn up and new seats given. The procedure must be sensible and fair. It must erase any appearance of substituting some ad hoc committee run by the Government for a proper independent body. The Secretary of State has moved towards meeting the objections to independence and I accept that. However, I am not satisfied, and I do not think that my hon. Friends

  1003
  are either, about the issue of the public inquiry. For that reason and the other reasons that we have given, we ask for support for our reasoned amendment.
  5.40 pm
  Sir Roger Moate: It is evident from the speeches and interventions that there is equal concern on both sides of the House for the principle of regular, fair and independent boundary reorganisation. That is a fundmental part of our democracy.
  It is significant that there is not the same concern for these European proposals. One must ask why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should espouse so fundamentally and clearly the principle of independent, regular boundary reviews—so essential to our parliamentary democracy—yet feel it possible to recommend to the House a truncated and simplified system for European boundaries. Alas, he has left the Chamber, but the fundamental difference is that Westminster boundaries matter to this House and the public, whereas fundamentally, after many years of experience with this, the Strasbourg boundaries do not. If they did, there would be no proposition such as the one before us tonight.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): There is another, simpler explanation: we have a deadline of June next year.
  Sir Roger Moate: A deadline would not be enough to undermine the principle that is so important to the House if we were talking about Westminster boundaries. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I agree with the Bill. It is a matter of supreme indifference to my constituents and to most constituents whether or not these new boundaries are determined by the full Boundary Commission and public inquiries or by a committee.
  I would go further: I suspect that it is of supreme indifference to them whether or not they get the six extra seats. They will not cheer if the Bill is passed or weep tears if it is not. Had we declined to take these six seats, people would not be particularly upset. I admit that there are some with ambitions to represent their areas in Strasbourg or Brussels who would be disappointed, but for the vast majority that is not the case.
  The important message that we can deliver to the world at large following today's deliberations on the Bill is that we should now examine the logic of what we are doing and the fundamental principles on which this and previous legislation are based. I can say that as one who is on the record as having voted in November 1977 against the original direct elections Bill. I believed it wrong then, and I believe it wrong now. If one believed it wrong then, it is logical to continue one's objections to the increased number of seats and the further entrenchment of the principle of direct elections.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who has now left us, was a little unkind when he referred to the general public's perception of Members of the European Parliament. I am not saying that he was wrong, but it was unkind to draw attention to the fact that most members of the public do not know their
  1004
  MEPs, are not aware of their role and have little contact with them. That is reflected at elections, when the percentage turnout is pathetically low. It is derisory.
  That is not a criticism of MEPs. They are worthy, earnest, dedicated, conscientious men. My MEP is an honourable man, as are they all. Given their remit and their constitutional role, they cannot respond as we expect elected representatives to do. That is the point that we are entitled to examine when we consider this Bill today.
  We now have an opportunity to examine the Bill in the light of developments in the Community and other developments, particularly one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). She rightly pointed to the changes that will be forced on us by the enlargement of the Community.
  The proposal to increase the number of seats has come to us because of the enlargement of the Community by the inclusion of eastern Germany. As enlargement progresses and the Community of 12 becomes ultimately, I hope, the Community of 20, what then? Every time we take in two or three new member states, are we to have a new Bill of this sort? If so, what are we going to do? Will we reduce the number of Members per nation so that we do not increase the size of the Parliament, or will we increase their number until we have an assembly of 1,000 members?
  I would find it rather amusing to be a member of such a Parliament. I suspect that it would give the same sort of pleasure as was given to the inhabitants of the tower of Babel. In practical terms, however, it cannot work. Surely it is incumbent on us now, during these interesting proceedings, to say what we want, and to ask where the European Parliament is going and what it is about.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I agree with every word of my hon. Friend. Does he accept that. if we defeat the Bill tonight and throw it out, there will be no extra MEPs in any country, because, under the Edinburgh agreement, if one country rejects the legislation, there will be no extra MEPs? Could we not save a great deal of public expenditure and avoid all the problems that he has described by agreeing to chuck out the legislation?
  Sir Roger Moate: That is a tempting thought, but I do not feel in a destructive mood.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Constructive.
  Sir Roger Moate: We should be constructive, and we should examine the Bill. After all, we have a Committee stage, when some such proposal could be tabled.
  Let us consider what we should do in future. I say to my hon. Friend and even to the most enthusiastic Europeans, if I may use that phrase, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), that we must consider what will work in future, because it is self-evident that the directly elected European Parliament is not working as we believe it should. It is not responsive and responsible to its electorate as a Parliament should be.
  The situation will not improve; it will become increasingly difficult. Therefore—this is the serious message that we must examine today, because if we do not, we shall have to return to it time and again—in the light of the enlargement of the Community, we should return to the system that we had before the 1977–78 legislation, which was nomination by this House. If we had such a system—or, at least, the option of such a system—we

  1005
  would not face this legislation. That is an important proposition, and soon the Community will come back to recognising the advantage of it.
  If, indeed, we believe in a Europe of nation states and want the central institutions to be responsive to our national legislatures, think of the advantages of returning to the system that worked rather well before 1977—that hon. Members of this House should be nominated by their parties to serve in the European Parliament. They could work there in rotation or for a limited number of years.
  The advantages are self-evident because, being Members of this House, they would be in touch with their electors and responsive to the real world instead of being in their ivory towers elsewhere, with electorates of some half a million. That system worked before, and I believe that it could work again.
  In pursuing that logic, some nations may not want to follow that pattern, but others do. If we believe in subsidiarity, it should be left to each member state to determine how it selects those Members who are to represent this nation in that Assembly.
  Instead of the Government simply diving into this Bill, how much better it would have been had we raised at Edinburgh and the recent negotiations the prospect of subsidiarity applying to the method of choosing Members to go to the European Assembly.
  Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as there have been grave doubts about the word "subsidiarity", this is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate exactly what it means, and to have it work in this case? This is a classic case in which subsidiarity might work, yet the Government have rejected it and are producing a new invented mechanism specifically for Europe.
  Sir Roger Moate: This debate gives us that opportunity.
  I repeat what I said at the beginning: it is a matter of supreme indifference to my electors how those boundaries are changed—whether by a boundary commission or a committee. That does not undermine the principle of independent boundary commissions for Parliament, where it matters for democracy, but I see no evidence to suggest that it affects real democracy in the full sense of the word, because my constituents are not influencing the democratic power of MEPs. The system does not allow for that., so it cannot be fundamentally important.
  We should now say, let the Government have the system. Although it is not satisfactory, they are probably right to say that there is no alternative. But let us send a message loud and clear that this is the time to re-examine the basis of the directly elected European Parliament.
  Mr. Cash: I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says but take issue with him on whether the powers of the European Parliament have been significantly increased under the Maastricht treaty. If this Bill is enacted, it will apply to the provisions of the Maastricht Bill, when enacted. Therefore, the powers of co-decision and all that go with them, which European parliamentarians will acquire, will be attributable to those Members who will sit in those new parliamentary constituencies.
  Sir Roger Moate: I have heard my hon. Friend express that view about increased powers of the European Parliament, and undoubtedly there are some. I am an
  1006
  optimist, and believe that those powers are neither extensive nor wide, and will not grow. It is our task to try to prevent them from growing.
  I therefore maintain my position that it is of no great significance whether we have six more Members, because they are doing nothing effective or helpful to this country. Individually, they may be superb and they are delightful men and women, but collectively their constitutional role is muddled, and the system by which we send them to Europe is wrong.
  In the meantime, it does not matter what happens to those six seats. Let Scotland have them all if that makes it happy. It will do England little harm. Alternatively, Wales could have half.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Or Gibraltar.
  Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. Gibraltar is a deserving cause for representation in the European Parliament. If Luxembourg can have such a large representation, Gibraltar must be equally entitled. Let us give Gibraltar all six seats. If that is not satisfactory and we are to conform in some way, let us give them to other worthy organisations such as Age Concern, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The matter is of no great constitutional importance.
  Ultimately, we must deal with the matter, and we have had no answers yet on how the European Parliament is to mould itself to a Europe of 20 separate sovereign states. There are those who will not for one moment yield the principle of direct elections, because they see them as a symbol of a nation state, albeit a federal, centralised one. To them, it is almost a principle of religious importance, because that pretension to a unitary state requires direct elections.
  If the converse is true, and we believe in a Europe of nation states and decentralisation, we should get away from direct elections and return to the system whereby this Westminster Parliament nominates Members to the European Assembly.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I had a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and did not believe that I would hear such a frivolous speech. It horrifies me because if we want to take our membership of the European Community seriously, as I believe the majority in the House and the country do, to treat the matter so frivolously does no justice to the House of Commons. I am extremely disappointed in the hon. Gentleman.
  There is a role for national Parliament. Because of changes in the Community, which will undoubtedly occur within the next few years as a result of increased membership, the nature of the European Parliament will change. To try to keep the numbers sensible, it may mean a reduction in the number of directly-elected Members for each existing member state, and there will probably be a role for a second chamber made up of members of national Parliaments. That would provide a check and a balance. Each stage of democracy should have checks and balances built into it. I see possibilities there, although I do not wish to pursue the matter in detail.
  I do not accept that the principle of subsidiarity applies in this case. I agree that a case can be made for it but it has

  1007
  no strength simply because, if the European Parliament is to be treated seriously, bring the Commission to heel and have some control over what happens within the Commission, it is important that that Parliament is elected on a common, uniform basis and in a way that is compatible within Parliament. If each member state could send Members there on a wholly different basis—some elected, some appointed and others in different forms—it would negate the strength of a possible powerful check on the Commission by a democratically-elected European Parliament. I therefore do not accept the argument that each member state should be able to choose how it sends members to the European Parliament.
  We are debating an important issue. We should not say that the turnout in the elections does not matter. As democrats, we should encourage maximum turnout at every election as part of the democratic process. It is up to our constituents to choose whether to participate in the debates. We should not argue that they do not care about the election and that we need not bother them with public inquiries as they can send letters. We should not tell them that that body and that election do not matter and that therefore their votes have no value. That sends a terrible signal to our constituents about what we think of the worth of their participation in how their country is governed.
  I say that in the widest sense because not all power now resides in this House. Over time some of our powers have gone to the greater good of the European Community. On the whole, our constituents benefit from that, so it does not behove us to say that the elections do not count and that therefore it does not matter about the mechanism for those elections. It is more crucial for this country than for the other countries of western Europe. I freely declare my view that the elections should be based on proportional representation, as should the elections to this House. But I shall not pursue that matter today.
  This is the only country in Europe that elects Members of Parliament on a single constituency, first-past-the-post arrangement. That has a destabilising effect on the composition of the European Parliament because, as we know from the 1989 election, a small change in the way the electorate votes can make a huge difference to the party representation of Great Britain in the European Parliament. The other member states are rightly aggrieved by that because they all subscribe to a system of proportionality by which representation is reflected in proportion to the votes cast for parties.
  Our system is not proportional and we make no attempt to make it so except in Northern Ireland. That alters the party groupings in the European Parliament, the time available for speaking and the composition of its committees, and that is wholly disproportionate to the wishes of voters throughout Europe. Other countries have every reason to be aggrieved by Britain's slow progress on our commitment to a better and fairer system.
  The Labour party conducted a long review of electoral procedures and systems. I attended all 28 of the meetings which were chaired by Lord Plant of Highfield. At our final meeting there was only one vote against recommending our party to subscribe to proportional voting based on a regional list system for the European Parliament. That
  1008
  view has been endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I am certain that it will be carried at our annual conference in the autumn.
  By the end of the year and before the next Euro-elections Labour will be committed to a proportional system for those elections. I regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to bring our system up to date in line with article 138 and the proposals endorsed by a committee of the European Parliament in March. Those proposals would enable England, Scotland and Wales to retain single member constituencies up to a maximum of two thirds, the other third to involve a system of proportional top-up so that votes are matched to the representation of the political parties. Hon. Members think that people vote on an individual basis and that we have huge personal votes, but in European constituencies, with electorates of 500,000, people will vote on a party basis. The nature of our representation in the European Parliament should reflect that vote.
  Mrs. Ewing: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on proportionality. Has he looked at the implications for Scotland, Wales and England separately, bearing in mind that Scotland and Wales each have four major political parties whereas England tends to have three? There should not be a cross-boundary transfer of votes: representation should reflect the votes cast in Scotland, Wales and England.
  Mr. Rooker: I accept that without equivocation and, of course, that applies in some other member states. However, because they use proportional systems, the small parties in those states are not snuffed out. In the nations of Scotland and Wales the parties represent large proportions of the electorate. Political parties are in the process of competition and of maximising support for their ideals and principles. It is not our role to organise systems to snuff out other parties. A proportional system, however it is based, must reflect the nature of the nationalist vote and other votes in Scotland and Wales. The dilution of the English vote must not be used to snuff that out.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Under the hon. Gentleman's proposal, would there be a national list system or a list system for the different component parts of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Rooker: I think I said that we propose a regional list system for the European Parliament. Regions can be drawn in different ways but clearly Northern Ireland would be designated as a region and in that context would not be attached to any part of the mainland because that would not form a cohesive whole that any hon. Member could recommend. Scotland and Wales would be separate regions: it would be difficult to propose otherwise. The regions of England would need to be examined.
  That is Labour's general proposal but we have not dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's because the detail is a matter for negotiation between the parties in the House and interested bodies outside. It is not for one political party to say, "This is what will happen." The Secretary of State is effectively saying through the Bill what will happen and there will not be proper discussion.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is well known for his pioneering work in his party and outside on these matters. Was not it a great tragedy that in

  1009
  1977 the Labour Government cynically removed the regional list construction from the original draft Bill and went instead for giant constituencies? The latest disappointment also is that there will not be an additional member system for the six seats.
  Mr. Rooker: I am not in favour of rewriting history. On a free vote the House had a choice between single member constituencies—the huge existing ones—and a regional list system. A schedule to the Bill that the hon. Gentleman mentions contained both systems. I voted for first-past-the-post, single member constituencies, but since then I have seen the disbenefits of that system in local, regional and national elections and I have changed my mind. There is nothing wrong in learning from one's experience: I thought that that was what life was all about. Such systems were proposed during the time of the Lib-Lab pact. The last Labour Government recommended that the House support the regional list system, but on a free vote the House chose not to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) spoke about Scotland. In his speech, the Home Secretary repeated words from a Home Office press release. The idea of fairness in elections is a new Home Office concept. On pure arithmetical fairness the proportions are 5:1:0—five to England, one to Wales and none to Scotland. To try to rule on the basis of arithmetical fairness, ignoring community interests, Britain's political geography and the nations that make up the United Kingdom, would not take account of the aspirations and opinions within the United Kingdom. Therefore, I could support an extra seat for Scotland.
  I wish that the city of Birmingham had the same representation as the city of Glasgow, but as a result of agreements over time Scotland is over-represented because of its geographical position and the historical understandings that have served the nation well. I am prepared to live with that. We do not propose the imposition of a uniform system. The Government have an arithmetical case but political logic demands that Scotland should have an extra seat.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman stands on the issue of one man, one vote, but surely the essential issue is that individuals are voting and not land masses. Therefore, the arithmetic makes a difference. It is people, not space, and the natural formula to follow is based on arithmetic.
  Mr. Rooker: If it were just a question of arithmetic, there would not be various shaped constituencies for this House. Massive deviations are accepted, even at a time of boundary redistribution, over and above the arithmetical figure. America follows the arithmetic almost to the last 0·5 per cent., which means joining together districts that have no affinity just to make the numbers right. That is the problem with first-past-the-post, single-member constituencies and we have to live with that. It is one reason why I no longer subscribe to that system.
  This House and the European Parliament should reflect, on a party basis, the votes cast in the ballot box, and that can be achieved by using one of a number of PR systems, whether single-member based with a regional top-up, a list or multi-member single transferable vote, as in Northern Ireland. That is the only way to get around the arithmetical difficulty of every constituency not being the same size.
  1010
  I want to raise the issue of delay in bringing this matter before the House. In some ways this debate, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has forcefully argued against the snuffing out of public participation in the way that the boundaries are drawn, is happening only because of that delay. One would think that no one knew that there would be a delay. We seem to be overlooking the fact that from July to December last year Britain held the European presidency. When the Prime Minister went to the Edinburgh summit, it did not come as a surprise to him that there would be extra seats.
  I corresponded with the Prime Minister on that issue between October and March. I want to share some of that correspondence with the House. On 23 November, in response to a question about the size of the European Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman wrote:
  "We are, as Presidency, doing all we can to work for a solution … We are taking soundings with other member states before Edinburgh."
  I checked the newspapers—although I did not do a massive Sherlock Holmes job—and I could not find a single account of the Prime Minister, during the presidency, raising the matter in the House or in the country. No briefing emanated from No. 10, prior to Edinburgh, about public participation in or soundings with other member states about the issues surrounding extra seats.
  The Prime Minister also said in that letter:
  "As far as the redrawing of European Parliamentary constituency boundaries is concerned, various options for doing this are being considered, but I am confident that we can work out a solution once an agreement on the number of seats has been reached."
  That agreement was reached at Edinburgh a few weeks later.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that it was Germany's absolute insistence that it should have 18 additional seats—despite the fact that it had previously said that it would not press for them—that precipitated this process? It is another example of our giving in, as we always do in Europe, to the overall pressures exerted by the Christian Democrats and the European People's party, and all that goes with that. That is the real reason for this Bill.
  Mr. Rooker: That is xenophobic nonsense. If the structure of the European Parliament is to reflect the people in the nation states, while ensuring that small nations like Luxembourg are not snuffed out, the representation of countries such as Britain, France, Italy and Germany—which all had roughly the same size populations before reunification—must now be adjusted to take account of German reunification. Germany virtually absorbed another nation state of 17 million to 18 million citizens, so it deserves greater representation. No other member state deserves greater representation. On the basis of arithmetical fairness, there would be extra seats for Germany but none for any other country.
  It is political logic that has resulted in not just Britain, France and Italy, but all the other countries, except Luxembourg, gaining extra seats. Political logic is the very argument that we would use for Scotland.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: Would not the correct solution have been simply to have given Germany

  1011
  extra seats to reflect its greater population after reunification? The complication has arisen because the French were afraid of losing out to the Germans.
  Mr. Rooker: All this happened a long time ago, at the Edinburgh summit last December. There has been plenty of time for the issues to be resolved.
  In my correspondence with the Prime Minister, I said that while we held the presidency Britain should give a democratic lead to Europe by pushing to have the issue resolved. On 30 December, having reached agreement at Edinburgh, he responded:
  "This breakthrough will give us time to redraw constituency boundaries in time for the June 1994 elections."
  He also referred to the importance of the European Parliament being able increasingly to scrutinise the Commission. That is crucial, but nothing happened. There was silence. The Government put forward no proposals for how that would be done.
  By February, I had become quite angry and I accused the right hon. Gentleman of seeking to delay the issue to create the conditions for an electoral coup d'etat and have boundaries drawn behind closed doors. That is what will happen under the Bill. It is important to put his response on the record. In his letter of 16 March he said:
  "the question of how to allocate the extra seats is far from simple. It needs to be considered carefully, and it will be considered carefully. Consultation with Opposition parties will form part of the process. But I am not prepared to discredit the system by forcing colleagues into making unduly hasty and ill-considered judgments".
  I should have hoped that it went without saying that
  "one of our main concerns will be to ensure that whatever methods are used should be seen to be independent of political considerations. Our proposals will maintain the integrity of this country's democratic traditions."
  This Bill does not maintain that integrity. Boundaries will be drawn up behind closed doors, without public scrutiny or participation.
  Some might take the view that the European elections do not matter. My view is that all elections matter when our constituents are asked to exercise political choice through the ballot box. Anything we do to devalue the procedure for next year's European elections will, at some future time, be used as the thin end of the wedge to undermine what happens in local government and, probably, in this place.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I had intended to sit down, but as the hon. Gentleman has been generous himself I shall give way first.
  Mr. Marlow: In view of the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings and the vehemence with which he expresses them, it would be of interest to many Conservative Members if he would confirm that he will be voting against the Bill.
  Mr. Rooker: I shall vote for the reasoned amendment—
  Mr. Marlow: Why?
  Mr. Rooker: The reasoned amendment sets out the reasons for our opposition to the Government's proposals. The key reason is the damage to the integrity of the democratic process in our electoral system. That should concern all Conservative Members, whether or not they are classed as Euro-sceptics. Labour Members should be
  1012
  concerned about whether or not we support the move to a more unified Europe. Any damage to the integrity of our elections to the European Parliament could in future be used to damage the integrity of our elections to this place. I am not prepared to stand to one side and keep quiet about that.
  6.18 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: You have had to listen to all the Euro-assurances over the year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you are sad that so many of them are subsequently broken or thrown aside.
  I remind those on the Government Front Bench that in 1978, when there was an unusual election system without the Boundary Commission having its proper representation, we were told that it would never happen again. Absolutely key assurances were given, while some people were yawning, yet now we are again being told, despite this Bill, that it will not happen again.
  Others have mentioned the obvious objections to the Bill. I hope that the Government will not disregard the Scottish point. Although it does not matter all that much where the seats go, to give one to Wales but not to Scotland could be regarded as rather unfortunate, or even as a slight on Scotland. One reason for that is the figures.
  If the Government were to distribute the seats 4:1:1, the representation for Scotland and Wales would be almost identical. It would be 440,000 for Wales and 436,000 for Scotland. However, with no extra Scottish seat, there would be 444,000 electors for each seat in Wales, and 491,000 electors for each seat in Scotland, so a Scottish Euro-constituency is far bigger than a Welsh one.
  We should not forget that the spirit of the Act of Union was that Scotland would get more representation. As my hon. Friends often complain, we have 71 Scottish Members of Parliament, when we should have a far smaller number on proportional representation, but we are guaranteed that number of seats. Although, to my knowledge, the EC was not mentioned in the Act of Union 1707, my understanding of the distribution of European seats was that we should try to maintain the spirit of that Act.
  I know that it does not matter all that much, and I do not care a great deal where the seats go, but I hope that the Government will not disregard the fact that silly little slights can be taken very badly in Scotland.
  I am sure that the Minister of State, Home Office will also be well aware that some of us are suspicious about the Government's preference for Wales. During the recent Maastricht debate, those dreadful Welsh nationalists were jumping up and down to do whatever the Government told them. We had the impression that, if the Government had told the Welsh nationalists to walk into the centre of Trafalgar square and say, "Long live red socialism," while standing on their heads, they would have done it. The Scottish nationalists, by comparison, showed a healthy independence by voting in a more sensible way, and certainly not as Tory stooges.
  Quite apart from the obvious issue of not being unkind to Scotland in a foolish way, we should bear in mind the fact that anything the Government now give to Wales but not to Scotland will be viewed against the grave suspicion that they are honouring or trying to reward their friends—those little Welsh nationalists.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend could offer his Scottish compatriots a certain amount of reassurance. Not only will they still be relatively over-represented in the House, but many English seats and English European seats are also represented by Scotsmen.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Right hon. and hon. Members should not think that I am trying to make a case for giving seats to Scotland and Wales. Arithmetically, there is no case, but if one gives a toffee apple to one child, one should give one to the other as well. I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will say that it is not right to mention children, and that we should talk about brothers. I apologise for that mistake. I withdraw it absolutely, and I hope that she will not quote me, in Glasgow or elsewhere.
  From a democratic point of view, which I am sure all Southend residents will share, we are concerned about the casual attitude to democracy stemming from the EC. We have a democratic right to a public inquiry about constituencies. That right has been chucked aside simply because it is a Euro-matter, and because of the alleged time scale.
  The other day, I asked the Minister how many letters he had written to the Boundary Commission. The answer was that there had been no correspondence. The Government could have involved the Boundary Commission had they started a little earlier. They could still do it now, although some of their work might have to be set aside, but l hope that the Government will try to make sure that we have a public inquiry.
  I am more worried about clause 2(2), which is the kind of thing that King Charles used to do. That splendid chap Oliver Cromwell, who did a great deal of good for Britain, chopped off the king's head because he spent money and acted without parliamentary approval.
  The Clerks will have seen that, in clause 2(2), the Government are setting up a committee, and we are letting them spend money before the House of Commons approves it. I did not think that the Home Office would be associated with such measures; it is what we expect of the Foreign Office.
  The Home Office is saying, "We are presenting a Bill and we want to spend the money and appoint people before we have parliamentary approval." That is wrong, but we should not get too excited because, as we all know, our democracy is being set aside, washed away and chucked in the bucket as a direct result of our European involvement. Every right hon. and hon. Member knows what is going on and is sad to disregard it. However, I shall put three brief points to the Government.
  If we chucked out the Bill, no European country, whether Belgium or the Republic of Ireland, would have any extra MEPs. Would that be a good or a bad thing? First, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the Government's problems with financing. The Government face horrible problems with money. I am told they are now borrowing so much money that income tax will have to go up by 2½ p next year just to pay the interest on the money we are borrowing this year. So we should watch the money.
  Appointing extra MEPs will cost a great deal of money. The basic salary of an MEP from Britain is £30,800. There will be a subsistence allowance of £128 a day for every day spent away from home, an attendance allowance of £130 a day for every day they sign on at the European Parliament, an allowance of £52,692 for secretarial and
  1014
  research costs, and an additional allowance for other office costs of £23,060. Then, of course, there are travelling expenses, so the total is £40,000.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I am sorry to be late in interrupting him, but may I take the hon. Gentleman back to the point about the legal consequences of the United Kingdom not taking up the six extra seats? Why is he arguing that, if the United Kingdom chooses not to take up the extra six seats, that necessarily has consequences for other countries? It was not a treaty change; it was a decision of the European Council, and it could well follow that, simply because the United Kingdom chose not to elect six extra MEPs, that would have no effect on the other 11 member states.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not have the details, but it was an agreement, not a treaty. The agreement required member states to take appropriate action. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is not in the treaty, but the wording is such that, if one country does not take the steps, the others are unable to do so. As the European Parliament, with 500 MEPs, costs about £390 million, and this little Parliament costs £175 million, we should bear in mind the costs.
  The second reason why we should be reluctant to appoint more MEPs is that it would be an insult to Gibraltar. It is totally wrong that right hon. and hon. Members are not prepared to consider the dreadful situation there. It is in the EC, but it is not in the EC. The problems we had with Spain and the need to stay friends with Spain involved various deeds and arrangements in the Council of Ministers and elsewhere, and means that we are treating Gibraltar with contempt. For example, Gibraltar's attempts to build its own little airport have been turned aside by the European Court, because Gibraltar is not in charge of anything.
  It is the only part of Europe without representation, it does not have the same rights as French or Portuguese overseas territories. It would be an insult to Mr. Bossano and his excellent democratic Government and to all the people of Gibraltar, in which I have no interest except love and affection for good democrats, were we not to do something before we appoint more MEPs.
  Finally, before we appoint more MEPs and agree to spend more money, we have to face up to the financial consequences for political parties in the United Kingdom. I have been astonished to see everyone getting so worked up and excited about Mr. Asil Nadir and possibly the money he has given to the Conservative party. People say that that is bad and unreasonable, but nobody is considering the fact that the European Parliament and the parties in it are keeping the political parties of Britain alive. No one seems to be concerned about that. There is concern about the possibility of graft, corruption and the influence that some chap from Turkey is going to exert over Ministers, but no one is prepared to consider what the European Parliament and European funding—basically slush funding—are doing to political parties in the United Kingdom.
  The amount of money involved is enormous. People are not prepared to consider what will happen to the parties and how much more money will be spent if the Bill is passed and there are more MEPs. The amount of money spent on MEPs in 1988 was £26 million—on what are regarded as the operating expenses of political groups, the

  1015
  European information campaign, the purchase of data processors, the hire and maintenance of equipment and other activities.
  That clever man Jean-Marie Le Pen is, I understand, concerning the Scottish Labour party by planning to visit Edinburgh. It should not worry, because this year Mr. Le Pen has held conferences in Paris, Dublin, Rome, Vienna, Venice, London, Lisbon, Madrid and Nice. Such conferences are lovely, because there are about four hours of discussion—
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that Labour Members are not at all concerned about Mr. Le Pen, because, happily, a few hours ago, he announced that he was not visiting Edinburgh. That is a welcome decision for Scotland.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: If that is a welcome decision for Scotland, it is a bad one for the five-star hotels. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that, when Mr. Le Pen and his friends go places, they stay in five-star hotels—all Euro-funded with taxpayers' money.
  When I meet poor people in Southend and elsewhere who are short of cash and need things doing in their council houses, the fact that those guys are regularly holding great conferences, staying in five-star hotels and not discussing anything but having a glorious time at public expense annoys me. If the Bill goes through, with the help of the Home Office, there will be more money for such events.
  I have heard all kinds of stories about the Labour party. I do not want to single the Labour party out, because I am sure that all parties are the same. I have heard astonishing tales of the amount of funding from European Parliament funds that goes to the United Kingdom Labour party. I have tried to find out about that. I have heard astonishing tales about allegedly letting properties, making money for the provision of information and making money for the provision of figures for the United Kingdom Conservative party. I have heard astonishing tales—in fairness, they are not so bad—about the Liberal Democrats because of the special relationship they have with the European Liberals.
  The parties are not associated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will accept that the People's party, which seems to be the one linked with the Conservatives, does not support Conservative policy at all, but is in favour of federalism and social charters, which I am told our party is against.
  I tried to find out how much money is being made. I consulted our splendid House of Commons Library, and it consulted the European Parliament office first. That office said that, if there is any information available about all the money received by the political parties from Europe, it will be available through the political groups in Strasbourg. Our splendid Library staff then went to the European Parliamentary Labour party and the London Office, EPP group, of British Conservatives, to see whether they could supply details of income received via the European Parliament. The Library said:
  "I am afraid that neither was enthusiastic about supplying figures".
  That is terrible because, sadly, as we know, our country is insolvent, and the political parties are too. Everybody seems to be worried about how they can be subject to influence and how my hon. Friend the Member for
  1016
  Harrow, East and his friends may get their arms twisted by people from Turkey and Cyprus. Should we not be worried about the Euro slush fund that is keeping the parties going? As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said in his personal statement yesterday, people deserve to be told.
  I hope that, before we pass the Bill, the Government will say that, before we agree to more MEPs and more money—all the slush funds to keep parties going and officers paid and events paid for and the handing out of lots of money—people should be told—
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is again making a powerful point. We all have a great deal of respect for our right hon. Friend the Minister. It is open to him to get in touch with central office before he gets to his feet later, and he could probably satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East by telling him precisely how much money the Conservative party has received from European sources over the last year.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sure that all the parties are the same. We have all read about overseas accounts. That splendid chap Lord McAlpine, a great British patriot, knew all about such numbered accounts. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, a straight and honourable chap, is not aware of such events. It is not his fault that he works so hard for his constituents that he sometimes does not know about some of the devious ploys that are adopted by political parties-such as numbered accounts in Jersey and so on. One cannot find out about that, so even if the Minister—
  Mr. Cash: Would my hon. Friend accept, following the point that he made to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that it may be extremely difficult for the Conservative party to he able to give exact figures of the amount of money given in the Conservative cause in respect of the European People's party, because its policies are diametrically opposed to those espoused by the Government in relation to European matters? It would be an absolute scandal if we are taking any money off them.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: That is crucial. I hope that the Minister will think about that. I accept that that party's policies are different from the British Tory policies. It wants to do more ridiculous Euro-things. If that party is providing the cash, what kind of influence will that have? Will the Government say that they do not like the EC or make such statements? The vice-chairman of the Conservative party, who works so hard and sometimes pops into debates, will be well aware that, if that party were to develop totally different policies on the EC, it could have frightening consequences for Euro-funding.
  We know that the Conservative party is facing a crisis, like all parties. Piles of cash are coming from the EC to the European Parliament fund. That affects not only political parties, but the CBI. I have tried to find out by writing time after time and asking how much money the CBI gets from the Euopean boys for providing information, providing seminars and all the rest of it. It will not tell me.
  If we have more MEPs, as suggested in the Bill, it is time that we had the facts from the EC and from this Parliament about where the money goes and who gets it. If there is one thing we are entitled to know in Britain, it

  1017
  is where the European money goes and to whom. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East knows more about European money than anybody.
  Mr. Dykes: Do I assume that my hon. Friend is in favour of the disclosure down to the last pound of all the accounts of the Bruges group?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: If a British taxpayer or the taxpayer in Europe is putting money into something, they should be told where it is going. If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East—I appreciate there are not so many wealthy people these days, because they are members of Lloyd's—wants to give his money to the Bruges group, or to any other group, that is a matter for him. Is taxpayers' money being handed over to promote political efforts and to twist the arms of political parties? I noticed how all the political parties are becoming more and more pro-EC. Why" They say that it is not like that, but they are provided with accommodation and with information.
  On the basis of private conversations that I cannot repeat in detail, a former MEP, who was a senior official of the Conservative party, told me that lots of money is going. I also know, from a member of the Labour party who might be unreliable but who seems to be a good chap and supports a good football team, that the same thing is happening in his party. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Strangford (M r. Taylor) can tell us more about what happens in the Ulster Unionist party. He is someone I know I can rely on.
  If we are to have more MEPs and spend money on them, we should insist in Committee, with the help of the Labour party, which has always stood for the working man, freedom, liberty and straightness, that every penny of taxpayers' money going to political parties is disclosed. Then at least we would know what is happening.
  I see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has kindly come back for my speech and I am grateful that he has returned to hear me. I hope that the Government can give three minor assurances. First, there should be full disclosure of public funding from the European Parliament for political parties. Secondly, we should sort out Gibraltar, which is terribly important. Thirdly, which is also important, as long as we can avoid additional costs, the right thing to do is to do what we should do with all these Bills: we should pay no attention to them. When the vote comes, we should perhaps not express an opinion. The real work comes in Committee. We shall want to keep asking many questions and we shall insist on getting answers. With a new Home Secretary who is prepared to get on with the police, which is an amazing step forward, we look forward to straightforward, honourable answers. I hope that we shall get them.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Membership of the European Community, to which this country assented in a referendum—the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) does not seem to have come to terms with the result, never mind a number of subsequent events—carries with it the requirement in international law to move towards a common system of election to the European Parliament. I regret the fact that since it became clear that the European Community would seek to enlarge the European Parliament to take account
  1018
  of the adherence of East Germany, the Government have done nothing to advance towards the fulfilment of that international obligation.
  The Government have stood on the sidelines, despite the fact that Britain held the presidency for the last six months of last year while these matters were discussed in the European Parliament. Today, the Home Secretary opened his speech by stating his intention, on behalf of the Government, to exercise a veto against the other 11 member countries of the European Community if they introduced a proposal for a proportional system of election. That smacks of the old saw, "Storm in the channel; continent isolated." Yet again, it appears that the Government wish Britain to stand alone, at odds with the growing consensus within the European Community and without any regard to the consequences for this country's standing and influence in the institutions of the Community.
  The Bill is unfortunate in that it takes us no nearer the objective of a common electoral system and simply reinforces the discrepancies caused by our system of first past the post. That not only results in our unrepresentative contributions—approximately one quarter of the electorate is unrepresented in the European Parliament—but has the distorting effect of shifting the balance within the European Parliament for other countries as well. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made the point forcefully and I need not labour it. As a matter of comity, it is time that the Government recognised that we do these things not only to our own damage, but to the damage of the institutions to which we subscribe.
  Even by the standards of British constitutionalism, the Bill falls far short of what might have been expected. It does not build on our experience of altering European parliamentary boundary seats by establishing boundary commissions and acting on their recommendation after a proper process of scrutiny. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) pointed to the length of time that has elapsed between it becoming clear that an additional six seats would be made available to this country—it is fair to say that that realisation pre-dates Edinburgh, although the change was confirmed at Edinburgh—and the Government's explanation of what they propose to do.
  There was no White Paper, there was no Green Paper and there was no statement. No explanation was given in answers to parliamentary questions or in letters to Members of Parliament, and there was no debate in the House. I do not believe that that is an appropriate way in which this country should strengthen its democratic participation in the European Community.
  On looking at the terms of the Bill, the position appears to be even more disturbing. The Government are taking it on themselves to establish a committee that will decide what recommendations to make to the Home Secretary, who in turn, under paragraphs 7 and 8 of the schedule, will present them to the House of Commons, subject to such modifications as may be decided on. It is not clear on the face of the Bill whether the modifications are intended to be made as a result of the recommendations of the partisan committee. It is clear on the face of the Bill that the changes may be made by the Home Secretary. That is simply an outrage.
  There may be a precedent that gives the Home Secretary a residual power in such matters under the

  1019
  conventions of this country. Such oddities of constitutional practice certainly exist. But, to my knowledge, it is not a convention that has ever been followed by a Home Secretary.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The power has never been used, but it is part of the legislation on boundary reviews. The Bill merely repeats what is in existing legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's determination was to depart as little as possible from the previous wording. I dare say that he will depart as little as possible from previous practice and that he will not want to present modifications. However, he has that power. It is written into existing legislation that deals with boundary reviews.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister confirms my reading of the Bill. He confirms that the Home Secretary intends to retain a power that, in the context of a procedure involving public inquiries and public representations in which objections can be made, might have no serious consequences. However, in the context of this procedure, in which a committee, appointed by the Home Secretary, is not required to accept representations in the form of public appeal procedures and is not provided in statute with arrangements for modifying its recommendations and publishing them in the normal way, it is a dangerous power. It is an erosion of our normal democratic standards and it undermines the integrity of our democratic institutions.
  That such a step should he taken at all is bad. What concerns me is not only the issue of the six seats, but the fact that the procedure is a precedent which will, no doubt, be built on again. The Government give scant regard to the fragile conventions that hold democracy together in this country. When they do not like a local government, they wind it up entirely. How can we take any comfort from the assurances that were given by the Home Secretary earlier in the debate that he does not envisage using this power?
  I turn from the inadequacies of the proposed procedures to what might have been included in the Bill. If there is a timing problem—I am not convinced that there is, and what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said about the alternative timetable was extremely compelling—it could be eliminated entirely by adopting a proportional system of election that would not require the Boundary Commission, still less this bastard committee, to determine boundaries.
  On the basis of five seats for England and one for Wales, which is the Government's choice—or on the basis, which we believe is more appropriate and which the Labour party has expressed to be more appropriate, of four seats for England and one each for Wales and Scotland—the new seats could have been allocated according to the largest average vote system, under which the number of votes cast for each party would be divided by the number of seats won by that party, plus one. That system operates effectively in the Federal Republic of Germany. It results in a greater proportionality of distribution of seats and in the votes cast for election to the European Parliament being reflected in the number of members elected to the European Parliament.
  Few objective people would deny that we have an unjust system. Had we had such a proportional system as I recommend—we should prefer, like the hon. Member for
  1020
  Perry Barr and the Plant commission, to which the Leader of the Opposition subscribes, a regional list system—we should not have found that more than 2 million people who voted for the Greens in this country at the last elections for the European Parliament did not have a single representative in that Parliament. It was the biggest vote cast for the Green party throughout Europe, but it has no representation in the European Parliament. Furthermore, in 1985 there would not have been a comparable discrimination against those who voted for the alliance parties. Under such a system as I have advocated, the alliance parties would have had some 15 seats.
  The Bill is highly defective and should not be passed. We shall therefore vote for the amendment that has been selected by Madam Speaker, though it does not go as far as I would wish it to go in criticising the Government. Furthermore, we shall vote against Second Reading. In doing so, I must make it plain that we have no wish to disfranchise the 17 million East Germans. We wish merely to succumb to the irresistible temptation, after 15 years, to enfranchise 25 per cent. of the British electorate.
  We recognise that it is time for this issue to be faced squarely by our Government. In March of this year, proposals were advanced in the European Parliament. We are proud of the fact that the action that we as a party took in the European Court, in which we ought to establish the right of the citizens of this country to a fair voting system, assisted in the process of concentrating minds upon the need to implement the international obligation to move towards a common system of fair voting. We wish that to be done as soon as may be. We do not believe that the Government will be able to adopt this stand-pat position, which the Home Secretary described at the beginning of the debate as the exercise of the veto, for much longer. Justice will be done.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I begin by referring to the provisions in the Bill with which the Home Secretary dealt in his speech. As he mentioned that the Bill is governed to a certain extent by procedures similar to those adopted for previous European parliamentary occasions, I should point out that in 1978 when the proposals—on which, I understand, we rely to some extent for precedent—were first put forward, the powers of that assembly were very different. It was by no means the same kind of Parliament as is envisaged under the Maastricht treaty proposals. Furthermore, it did not meet the aspirations of those who would like to take us further and deeper into a more integrated Europe.
  It is important not to allow the Home Secretary to skip over the fact that it is not the 1978 Act, as originally presented to the House and enacted, with which we are concerned when it comes to the main constitutional changes proposed in the Bill. Under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, very significant changes were made to the 1978 Act and it is to those provisions that I wish to refer because they are now part of the 1978 Act, as amended in 1986. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is those provisions which provide, under paragraph 5(a) of schedule 2, for the Boundary Commission, if it thinks fit in respect of European parliamentary constituencies, to cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of any European parliamentary constituency or constituencies.

  1021
  It is not simply a question of whether, in respect of Westminster, the Government are somehow dodging and weaving—we are talking about the European parliamentary constituencies as stipulated in the 1986 Act. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr ( Mr. Rooker), by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and by other hon. Members about the Westminster comparison is not wide of the mark—they are dealing with the essential principle. What some of them have not observed, however, is that this is a provision which already applies in respect of European parliamentary constituencies. The commission of the offence is thus compounded by the fact that in 1986 our own Government made provisions of a kind which I believe ought to apply in this Bill.
  The problem goes deeper than that. As I pointed out—I am anxious to be corrected if this is wrong, because beneath all this verbiage there is a certain complexity and the Bill has been drafted with considerable skill—one could be forgiven for thinking, when looking at schedule 2, that sometimes it refers to the principal Act and sometimes to the 1986 Act. One has to work out precisely which Act one is talking about at any given moment in time.
  Under paragraph 5(a), not only is the Boundary Commission empowered to cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of European parliamentary constituencies, but where it receives representations objecting to the proposed recommendation from an interested authority, that is to say, a county council, a district, a London borough, or a body of electors numbering 500 or more, the commission shall—not "may"—not make recommendations unless, since publication of the notice, a local inquiry has been held in respect of the European parliamentary constituency.
  In a recent enactment of the House in respect of the European parliamentary constituency question, there is an obligation not only to have a Boundary Commission review, but to follow simple prescribed procedures. The simple reason for that is that it is not possible for people's views to be taken into account properly unless a public or local inquiry is held.
  Within that inquiry, there are also provisions with regard to the application of the Local Government Act 1972 procedures, which govern the manner in which inspectors or persons holding such inquiries conduct their proceedings. I remember that in some ancient tome somebody once said that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure.
  If we look a little downstream in respect of the procedures that were proposed for the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 as applied to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, we find that for the purposes of any such local inquiry the person appointed to hold that inquiry may by summons require any person to attend at a time and place, give evidence, produce documents and take evidence on oath.
  There are further provisions with respect to whether people can be imprisoned if they give false evidence. I am not suggesting for one moment that it would automatically follow that those powers would be required, but it appears to me that in respect of the boundary proposals under the committee of men, who I have no doubt will be very distinguished—
  Mr. Rooker: They will certainly all be men.
  Mr. Cash: Hopefully it will be a committee of men and women. They will be appointed and, as has already been pointed out by hon. Members, they will not be subject to any of the procedures to which I have referred.
  I was a little disconcerted by the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to one of my interventions. He suggested that the procedures being followed were in all material respects the same as those being followed in respect of Boundary Commissions for Westminster, let alone the European parliamentary constituencies. I have to admit that I was a little concerned about that.
  If, as my right hon. and learned Friend alleges, there is no substantial difference between the provisions of the Bill and the procedures set out in the 1978 and 1986 Acts, I am bound to ask why we are not allowed to have those arrangements, bar only the question of a local inquiry. How long would all this take? As we are dealing with relatively few, large constituencies, would it have made any difference if we had had local inquiries?
  I imagine that all the relevant material is already accumulating in the Boundary Commission's computers as a result of the current review. Most of the raw material, which takes time to accumulate, would already be available. I therefore cannot see that there should be much delay.
  I am sure that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), will enlighten me if I am wrong, as I hope that I am in this respect, but I understand that the interested authorities and the 500 electors that I have mentioned are being excluded. That is the essence of the operation. As local representatives and individuals, they should have an opportunity to make their objections known because funny things happen on the way to boundary reviews and it is very important that we get this right. I hope that the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: It will be quite possible for them to make their feelings felt and to make their points, but, alas, they will have to do so in writing because there will almost certainly not be time for the normal local reviews which have been a feature of normal Boundary Commissions in the past. However, the committees will expect to hear from interested parties and will take careful note of what they are told. If there is time, some of the interested parties will be seen and heard.
  Mr. Cash: I have always had the greatest faith in my hon. Friend the Minister, but I am not terribly convinced by that reply. It is not a question of the integrity of the so-called three wise men. The point relates to the functions that they are given which enable them, within the statutory arrangements that we are enacting—with or without their abilities, capacity and function—to perform the democratic function about which I am so concerned. Although the people concerned are very important and distinguished, what are they expected to do? By excluding people across the whole of Great Britain from making such representations, we are doing a great disservice to democracy in this country.
  Although I have not had a reply to this point—no doubt the Minister of State will assist me when he replies to the debate—I cannot understand why, for the year 1993–94, we are adopting a policy, procedure and principle

  1023
  which departs from a principle passed as recently as 1986 in respect of European parliamentary constituencies. I simply cannot understand that.
  With respect to the time factor, I believe that most of the public inquiries could be disposed of in one or two days. One would not expect them to continue for any length of time. The fact that there are so few of them, and the fact that many may not be contested, suggests that the Government are making a great mountain out of a mole hill—which leaves me with a deepening concern, if not a certain suspicion, about the reasons for all this.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that when we went down the public inquiry route in 1983–84 the European parliamentary boundary proposals were produced in July 1983? Public inquiries were held, the results of which were collated by the Home Office, and the final boundaries were announced in March 1984. We are talking about a time gap of about eight months after the commission reported. Does my hon. Friend really believe that, with that kind of time gap, we could do the whole job in time to put candidates in place before the next European elections?
  Mr. Cash: Some fairly sensible points have already been made about where the fault lies, because the timetable was known at the Edinburgh summit. Furthermore, I believe that the issues of principle are so important and overriding that they should not be allowed to interfere with what appears to be a relatively medium-term or short-term consideration.
  We are dealing with a very important matter. As some hon. Members have already said, there is a slight difficulty in relation to the proposal in the context of enhancing the powers of the European Parliament if it is seen to be the thin end of the wedge. If the anticipated process of integration and deepening is to continue and we are to establish in the Bill the principle to be used on future occasions, and we have no assurance to the contrary—I do not look for assurance because I object to the issue as a matter of principle—as the deepening process goes on and the neutering of this place continues, it becomes more important to ensure that the democratic process applying to European parliamentary constituencies is enhanced.
  Let us not forget that we are dealing with the provision of greater powers. I have pointed out that the European Parliament is now engaged, under the Maastricht treaty, in a process of co-decision which has been greatly underestimated. People who know most about the subject believe that the European Parliament is getting considerably greater powers than many had anticipated—[Interruption] I think I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) say that that is good. He may be saying it in his usual jovial manner, but I gather that he is glad to hear about extra powers being given in that way.
  My hon. Friend probably knows that he recently had the support of a distinguished right hon. and learned Member of the Conservative party. I refer to none other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in a House Magazine profile in January of this year, was quoted as saying that he, too, was pro-European and held views similar to those held by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East. I will only comment that if my right hon.
  1024
  and learned Friend holds such views, we must watch with great interest his progress as Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the exchange rate mechanism and economic and monetary union.
  Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to that article, which gave me great pleasure. He may feel reassured about plans for the European Parliament if he accepts my proposition that it does not mean that the powers of national parliaments will be reduced by the powers of the European Parliament being increased in the future. It is a question of the separation of powers and the addition of a separate layer of political activity.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. I think it is the first time that I have heard him put so much emphasis on the importance of national parliaments, an issue to which I shall come later. We acknowledge that the European Parliament has an important function to perform. But we must make sure, in relation to the decision-making process—another subject which I shall develop—that opinions, when turned into political programmes and policies, reflect, within national parliaments and the European Parliament, a parallel philosophy as expressed by the political parties represented at both levels.
  We must consider the deeper political questions that lie at the heart of the Bill. With what sort of parliamentary boundaries are we dealing, and what issues must be considered in connection with the increased number of United Kingdom representatives to be elected to the European Parliament? In that connection, a massive problem is emerging in relation to the Conservative party vis-a-vis the Bill and the widening of the European Community. All Conservative M EPs belong to the European People's party. I have been watching with interest and concern the divergence that has been emerging between that party on the one hand and the Conservative party in this House on the other.
  I need not elaborate on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) about financing because I am anxious tonight to concentrate on the issue of compatibility between the policies that we pursue in Britain as members of the Conservative party and the espousal of the basic programme of the European People's party, the detail of which has just become available to me and which sets out the basis on which that party is now going forward—if that is the right word; I prefer to say backward—into Europe.
  I will cite a few examples of the way in which the representatives who are supposed to he elected under the proposals now before the House will conduct their policy-making. I am dealing with a matter of fundamental constitutional importance to the British House of Commons and its relationship with the European Parliament, as set out in articles 137 and 138 of the Maastricht treaty. Dealing with the issue of representation and elections, which is what the Bill is all about. the treaty states:
  "The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States."
  I was delighted with the terms used by the Home Secretary to repudiate the idea of that uniform procedure having anything to do with proportional representation. It goes on:

  1025
  "The Council shall, acting unanimously, after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component Members, lay down the appropriate provisions which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
  That means that within the European Parliament there is,
  under the Maastricht treaty, a requirement for that Parliament, by a majority of its members—I shall later discuss who those members will be—to make decisions about what it will recommend, and its powers in that connection are considerable.
  The European People's party, comprising Conservative MEPs and Christian Democrats, is, under the provisions of the Bill, clearly intended to have increased representation. When that happens, there will be an increase in the impact of that party's decision-making, not only on this country but on other European countries, including Germany, which will get a proportion of the additional 18 representatives.
  The same will apply to other member states, in each of which candidates will be standing for the European People's party. So that party will have increased representation in the European Parliament. Its members must have the hope of forming a majority view to influence the extent to which there is a move to proportional representation. The European People's party has some extraordinary policies, which are at variance with the policies of the Conservative party in Britain.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am at a loss to understand what the policies of any party in Europe have to do with the Bill or the amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member will explain the relevance.
  Mr. Cash: I will explain. I am considering the procedure when a candidate stands on a platform in connection with the Bill, remembering that our discussion today is about representation in the European Parliament. It is not just a legitimate question; it is an essential question about what is to be achieved. This is not just a constitutional measure; we are dealing with policies in relation to the new Europe that is being created. It is not a technical question of no importance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not convincing me. I shall be very grateful if he returns to the contents of the Bill and of the motion in the names of Opposition Members.
  Mr. Cash: Article 236 of the paper to which I have just referred says:
  "It is the European Parliament, elected by universal suffrage, which primarily ensures that Europe is built"——
  Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the Bill make any reference to an article 236? I cannot find one.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am having the same difficulty. I must, for the third time, ask the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to stay within the framework of the Bill and the motion. I shall be very grateful for his co-operation.
  Mr. Cash: The article 236 is to be found in the paper to which I have referred. I made that clear, so my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) must not have been listening. I am referring to the powers being sought by European parliamentarians—a matter that is undoubtedly directly relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I respectfully suggest that he read the title of the Bill and direct his remarks to it. I hope he appreciates that I do not want to have to intervene again.
  Mr. Cash: The title is the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was referring to the long title.
  Mr. Cash: The long title says that the purpose of the Bill is to
  "Give effect to a Decision of the Council of the European Communities",
  taken in Edinburgh, giving 18 seats to the Germans.
  Mr. Rooker: What the hon. Gentleman cannot do, and what no one else has done so far, is prejudge the outcome of the elections. The Bill deals with a people's choice. The whole thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument presupposes which parties will win. That is what he has been talking about for the past 10 minutes. As a democrat, he has no such right. The people are sovereign. They decide through the ballot box. The purpose of the Bill is to enable them to do so.
  Mr. Cash: I agree very much. I am not prejudging anything. The battleground upon which people are to exercise their freedom of choice in due course will be determined by the manner in which they address themselves, through European parliamentary elections, to attainment of the objective of turning policies into laws. Under the procedures of the Boundary Commission, representations may be made by 500 electors or by an interested local authority. Such people do not just waffle about shape, size and accessibility; they talk about the whole question of the type of representation they want. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and I attended a meeting the other day. We were talking about the boundary review——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me how, when the Boundary Commission looks at areas, it decides what the people think about party policies and makes its judgment accordingly? That is not my understanding of the situation. If the hon. Gentleman cannot give me such an explanation, he must return to the content of the Bill. Otherwise, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Cash: The criteria that ought to be adopted include geography, accessibility, convenience and constituency shape. These are all matters that one would expect to be aired in a public inquiry, if one were held. It is in the course of such exchanges that people raise questions about the kind of constituencies they want.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, referred me to the long title, which indicates that the purpose of the Bill is to
  "Give effect to a Decision of the Council of the European Communities, 93/81/Euratom, ECSC, EEC, of 1st February 1993 having the effect of increasing the number of United Kingdom representatives to be elected to the European Parliament".
  If there is to be an increase in the number of United Kingdom representatives, it must be proper, in the relevant Second Reading debate, to refer to those people——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those remarks are completely irrelevant to the Bill and the motion. I hesitate to repeat myself, but I must warn the hon. Gentleman that if he does not return to the subject of the debate I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Cash: In my view, this Bill disgraces the democratic process along whose lines we expect our democratic system to develop. Over the past 20 or 30 years, clearly defined procedures have been laid down—for example, in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 and the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is a departure in principle from those arrangements.
  I should like to refer to an excellent research paper. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not regard this as being in any way out of order, as the paper was prepared by a House of Commons research team in connection with this very Bill. It is made perfectly clear that the 1978 precedent is not by any means one upon which we can rely. It deals with the Welsh boundaries body and with the reviews that were carried out as recently as 1991. There is a whole range of recent precedents very much in favour of having a proper public inquiry procedure. The paper refers to the manner in which the whole process ought to be conducted.
  Not long ago—on 15 April this year—Mr. Robert Adley, our late, lamented friend and colleague, put to the Secretary of State for the Home Department the following question:
  "if he will make a statement on the arrangements he intends to make for the additional European parliamentary constituencies."
  The Minister of State, in reply, said:
  "My right hon. and learned Friend is currently consulting with colleagues on this matter. Once proposals are formulated, we will consult formally with the Opposition parties."—[Official Report, 15 April 1993; Vol. 222. c. 938.]
  Mr. Dykes: I am sorry to trouble you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I seek your guidance. I am rather puzzled. My hon. Friend is starting to quote a House of Commons research memorandum. Presumably he intends to do so word for word. There may be precedents, but I must ask whether this is a new procedure that is permitted. Is it correct and proper?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the procedure is that there should not be too many quotations. I was listening with great interest and, although it is up to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to make his own speech, I remind him that many other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful for that intervention. I was about to read out the Minister of State's reply. He said:
  "We shall not necessarily use the boundary commissioners to propose the new boundaries because they are very much occupied with the parliamentary boundaries, but we shall want to have similarly independent recommendations for the new Euro-constituencies. We are determined that there will be an opportunity for public consultation, although it will be constrained by a comparatively tight timetable."—[Official Report, 15 April 1993; Vol. 222, c. 938.]
  I must say that I gained no satisfaction from the Home Secretary's opening remarks today or from the Minister of State's answer. The proposals are not providing the independent recommendations which would be expected if the arrangements were being made on a reasonable footing.
  1028
  It is a matter of grave disquiet to me and other hon. Members that the Bill will do a great deal of damage to the integrity and reputation of the House and, indeed, to the processes with which people are used to dealing. Public inquiries may be the only opportunity for people to make representations about the type of constituency in which they wish to vote. I was amazed to hear the rather specious argument about the timetable. It has nothing to do with the timetable. I cannot for the life of me understand why we cannot be told the real reason.
  Will the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), or whoever is to wind up the debate, be good enough to answer two simple questions? The first is, what is the real difference between the proposals in the Bill and the arrangements to which we are accustomed—based on real precedents, not merely that of 1978—for European parliamentary constituencies, as developed up until this year? Secondly, what would be the delay if we followed the procedures that have already been well established? I believe that we are entitled to straightforward answers to those questions.
  7.32 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members will be glad to know that I do not intend to speak for as long as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I intend to deal with two specific aspects of the Bill: how the seats have been allocated within the United Kingdom and the system of election.
  The House will have noticed that I and my hon. Friends tabled our own reasoned amendment, although Madam Speaker has decided that it should not be selected. We shall, therefore, support the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition although I wish that they, like us, had mentioned proportional representation.
  I wish to chide, albeit gently, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for some of his remarks about my colleagues in Plaid Cymru. I do not think that he warned them that he was going to mention them—perhaps he had not intended to do so—but it ill becomes any hon. Member to call any other hon. Member a stooge. The House should recognise that members of other parties have the right to decide how to cast their votes on principle. My colleagues in Plaid Cymru have consistently pledged themselves to the European ideal. From time to time we may be found in the Lobby perhaps accepting the lesser of two evils, but we vote according to the principles to which we aspire and according to the ideals that we regard as precious to our countries and our peoples.
  I deal first with the allocation of seats, which is an important aspect of the Bill. I have raised the issue several times in the past few months with the Home Secretary and with the Foreign Office, arguing each time that it is important for Scotland to be given an additional seat. I found it depressing to listen to the Home Secretary start on the basis of the numbers game. I do not think that the allocation of any seats, whether for a European constituency, a Westminster constituency or a local government unit, can be based solely on the numbers game; identity, geography and communications should all be taken into account.
  It is interesting to trace how the seats were originally allocated for direct election. When the United Kingdom first agreed to the idea that there should be directly-elected

  1029
  seats to the European Parliament, the argument that the United Kingdom should have 81 or 82 seats was based on the concept that Scotland and Wales should have additional seats. It is effectively recorded by Dr. Garrett FitzGerald in his autobiography "All in a Life", in which he mentions the negotiations and discussions that were held with the then Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan.
  It was argued that the United Kingdom was to have 81 or 82 seats in the European Parliament, Scotland 10 and Wales five. Having won the argument for additional representation at that stage, Scotland was allocated eight seats and Wales four. In 1993, however, Scotland is riot to have an additional seat, although Wales at least is now to reach the position that it should have reached in the 1970s.
  I also argued strongly for the geographical dimension to be taken into account. The Home Secretary and other hon. Members found it amusing when I referred to the Highlands and Islands constituency in which Moray is located. The Highlands and Islands constituency stretches some 380 miles from north to south and contains more islands than are attached to Greece. Communications are difficult, and the Member of the European Parliament has to travel by train, boat and plane to meet his or her constituents. I am not making a special plea on behalf of my mother-in-law who is capable of defending her own position. I am talking about the practicalities which would affect any MEP who represented that constituency.
  The constituency stretches from Muckle Flugga in the north of Shetland down to the Cumbraes and the islands of Bute and Arran. It covers a huge area, but it has a strong identity and integrity because there is a commonality of difficulties among its rural parts. It is the largest constituency in Europe and has an equivalent land mass to Belgium, but one single MEP is asked to represent the whole area.
  I therefore argue that there is a strong case for considering Scotland not on the basis of numbers but on its geographical area. It is on that basis that there are 72 Members of Parliament from Scotland in this House because the House recognises the transport difficulties. Unlike hon. Members with London constituencies, I cannot fly to Inverness. conduct a surgery in the evening and then vote here at 10 pm. Scottish Members of Parliament are here from the beginning of the week until the end because of the geography of our country. The Government must take that geography into account when considering the allocation of seats, as should the Boundary Commission when considering parliamentary constituencies and the Scottish Office when considering local government units.
  The hon. Member for Southend, East suggested that Wales had been given a toffee apple because it was to gain an additional seat. I do not begrudge the people of Wales an additional seat, but those who display that attitude towards the nations of Wales and Scotland do themselves and the people of England whom they represent a great disservice because it is not the attitude that the Scots, the Welsh and the English have towards each other. Scotland as a nation argues that it should be compared with nations which have a similar status.
  Denmark has a population of 5·1 million and it has 16 seats in the European Parliament. We have 5 million people in Scotland and we get eight seats. It seems that if one votes in Scotland, it is worth half of a Danish vote. The Republic of Ireland has 3·6 million voters and 15 seats—yet again a Scottish vote is worth half that in Eire. Tiny
  1030
  Luxembourg, which is roughly the same size of our capital city, Edinburgh, has an electorate of 0·4 million and has six seats compared with Scotland's eight.
  The Home Secretary had obviously not thought through his remarks carefully when he said that it was only a Conservative Government who would fight for the people of England. That will be noted in Scotland and Wales and offence will be taken, not because of some nicety, but because his remarks show a disregard for feelings and aspirations of those nations. Similar behaviour is evident elsewhere.
  The nature of the elections is also a matter of concern.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Lady does not need me to defend her, but does she agree that it would be better if a Minister from the Scottish Office were present on the Government Front Bench? After all, her name must have appeared on the annunciator. Such a presence is especially required when one recalls that, in November 1992, at St. Andrews, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave some specific assurances on this matter. Equally, the introduction to the White Paper, "Taking Stock", referred to the need to
  "take steps to complement and add to Scotland's strong representation in Europe".
  At least we are due an explanation about why that promise has not been honoured.
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. I am conscious of remarks by the Secretary of State, who said that he was bidding high for Scotland's position in Europe. He has not fulfilled that pledge. It is a shame that no one from the Scottish Office is here, unlike the official Opposition, who have maintained a presence in the Chamber. No doubt there are reasons for that absence, but, as a matter of courtesy and given the importance of the Bill, it would have been helpful if someone from the Scottish Office were here, to pay attention at least.
  Mr. John Marshall: Would the hon. Lady care to comment on the absence from the Chamber of that most European party, the Liberal Democrats? None of its Scottish, Welsh or English Members is here.
  Mrs. Ewing: Far be it from me to defend the Liberal Democrats, but, to be fair to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), he has been present from the start of the debate. Before he departed, he had to listen, at great length, to the hon. Member for Stafford. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was also present for a short time. That, however, is not the point. The fact is that no one from the Scottish Office is present during this important debate.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that a principle lies behind the argument about proportional representation. Many of us could spend a great deal of time arguing about the pros and cons of various systems of proportional representation. The principle that underpins our beliefs, however, is that we should move towards proportionality. We should not argue now about particular details.
  Article 138 of the treaty of Rome, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, relates to the ideal that. ultimately, a uniform electoral procedure should be followed in all member states, based on the principle of universal suffrage. That procedure is followed in Northern Ireland, but not in mainland Britain.
  The amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats refers to the De Gucht report, which has been debated in the

  1031
  European Parliament. I have followed the arguments about proportional representation with interest, and I am concerned about aspects of that report. Even if proportional representation is not adopted for the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament, I hope that the Government will commit themselves to following that procedure for the next set of European elections.
  I want to put down various markers about the De Gucht report and its various recommendations. Karel De Gucht is a Liberal Democrat from Belgium. When he first reported to the European Parliament in 1990, he submitted a draft proposal that would have successfully abolished Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland as electoral entities over a 10-year transitional period. He proposed, initially, to eliminate our first-past-the-post system by introducing multi-Member constituencies that were to become progressively larger until the constituencies corresponded with the member states, with a minimum of three Members per constituency from 1994, a minimum of five Members per constituency from 1999 and no constituencies from 2004.
  I find it difficult to agree with that proposal because the identities of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England must be retained in the context of the European Parliament. If the Government or any other parties are considering the De Gucht report, they should be careful about aspects of it.
  De Gucht was, originally, not in favour of a threshold being introduced, but he eventually accepted the 5 per cent. proposal. He did not proceed, however, to make it clear that the votes could not be transferred across the boundaries or borders of the various constituent parts of the United Kingdom. If a 5 per cent. threshold applied to a member state, the danger is that the United Kingdom would treat all four of its constituent parts as one. That would have repercussions for the various parties.
  In the previous European elections, the Scottish National party took 26 per cent. of the vote in Scotland and we ended up with one of the eight European Members of Parliament to which Scotland is entitled. If that vote were transferred to a United Kingdom-wide vote, the SNP, even after gaining 26 per cent. support in Scotland, would be reduced to 2·6 per cent. of the vote according to the United Kingdom threshold. We would therefore not have gained representation in the European Parliament. That would be a gross insult to those people who turned out and voted for the SNP.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: We in the Ulster Unionist party are also extremely conscious of that problem. There is an alternative. If the threshold is decided on a national basis, the SNP could fight in England, where there are many Scottish voters. Certainly the Ulster Unionist party would put up candidates in England if that threshold operated on a national basis.
  Mrs. Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point and it has been considered carefully by my party in the past. Various other regulations pertaining to broadcasting, for example, would be unfavourably affected if we put up candidates in English constituencies. I often receive letters from people in England asking me to put up an SNP candidate in their area. There are, however,
  1032
  logical reasons for not doing so. We are a Scottish-based party and we do not have any imperialist ambitions. We are seeking self-government for our country.
  If the De Gucht recommendations for the threshold were applicable across the United Kingdom, as a member state, that would be in breach of the Act of Union of 1707, which retained Scotland as a legal entity. The Scotland-England border is regarded in international law as an international boundary. I would fight to ensure that votes cast in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England were treated separately, whether a 5 per cent. threshold operated for other parties that may stand, such as the Greens, the Monster Raving Loony party or whatever. A 5 per cent. threshold should apply to each of the constituent nations.
  Mr. Dykes: The hon. Lady has made a reasonable point. Would she care to enlighten us as to which members of the public have written and from which constituencies suggesting that the SNP should put up candidates in English seats? Did they include people from Southend or Staffordshire?
  Mrs. Ewing: I cannot recall, off hand, the exact location of everyone who has written to me. My geography is not perfect. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have had several requests from English members of the public who would like SNP candiates to stand in their area. Given that so many former Conservative Members who represented Scotland have had to come south of the border to find seats, other people might find that, if SNP candidates stood in England, there would be too many Scottish accents in the House.
  It is wrong to base the allocation of seats solely on numbers. There is a strong principle for other arguments to be brought into play. The people of Scotland will be extremely disappointed that there will not be an additional seat, given the comparisons that I have made with other small nations.
  The second issue relates to proportional representation. There have been various signs that the Government are considering the possibility of proportional representation in elections towards the end of the decade. Will the Minister give an assurance that if proportional representation is to come into play, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England will be treated as separate entities and the system will be agreed through consultation with all the political parties in the House, not simply the result of a cosy arrangement between the Government and the Labour Front Bench?
  7.49 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). At one point, he said that he was not prejudging anything. That came as a great revelation because I thought that he prejudged everything relating to Europe. One sometimes thinks that my hon. Friend is one of the Rip van Winkles of British politics because he speaks almost as though we had not joined the European Community in 1973. He certainly speaks as though we did not have a referendum in 1975 and never passed the Single European Act—and, indeed, he did not vote for it.
  The debate is interesting because those hon. Members who have complained about time and the fact that they do not accept that as an argument for having the great and the

  1033
  good to determine the boundaries are the same ones who went on at length during the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. They are the same ones who voted against business motion after business motion and delayed the proceedings of that Bill for the maximum time. Perhaps if my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford had spoken slightly less on that Bill and voted for some business motions, this Bill would have been before the House a long time ago.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is launching into something that I find slightly unusual in view of the fact that I have always regarded him as an hon. Gentleman and an hon. Friend. Not so long ago, he invited me to his constituency to talk about these matters. Furthermore, it was clear that the audience agreed with what I had to say. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear it in mind that his constituents seemed to share many of my views.
  Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend was invited to my constituency, like so many of my hon. Friends. Most of those who come to my constituency support Government policy in its entirety. I believe that my constituents should be given a whole range of policies for examination. I assure my hon. Friend that the number of constituents who wrote to me supporting his point of view could be counted on the fingers of both hands. On the basis of my postbag, he did not attract as much support as perhaps he thought he was attracting at the time.
  Hon. Members who argue about time ignore the delay that they caused in the parliamentary process earlier this year. As one who fought two European elections, I find the time argument persuasive. In 1979, I was fortunate enough to be selected to contest the ensuing Euro-election for London, North. At that time, it had 10 Westminster parliamentary constituencies, of which seven were Labour. I had three months in which to become known to 500,000 people. Similarly, in 1984, we did not know the boundaries until March, which was only three months before the election.
  Such a time scale makes it impossible for candidates to become known to their electorates and people to judge the worth of the individuals for whom they are being asked to vote. Therefore, any procedure that will expedite the final decision about boundaries must be welcomed.
  Some hon. Members have argued that it would be feasible to have the local inquiries and the Boundary Commission deciding the boundaries. Let us go back to 1983. The Boundary Commission produced its proposals in July 1983—undoubtedly, it has been working on them for some months. The inquiries took place in December 1983 and the boundaries were agreed in March 1984. We are talking about a period of about nine months after the original proposals came from the commission. If we adopted that approach tonight, the new boundaries would not be in place in time for the next European elections.
  It has been suggested that if we had the system proposed by the Government, which is the same as that which prevailed before the 1979 European elections, the representations made by interested groups would be ignored. That is not the lesson of history because, in 1978, the proposed boundaries for London included one or two absurd suggestions.
  The people in London wrote to the commission and said that they did not like what the commission was proposing to do. They recognised that they could not have
  1034
  a public inquiry, but they believed that, for example, Southgate did not have a great deal of affinity with Hackney—it had an affinity with Finchley, Enfield, North and Edmonton rather than Hackney. The Boundary Commission looked at the maps and said that that was right, and the boundaries were redrawn in that way. If wise men who come forward with proposals make similar mistakes and people write in, those men will listen to what is said and propose boundaries that everyone will find acceptable.
  So far as the Scottish argument is concerned, I pay a great tribute to the European Member of Parliament for the Highland and Islands of Scotland. She is an hon. Friend and signed many of my motions. She represented that constituency with a flair that few people could match.
  Let us look at the numbers in Scotland. If we had an additional seat in Scotland, I do not believe for one moment that we would be dividing the Highlands and Islands constituency because it is already numerically the smallest of the Scottish constituencies. That extra seat would be in the great industrial belt of Scotland and we would he knocking a bit off Glasgow or one of the Strathclyde constituencies to make another seat in Scotland. That would mean that Scotland, which is over-represented numerically in this House, would be even more over-represented in the European Parliament. It would mean that an average constituency in England would contain 20 per cent. more electors than an average constituency in Scotland. That seems to be unjustified by the geography of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland constituency. Therefore, that argument is not persuasive.
  I welcome the fact that we are continuing with our system of single-member constituencies for England, Wales and Scotland. That is a great strength with regard to our representation in the European Parliament. Some of the systems adopted by other countries are inherently undemocratic. The French and German system involves a national list. The French socialists had President Mitterrand at the end of their list in 1979. He stayed as a European Member of Parliament for the first day and then resigned so that someone else could take his place. People were conned by his presence on the list to vote for the French socialists.
  The French Gaullists had a tourniquet system under which everyone on the list spent a short time in the European Parliament. Mr. Chirac was a European Member of Parliament for a short time. The House may be interested to know that during that time his button was pressed while he was on duty in Paris—he was recorded as voting in Strasbourg while he was undertaking mayoral duties in Paris. The whole system of a national list is not appropriate to the European scene.
  The national list system provided Mr. Le Pen with the ability to produce several European Members of Parliament from France. If the French had had a first-past-the-post individual constituency system, as we have in the United Kingdom, the Le Pen group would not have elected one person to the European Parliament.
  Another problem with the national list system in the European Parliament is the huge power that it gave to the party machines. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) will confirm that the Gaullist system was such that, if one got on the wrong side of Mr. Chirac in the European Parliament between 1979 and 1984, one was told that one was out—one would not even be No. 81 on the list in the next election.

  1035
  The system gives excessive power to the party machine. I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford would fare under a national list system, but I do not think that he would even make first reserve. Some hon. Members might say that that is an argument in favour of a national list system, particularly when my hon. Friend is giving one of his not so brief speeches.
  The real problem with the national list system is that a constituent who has a problem does not know whom to turn to. I remember being asked years ago by the British unit trust industry to table a question for question time in the European Parliament. We were told that all other unit trust industries throughout the Community felt strongly about the matter and would back us up after we asked our question. We asked the question, and a British Member asked a supplementary. There was another supplementary question from a British Member, and then there was a deathly hush.
  I was told that the trouble was that the French industry did not know whom to turn to. The French did not have a particular Member whom they could ask about the subject. The German industry was in the same position. Members of the European Parliament may not have the same number of constituency cases that Members of Parliament at Westminster have, but the number is growing, and it is surely right that the link between the MEP and his constituency should remain as it does in the House of Commons.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Gentleman referred to confusion in the minds of the electors in Northern Ireland. We are Members of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, and we shall be until we are either abolished or eroded by our masters in Brussels. Confusion arises when constituency cases that are within the remit of the House of Commons are dealt with by some MEPs in Northern Ireland, for the simple reason that industrialists and private citizens do not know where to go, and they end up writing to all three local representatives. The lines get crossed, and we then spend half our time trying to disentangle the mess.
  Mr. Marshall: The situation in Northern Ireland is complicated in that there are three MEPs from three different political parties. We all know the particular reasons why there is proportional representation in those elections in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: What is the reason?
  Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Member for Strangford surely cannot be so ignorant or naive that he does not know the reason. Obviously proportional representation exists in Northern Ireland so that both sides of the religious divide can feel that they are represented in the European Parliament. That is probably a good thing, given the unusual politics of Northern Ireland. I spent some years in Glasgow, and I discovered what Irish politics were all about.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Glasgow is not in Ireland.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The accuracy of the remarks of hon. Members is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Marshall: I was about to explain that the politics of Glasgow in the 1960s were similar to the politics of Northern Ireland. I well remember canvassing in a council election and an elector saying that she was tremendously pleased to see a Conservative candidate at last. She then asked what my religion was. I replied Church of England, and added, "I suppose that is it." "No," she said. "You see, I am a Christian and I cannot vote for a Catholic." That was the politics of the east end of Glasgow in 1963, and I suspect that it is the politics of Northern Ireland today.
  One of the tragedies of the European Parliament is that, even though MEPs have been directly elected since 1979, the Parliament so far does not have a single seat. The administration is in Luxembourg, the committees sit in Brussels and the plenary sessions take place in Strasbourg. One of the reasons for that is the indifference of national state governments to that problem. The absence of a single seat for the European Parliament affects its efficiency and, therefore, affects the efficiency of those who are elected to it and whose election we are discussing this evening.
  Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the European Parliament had one seat the administration would be cheaper, which would be beneficial to the United Kingdom and to all the other members of EC?
  Mr. Marshall: I shall answer that intervention briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I saw you confer with one of the Clerks. It obviously would be cheaper, more efficient and more convenient for those who work in the European Parliament if everything were centralised rather than having three different centres, which benefits no one.
  The European Parliament can be said to have in some ways power without responsibility. It has the power to vote for expenditure without the responsibility for raising the taxes to meet that expenditure. That is one issue which the Foreign Office and others will have to consider in the future.
  The Bill takes account of the need to have the boundaries in place in good time. Without the Bill, there would be a grave danger that the boundaries would be agreed far too late to allow candidates in the constituencies to mount effective campaigns. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and have a speedy Committee stage. I also hope that the Bill will be approved by their Lordships before both Houses rise for the summer recess. It is I think important that these constituency boundaries are agreed speedily so that candidates know where their constituencies are to be and can get to know their electorates and, even more importantly, their electorates can get to know them.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I am delighted to catch your eye. Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow that ridiculous speech by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). His characterisation of Glasgow was outrageous. To suggest that religion is a factor in Glasgow politics in this day and age is nonsense and will not be well received by the people of Scotland.
  Likewise, the hon. Gentleman's explanation of why Northern Ireland was given a rigged electoral system for the European elections was disgraceful. Northern Ireland Members represent people irrespective of their religion—whether they are Roman Catholic or Protestant. We are

  1037
  delighted to have the privilege to represent them in this, our sovereign Parliament. We represent our constituents in the same way as Irish Catholics and Protestants in England are represented by Conservative and Labour Members. We resent the hon. Member's interpretation of the way in which seats are allocated to the Province of Northern Ireland.
  The hon Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred in his usual humorous way to the European Community and in particular to the operations of the European Parliament. He referred to the funding of the British Labour party and Conservative party by the European Parliament. He challenged me to spell out the exact figures. He referred to the European information fund as a slush fund. That was somewhat unkind.
  The hon. Member for Southend, East implied that there was a great deal of secrecy about the European information fund. He said that he had tried to obtain details of the funding of the Conservative party and the Labour party from the House of Commons Library and had failed. He said that he had contacted the European Parliament offices at Queen Anne's gate and, once again, had failed. But there is no secrecy whatever about the fund.
  The European information fund is included in the parliamentary section of the budget of the European Community. A specific line in that budget refers to the European information fund. The result is that the British Conservative and Labour parties each get about £1 million from Europe to assist in the funding of information relating to the European elections in the 12 months between now and polling day.
  It is not just the Conservative and Labour parties, but the Scottish National party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic Labour party and even the Democratic Unionist party that are assisted in that way. We get only a few thousand pounds each because we are small parties, but the two main British parties do not hide the fact that they get £1 million or thereabouts each. This year, the Labour party will get much more than the Conservative party, because it is now the largest party from the United Kingdom in the European Parliament. So there is nothing hidden. It is not a slush fund. The figures are all there for everyone to inspect, and that is how it should be.
  We must remember why we are having this debate and why the Government are presenting the Bill. It is because of the new order in Europe. The whole political scene in central Europe is changing. The Soviet Union has broken up. A vacuum has been created in central and eastern Europe. Germany has become united and is replacing the Soviet Union in that vacuum. It has taken the initiative in recognising several states in the former Yugoslavia. It is the new role of Germany in Europe which brings about the need for more seats for Germany in the European Parliament. It is only because eastern and western Germany have formed a united Germany that we in the United Kingdom are getting six new seats. Therefore, we must adjust to the new European order, which means accommodating greater Germany in the European Parliament and adapting to its changing role in the Community as the lead nation in western Europe.
  The European Parliament is not a real Parliament, like this one. It has no Government and no Executive. It does not appoint a Cabinet. That is not to say that it is not important. It has an important consultative role and some
  1038
  major powers, such as the right to abolish the Commission, to approve the budget and to approve the enlargement of the European Community.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the United States Congress as not being a proper parliamentary body because it does not appoint an Executive?
  Mr. Taylor: That is a fair point, but Congress has the right to make laws. The European Parliament has no legislative role. It has powers to abolish the Commission and to approve the budget and the enlargement of the European Community. Beyond that, it is in reality a talking shop, as I know from my 10 years there. It is a useful consultative body where the peoples of Europe at least have a chance to express their views on the Commission's diktats. If we did not have a Parliament in Strasbourg, the Commission would get away with more than it does at present.
  Mrs. Currie: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I wonder whether he has read the Maastricht treaty and knows of the additional powers that will be given to the European Parliament. The European Parliament will have one thing that this House does not have and probably will never have, which is a veto over legislation affecting the whole of Europe.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, let me point out that we are not debating the constitutional niceties of the European Parliament. We are considering the number of seats, boring though that may be.
  Mr. Taylor: I accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was talking about the Parliament to which we elect Members. If the hon. Lady had been present for most of the debate she would have heard the additional powers under the Maastricht agreement referred to on numerous occasions. I am well aware of them, having read that agreement dozens of times. Indeed, I am alarmed at them because they transfer further powers from our national Parliament to Strasbourg.
  The proposals before the House are alarming because they change the procedure for changing United Kingdom constituency boundaries. In two respects they create concern. First, the Boundary Commission will not play a role. Instead, there will be a boundary committee. Secondly, the public will not have an opportunity at a public inquiry to express their views on the recommended revised constituency boundaries.
  In so far as the first concern applies to us in the Ulster Unionist party, we were encouraged by the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon. He made it clear that, to a large extent, the role of the committees would be similar to that of the Boundary Commission and that, in practice, boundary commissioners could well serve on the committees and the committees would apply the same criteria as the Boundary Commission. In that respect, our anxiety has been overcome to a large extent.
  Our anxiety remains about the lack of a public contribution to the procedure—the refusal to have public inquiries into the recommendations of these boundary committees. I require the Minister who will reply to spell out more carefully and to persuade us on the Ulster Unionist Benches that there is not enough time between now and the European Parliament election in June 1994 to

  1039
  have public inquiries before reaching a decision on the final boundaries of these European constituencies. We need satisfaction on that.
  We in the Ulster Unionist party recognise that time is running out. Luckily, the new boundaries for European constituencies in the United Kingdom do not apply to us in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we can prepare for the forthcoming European elections. We have advertised already for our candidates and within a few weeks we shall close the list. I am arranging meetings this autumn in my constituency for the European elections. I assume that other parties in the House also want to get on with the election machinery. They cannot do so until we know what the constituency boundaries are in England and Wales. Therefore, I recognise the Government's case that a sense of urgency is required in deciding these new boundaries.
  We certainly subscribe to a uniform electoral system for the European Parliament throughout Europe and certainly here in the United Kingdom. We are moving towards that in stages. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred to the De Gucht report. It implies a gradual movement towards a common electoral system in Europe, yet we do not have one in the United Kingdom. Paragraph 3 of article 138 of the Maastricht agreement states:
  "The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States."
  That is what we in the Ulster Unionist party should like to see. How can we debate having a common system with the European Parliament when we do not even have one here in the United Kingdom? We have a gerrymandered system. In one part of the United Kingdom, 500,000 people are required to elect one MEP and in another part, Northern Ireland, only 300,000 people are required to elect an MEP. We have had an explanation. The cat was let out of the bag by the hon. Member for Hendon, South when he said that it was rigged in Northern Ireland for sectarian reasons to ensure that a Catholic was elected. That is an insult to the population of Northern Ireland, but that was the sectarian thinking behind the Conservative party when it decided to give Northern Ireland more seats than it deserved on a numerical basis.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman's memory must have slipped, because it was the Labour Government and Lord Callaghan who brought in the legislation making arrangements for the European elections in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Taylor: It was certainly a Labour Government who had the full support of the Conservative party, and the Conservative party supports it tonight. I shall give way to the Minister if he wishes to dissociate himself from that. The Minister remains seated and refuses to comment, confirming my point that the Conservative party supports the idea of the sectarian allocation of seats in Northern Ireland rather than a fair allocation throughout the United Kingdom.
  That unfair allocation of seats affects the whole of the European Parliament. That point was made by the leader of the Scottish National party. Scotland is underrepresented in the European Parliament, though not on the basis of its representation from the United Kingdom, and I do not agree with that. Scotland has fair
  1040
  representation when compared with England and Wales. The Government's new proposals are fair on the basis of numbers for Scotland, Wales and England. But Scotland is unfairly treated when compared with other sovereign nations. It is unfair that Scotland should have only eight seats for 5 million people while Denmark has 16 seats for 5 million people. That is not equity, fair representation or fair play.
  When we discuss a uniform electoral system for European elections within the United Kingdom and the European Community, we must ensure that if there is to be an increase in respect for the European Parliament—there is not much respect for it at present—it must be seen to be really democratic. Representation must be fair throughout the European Community. Under the new proposals recommended by the Minister tonight, only 60,000 voters will be required in Luxembourg to elect one MEP, while 800,000 voters in Germany will be required to elect only one MEP. That is neither a democratic forum nor a fair electoral system and it creates a Parliament that is not representative of the people of Europe.
  We are creating a Parliament with more powers over this nation and other Parliaments of Europe, but that Parliament is undemocratic.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Before my right hon. Friend develops that point, may I ask him whether he accepts that to move to a concept of a list system with proportionate numbers required to elect a person to represent constituencies in this nation would be wrong and undemocratic if that list were so limited that smaller, regional parties could not be elected?
  Mr. Taylor: Yes, we can have list systems on a national or regional basis. Both types of system apply at present in the European parliamentary elections, depending on the country. For example, Belgium has two regional list systems whereas Denmark has just one national list system, so the systems vary. The United Kingdom would have to ensure that its distinctive regions—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland especially—had the right to have their own representatives elected.
  However, if the United Kingdom has a national list system we shall eventually have Ulster Unionist candidates standing in Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool and London because there are at least a million Ulstermen living in Britain. The same could be said for Scottish nationalists. The choice is between regional lists or so-called provincial parties entering the national political scene.
  Looking ahead, to give the European Parliament greater respect among the peoples of Europe, the electoral system must be uniform, which means one man, one vote and that one vote must have equal value throughout Europe. It is not right that Luxembourg should have six seats and that 60,000 people should be able to elect one MEP there, whereas it now takes nearly a million people in Germany to elect one MEP.
  May I add my support to those who have mentioned the position of Gibraltar? It is outrageous that, although Gibraltar joined the European Community in 1973—long before Spain joined—it still has no voice or representation other than an honorary voluntary group of Members of the European Parliament who look after its interests in that Assembly. In recent years, since Spain joined, there has been a form of discrimination against Gibraltar and it has not been given its full rights. The Government have a

  1041
  responsibility for Gibraltar and should try to ensure that it has a means of expressing its interest within the elected bodies of Europe and is treated as a full member of the European Community.
  The Ulster Unionist party is concerned about the Bill. We hope that the Minister of State, in his reply, will assure us that there is an urgency to get the legislation in operation and the boundaries confirmed quickly. We hope that he will assure us that this is simply a one-off and that never again will a committee decide the boundaries. I hope that we shall return to decisions being made by boundary commissioners with public inquiries.
  The point made earlier about future member countries joining the European Parliament was simply kite flying. It should be recalled that, when new members such as Spain, Portugal and Greece joined, there was no question of changing the number of seats allocated to the United Kingdom. Those remained at 81. The new countries were simply given their own seats but the existing countries' seats did not change.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). I agreed with much of what he said, but I was surprised—as were other hon. Members on both sides of the House, to judge from their facial reactions—by his statement that the European Parliament has no legislative powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Currie) rightly picked him up on that and said that it has the power of veto. It now has distinct legislative powers in formulating European directives, which is another word for European laws. Article 189, paragraphs a, b and c, of the Maastricht treaty set out in considerable detail how those procedures will work. The Parliament has always had legislative powers, but it now has very real powers and I hope that it will use them.
  Most of the rest of what the right hon. Gentleman said seemed to be sensible. He expressed some concern, which I share, at any change being introduced into the system for deciding on constituency boundaries in this country. We are all proud of being the oldest successful democracy in the world and of the integrity of our system. We are proud that such ills as gerrymandering do not apply in our country.
  There is a great deal of public confidence in the impartiality and effectiveness of the Boundary Commission, although some of us may be inconvenienced by its proposals and decisions. I am inconvenienced by its latest proposal, which aims to cut my constituency in half. I do not like that at all. It is rather like an umpire's ruling: one has to decide whether the ruling suits one's temporary convenience or whether it is based on a fair interpretation of the rules.
  As the right hon. Member for Strangford said, the Government's proposals follow as closely as possible, in the limited time scale, the system that the Boundary Commission generally uses to determine United Kingdom constituency boundaries. That is reassuring. We have also been assured that this is simply a one-off—the only occasion on which this new system will be implemented—and that thereafter the Boundary Commission will resume its normal role.
  There has been much inevitable experiment in the creation of the Community. There have been many
  1042
  constitutional changes, the most recent of which was the Maastricht treaty, and in 12 years the European Parliament has moved from indirect to direct elections. It is not at all scandalous or shocking that there is to be one last anomaly before we move to the new system.
  I was pleased that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged on behalf of his party that the Government proposals are fair for the United Kingdom. There was a desperate try-on by hon. Members who suggested that we should use this opportunity further to enhance the existing bias in favour of Scotland by giving it an extra seat, although Scotland is clearly over-represented in the European Parliament and, indeed, in this Parliament. I am glad that the Government resisted the temptation to make such an irrational move.
  I was equally in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in his strictures that the Community is still insufficiently democratic. One of the impressive features of the Community is that it brings together 12 countries which have in common a genuine and strong commitment to democracy. In many ways, that commitment is more vocal and explicit in those member states which have not been able to take that for granted for as long as we have. Democracy is the fundamental principle of political life that we wish to retain.
  There is some irony in the fact that in many ways the Community is a travesty of democracy. An enormous amount of power resides in the Commission, which is not elected and is not in any direct sense democratically accountable. However, I am pleased that in future it will be more subject to the oversight of the European Parliament than it has been in the past. A great deal of power also resides in the Council of Ministers, which is rather like an 18th century cabal, meeting behind closed doors and taking decisions on behalf of people without exposing the arguments which lead to its conclusions.
  There has been a significant improvement in the Council's workings, thanks to the British initiative at the Edinburgh summit. It has been decided that in some of its legislative law-making sessions the Council of Ministers will have open public sessions. That is a great improvement.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how his remarks are relevant to the Second Reading of the Bill that is before us?
  Mr. Davies: When discussing how the European Parliament is to be elected, it is important to be clear about what that Parliament is. It has been suggested that that Parliament is not a law-making body.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not in the Bill.
  Mr. Davies: I think you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the system for election to the European Parliament must be viable and democratic. In that context, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who in his excellent speech set out a strong case for adopting national lists—an ill which besets some of our Community partners. I hope that we shall not introduce that. My hon. Friend forcefully set out some of the well-known objections to a system of national lists or proportional representation. Such systems greatly increase the power of the party machines. That is undersirable in itself. It also reduces the accountability of elected representatives, who have force only if they are

  1043
  responsible to a specified body of electors. That is the direct relationship which exists in this country, and long may we preserve it in national and European elections.
  A PR and national lists system is profoundly subversive to the sense of responsibility required of those who hold elected office in a democracy. It is no accident that the French national delegation to the European Parliament has an appalling attendance record. I do not wish that to be interpreted as chauvinistic because I am a great admirer and lover of France, but Committees of the European Parliament often find themselves in court because representatives from France and other countries have not turned up.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has got the message. His remarks are not relevant to what we are discussing.
  Mr. Davies: I acknowledge that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for not stopping me earlier. I thought that the points were worth making.
  Perhaps I may be permitted to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on seizing the chance at the Edinburgh summit to negotiate an increase in the number of British seats. It would have been possible for the new German Lander to be accommodated without Britain enjoying an increase in representation. The Government have.been extremely effective negotiators throughout the Maastricht process and in other contexts and, as good negotiators sometimes must, they have seized the chance and brought to the House an extremely good deal. I shall be proud to support it in the Lobby.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The Bill is a direct consequence of the reunification of Germany. It became inevitable when East Germany became part of a united Germany that it would expect some representation in the European Parliament. Despite the inevitability of that, it is clear that the increase in German representation has caused difficulty at intergovernmental conferences, and at subsequent meetings of the Council of Ministers. That is because, historically, the larger European Community countries have enjoyed, whatever the size of their population in precise mathematical terms, essentially the same representation in the European Parliament.
  For the moment, Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom each has 81 members in the European Parliament. Although there is some relationship between a country's population and its representation in that Parliament, it is not based on a precise mathematical formula. Larger countries have more members than smaller countries.
  Luxembourg is hugely over-represented. It has been allowed six seats, to provide some political diversity in its representation. Those six MEPs represent a population that is rather smaller than that in a single United Kingdom European constituency. In that context, the argument about Scotland is relevant, because the representation for Luxembourg represents that country's nationhood. Scotland should also be afforded representation according to its sense of nationhood.
  Scottish Members of the European Parliament work conscientiously on behalf of their constituents. I know
  1044
  how much they want the boundaries to be redrawn so that there can be an extra seat for Scotland. It is right that those who have urged that should be respected.
  Mr. Dalyell: Once again, there is no representative here from the Scottish Office. There was an obligation on the Scottish Office to ensure that a representative attended this debate, because it gave clear promises that that would happen. Had it not made that promise, matters might have been different. It made that promise at a time when it wanted to get something else through the House.
  Mr. Hoon: I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench.
  The inevitability of the decision in principle to give Germany additional representation was clear as long ago as 1990, and the decision in practice to implement that was taken as long ago as December, at the Edinburgh summit. Hon. Members on both sides of the House had the clear expectation that, once the decision had been taken, the appropriate Bill would be introduced quickly. Indeed, I remember the Prime Minister answering a question about that at the time. We all expected the debate that we are having today, some six months later, to take place much earlier, possibly before the Christmas recess.
  Despite everyone knowing that the changes had to be made before June next year—a limited time scale that has already been referred to—it is now July, less than a year before the next European elections. The Government have sat on their hands for the past six months, and have not taken the position seriously. The Government's rather ineffectual reason for delay has been the pressure of legislation since last December. They will have to come up with a better explanation than that, especially in view of their assertion that, at this late stage, there is no time to put the matter before the boundary commissioners. If that is true, why did they not introduce the Bill much earlier?
  Examination of the Bill leaves us sceptical about the Government's real intentions and motivations. The European parliamentary constituency committees will have members appointed by the Home Secretary, on terms and conditions established by the Home Secretary and, where relevant, even paid by the Home Secretary. Any doubt about the potential for Government interference in the work of the committees will be banished after reading the schedule to the Bill.
  Earlier in the debate, there was some discussion about the procedure to be adopted by the committees, and we are concerned about what the Government have in mind. The first stage of the procedure set out in the schedule is that the committee should submit a report on the draft boundaries that it recommends. Paragraph 6 requires that the report should contain the name of the suggested constituency. Thereafter, the report must be laid before Parliament, with a draft Order in Council.
  At that stage, the Home Secretary has the opportunity to make modifications. We are told that such a provision is included in all Boundary Commission legislation. However, it is unsatisfactory to have it included in this Bill, because, if the Government have their way, there will be no public hearings on the recommendations. Simply because that provision has been included in previous legislation does not mean that on this unique occasion—or so we are told—there is any necessity to afford the Home Secretary the opportunity to make changes without reference back to the committees.

  1045
  Not only will the Home Secretary have the opportunity to make modifications after receipt of the report, but paragraph 8(1) provides that he can then make further consequential changes—again without reference back to the committees. Thereafter, the report will come before the House, which will also have the opportunity to make changes.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will explain why paragraph 8(6), which prohibits any judicial review of the process, is necessary. The Home Secretary's fingerprints are all over the procedure. Not only are the Government anxious to ensure that they get their own way about how the committees are constituted and how they work, but they are excluding the possibility of a legal challenge to any of the recommendations once they are published. An extraordinary range of powers will be available to the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: In case I do not reach the hon. Gentleman's speech when I reply, as he is rather far down the list of speakers, I want to tell him that the real reason for not having the judicial review process is that the House will have the last word on whether or not to accept the recommendations.
  However, it could be possible—some have intimated as much tonightߞthat those who do not want the extra seats to be taken up. by this or any other country, will embark on a series of judicial reviews that could take us past the date by which the legislation must be in place if we and other countries are to implement the agreement. I t is a protective measure.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but perhaps the Government should have thought of that a little earlier in the process. There have been judicial reviews of previous Boundary Commission decisions. That is the sort of protection that is afforded to citizens in a democratic society, and it is what we expect when we have an independent judicial system.
  The Government's explanation would not be wholly convincing to someone looking at the Bill's proposals for the redrawing of boundaries in a democratic society. Without knowing the background and the context, and without the benefit of the Minister's explanation, that person would have some doubts about the integrity of our system for drawing up boundaries.
  The purpose of having an independent Boundary Commission—a system that is admired throughout the world—is to ensure that we produce not only boundaries that are fair but, crucially, boundaries that are seen to be fair. I regret that I am not satisfied that the committees will achieve that.
  This is the first use of ad hoc arrangements for some considerable time. Boundaries used to be reviewed on an ad hoc basis, but since the second world war we have avoided that. It is unfortunate that the Government are now reverting to the sort of practice that they and every other post-war Governments have abandoned.
  A further point is relevant to the shortage of time that has been caused by the Government's delay in introducing the Bill. The consequence of the current boundary review for the United Kingdom Parliament is that there will have to be a further European constituency review. Not only will those boundaries have to be redrawn in time for the 1994 election, but when the boundary review for this House is completed, the Government will then be
  1046
  statutorily required to review the European boundaries again. There will be two sets of changes, one in 1994 and one in the period leading up to 1999. That is unfortunate in terms of the integrity and cohesiveness of the European constituencies.
  The real reason for the delay in introducing the Bill is clear from today's Order Paper. There are 25 signatures on the reasoned amendment tabled by the Government's internal opponents, the Maastricht rebels. The Government were not prepared to introduce this Bill during the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill, because they thought that they would lose. It is interesting that the Government are still concerned that they will lose, and are prepared to make certain concessions because they know that they cannot command their own majority in the House.
  It seems to me that the Government have avoided bringing forward legislation on a matter of constitutional significance because they have no confidence in their ability to command a majority of their own party. That is a very poor reason for delaying the progress of the legislation and to prevent the public from being engaged in consultation on the nature of the boundary review. It is a poor reason to put before the country.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Michael Bates: I am grateful for opportunity to speak in tonight's important debate. Before addressing myself to clause 2, which particularly interests me, I shall make a few general comments within the close boundaries that you have set out, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The top point that we need to recognise is that the Bill represents an opportunity for the United Kingdom to have six additional seats and voices in the European Parliament. Most people would accept that as good and worthy. I have not heard it stated at any point in the debate that there is no need to review the structures and allocations of the European parliamentary constituencies.
  In the light of these new seats, it is clear that the unification of Germany resulted in a disproportionate number of electors per constituency in Germany compared with other areas of the European Community. We were all in favour of embracing East Germany. The policy goes back two decades or more—ever since Germany was divided—that, when East Germany, with its huge economic and social problems, joined the European Community, we should ensure that those people had representation. That was borne out in the 18 additional seats to be given to Germany.
  In the same way, I fervently believe that, when we enlarge the European Community still further, those new member states should have voices in the European Parliament.
  It is critical that we have the extra seats, because one of the key elements of the Maastricht treaty is to increase the role and responsibility of the European Parliament. Clearly, if it is to have more power and responsibility, I for one would welcome additional representatives from the United Kingdom to ensure that our case is put strongly.
  Anyone who would seek to delay the progress of the Bill still further and ensure that we do not have fair representation in the European Parliament should seriously question his commitment to the democratic process within the European Community.

  1047
  Another important consideration—this is where I focus on clause 2—is the tight timetable to which we are working. The committees will be established after Second Reading, and will present their initial recommendations in late July and early August, and then there will be a period of consultation during the autumn.
  The period of consultation is critical. Although there will not be the traditional public meetings, due to the short time scale, there will be an opportunity for people to make representations. Many hon. Members and political parties and organisations with an interest in this matter will take the opportunity to submit written representations to be considered during the consultation period in the autumn.
  The measures have to be in place by next June for the elections to take place. Reference has been made to the progress which has already been made in preparing for the elections. The tight timetable requires a curtailing and condensing of the usual consultation period, while paying due regard to the views and aspirations of the people they are seeking to represent.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My hon. Friend is making an important point. Is it not a clear and reassuring example of how the creation of the European Community has made international co-operation and partnership much easier that the Germans have accepted without much demur a much larger electorate for each of their seats than any of the other countries in the Community? At a time when many people are concentrating on the differences of opinion between countries in the European Community, that is a reassuring example of the way in which co-operation is growing among the partners.
  Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely right. Many people will recognise that one of the great triumphs of the period of the British presidency of the European Community was achieving just that—a period of consultation in which difficult legislation containing difficult proposals which, five, IO or 15 years ago, would have been the source of great consternation and division within the Community, was decided sensibly and fairly.
  It is true that Germany has a population per MEP of nearly 1 million. It is also true that Luxembourg has about 66,000 people per constituency. Those points are clear and accepted. One of the advantages of the additional six seats will be to reduce the average size of the European parliamentary constituency.
  Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is describing accurately some of the imbalances which are causing injustice in the size of the parliamentary constituencies throughout Europe. Will he comment on the imbalance between the electorate of 594,000 in the North Chiltern seat which at the moment is called South Bedfordshire, which I have been asked to fight next June and look forward to doing so very much indeed, with the seat in the highlands and islands, which was referred to earlier in the debate and which has an electorate of 327,000? Does he agree that we have a great deal to consider in Britain before we look at other countries? Does he share my concern that, were the Opposition amendment to be accepted, that imbalance would get worse?
  Mr. Bates: My hon. Friend is quite right to make that point. I place alongside my hon. Friend's example, as evidence before the House, my own constituency in the European context of Cleveland and Yorkshire, North which has an electorate of 580,297. That begs a comparison with other constituencies. Today we have focused on the representation of Scotland, of Wales and of England. There is a fair point to make about representation.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) spoke about the geographical size of some of the Scottish constituencies. However, there are also some fair-sized English constituencies. One example is Cleveland and Yorkshire, North. From Sedburgh in one corner to Loftus in the other corner is a distance of 85 miles. There are some fairly sizeable constituencies which require representation just as much as others do.
  I point out that many of us, especially in the north-east of England, which is an area in great need of development although it has benefited from much already, are aware that we do not have a seat at the Cabinet table. Scotland has a seat there. Unlike Wales, we do not have a seat at the Cabinet table. Scotland and Wales have more representation than the regions.
  People say that Scotland and Wales are identifiable communities with a strong history. However, the kingdom of Northumbria and the people of Yorkshire point to their history, which we have been considering in the context of the Local Government Commission. The history of Yorkshire goes back at least a millennium. The history of Northumbria goes back even further, to Bede and Cuthbert, the people who brought Christianity, culture and all things that are good to this country. They deserve to be recognised, too.
  I believe that, within the time scale available, the Bill is by far the best way forward. I urge all hon. Members who believe that this country should have a strong voice in the European Parliament, which in our heart of hearts we all believe, to realise that to delay matters further would be simply to play into the hands of and give a stronger voice to our European competitors within the Community.
  9 pm
  Mr. George Stevenson: Despite the Home Secretary's complacent attitude when opening the debate, the Bill is dangerous to the democratic process. Given the situation, no one argues that there is no need to speed up the process, but what cannot be justified, although Conservative Members have tried to justify it today, is an abandonment of the democratic process. That is the decision that the House will be asked to take on Second Reading.
  The Bill will bring the whole system into disrepute. We are told that the additional seats must be subject to a committee system and not to the Boundary Commission system. We are also told that the committees may include members of the Boundary Commission. If the Boundary Commission members are so busy, how will they find time to be members of the committees as well? The Minister may deal with that point later.
  We are told that we need the committees because of a problem of time scale. That is an important problem, but it is not insuperable. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) effectively and comprehensively destroyed that argument. The committees will be

  1049
  Government-appointed. They will be responsible directly to the Home Secretary. If we believe that there will not be many objections, or that the objections will not be complicated and forcefully pursued, we delude ourselves. In the face of those possibilities, we shall rely, according to the Bill, on the Home Secretary's decision. There will be no public inquiry and no public scrutiny.
  Various hon. Members have told us, "Don't worry. It is one off. The Government do not intend to use this procedure again." Hon. Members who are satisfied with those assurances may be willing to support the Government in the Lobbies this evening. Given what has happened, and the problems with which we are dealing, I am rather sceptical. We may rue the day that we gave the Government such a comprehensive power.
  Why have the Government, for some reason or another, chosen to delay the introduction of the Bill? The European Parliament knew about the six additional seats as long as June 1992, because the change was outlined in reports given to it. Those at the Edinburgh summit knew about the additional seats in December 1992, yet the Bill was not produced until II June this year.
  I do not accept the argument that that is a reasonable delay. The real reason may be that the Government were preoccupied with the parliamentary Boundary Commission. They may have insisted that it got to work on the parliamentary boundaries because they saw some advantage in revised parliamentary boundaries. Whatever the reasons for that unjustified delay, they have seriously reduced the time scale available to us in which to consider these important matters.
  Furthermore, the Prime Minister's statement last December, that the Boundary Commission provisions would apply to these additional seats, has been cynically rejected and is not worth the paper upon which it is written.
  The distribution of these seats is critical. When the Bill was published, the Secretary of State was quoted as saying that he had decided that the extra seats would be distributed on the basis of arithmetical fairness. That seems to be neat and tidy.
  Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman has strong feelings about the delay and wonders whether we should proceed with a system that does not include public inquiries. As he is still a serving Member of the European Parliament, would he in any way be happy about a delay tht prevented us from taking on board these additional six seats? What would happen in the European Parliament to the influence of this country, whichever party held those seats, if we were not to proceed with the Bill?
  Mr. Stevenson: The hon. Lady has not been here for the whole of the debate. I said at the beginning of my speech that the time scale is important, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield comprehensively destroyed that argument and put forward a credible alternative that would avoid the danger to which the hon. Lady referred.
  The Secretary of State said that he had decided that the additional seats would be distributed on the basis of arithmetical fairness. That seems to be neat and tidy, but it is a seriously flawed and misconceived basis. The Bill provides for the setting up of the committees, but it also provides that they will be bound by the criteria in the 1978
  1050
  Act. That Act was based on the Select Committee's second report on direct elections, which was considered by the House in 1976 and adopted in 1978.
  The Select Committee report says that the allocation of seats should be proportionate to population, and that allowance should be made in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for rounding up the numbers and also for the size of areas in those parts of the United Kingdom, and the scattered population. The Government seem to have abandoned that principle for Scotland. If the principle was fair then, it is fair now.
  The additional seat for Scotland for which we on this side of the House argue would reduce the number of electors in each constituency to about 55,000. That is neither unmanageable nor unacceptable. An additional seat for Scotland would not compromise the principle of fair allocation.
  Additional seats for certain European Community countries, including the United Kingdom, are not the result of a comprehensive, detailed, European-wide study of arithmetical fairness throughout the Community. Even those who sit on the Treasury Bench have not argued that that is the case, and it certainly is not the case. It is the result of a political imperative, following the reunification of Germany. It has resulted in 18 additional seats for the Federal Republic of Germany, seats which are well deserved. We could not allow 17 million people to be disfranchised. Germany was right to want those additional seats, and that is what it achieved. However, the representation will be on the basis that all of the areas of Germany are represented effectively.
  Although I do not agree with some of the comments about proportional representation that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), he was right in this regard: if the Secretary of State had based the Bill on an arithmetical exercise, we would have no additional seats whatever. That cannot be the right basis on which to approach this critical issue, and that is another reason why I believe that the Secretary of State's proposals are flawed.
  As well as the political imperative, the real objective of the additional seats may be to ensure, understandably, that there is a better balance of voting in the European Parliament, and that we do not allow one member state with additional seats to have an unfair advantage in the European Parliament. At some stage, someone will talk about qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, although we are not deliberating on that this evening.
  The exercise therefore is not about resolving arithmetical anomalies or the size of the constituencies and it never was. Therefore, to use this arithmetical base to exclude Scotland is irrelevant and completely unjustified. If that were the object of the exercise, how could Luxembourg and Denmark be ignored?
  I argue strongly that the basis of the Secretary of State's argument is fundamentally flawed. That fundamental mistake permeates the Bill. If the House grants the Bill a Second Reading this evening, it will endorse that fundamental mistake, which the Secretary of State is asking us to endorse.
  I believe that the House is faced with simple but very important and critical decisions. We can go along with these unnecessary, unjustified committees, which are answerable to the Secretary of State, abandon vital safeguards to the public interest, simply ignore the tried

  1051
  and tested Boundary Commission system and ensure that there is no power to have consultation and public inquiries. However, Opposition Members have shown that that is not the way forward if there is the political will. That political will is missing on the Government Front Bench.
  I hope that enough has been said this evening to ensure that the Government will rethink, even at this late stage. I hope, therefore, that the House will support the reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I make not the slightest complaint about the Chair's choice of Opposition Members to speak in the debate. However, may I place on the record the fact that, although the Opposition amendment refers to Scotland, no Scottish Labour Member was called during the debate?
  May I also ask formally, through the Chair, whether the Chair will consider the contribution of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who spoke for 38 minutes, as that was the root cause of the trouble? Some of us think that his contribution had nothing to do with the Bill, but had to do with other things. Could that be looked at in the cold light of day?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for many years, he will know that there is always a problem in allowing a sufficient number of hon. Members to participate in a debate and in trying to balance all considerations. As to the length of speeches, the hon. Gentleman will also know that there is very little that the Chair can do except in strictly defined circumstances, which do not apply tonight. No doubt the points that he made will be taken on board.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: This has been a unique experience for me. We have today had a genuine debate with genuine exchanges across the Floor of the House, rather than the normal setpiece speeches followed by a routine vote at the end. There has been give and take and cross-party agreement and disagreement.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will ponder carefully on what we have achieved and will think of the possibility of the Government being defeated on our amendment, on the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and even on Third Reading. I hope that the rational and thoughtful discussion that has occurred in the Chamber today—complemented, I understand, by discussions behind the Chair in an equally rational and thoughtful wayߞwill produce a measure on which hon. Members of all parties can agree when, or if, we reach the Committee stage.
  We take too many aspects of our democracy for granted, such as the right to contest elections with honest boundaries and even the right of all people to vote. Such rights are recent achievements historically. They have been hard won, wrung from reluctant governments by outside pressures.
  A democracy must constantly be vigilant to protect and extend those freedoms. That is particularly true given the all-powerful Executive that we have in Britain's centralised state. The threat is even more serious with an Executive grown fat and arrogant after 14 years of the virtually
  1052
  unchallenged accumulation of power. They think that they can do anything and, in a system without serious democratic checks, they can. The only restraint is self-discipline, and that evaporated a long time ago. That is the background against which the Conservatives have turned the European boundary review into a shambles and an affront to our democratic traditions.
  We should today be celebrating the entry into the democratic family of another member. I refer to the present-day unity of Germany, East Germany having joined the community of nations in western Europe. That should be a cause for champagne corks to pop. But what we have in the Bill is a sordid disgrace when compared with the efforts of those people and the liberation and democratisation bid that their society made a couple of years ago.
  The Government are seeking to bypass the accepted democratic process of referring matters such as European boundary reviews to the independent and universally respected Boundary Commission. They seek to bypass that process rather than follow a long-standing tradition in this country. If Parliament allows that to happen, we shall be palming off responsibility to the new European parliamentary constituencies committees. It will represent the first use of ad hoc committees for drawing electoral boundaries since legislation was passed in 1944 setting up the Boundary Commissions. The Government are taking democracy back 50 years. It seems that even the institutions of democracy can be tampered with almost to the point of privatisation.
  From Labour's point of view, when the time comes it will not be enough merely for us to right that wrong. We shall need to put such central elements of our democracy beyond the whim of this or that Government, whatever their political colour. The Boundary Commissions must be separate and immune from Government interference.
  The Home Secretary, perhaps due to inexperience of his Department, may have been led astray a little. Certainly the first job that his Department has given him is to bin a commitment made by the Prime Minister, who said that six extra MEPs would mean fresh boundaries being set across England, Scotland and Wales and that that would be a matter for the Boundary Commissions and not for the Government. That one bites the dust and goes in the bin straightway, in the first week of the new Home Secretary's regime.
  The Prime Minister knew what he was doing—at least, in this case. At that time the United Kingdom held the presidency of the Council of Ministers, and the Prime Minister obviously knew that extra seats would be allocated to the United Kingdom. He did not stumble into this; he made a clear commitment that the job would be done by the Boundary Commissions. Then along came the Home Secretary, who tore the commitment up within his first couple of weeks in office.
  Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Allen: I am pleased to give way to the hon. Lady, as she was very kind a few moments ago in not pressing her right to speak.
  Mrs. Currie: While I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, I should point out that no Member has a right to speak; it is always a privilege.
  The hon. Gentleman may have been mistaken when he said a moment ago that this is the first time since 1944 we

  1053
  shall not have had a proper Boundary Commission procedure. The Library's research paper points out that schedule 2 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, under which the 1979 constituencies were drawn up,
  "laid down a very much curtailed version of the normal
  Boundary Commission procedures to enable the work to be carried out in time for the first elections."
  The paper goes on:
  "These were accepted without modification by the then Government, which laid the necessary European Assembly constituency orders approved in December 1978."
  If the Library is right, this has happened before. Indeed, it happened under the last Labour Government.
  Mr. Allen: I shall deal later with the hon. Lady's point, which is similar to that that she made in an intervention earlier. When I get to that stage, she may regret having reminded me of it.
  The Home Office press release accompanying the Bill stated that the committees would be impartial and independent. When one looks at the Government's record in similar circumstances, it is hard to be reassured. One thinks of local health authorities and of the new police authorities that were announced yesterday—no doubt, to be presented as paragons of impartiality and independence, but more likely to be ad hoc committees composed of the usual crop of well-trusted Tory party appointees and apparatchiks, and staffed by the politically vetted. [Interruption.] Conservative Members groan, but I am afraid that the reality of local health authorities is very much along those lines. For the reality of the police authorities and these committees we shall have to wait. The Government have not yet told us who the members of the committees will be. They gave us four assurances today, which, I am glad to say, will be listed in Hansard. We shall read them with great interest. Even if some members of the committees are seconded from the Boundary Commission, they will he exposed to additional pressures—no doubt some of it political—which may compromise any recommendations they make. If Boundary Commission people are loaned, and if their functions are to be the same as commission functions, why was the job not given to the Boundary Commission in the first place?
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) mentioned previous occasions. Earlier interventions from Conservative Members drew attention to the 1979 undertaking that this would be a one-off arrangement, that never again would there be no Boundary Commission procedure. I suppose that what we have now might, technically, be referred to as a two-off. If we are to have another one-off, just 13 or 14 years after the last one, why does the Bill not make it clear that in future the Boundary Commission itself will be responsible for any such revisions?
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Clause 2 does just that.
  Mr. Allen: Is clause 2 a one-off? Perhaps the Minister of State can reassure us.
  In our view, the Boundary Commission should do this job, this time and in the future. It is an impartial and well respected body, and it should not be subverted, even for the rather thin reasons being put forward by the Secretary of State.
  1054
  Today, in our view, the Home Secretary did not at all make the case that the European parliamentary constituency committees will be able to do the job more quickly than the Boundary Commission could.
  There is a timetable available and it could be fitted in with the Boundary Commission's own potential for fulfilling the drawing of boundaries. Again, it looks very much as if the Home Secretary, Ianding fairly new to the Department, has been given some advice—no doubt well meaning advice—that the Boundary Commission could not fulfil the task. I believe that it was bad advice and that the Home Secretary accepted advice which his predecessor may have challenged or even overturned, telling the Department to get on with the job. That may not be the new Secretary of State's way of managing his Department.
  The European constituency committees lack not only the widely acknowledged independence, integrity and trust enjoyed by the Boundary Commission but its consultative responsibilities. Vital to any boundary-drawing process is the consultation with those who are most affected by boundary changes—the relevant local electorate. The parliamentary Boundary Commissions publish provisional recommendations as part of their review, which means that procedures then exist for local inquiries in the event of objections from an interested local authority or a body of 500 or more electors before the finalisation of the parliamentary boundaries.
  No such statutory responsibilities exist for the European constituency committees. It is essential that the inquiries are restored to the proposals. As has been said by members of all parties, 70 per cent. of the provisional recommendations are changed during the process, but the Government are seeking to remove that possibility and the potential number of changes.
  Whatever assurances the Government give about providing adequate opportunity for consultation, we shall not be satisfied until they appear in the Bill. If the Home Secretary believes that consultation is a necessary and vital part of the boundary-drawing process, as the Labour party believes, he should include it in the Bill. Britain's democratic heritage should not rely on the devalued and debased currency of Tory ministerial assurances.
  It is vital that the time wasted by the Government is not made up at the expense of adequate and proper public consultation on proposed boundary changes. The public deserve the right to be able to respond in exactly the same way as they do when our Westminster boundaries are changed. We would not accept the new procedure for ourselves, and it is not fair, in the traditions of the House, for us to impose it on other elected representatives.
  The Home Secretary complains that there is little or no time to institute such detailed inquiries because the European elections are less than a year away, on 9 June 1994. It is hard to muster any sympathy for him as it is his Government's fault that they cannot manage their business properly. However, the temptation once again to let the Government swing because of their inadequacies and incompetence must be tempered by the fact that it is our constituents—the constituents of Members of the European Parliament—who will suffer unless we get the Bill right.
  I am going to suggest to the Minister of State a way forward. I ask him, now or when he replies to the debate, to undertake to appoint someone who will meet a representative appointed by the Labour party—no doubt other parties too will wish to be involved—so that they can

  1055
  discuss together how the timetable can be amended to accommodate the usual process of public inquiry on boundary redistribution. That is the only satisfactory way to meet the objectives of all parties and ensure that a vital element is not excluded from the procedure. If the Minister wishes to respond to that offer, I shall be pleased to give way to him.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I shall respond now so that the point is not lost in some of the other remarks that I will make. The Government will be pleased to take up the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a representative of the Opposition and an official of the Home Secretary should meet to consider the timetable proposed—about which I shall say something later—and examine it very carefully. I think that we will find that the timetable is as pressing as we have said, and as the Home Secretary explained.
  We would like as much consultation as possible, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends any indication that the Government believe that it is possible to speed up the timetable. If the respresentatives of the Opposition can persuade us otherwise, we will be interested in being so persuaded. I hope that the representatives of the Opposition will be equally open-minded.
  Mr. Allen: If the Minister is putting forward the proposal with an open mind, it is something that we shall be very pleased to take up. I hope that a representative, or several representatives, of the Opposition can make such representations. We believe that there is leeway in the timetable set by the Government, and time for us to insert in it, to the satisfaction of all parties, a period during which a genuine public inquiry procedure could be conducted without compromising that timetable.
  Mrs. Ewing: For clarification, how many representatives of the Opposition parties will be involved? Different views must he respected, and I would be grateful if he could say whether one representative from the minority parties will be selected, or whether all the minority parties will be represented.
  Mr. Allen: I hope that the hon. Lady will take it from me on trust that we are attempting to make the Bill better. We are trying to convince the Government that there is provision in their timetable for a full public inquiry. We will consult as widely as possible and, through the usual channels, arrive at a means of ensuring proper contact with the Government. I cannot make up policy on the hoof, but I would be pleased if the hon. Lady and her colleagues considered the matter through the usual channels.
  If the Secretary of State and his Ministers are open minded, the Bill can be improved. We can ensure that a public consultation period and a public inquiry procedure is restored to the Bill. If we achieve nothing else, we will have done a serious night's work if the Government are prepared to respond to that proposal—before the Committee stage, I hope.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman knows what is contained in the Bill. This is a Second Reading debate, so will he come clean and tell us how the Opposition will vote
  1056
  tonight? In that way, all the rhetoric and fast bowling to which he is subjecting the Government will be seen in practice in the Lobby.
  Mr. Allen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have just opened my innings. I am sure that he will be even more interested in what the Minister says. Having made the sort of speech that he did this evening, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be equally behind any effort to restore the public inquiry to the British democratic tradition, as it applies to the European parliamentary elections.
  The Government have had eight long months since the Edinburgh conference to bring forward proposals. We have very little sympathy with the Home Secretary when he bleats about the pressure of time because the first Bill that he has brought forward since he took that office is shoddy and slap-dash. If the Government had introduced the Bill in January, as they should have done, it would have allowed a reasonable period for boundaries to be drawn. The Government appear to have adopted a Rolf Harris approach to drawing boundaries; they have done it in the shortest possible time, in the vague hope that if one stands well back the final product will at least be a little bit recognisable.
  We all know why the Government have taken so long to bring forward the proposals. They were afraid of their party within the party—the party represented by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I am sure that many of his colleagues enjoyed his long speech—it brought back memories of the Maastricht debate for many people.
  The Europhobes have their chance to develop beyond esoteric proceduralism tonight and in Committee. They centre their Maastricht case on defending British democracy. Nothing requires a stouter defence than our right to vote on fair boundaries drawn up by an impartial Boundary Commission. In Committee, we will see whether their commitment is to defending our democracy or something else. They must define democracy more widely than simply as the right of a Conservative Government to tell a Conservative Parliament what to do.
  We know the reputed views of the Secretary of State on matters European. It was sad to hear him say that he was prepared to veto extra seats for other European nations, especially the new Germany. Everyone in Europe would lose seats if the Secretary of State's suicidal plan went forward along those lines. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating him on the way in which he managed to talk with apparent enthusiasm for European democracy while simultaneously grinding his teeth. The strength of his performance does not excuse the way in which he and his colleagues are willing to play internal party politics with our electoral process.
  In conclusion, when power is prized over democracy, sidestepping the Boundary Commission slips seamlessly into raising funds from dubious sources to fight elections, repaying donors with titles and peerages and recurring allegations of vote stealing from the elderly, the infirm and others, in St. Ives last year and Brighton this year. The difference is that, whereas those sleazy activities took place privately or on a party political basis, Parliament is being asked to authorise and to collaborate with the Conservative abuse of democracy.
  The record shows that, for the Conservatives, our democracy is simply a process to be manipulated, distorted and reshaped for the benefit of the Conservative party. The

  1057
  Parliament that it controls is being drawn into the web. It will drag Parliament further into disrepute and hasten the day that fundamental reform is enacted to return both our Parliament and our democracy to a position worthy of public respect.
  9.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) characteristically talked a great deal of extravagant nonsense about the Bill and a number of other matters. He does that accidentally because he does not understand the debate, as was clearly evinced when he accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of being prepared to veto extra seats for the United Kingdom and others. My right hon. and learned Friend most certainly did not say that. If the hon. Gentleman inspects the record—if he is capable of reading—he will see that that is simply not the case.
  The whole purpose of the Bill is to secure extra seats for the United Kingdom and others. From time to time, the hon. Gentleman deviated to make one or two sensible points, to one of which I gave him an answer. I shall come hack to the other points later. Before I take up the points made by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, I shall set out once again why we have the Bill now and why it has taken the form that it does. Those two simple matters were at times heavily overlaid by the range of issues that were properly raised, and by the vigour with which they were sometimes addressed.
  The Bill has been introduced, not as a result of Maastricht or of any changes in the power or scope of the European Parliament, but because Germany has reunited, as the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) reminded us. It was agreed at the Edinburgh summit under the United Kingdom presidency that Germany should have 18 more seats to acknowledge—sparingly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) intervened to say—the 17 million extra voters that it acquired with East Germany. At the same time, the United Kingdom, France and Italy secured six more seats each, while smaller countries gained fewer or none.
  The result is that the distribution of seats between the member countries will reflect a little more accurately the size of their electorates. That point was missed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in his interesting speech, and is one from which the right hon. Member for Strangford will take, to judge from his remarks, a morsel of comfort.
  We have thought long and carefully about how the United Kingdom's extra seats should be distributed between the countries of the Union. The Home Secretary explained in his opening speech that, at present, the average size of a European Parliament electorate in England is larger than in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, but slightly smaller than in Wales.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister explain why that was not thought of before? Scottish Members will have to explain the promise made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in introducing the White Paper "Taking Stock" and repeated in St. Andrews in November 1992. The promise may have been unwise and I was surprised that the Secretary of State
  1058
  made it, but nevertheless it was made. Scottish Members are entitled to an explanation of why it has not been honoured.
  Mr. Lloyd: The Secretary of State for Scotland must explain his own paper, which I have not read. I have stated that there was a great deal of discussion about the fairest way to distribute the extra seats. We decided that it was to take the average sizes of the electorates in the constituencies of the countries of the United Kingdom and distribute the seats accordingly. That is why there is an extra seat for Wales, the area of the country with the largest average electorate at the moment. It is right that the seat should go to Wales.
  Mr. Dalyell: All of that was obvious in 1992. I am not challenging what the Minister is saying. I am asking him to help Scottish Members by telling us how we can explain away the extraordinary promises of the Secretary of State. Those promises were made at a time when he wanted to ingratiate himself with Scotland.
  Mr. Lloyd: I cannot answer for the Secretary of State for Scotland. I did not read that particular paper. I can answer that the Government's decision was to distribute the seats according to the average sizes of electorate in each country.
  Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister recall the point that I made earlier? When the original decision was taken that the United Kingdom should be allocated either 81 or 82 seats in advance of the first direct elections, the argument for that number of seats was won on the basis that Scotland should have 10 seats and Wales should have five. Wales has now been brought up to five seats, while Scotland remains with only eight. It seems almost as if negotiations have taken place and arguments have been put forward that now disadvantage the people of Scotland. Those arguments originally advantaged the people of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: That is nonsense. Scotland is not being disadvantaged. Wales was being disadvantaged, which is why the extra seat has gone to Wales. It will result in Wales, such is its small size, switching from being the country with the highest average electorate per Euro constituency to the lowest. With a small population, a difference of one seat takes it from top to bottom.
  I understand why the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and other Scottish Members are disappointed that there is no extra seat for Scotland. I understand perfectly why Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen—I was going to say with so many Scottish Members behind them, but Scottish Members are not here—feel obliged to demonstrate their outrage at the absence of a new seat for Scotland, but the arithmetic and simple honesty ought to compel Opposition Members to admit privately to themselves, even if they cannot do so publicly, that another seat for Scotland cannot be justified.
  Even with five extra seats, the average English European constituency will still have 4 per cent. more electors than the average Scottish constituency. To give one more seat to Scotland and take one away from England would increase that disparity still further to 16 per cent.
  Mrs. Currie: Is not at least part of the answer that those of us who represent English constituencies have made a

  1059
  fuss about it? We are pleased that the Government have heard. Is it not a matter of fact that, of the 63 English European constituencies, 60 have electorates of more than 500,000, but of the eight Scottish constituencies, half have electorates of fewer than 500,000?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend's statistics are correct, but the first part of her remarks was not. It was not a matter of pressure and making representations. The Government determined what was objectively the fairest way of distributing the seats.
  I have listened with care almost all evening and, apart from one argument to which I shall return, I have not heard any convincing reasons why Scotland should be given even more generous representation in the European Parliament than England. The one argument that requires an answer is that Scotland must have an extra seat because one of its constituencies—Highlands and Islands—is extremely large in area. However, although its area is indeed vast, it has one of the smallest European electorates in the United Kingdom. Its electorate is 327,000, compared with the average of 490,000 for Scotland as a whole.
  Of course, electoral law makes some allowance for sparseness of population. Highlands and Islands has obviously benefited from that discretion, but I doubt whether, if Scotland had an extra seat, the Boundary Commission or any informal committee operating under the same guidelines would feel able to increase the disparity between the electorates in Highlands and Islands and the rest of the Scottish seats sufficiently to make much difference. The extra seat would surely have to be used mainly to reduce in terms of number of electors the average size of seats in highly populated areas of Scotland.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister has been asked to make an apology on behalf of Scottish Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, who have not even bothered to turn up for the debate. The Secretary of State gave at least two promises—one in his document "Taking Stock" and one in his speech at St. Andrews—that Scotland would achieve better representation. Does the Minister accept that geography has a great deal to do with the matter and that the Highlands and Islands seat is bigger than Belgium? Are we to believe that the Government considered merely figures and not communities, geography or proper representation for Scotland?
  Mr. Lloyd: According to the rules that we have, the seat would not go to the highlands and islands. The position is different, particularly because Opposition Members have pleaded that we should stick absolutely and completely to the traditional Boundary Commission practices and rules. Highlands and Islands is, indeed, large territorially, but it has a small population. The major determining factor which Boundary Commissions are supposed to take into account is population. That is the reason for the discrepancy. The reason is not whether or not Scotland has an extra seat.
  Even if it was right—I do not accept that it is—to distribute the seats in such a way as to give Scotland more than the United Kingdom arithmetic can justify, I do not believe that it would help in resolving anxieties, which I understand, caused by the sheer geographical spread of the
  1060
  Highlands and Islands constituency or the difficulties created for the mother-in-law of the hon. Member for Moray. As the hon. Lady said, her mother-in-law is as capable of managing that seat as any member, but its size gives her added difficulties.
  The hon. Lady asked whether we would consider constituencies in Scotland and the rest of the country on a geographical basis. I have some sympathy with that, but I do not know how it can be done. I know that it cannot be done under the present rules. During last year's debates on the parliamentary Boundary Commission changes, I said that after this coming review and the consequent review of European boundaries, we should need to reconsider the rules under which commissions work. By that I did not mean just the Government; I meant that there would be consultation with other parties. As I said before, we can do that only when we come to consider the rules under which boundaries are reviewed. It cannot be done properly and fairly now. Perhaps we could have given an extra seat to Scotland, but it would not have resolved the real problem of the geographical size of that constituency in particular.
  Mr. Rowe: May I seek reassurance on one other point? Several of my constituents in Kent are anxious because it appears that with the new seats we are likely to be pushed out of Kent and to include part of Sussex. That appears to have a knock-on effect on domestic parliamentary boundaries. Can my hon. Friend assure us that the two are not connected in that way?
  Mr. Lloyd: There is not a knock-on effect to domestic parliamentary constituency boundaries. Euroconstituencies must be made from the building blocks of domestic parliamentary constituencies. That is why the law requires that after a review of domestic parliamentary boundaries there must be a consequent review of Euro-boundaries to make sure that the latter are still made up of the building blocks of the ordinary parliamentary constituencies.
  The call for an extra seat for Scotland on the basis of the highlands and islands difficulty came particularly unconvincingly from Liberal Democrats, especially the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He and his party want the extra six Members to be elected on the additional list basis. He lambasted the Government for not seizing an opportunity to move to proportional representation. If we did so, that would leave constituency boundaries, not merely in Scotland but everywhere else, exactly as they are at present.
  Mr. Maclennan: It is uncharacteristic of the Minister, but obviously he did not listen to me. I made it plain that the list would operate in Scotland, Wales and England, if that was how the distribution had to be made.
  Mr. Lloyd: If that were so for the additional seats, it would leave the existing directly elected constituency boundaries as they are, in which case the hon. Gentleman would not reduce the size of the Highlands and Islands constituency. That is my point to him.
  The Government have always made it clear that they see in proportional representation of any variety no improvement on our traditional, well-tried system of first past the post and strong, clear constituency links for every elected Member.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: I will give way later.
  Even if we thought otherwise, which we do not, proceeding to elect six additional Members on the list basis is not, as the Liberal Democrat party thinks, a quick and easily organised alternative. It would require much debate. What kind of list? Would it cover the whole of the United Kingdom or each constituent country, as the nationalists have repeatedly said they would like to see? It is difficult to have additional seats and directly elected constituencies in the small constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Who would draw up the list? As the Home Secretary remarked in his opening speech, if we embark on that route we shall still be arguing the issue on the day the elections are due to be held.
  I must bypass the De Gucht report and answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). As I indicated from a sedentary position during the debate, I can give him the four assurances that he asked for. The Opposition will be consulted on the members of the committees. The Boundary Commission members will be appointed, wherever possible, if they are willing and have time to do so. Two have already said that they believe they will have time. The secretariat will be the same, although I cannot say whether it will be temporarily expanded.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be the Boundary Commission in all but name. Yes, that is our objective as far as it is possible in the time. However, it cannot be exactly so and a major issue in this debate has been how far consultation and local inquiries can be held. I do not believe that it is possible to have local inquiries in the traditional manner. The hon. Gentleman said that that was simply assertion and believes that we can. I can only counter his assertion with another, and the right hon. Member for Strangford asked me to spell it out.
  The timetable is extremely tight. Political parties and administrators need to know where the new boundaries are to be drawn not later than the end of November. Representatives of the political parties are likely to want discussion meetings with the committees before they start work. None the less, publication of provisional recommendations at the beginning of August remains a possible, though optimistic, target. So far, the timetables of the hon. Member for Sedgefield and the Home Secretary are similar. However, there would be strong criticism if insufficient time were allowed for representation. Many people will be away on holiday in August and it will be difficult for local councils to meet to discuss proposals. In the past, political parties strongly urged the Boundary Commission not to publish proposals in August. That all points to a closing date no earlier than mid September.
  The preparation and holding of public inquiries are long processes. Representations must be analysed and briefs prepared for the person presiding over the inquiry. As the hon. Member for Sedgefield said, it could reasonably be expected that up to 10 inquiries may be needed. In preparing his report to the relevant committee, the inquiry chairman would need a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. Reports take some weeks to prepare and submit. The committees would then need to consider the reports and representations, reach final decisions and prepare their own reports. We believe that, at best, that will take six or seven weeks longer than the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  1062
  As I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, if the hon. Member for Sedgefield wishes to appoint a representative, the Home Secretary will want to appoint an expert to sit down and go through the timetable. We believe that our timetable is realistic and that the timetable of the hon. Member for Sedgefield is unrealistic, but we shall look at it open mindedly because we want as much opportunity for review and representation as possible, as does the hon. Gentleman. If we are shown to be wrong we shall adopt an alternative procedure. Although I do not think that that will be the case, we should be happy to talk it through. [Interruption.] If it is feasible, there can be public inquiries. We do not want to rule them out. In 1978–79 the Labour Government, although they had twice as long to prepare for the European elections, had to rule out local inquiries, just as we are doing now.
  The Bill is simple and fair. It provides the United Kingdom with six extra seats that are distributed as fairly as possible. It is fair to all parts of the United Kingdom and what Opposition Members suggest would certainly be unfair to England.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 300.

  Division No. 312]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coffey, Ann

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Connarty, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Alton, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cousins, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Cryer, Bob

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Battle, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davidson, Ian

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bell, Stuart

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dewar, Donald

  Benton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blair, Tony

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blunkett, David

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Boateng, Paul

  Eastham, Ken

  Boyes, Roland

  Enright, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Etherington, Bill

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

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

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Burden, Richard

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Byers, Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Caborn, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cann, Jamie

  Galbraith, Sam

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Galloway, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gapes, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  George, Bruce

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clelland, David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  1063

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Graham, Thomas

  Mudie, George

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gunnell, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hanson, David

  Olner, William

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Pendry, Tom

  Harvey, Nick

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hattersley. Rt Hon Roy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Henderson, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Heppell, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoey, Kate

  Prescott, John

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Home Robertson, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hood, Jimmy

  Radice, Giles

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Randall, Stuart

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Rendel, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hutton, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Illsley, Eric

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Ingram, Adam

  Rogers, Allan

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jamieson, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Janner, Greville

  Rowlands, Ted

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Salmond, Alex

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Short, Clare

  Jowell, Tessa

  Simpson, Alan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Keen, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

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

  Khabra, Piara S.

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

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Snape, Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Soley, Clive

  Leighton, Ron

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Lewis, Terry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Stevenson, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Loyden, Eddie

  Straw, Jack

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McAllion, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Tipping, Paddy

  Macdonald, Calum

  Turner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Tyler, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Vaz, Keith

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wallace, James

  McMaster, Gordon

  Walley, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Madden, Max

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mahon, Alice

  Watson, Mike

  Mandelson, Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Marek, Dr John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wilson, Brian

  Maxton, John

  Winnick, David

  Meacher, Michael

  Wise, Audrey

  Meale, Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Michael, Alun

  Wray, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Milburn, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Miller, Andrew

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Mr. John Spellar and

  Morley, Elliot

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

  1064

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Amess, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Faber, David

  Ashby, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkins, Robert

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Baldry, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bates, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Beggs, Roy

  French, Douglas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fry, Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Booth, Hartley

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorst, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowis, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brazier, Julian

  Hague, William

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burns, Simon

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butcher, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clappison, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Horam, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilyrn (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dunn, Bob

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

  1065

  Knox, Sir David

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sackville, Tom

  Legg, Barry

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sims, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Luff, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maclean, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Madel, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maginnis, Ken

  Spring, Richard

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sproat, Iain

  Malone, Gerald

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mans, Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marlow, Tony

  Stephen, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sumberg, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thomason, Roy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Needham, Richard

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

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trimble, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Norris, Steve

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Paice, James

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Watts, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Richards, Rod

  Wood, Timothy

  Riddick, Graham

  Yeo, Tim

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mr. David Lightbown, and

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 51.

  Division No. 313]

  [10.18 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ancram, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Faber, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Atkins, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Forth, Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bates, Michael

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  French, Douglas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fry, Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gamier, Edward

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Booth, Hartley

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorst, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bright, Graham

  Hague, William

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butcher, John

  Harris, David

  Butler, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Eggar, Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  1067

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Pawsey, James

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Pickles, Eric

  Legg, Barry

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lidington, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Lightbown, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Riddick, Graham

  Lord, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Luff, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  MacKay, Andrew

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Maclean, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Madel, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Maginnis, Ken

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sackville, Tom

  Malone, Gerald

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Mans, Keith

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Marland, Paul

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Shersby, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sims, Roger

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Merchant, Piers

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Spring, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sproat, Iain

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Needham, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stephen, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Thomason, Roy

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thurnham, Peter

  1068

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Watts, John

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

  Wells, Bowen

  Tracey, Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tredinnick, David

  Whitney, Ray

  Trend, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Trimble, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trotter, Neville

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Willetts, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Waller, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Waterson, Nigel

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Alton, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Macdonald,.Calum

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Mahon, Alice

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Marek, Dr John

  Cann, Jamie

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cohen, Harry

  Rendel, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Salmond, Alex

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davidson, Ian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Flynn, Paul

  Tyler, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Wallace, James

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Wise, Audrey

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wray, Jimmy

  Graham, Thomas

  Gunnell, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Harvey, Nick

  Mr. Bob Cryer and.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mr. Eddie Loyden

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Question according agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be commited to a Committee of the whole House.ߞ[Mr.Wood.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill [Money]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of remuneration and allowances to the members of a European Parliamentary Constituencies Committee established by the Act.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  10.31 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that we may speak to the money resolution?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is correct.
  Sir Russell Johnston: We have witnessed an extraordinary exhibition by Labour Members, who had every opportunity to defeat the Government, but turned it down. Any more from them about how easy it would be to do that—[Interruption.]—is unnecessary. Why should we not wish to support the money——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The money resolution is very narrow and is about the remuneration of the members of a committee. It is not about political parties.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Is it sufficiently narrow for me to say that the money resolution should not be passed? I would not wish to see the House support a motion which would permit a system of election that is transparently unfair and unjust to millions of people in Britain. I listened with astonishment to the Minister's reply. He spent a great deal of time on the details but ignored the plain fact that the European Parliament does not produce a government, as we do, but exists to provide advice within the institutions of the European Community. So the traditional arguments against having a fair electoral——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now going very wide of the mark.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I trust that the Minister will reply to this debate because the money resolution is part of the pattern of procedure and must have the authority of the House. Many hon. Members are anxious to hear the Minister, but if he is not prepared to give an outline of the purpose of the measure, we may decide to call a Division, just to emphasise the point. We want to know what the cost of the commission will be because——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have explained that the money resolution is very narrow—[Interruption.]—and, in any event, it is difficult for me to ascertain what the hon. Member is saying if I cannot hear him. The House must now quieten down.
  Mr. Cryer: I have questions to ask about the costs of this legislation. The issue of proportional representation has been raised. I would be out of order in discussing that. On the other hand, the Minister will want to make it clear that the cost of the legislation is the absolute minimum and
  1070
  that the introduction of a daft system of proportional representation would have been a great deal more costly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to reply.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I understand that the purpose of the money resolution is to authorise payments from public funds for the remuneration and allowances of the members of these specious committees, whose purpose is to create the six new European parliamentary constituencies.
  My first objection to the provision of any money whatsoever for this purpose is that the exercise would be unnecessary if there were a system of proportional representation. Such a system would remove any need for the carving up of constituencies. Thus, this is a waste of valuable funds.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Regardless of the cost, has the hon. Gentleman failed to understand that the system he is proposing is being increasingly rejected throughout Europe? It is bogus, as is shown by the fact that it has almost been accepted by the Labour party as a final solution for lost causes.
  Mr. Wallace: I cannot accept that. I shall be interested to hear to what places the hon. Gentleman is referring. If he is thinking about Italy, let met tell him that the system being proposed there is far more democratic than anything we have in this country.
  My second point is that the committees for which we are being asked to approve funds will not be allowed to look at the European constituencies for the nation of Scotland. By no stretch of the imagination could that be regarded as anything but a travesty. It is a total waste of money to set up committees that will ignore a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Why should Scottish taxpayers have to pay for these specious, spurious bodies?
  I live in the European constituency of the Highlands and Islands, whose northernmost extremity is further north than the southern tip of Greenland, and whose southernmost extremity—the Mull of Kintyre, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)—is further south than Berwick-upon-Tweed. It is a massive constituency. If the Bill gave Scotland not only its fair share of Members but also constituencies of a more manageable size, there might be some justification for the committee funds that the House is now being asked to approve. As it is, there is no provision for an examination of Scotland. That is another reason for not asking the taxpayers for this money.
  The third point is that we are to have committees rather than boundary commissions. During both Divisions tonight, Labour Members were conspicuous by their absence.[Interruption.]
  Mr.Dennis Skinner: We are not having that.
  Mr. Wallace: Not all of them. If they had all taken part, the Bill could have been defeated. One must assume that they are being bought off, that they have been told that these gerrymandering committees will give them some-thing. It is totally contrary to the traditions of this country that such committees should be set up, that we should eschew the normal procedure of reference to a boundary commission, with all the safeguards of proper published reports and proper opportunities for consultation and

  1071
  public inquiry. Instead of the inherent independence of a boundary commission, we are moving to more quangos, set up by the Government with the agreement of the Labour party. This is so inconsistent with our democratic conditions that Parliament should not be asked to approve the expenditure of taxpayers' money. This is not the Government's money or our money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am glad that hon. Members are catching on. Why should we be asked to approve the expenditure of taxpayers' money to set up gerrymandering committees for the purpose of appeasing members of the Tory and Labour parties?
  10.39 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: For years the House has been asked to spend money by passing money resolutions after Bills have gained a Second Reading and often on ideas from the Conservative party which have wasted billions of pounds. One of the latest examples of what the Conservatives called a democratic institution was the poll tax. The relevant legislation received a Second Reading and through the money resolution Conservative Members, who represent a minority of people in the country, spent millions of pounds on a system which was wholly discredited from the beginning and which had to be reversed.
  We are now being asked to do something more serious. If the money resolution is passed, we shall be authorising an electoral system that is illegal under European law—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish; it is likely that the system will have to be reversed in due course. It will discredit the United Kingdom in the eyes of our neighbours and partners in the European Community.
  If we pass the money resolution, we shall be distorting democracy not only in this country—that is bad enough because we are already a laughing stock to the world's new democracies—[Interruption.]When the Government-in-waiting in South Africa travel the world to study democracies on which they could model the constitution of the new South Africa, the one place they do not come to is here. They do not come here because we have a discredited democracy. All other countries, including Italy—I address this in particular to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor)—have far more representative democracies than we have. The hon. Gentleman's ignorance is such that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be helpful if the House would quieten down and if the hon. Gentleman returned to money.
  Mr. Hughes: In many respects and on many other subjects, the hon. Member for Esher is well informed, but his ignorance on this subject is such that he thinks that the money resolution will authorise a system that is more democratic than any in the European Community. I challenge him to get an independent assessment by any professor of electoral law—[Interruption.]The Conservatives are unwilling to do so. They are unwilling to test what they call democracy—for which we are paying. The Conservatives are not paying—they are asking the people to pay.
  We shall be distorting democracy not only at home but in the whole of Europe. Next year, the European
  1072
  Parliament will not be democratic or representative because we shall have perverted the course of European democracy. Yet we are meant to be the founders of democracy and we call this the mother of Parliaments.
  We are talking about my money—the people's money—and I am blowed if I will authorise the expenditure of my money by allowing a distorted, discredited Government, who were elected by a minority of the people, to push this resolution through. I sincerely hope that, with the help of the Labour party—[Interruption.]Let me correct myself. Those on the Labour Front Bench and the Labour leadership—but unsupported by some of that party's members—will be far more culpable of keeping the Tories in power than they accused us of being in October in passing the Bill and, as a result, condoning an electoral system for next year which may yet be taken through the courts. Even if that does not happen, and even if the Bill is not defeated in Committee next week or the week after, it will produce a result next year which will ensure that Britain, alone of the 12 member states, is the unrepresentative, undemocratic partner in Europe.
  Our reputation in Europe for wasting money and being undemocratic is already bad enough. It is a sad day when the new Home Secretary and all his colleagues are willing to try to make cosy deals with those who are otherwise considered to be their opponents on all policies. The deal would enable the Government to spend money on setting up a quango, all of those members will be unelected appointees of the Secretary of State. They will not represent the spectrum of opinion.
  We have not heard from the Minister how much money will be spent. If the Government get authority from Parliament to spend that money, because they manage to push their minority through the Lobby, when will it be paid back? If our electoral system is shown to be unfair and unreasonable, will the Government pay the money back? Oh no—as on previous occasions when the Government have pushed through Bills with money resolutions, the people of Britain will pay. The Government, their Ministers or even the civil servants will not pay it—only the people.
  I want to say one last thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I could be encouraged to go on for another half an hour. About 20 years ago, I spent one year at the College of Europe with people from 27 other countries. We were trying to build a new democratic Europe. We had difficulty enough then trying to persuade our colleagues that we were serious about that concept. Twenty years later, despite the pretence of the Prime Minister when he said that we are at the centre of Europe, we go on distorting the electoral system and discrediting our country. That behaviour will ensure that the United Kingdom, of all the member states, is the least democratic.
  I want to make it clear that it is not the Liberal Democrats who have countenanced the scandal, but the two largest political parties. We shall go on fighting and, sooner rather than later, democracy will come not just to the European Parliament, but to this Parliament—and it will be achieved at a far cheaper price than that set in the money resolution, which will be paid in silver and pounds and is the price of democracy lost and given away by a discredited Government and a deeply discredited official Opposition.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I have been inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to ask the Minister some penetrating questions.
  The financial memorandum makes it clear that the cost resulting from the Bill will be £250,000 in 1993–94. Discussions have gone on all day in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster about what negotiations have been held between the two Front-Bench teams. I was not privy to them but they must have related, either directly or indirectly, to the costs of the Bill.
  We are entitled to ask some questions about the money allocated. If the Government had chosen another means to redistribute the reservoir of six European Parliament seats, that could have been done at no additional cost. A well-established apparatus for that purpose is available to the Government, but they chose to eschew it. As a result, an extra bill of £250,000 has been put on the taxpayer; that is incontrovertible. The Government have incurred that charge and it is up to them to justify it.
  The Minister is duty-bound to give us more details about how the money is made up, how the expenses and allowances will be arrived at, what the precedents are for establishing what sums of money are paid and for what specific and detailed purposes and how the Government will select the chairman and members of the parliamentary constituency committees.
  Mr. Wallace: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility that, in order to perform the job properly, those who are appointed to this doubtful committee might have to travel extensively throughout England and Wales so that they will know the areas that they are talking about? Does he foresee a substantial amount being incurred in travel expenses and some freebie joy-rides, which would not be needed if we had proportional representation?
  Mr. Kirkwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—that was my next point. The Minister must know how costly such visits will be. Have per diem allowances been made for the chairman and the members of the parliamentary constituency committees? All those matters are vital. I do not think that there are any precedents for such an operation. We are entitled to know the exact amount of the expenses and how they are arrived at.
  Part I of the schedule to the Bill says:
  "4. The Secretary of State shall pay to the members of a Committee (including the Chairman) such remuneration and allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine."
  Does that mean that the House will not have the right to say how the expenses of this operation are set up? Are there any statutory instruments and legislation that will bring back to the House, either by a negative or affirmative procedure, the amounts of money that are spent and the way in which they were deployed? It will be a disgrace if that does not happen.
  The committees are unnecessary. Today, there have been all sorts of private talks between the two Front Benches. I do not know what accommodations have been reached or how extensive they may have been. How can we possibly scrutinise the results of the negotiations unless negative and affirmative orders are tabled in the House before the money is properly disbursed so that we can
  1074
  make judgments? There is a conspiracy between the two Front Benches. It is unconscionable that we have not been given any more details.
  Mr. David Rendel: As I have not yet been given an office in the House, I should like to know where the accommodation for these committees will he.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Over the past fortnight, my hon. Friend has been coming to me at half-hour intervals asking for an office in this place. We have not been able to find him one, although we have tried. Somehow, the usual channels have not been able to find him accommodation. I bet that accommodation is found for the chairman and members of these committees to enable them to do their work. Why cannot the Government find an office in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster for my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)?
  There are some legitimate and detailed questions that the Minister must answer. Never mind the high politics about the need for proportional representation and getting a much more democratic and open Europe. All those matters are out of order. I do not want to stray too much into the realms of proportional representation and the need to get a fair system or I will be ruled out of order. However, we need to know why this money, unnecessary as it is, must be spent and why Parliament will not have a chance to scrutinise the details of how it will be deployed.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I have a question that arises when we take what the Minister said in conjunction with the money resolution. What undertakings have been given to potential members of the committees about the payment of allowances and remuneration to them from the money to be voted in this resolution? In his closing remarks in the main debate, the Minister of State said that contact had been made with several people who are prepared to serve as members of the committee. Some of the boundary commissioners did not have time to serve, but others, miraculously, had the time.
  The Minister then said that it was possible that a draft report would be published by 1 August. He was not certain. It appears to me, and it must have occurred to others, because the matter was referred to in one of the amendments to the Second Reading motion, that some undertaking must have been given to the commissioners that if they started work before the Bill had completed its progress, they would nevertheless be paid in due course for the work that they had done from the moneys that are the subject of the money resolution. The Minister nods. He has already given undertakings to people that they will be paid money which we have not yet voted. The Bill on the basis of which they would be paid has not yet passed through Parliament.
  The Bill is likely to have a long Committee stage going into many days. The Committee stage may not have finished by 1 August. It may well go into the spill-over session. It is assumed that the commissioners will turn in day after day at some princely per diem allowance on an undertaking which the Minister has given that they will get their money in due course. I have news for them. They may never get their money. That is unless Major-General Wyldbore-Smith or one of those other remarkable characters has pots of gold still undiscovered from which

  1075
  they will be paid. We will then know that the project is not a public project but a Tory party project. Indeed, the Labour party may be willing to subscribe.
  I hope that neither the Bill nor the money resolution will be passed. If they are not, the commissioners will find that they have spent a great deal of time doing the Government's bidding for no money, unless it is privately subscribed by the two parties who hope to profit politically from the deal. I am amazed that the Minister has made it clear, by nods of his head, that he has given such an undertaking to the people whom he has invited to serve as pseudo-members of a so far non-existent committee.
  We had better tell the commissioners that they may never see the colour of this money. They may never see Howard's shilling, which is what it will become. If by any miracle they get Howard's shilling or Blair's florin or whatever it is, they will have discredited themselves by becoming involved in a partisan exercise. I say to the distinguished people who have taken part in the work of the Boundary Commission that they should steer well clear of this. It must be obvious that this is a seedy enterprise from the way in which the money side is being organised, with promises and undertakings such as, "We'll see you all right. We haven't got the Bill through yet but don't worry, we'll see that you get your money."
  Any of the distinguished people who previously served Britain well on Boundary Commissions would be ill-advised to have anything to do with the procedures set out in the Bill.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). In the first line of the explanatory and financial memorandum, the great city of Edinburgh is mentioned. I want to know what the great city of Edinburgh and, indeed, the great country and nation of Scotland will get out of the £250,000 that we are being asked to vote. It seems to me that Scotland will get nothing.
  I also find it odd that the Scottish Conservative party will get nothing out of the £250,000 as it is the only party which might benefit from proportional representation in Scotland—it might secure at least some representation in Scotland under that system.
  It is extraordinary that the Conservatives are adamant that they wish to protect the existing system and, indeed, extend it in a rather gerrymandered and corrupt fashion in circumstances in which, given the drift of election swings, the bias to the left is likely to be the main consequence of the Bill being passed.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was aiming high for Scotland? Does he think that no seats and no money is an example of aiming high?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He has aimed high because Scotland will pay but get nothing back. This is a simple contribution—a high bill to Scotland for absolutely no return.
  It is extraordinary that Conservative Members show such contempt for the European Parliament, which they prefer to call an "assembly" to show how they downgrade
  1076
  it. They do not care about the political distortions that are brought about by arrangements in the United Kingdom. Ironically, they are likely to work against the Conservative party next year and many Conservative MEPs currently in that Parliament will lose their seats as a consequence of this, and might wish that the Government had taken a slightly broader position.
  As this agreement arises out of a meeting held in Edinburgh, as the Prime Minister is on record as saying that he is committed to ensuring that Scotland should benefit and prosper within the United Kingdom, and as the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that he is fighting to improve Scotland's representation within the European Parliament, the people of Scotland should not be expected to pay a penny of the £250,000. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no consequences for the Scottish people and that they will find none of their services cut to pay for it?
  Under the heading
  "Effect of the Bill on Public Service Manpower"
  the Bill says that
  "staff will be temporarily assigned to the Committees under paragraph 3 of the Schedule of the Bill".
  Which staff will be seconded to the committee? Where will they come from? And what are they doing that is so unimportant that they can now be taken away from it without material consequences?
  As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) asked, will he be further displaced from finding a place to deal assiduously with the substantial amount of work that he has to handle as a result of the Conservative Government who brought him to this House?
  Those are serious points. The Conservative party, which is used to wrestling with a deficit of £50 billion, may not regard £250,000 as a matter of any consequence. But spent with the specific intention of ensuring that the Tory and Labour parties do all right, thank you very much, while the rest of the country pays for the consequences, it is not just a waste of money but fundamentally corrupt. It is being spent across all the taxpayers and nations of the United Kingdom in a way designed to secure party political advantage for the Tory and Labour parties and to continue to maintain a distortion which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, is a shame on this country's reputation.
  It is a tragic irony that we still have the image of being the mother of Parliaments, yet we are spending £250,000 to perpetuate that distortion. That is corruption. It is a travesty and a shame and may yet be challenged by the European Court. Since we became signatories of the treaty of Rome and acceded to the European Parliament, we have failed to honour our treaty obligations to agree a common electoral system for the European Parliament. We have not even been prepared, as could have been done under the Bill, at least to start to test how that could be done. We are now asking taxpayers to spend £250,000 to perpetuate a distortion which brings shame to this country.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a pertinent point: if a challenge is successful in the European Court, the money voted by this Parliament will have been illegally spent, and more money may have to be spent to put the matter right.
  However, I guess that a Government who were prepared to tell lies about £50 billion before the election will hardly worry about a few hundred thousand pounds

  1077
  here or there on the issue of democracy. It is a matter of no concern to them. But it is a matter of great and growing concern to a wide audience in this country, who will see what has been done in this House and how the Tory and Labour parties corruptly think that they can carve up the system for themselves for ever.
  The time is coming when the people of this country will say, "Enough is enough. A plague on both your houses. Drop your Bill and let's have some real democracy."
  11.4 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: We have spent many hours on Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and we are now debating the motion on the money resolution. Not one Scottish Conservative Member or a Minister from the Scottish Office has been present for the debate to explain their attitude to the issue. That is to be deprecated.
  Scotland will benefit not one whit from the legislation. At the time of the Edinburgh summit, I said that Scotland was being regarded as a tartan waitress by the people at the top table. The £250,000 that we are debating could be regarded as tips to the waitress. It seems that Scotland's taxpayers are to be asked to give money for which they will receive no benefit whatever. That money will be used to pay part of the cost of the new direct elections.
  The European Parliament is becoming increasingly important. I do not share the view of people such as the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who were here earlier, that that Parliament should be denigrated. It has a great deal to contribute to the development of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. If benefit is to accrue to anybody, it should also accrue to the people of Scotland who are not to be given additional access to a democratically elected institution. We are being asked to contribute a quarter of a million pounds, but we are not to be allowed to increase our representation and our influence, and that is wrong.
  Many hon. Members from other parties and the Member of the European Parliament for the Highlands and Islands have joined me in arguing that west Moray, Argyll and Bute, Cumbrae and Arran should be included in the objective 1 status afforded to the highlands and islands. The agriculture committee and the regional committee of the European Parliament have said that that should be agreed, and the European Parliament has cast 277 votes in favour of that.
  If we are to influence economic and political developments in the Community institutions, we must have the right to increased representation. It is strange that the House is in danger of saying that Scotland's taxpayers should support increased funding for the Community, but should not have increased influence.
  Mr. Wallace: I noted my hon. Friend's barbs about the absence of Scottish Conservatives from the Chamber. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), has finally joined us. Perhaps she would acknowledge his presence and comment on it. Perhaps he will tell us why Scotland should stump up for no benefit whatever.
  Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I should be grateful for an indication of Scottish Office thinking on the matter.
  1078
  As I have said, it is strange that Scottish taxpayers are being asked to increase their funding but are to receive no benefit in return. It is important for the development of the Community that one of Europe's most ancient nations should have increased access. Denmark has 15 Members of the European Parliament, while Scotland, with the same population, has only eight. It is fundamental for the people of Scotland to see equity applied. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. If he does, it will be the first such comment in the debate.
  11.9 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): It became clear in the debate that Liberal Democrat Members were extremely upset by the result of the vote. I understand that, because they are committed to proportional representation. They spoke about party interest in the electoral system and it is undoubtedly true that their interest, as they perceive it, is in a system of PR. They are entitled to feel that, but there are many others who believe, on extremely good grounds, that the most effective way to represent the people in a Parliament is through individual constituencies to which an hon. Member is responsible. They do not want some list system, the shortcomings of which have been highlighted in a number of speeches.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not.
  Mr. Salmond: Why?
  Mr. Lloyd: Because I do not have very much time.
  Mr. Skinner rose——
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Lloyd: All right, I shall give way.
  Mr. Skinner: In talking about PR and Liberal Democrats Members, why does not the Minister remind them that the ex-leader of the Liberal party went to Italy to stand in one of the tinpot elections under the PR system and was thrashed?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is a good reminder from the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) appears to be under some misapprehension. There are four Boundary Commissions and if there were also to be changes in the numbers in the other two countries that make up the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland and Scotland—their boundaries would have to be reviewed and the expense would be that much greater.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the expenditure is precisely the same as the expenditure that would have been made had the Boundary Commission been doing the reviewing. The hon. Gentleman may be upset to know that, in fact, the process will be rather less expensive because the changes apply to only two of our four countries. He may be disappointed to learn that there will be rather less travelling about the country because, as has been discussed this evening, the possibility of local inquiries being held is constrained by the time scale involved. There will be less travel and less expense.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about wasting billions of pounds. I do

  1079
  not think that, at that point, he had read the Bill. If he had, he would have known that the expenditure will be £250,000. There is nothing illegal in the process. The Government have authority to pay money out of the contingency fund. When the money resolution is passed this evening, as I am sure it will be, it will be before any expenditure is undertaken.
  Mr. Beith: The Government have already made the arrangements.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is true, of course, that we had to check whether members of the Boundary Commission would be willing to serve on the informal body, which will operate in the same way as the Boundary Commission. Obviously, those members expect to serve on the same terms.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked, in particular, how the money would be disbursed. The £250,000 allowed for in the money resolution covers all the expenses likely to be incurred by the committees in fulfilling their duties. The probable expenses are the payment of members' remuneration and expenses; the provision of staff to assist them in their duties—they will number about four; we expect them to be found from existing resources and there will be no increase in the gross number of permanent Government staff—the purchase and production of special maps; and the cost to publicising the preliminary recommendations of the committees.
  To have a review of England and Wales done quickly, effectively and fairly for £250,000 constitutes reasonable expenditure and I am sure that the majority of hon. Members will endorse that view.
  Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I point out that Northern Ireland already has proportional representation, so adding a seat there would not require a Boundary Commission? From what date does he anticipate the expenses starting to run?
  Mr. Lloyd: The expenses will start to run as soon as the committees start their work, which we hope will be very shortly indeed.
  If the hon. Gentleman had attended the debate this evening—I think that he looked in from time to time—he would know that I agreed with the Labour Front Bench that it was no secret accommodation; it was across the Dispatch Box and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will be kept informed—to look closely at the timetable to see whether it can be achieved within the limits that we require and with the maximum amount of consultation. That we will do. There will be consultation; the question is how much and how many times it will be possible to repeat it.
  Opposition Members proclaim their allegiance to the idea of Europe and the European Parliament. Unless we proceed with the timetable and keep to it, not merely will the extra seats not be taken up by Britain, but no other country will be able to take them up either.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 236, Noes 27.

  Division No. 314]

  [11.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter(East Surrey)

  Ancram, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael(Selby)

  Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

  Amess, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas(Hazel Grv)

  1080

  Ashby, David

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth, N)

  Atkins, Robert

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

  Hague, William

  Baker, Nicholas(Dorset North)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie(Epsom)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

  Banks, Matthew(Southport)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bates, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Beggs, Roy

  Harris, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hendry, Charles

  Booth, Hartley

  Hicks, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Hill, James(Southampton Test)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Bowis, John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Bright, Graham

  Hunt, Rt Hon David(Wirral W)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brown, M.(Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hutton, John

  Burns, Simon

  Jack, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

  Butcher, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Butler, Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jones, Gwilym(Cardiff N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Key, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Coe, Sebastian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Colvin, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela(Erewash)

  Congdon, David

  Knight, Greg(Derby N)

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony(Wyre For'st)

  Knox, Sir David

  Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

  Kynoch, George(Kincardine)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Couchman, James

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

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

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Curry, David(Skipton & Ripon)

  Legg, Barry

  Davies, Quentin(Stamford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Davis, David(Boothferry)

  Lester, Jim(Broxtowe)

  Day, Stephen

  Lidington, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Lightbown, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lord, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Luff, Peter

  Dover, Den

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Maclean, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dunn, Bob

  Madel, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Maginnis, Ken

  Elletson, Harold

  Malone, Gerald

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Evans, Jonathan(Brecon)

  Marland, Paul

  Evans, Nigel(Ribble Valley)

  Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

  Evans, Roger(Monmouth)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Faber, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Milligan, Stephen

  Forman, Nigel

  Mills, Iain

  Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)

  Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

  Forth, Eric

  Mitchell, Sir David(Hants NW)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fox, Dr Liam(Woodspring)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  French, Douglas

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gamier, Edward

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Nicholson, David(Taunton)

  Gorst, John

  Nicholson, Emma(Devon West)

  Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)

  Norris, Steve

  Greenway, John(Ryedale)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  1081

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Streeter, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Page, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, John M.(Solihull)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Sir Donald(C'er V)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Riddick, Graham

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

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Trend, Michael

  Robinson, Mark(Somerton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Ross, William(E Londonderry)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rowe, Andrew(Mid Kent)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Viggers, Peter

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sackville, Tom

  Walden, George

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, David(Dover)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Whittingdale, John

  Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Yeo, Tim

  Squire, Robin(Hornchurch)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stephen, Michael

  Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Stern, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  NOES

  Allason, Rupert(Torbay)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Maclennan, Robert

  Barnes, Harry

  Mahon, Alice

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

  Bruce, Malcolm(Gordon)

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, Menzies(Fife NE)

  Salmond, Alex

  Cann, Jamie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Carlile, Alexander(Montgomry)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Cryer, Bob

  Tyler, Paul

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Wallace, James

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.

  Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

  Lewis, Terry

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of remuneration and allowances to the members of a European Parliamentary Constituencies Committee established by the Act.

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill [Money]

    WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That, during the proceedings on the Matter of local government in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before half-past Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the Matter for two hours at the sitting.—[Mr. Conway.]

  Rolling Stock
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House
  do now adjourn,—[Mr. Conway.]
  11.28 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: There is a close relationship between the subject of this Adjournment debate and that chosen by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) at the close of Monday's business, when he raised the difficulties at Asea Boveri Brown Transportation, York, and the jobs being lost there. I, too, start with the railway engineering industry and the current state of its order books.
  In its second report on the future of the railways, the Transport Select Committee reproduced the graph that Steer Davies Gleave published for the Railway Industry Association, showing that, by the end of 1995, the domestic order book of every railway engineering company would be empty.
  The Select Committee also learned from Lord Prior, in his role as chairman of GEC Alsthom, that there would be no industry left in three years' time if there are no new orders, and that that would cause massive job losses and a subsequent reliance on imports. As we know, and as the hon. Member for York has said, the first fruits of that occurred earlier this month, with the loss of 900 jobs in York, Derby and elsewhere.
  Many observers, including those who support and those who oppose the changes promoted in the Railways Bill, accept that the uncertainty caused by the Bill is a major factor in the decline in investment. On Monday night, the Minister for Public Transport suggested that the recession was the main factor. The recession is a factor, but I believe that the influence of the Railways Bill has been a much greater factor, as it has made people uncertain about investing in the railways because of the high risk attached to the industry at the present time.
  The Minister for Public Transport has shown that, to a certain extent, he accepts that thesis. He has been prepared to make adjustments while the Railways Bill has been considered, and those adjustments may engender more confidence in the future of the railways.
  I believe that I share common ground with the Minister and with most hon. Members when I refer to the importance of rail services in passenger transport authority areas. They carry about one quarter of British Rail's passengers, and they carry twice as many passengers as InterCity. Their business contributes some £250 million to BR, and they are also notable investors in the system, having spent £690 million in total infrastructure costs over the period of section 20 financing, of which £150 million was spent on rolling stock.
  The role of PTAs in procuring rolling stock has been recognised in clause 31 of the Railways Bill. That clause gives PTAs the power
  "to let railway locomotives and, rolling stock on hire."
  The importance of PTAs in addressing the issue of empty order books is obvious and accepted. Therefore, how do we overcome the problems of achieving that investment and purchasing that rolling stock?
  My area of West Yorkshire highlights the issue and must be the nursery for a solution. The Leeds-Bradford line is currently being electrified, and £54 million of investment has been sanctioned and in part paid for by central Government. That project will be successful and

  1083
  the line will be electrified. However, once it is electrified, it would be very unfortunate if the passengers are forced to use 30-year-old rolling stock procured from Network SouthEast. That is what the Select Committee forecast.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme is going ahead only because of the determination of the PTA? Central Government have been very parsimonious about the money for electrification, which absorbed a good trolley bus scheme which was going to run from Bradford city centre to my constituency. That scheme would have provided a cheap, silent and environmentally friendly system of transport, but it has been sacrificed for electrification because of the Government's meanness.
  Mr. Gunnell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He underlines the fact that it would be sad if, having electrified the line, we were forced to use Network SouthEast trains which hon. Members who represent Southend have criticised as clapped out. It would be sad if cast-offs from the south come north. Although the line is electrified, we might still have to use diesels if rolling stock is not available.
  Those matters were reported to the Transport Select Committee. It noted the passenger transport authority's attempts to finance the leasing of new stock and the response of the financial institutions to the situation brought about by the Railways Bill. That meant, it having been agreed previously that there would be an operating lease, that it fell through when the financiers felt that repayment of the money and security could no longer be guaranteed.
  I appreciate that the Minister is working to find a creative solution to the problem. The working party that he set up between his Department and the West Yorkshire PTA is my evidence for that. But that working party has found that two types of obstacles exist, and I shall explore each of them.
  First, there is a need in any leasing arrangement to satisfy the lessors that the risk to them is reasonable. When PTAs had direct precepting powers and trains were operated on their behalf by a national railway, as was the case in the past, the lessors felt comfortable. But once the Railways Bill is in operation, neither of those conditions will hold true, which is why the lessors have become uneasy.
  Their doubts about the future roles of the PTAs have by now largely been removed by clauses 28 to 31 of the Bill and the assurances that the Minister gave me in Committee. But more problematic has been the role of the franchising director and the status of the operators. On Third Reading, the Minister established a framework within which the franchising director could both protect the security of assets used to provide franchised services and ensure their continuation, and he has subsequently announced the setting up of companies to purchase the rolling stock and become lessors.
  But those issues require further probing. Will he, with the Bill now in another place, give the franchising director and the PTA wider powers to promote investment? Will he allow the PTA to insist on new rolling stock or other new equipment or facilities on their services? Will the franchising director be party to agreements with the lessor,
  1084
  with the manufacturer of rolling stock and with the passenger transport authority or the passenger transport executive in the period before the franchises in their areas are to be let? Will he ensure that operating leases will, if the services remain viable, operate for 25 to 30 years, the life of the rolling stock—namely, for four franchises? I hope that the Minister will answer in the affirmative.
  The second set of obstacles surrounds local government financial arrangements. With PTAs no longer able to precept for their cash, how can the lessors be wholly confident that they can continue to pay the bill? Before the problems of that payment can be considered, it must be realised that the changes brought about by the Railways Bill, even before inflation, increase substantially the section 20 costs of PTAs nationally, as Steer Davies Gleave showed in their May 1993 paper.
  The Minister has given assurances that section 20 payments to district councils will be increased to reflect fully the increased costs. But each council will have to pass over that money, and they may find it hard to justify to members of the public increasing payments to rail, while reducing many services that other people might regard as more essential.
  For example, when I was the chair of social services in my authority, I faced reducing budgets. I might find it hard to support a passenger transport budget being substantially increased, which would be necessary through the section 20 system, if, at the same time, I had to tell people in the social services that they would receive less service. That will be a real problem for local authorities.
  Payment for rolling stock leases will exacerbate the problem. First, it will require an additional distribution factor in the section 20 formula to reflect leasing costs. Then the Minister may need to use some mechanism to ensure that payments are passed on to the PTA. Take, for example, the Leeds-Bradford line. All five West Yorkshire district councils will have to levy this money and hand it over to pay the lessors. Of course, the Leeds and Bradford councils can easily justify this because the line will run from Leeds to Bradford, but how will Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield justify such payments?
  This point is illustrated by the one rolling stock purchase that has taken place so far. I refer to the recent very welcome Strathclyde PTA order from Hunslet TPL in my constituency. Strathclyde is a multi-service authority, so the same council agrees revenue collection and leasing costs. The situation is much more difficult in metropolitan areas, where each of several councils has to make a separate decision.
  This issue poses a serious dilemma. I hope that the Minister will seek imaginative solutions, perhaps by an extension of clause 56-type arrangements, or some alternative mechanism, such as the sort of credit system being used to finance electrification. I hope that, when he meets the chair of the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority in the near future, there will be on the table some suggestions as to how it might be made easier for district councils to pass on the money that will be needed to satisfy the lessors.
  Before drawing to a close, I must stress the urgency of the situation. Ministers have said that there will be a long lead time of four to 12 years before the provisions of the Bill are fully implemented. So far as the PTA is concerned, legislative changes that are still needed will have to be implemented as soon as possible after Royal Assent, so that the new trains may enter the Leeds-Bradford

  1085
  electrified service at the earliest possible date. Both ordering and entry into service will be necessary before franchising commences, and that will involve the agreements about which I have spoken.
  The rolling stock industry is in a parlous state. One of the forecasters of gloom and doom, and a severe critic of the whole process brought about by the Railways Bill, is Private Eye's "Thomas the Privatised Tank Engine". But he is only putting cleverly the worst prognostications of the Opposition, the Select Committee and informed railway users.
  The threat is real, but I believe that passenger transport authority services already have a better prospect as a result of certain safeguards in the legislation. This debate aims to further that process. The current situation in west Yorkshire can provide a good test bed for the Government to demonstrate their commitment both to PTA services and to the railway engineering industry. I urge the Minister, who has already shown himself to be a good listener, to respond.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in this short debate. I should like, first, to pay a genuine tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, who has shown, not only by his words but also by his actions, that he has a genuine commitment to completion of the project which, in the context of this debate, is obviously centre stage: the electrification of the lines to the north of Leeds and Bradford—in particular, the Airedale and Wharfedale routes, which are so important to many of my constituents.
  My right hon. Friend has not only engaged in discussions too numerous to mention, in an effort to resolve a problem that he inherited with his current responsibilities—I remember going to see his predecessor about this issue—but also visited the area on several occasions and incorporated helpful amendments into the Railways Bill.
  It is, of course, difficult to exclude political differences from any area of life. Nevertheless, I should like to say that over several years those concerned with public transport in west Yorkshire—I should mention successive PTA chairmen: Councillor Michael Simmonds and Mick Lyons, as well as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) himself—have co-operated with members of my party to try to get the best possible deal for local commuters and other public transport users.
  It is highly regrettable that my right hon. Friend and everyone who wants a sensible outcome should have had to work so hard to try to secure the provision of modern rolling stock on the lines which are to be electrified shortly following the preparatory works which have already taken place.
  The present service, which is so well patronised, is urgently in need of updating and expansion. At peak periods, the trains cannot cope with the demand, and their reliability is unacceptably low. Surely it would be nonsense if the existing stock were to be replaced by 30-year-old trains transferred from elsewhere on the BR network, running in west Yorkshire on newly electrified track, incorporating the most up-to-date signalling equipment.
  The scheme meets the rigorous cost-effectiveness criteria laid down by the Treasury. In addition, it is highly
  1086
  beneficial in environmental terms, providing an attractive alternative to some appalling bottlenecks on the A65 and the A650 trunk roads, and orders for new trains would be very welcome to manufacturers in Yorkshire.
  Uncertainty has for far too long bedevilled the project and those involved in it. Even if it is not possible tonight finally to blow away the final doubts hanging over it, I very much hope that we are on the last lap towards what we all wish for—a successful outcome.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall intervene briefly, as this is a Leeds and Bradford matter. As the Minister knows, it has been debated for many years and he has tried to get through the labyrinthine financial controls without much success so far.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, it is a splendid new project for Leeds, Bradford and Airedale routes. To have second-hand rolling stock would be a let down for the passengers, and also for the engineering workers who build the rolling stock, whether at Hunslet Engineering of Leeds or in York. The manufacture of new rolling stock would help to create and retain jobs and stop wasteful expenditure on the payment of unemployment benefits.
  Some of us wonder at the great ease with which the Treasury spends huge sums of money on, for example, the European fighter aircraft, whereas we cannot get a relatively small sum of money promised as the conclusion to the splendid electrification scheme. I hope that the Minister will display a positive attitude.
  11.47 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I share the aspirations of the hon. Members for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I have 11 minutes, in which I shall try to respond as constructively as possible. I put on record the fact that I share the aspirations expressed by the two hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South will forgive me if I go straight to the business in hand rather than making more general comments, which I can do at greater length on another occasion.
  On the issue of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman, let me assure him that I am determined to do all I can to help to overcome the difficulties being experienced by West Yorkshire passenger transport authority and passenger transport executive in negotiating acceptable leasing terms for new rolling stock to be used on the Leeds-Bradford electrification project.
  I should explain that the PTA is seeking to negotiate an operating lease under which the lessor would retain some 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. residual risk at the end of lease period. The hon. Gentleman will know, without my having to draw it specifically to his attention, that these are different terms from those outlined by the Treasury in its publication of late May, in which it sought to define what was a more conventional operating lease for the rest of the railway industry.
  My point is that these are very favourable terms according to a local authority definition of an operating lease. A 10 to 15 per cent. residual value would probably

  1087
  mean a lease period of 17 to 18 years, depending on the discount rate. The lessor would be looking to that period to reduce the residual value to that modest sum. The PTA would be the lessor, although the trains would be operated by British Rail, pending franchise.
  When the services are franchised—it would be our intention to seek to franchise them in due course, but certainly not in 1994 and perhaps not even in 1995—the PTA would sublet the trains to the successful frachisee.
  What are the difficulties? As I understand the position, the difficulties centre on the termination provisions of the lease. In a nutshell, the lessors, with whom the PTE was negotiating last year, stipulated that the lease should provide that a lump sum should be paid, equivalent to the value of the remaining payments under the lease, in certain circumstances. Those circumstances were, to put it bluntly, if the PTE was no longer the lessor because the Government proposed, and Parliament passed, legislation abolishing the PTAs and PTEs, and the lessor was not satisfied with the credit standing of the successor body, company or institution, that operated the trains. The lessor would then want the right to accelerate—effectively to terminate the lease.
  The PTE does not hold substantial reserves, and at nearly £40 million the deal is a large one in relation to the size of its activity. The PTA is understandably anxious that the PIT could not meet such a call without undue recourse to its constituent local authorities.
  Although I understand the difficulties of both parties, I am convinced that they are not insuperable and should be capable of resolution with a little give and take. The Government are prepared to be part of the give. I therefore wrote to Councillor Lyons, the chairman of the West Yorkshire PTA, on 7 June.
  I referred in particular to the new clause, to which the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South has already referred, which would enable the franchising director to specify that the trains that the West Yorkshire PTE wish to lease would be used for more than one franchise. The power is explicitly related to the encouragement of investment and it explicitly allows the franchising director to enter into agreements with PTEs. Those new provisions are designed to enable comfort to be given to potential lessors—precisely the problem that we are seeking to address in this case.
  I should note that the comfort must stop short of a Government guarantee that the franchisee will make the lease payments. Such a guarantee would result in a substantial transfer of risk to the public sector. That would result in the reclassification of the project, so that the capital cost of the trains would score as public expenditure in the year in which they were acquired. That would reflect the fact that, if Government were to shoulder such a large proportion of the risk, the public sector might as well buy the trains outright.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South asked why the Government are not sanctioning purchase outright. When I gave authorisation for the infrastructure, no money was available for the rolling stock. I am sure that I made the right decision, because there was a prospect of an operating lease, and I am determined that we should seek to write the lease.
  1088
  The way forward is not found, however, by the Government guaranteeing the lease. On the other hand, I hope that potential lessors will take substantial comfort from the arrangements that we have put in place. At bottom, the Government's interest and those of lessors are very similar: Government want services to operate without interruption, and lessors want lease payments to flow without interruption. We are going to considerable lengths in the Railways Bill to provide safeguards to ensure that continuity of service is maintained.
  In particular, we are providing for essential assets to be designated as "franchise assets" and are establishing a special railway administration regime, in the event of financial difficulties. I will not detain the House now with the detail of those arrangements. Suffice it to say that they provide a mechanism to enable quick and effective steps to be taken if a franchisee gets into financial difficulties. They will ensure that the essential assets—including the rolling stock—continue to remain available and can be transferred to a new franchisee in mid-franchise, if the worse comes to the worse.
  That does not mean that there is no risk that a franchisee will default on his lease obligations, but the risk is strictly limited. What the private sector is about, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South will know because we have exchanged observations on this in previous debates, is limiting its risk. The arrangements are a practical way in which to do so.
  Following my letter to Councillor Lyons, my officials met the West Yorkshire PTE officers to discuss the options. As a result, West Yorkshire PTE is now exploring possibilities with its lessors. I cannot anticipate the outcome of that, but I reiterate my firm commitment to helping to find a way forward on this transaction. I look forward to reviewing progress with Councillor Lyons on 15 July.
  I now turn to the four specific questions that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South asked. I am grateful to him for giving me advance sight of his remarks—it gave me a chance to prepare my thoughts. They are all relevant to what I have said, which I hope is helpful.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the PTA would be able to acquire new rolling stock. The answer is yes, because it must be a signatory to a franchise agreement. It will have the right, because it will stipulate the terms and conditions of a contract relating to the PTE area when it co-signs with the franchising director. It is our intention that the franchising director will also be a signatory. Our intention so far as the content of a franchise agreement is concerned is that new rolling stock will be delivered in the future or be used in a specific service.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the franchising director could be a party to the lease agreements. That is what we are talking about—these assurances. While I am not sure that he would be a party directly, I believe that he should be joined in the negotiations, possibly by means of a side agreement or side letter providing directly to the lessor certain guarantees and assurances. That should be practical. It is certainly the assumption on which I have worked.
  The franchising director cannot commit himself formally until the Railways Bill receives Royal Assent. Therefore, we may have a particular problem in making as rapid progress as I would like on the West Yorkshire lease transactions. The franchising director cannot enter into such agreements until he has been formally appointed.

  1089
  However, it does not preclude the franchising director-designate or the franchising advisor to the Secretary of State from entering into discussions now.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether leases could effectively be as long as 25 to 30 years. The hon. Gentleman said four franchises—it may not be four franchises. Certainly, it is our intention that the franchising director should take powers to fetter his own discretion and require the continued use of leased assets. That is not time-limited. With this sort of lease, we are looking at 17, 18 or possibly even 19 years, so I would not rule that out.
  The final and most important issue in the one minute left to me is that of levying and precepting. I can go a little further than the assurance that I gave on the recycling of moneys for the PTEs as a result of, for example, Rail-Track charges rising or other expenses being
  1090
  inevitably passed on to the PTEs as a result of the reforms. I am prepared to look at mechanisms in addition to the normal section 20 payments, so that the money gets more directly into the hands of the PTA and the PTE, to allow them to continue to make their lease payments. I am having discussions with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I hope that when the matter is debated in another place we will be able to give certain assurances on that score.
  I want this lease to be written. I look forward to the meeting with Councillor Lyons and the occasion when the hon. Member for Bradford, South can congratulate me wholeheartedly on a transaction completed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dangerous Dogs Acts
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the role of magistrates in enforcing the Dangerous Dogs Acts.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We continue to keep under review all aspects of the working of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Truth Drugs
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to the use of the so-called truth drug in criminal investigations within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the Government's view, it is unlikely that evidence obtained using "truth drugs" would be admissible in English or Welsh courts. There are no plans to use such drugs in criminal investigations.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the outstanding grant applications in Bradford under the victim support scheme; when a decision is to be taken on each application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the national office of Victim Support that the Bradford victim support scheme made an application to the local funding panel earlier this month for a third salary grant but that the panel has not yet considered it.

  The Government greatly appreciate the excellent work done by local victim support schemes and provide substantial funding for this purpose. Home Office grant to Victim Support this year will amount to £8·4 million. This is 15 per cent. more than last year's grant to the organisation, which itself was 28 per cent. more than the previous year's.

  The grant is paid to Victim Support's national office and is allocated to local schemes and branches by the Victim Support local funding panel. This is independent of both local schemes and the Home Office. The panel considers applications from local schemes in accordance with criteria agreed annually between the Home Office and Victim Support.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of the Sheehy inquiry will he made available.

  Mr. Howard
  The report of Sir Patrick Sheehy's inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards is being published 494
  today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland are most grateful to Sir Patrick and his team for their work. Before reaching any conclusions on their recommendations, we shall want to have the views of the police and other interests. We have invited written comments on the report by the end of September, but we shall, of course, be glad to have earlier views on all or any parts of the report from all those with an interest in its contents.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Howard
  In line with our aim of securing best value for money at the least possible cost to the environment, the Department's policy on the purchase and use of the products listed is as summarised below.

  (a) Recycled paper
  The Department will continue to promote effective and economic use of paper, using recycled stationery where possible and encouraging the development of new and existing paper recycling schemes.

  (b) Low-energy light bulbs
  The practice of replacing filament type light bulbs with low-energy bulbs where practicable, having been largely achieved in Prison Service establishments, is to he extended across the Department.

  (c) Tropical hardwoods
  So far as practicable, the use of tropical hardwoods is to he avoided in building projects and in the procurement of office furniture, etc.

  (d) Peat
  The use of peat is to he avoided where acceptable alternatives are available.

  Cars with catalytic converters
  The purchase and use of vehicles with diesel engines is preferred as the fuel is lead-free and more economical. Where petrol-engined vehicles are in use, they should run on unleaded petrol and be fitted with catalytic converters. Vehicles are to be checked annually to ensure that all emissions comply with statutory requirements.

  Correspondence
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Ravensbourne may expect a reply to his letter of 8 March, acknowledged under the reference 06624/93, on the subject of police resources in Bromley; and if he will explain the reason for the delay which has occurred in respect of this correspondence.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A reply was sent on Wednesday 23 June.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a chairman will be appointed to the Animal Procedures Committee.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Racially Motivated Crimes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make it his policy to keep figures for murders in which race has been a factor.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no plans to record information on murder in this way.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on 23 March,Official Report, column 529, if the figure for racially motivated incidents in 1992 is now available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The only information currently available relates to the number of reported racial incidents which are shown in the following table. These 1992 figures were provided in the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 26 April, columns 266–67, except that the Kent figure for 1992 has now been corrected.

  Reported racial incidents

  Forces

  1992

  Avon and Somerset

  98

  Bedfordshire

  57

  Cambridgeshire

  110

  Cheshire

  29

  City of London

  0

  Cleveland

  73

  Cumbria

  13

  Derbyshire

  60

  Devon and Cornwall

  7

  Dorset

  10

  Durham

  40

  Dyfed Powys

  0

  Essex

  80

  Gloucestershire

  33

  Greater Manchester

  401

  Gwent

  31

  Hampshire

  139

  Hertfordshire

  106

  Humberside

  68

  Kent

  56

  Lancashire

  231

  Leicestershire

  338

  Lincolnshire

  5

  Merseyside

  134

  Norfolk

  30

  North Wales

  4

  North Yorkshire

  22

  Northamptonshire

  120

  Northumbria

  349

  Nottinghamshire

  222

  South Wales

  311

  South Yorkshire

  151

  Staffordshire

  95

  Suffolk

  55

  Surrey

  61

  Sussex

  98

  Thames Valley

  195

  Warwickshire

  35

  West Mercia

  19

  West Midlands

  379

  West Yorkshire

  218

  Wiltshire

  24

  Provincial total

  4,507

  Metropolitan police

  3,227

  England and Wales total

  7,734

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultation he is undertaking with regard to possible changes in the criminal injuries compensation scheme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the criminal injuries compensation scheme this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government announced last November their intention to replace the present criminal injuries compensation scheme with a tariff scheme in 1994. The aim is to offer a better, more straightforward service to claimants. Details of the new scheme will be set out in a White Paper later this year.

  No formal consultation exercise is being undertaken, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) explained to the House on 18 March, column 508, we will listen carefully to what people have to say about our proposals. We have already received helpful comments from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the national charity, Victim Support.

  We receive a steady stream of correspondence from hon. Members and members of the public about various aspects of the current scheme.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Counsel's Office
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in each of the last five years.

  Mr. David Davis
  The cost of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in each of the last five years was:

  £

  1988–89

  1,898,000

  1989–90

  2,126,000

  1990–91

  2,303,000

  1991–92

  2,729,000

  1992–93

  2,763,000

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total amount of compensation the state paid out on all charters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his answer, 10 May 1993, c. 307–81]: I would like to correct the figure for British Rail compensation given in my answer of 10 May, Official Report, columns 307–8. That figure—£1 million—was based on information from British Rail which it has now revised. The final amount of compensation paid out in the first year of British Rail's passengers charter is £1·9 million. All other figures quoted in my original answer are correct.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS UNHCR
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees the question of a further tranche of funding for the programme for national persecutees by the German Government.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have requested details of this programme from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the information is available.

  Ethnic Conflicts
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which conference on security and co-operation in Europe mechanisms have been used to resolve the ethnic conflict in(a) Azerbaijan, (b) Bosnia-Herzegovina, (c) Croatia, (d) Georgia, (e) Moldavia. (f) Tajikistan and (g) Uzbekistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The CSCE committee of senior officials (CSO) dispatched fact-finding missions to Azerbaijan in February and March 1992 to report on the situation in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. In March 1992, the CSCE council provided for negotiations among the interested parties on a ceasefire and a settlement to the conflict, which have come to be known as the "Minsk Process". The CSCE recently secured agreement from all parties to a ceasefire monitoring mission. Negotiations continue in order to secure its deployment.

  In 1991, the CSCE mandated the European Community to lead the search for a solution to the problems in former Yugoslavia. The CSO has also sent rapporteur missions to investigate human rights abuses.

  The CSO has had a resident mission in Georgia since December 1992 to promote negotiations between conflicting parties in south Ossetia. A similar mission went to Moldova in April 1993 to assist in negotiations on the status of the Trans-Dniester area and the withdrawal of Russian troops.

  In Tajikistan a CSCE representative has been appointed to liaise with the United Nations and to recommend future action by CSCE. No special measures have been taken in respect of Uzbekistan. The chairman-in-office visited it during a tour of the five central Asian states and the CSO is now acting on several recommendations designed to achieve closer integration of these countries in the activities of CSCE.

  The CSCE should continue these and other efforts to prevent conflict by monitoring human rights and undertaking preventive diplomacy. The high commissioner on national minorities also plays an important role by identifying and seeking to defuse ethnic tensions which may develop into conflict.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to appropriate authorities in Belgrade about the treatment of parliamentarians during and after the public demonstrations in Belgrade on 1 and 2 June; and if he will make a statement.
  498
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has urged President Milosevic to release Mr. and Mrs. Draskovic and meanwhile to ensure they are given proper medical treatment and access to visitors. Her Majesty's embassy in Belgrade continues to monitor the situation closely. We welcome the intervention with the President of the upper House of the Yugoslav Federal Parliament, Mr. Radulovic, by the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on 21 June. We shall continue to keep up the pressure both bilaterally and through international organisations.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals his Department has for strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation safeguards regime operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are playing a full and active part in the consideration of recent proposals for the further strengthening of the international safeguards regime administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). We have agreed with European Community partners to provide the IAEA with information, on a voluntary basis, on imports and exports from the Community of certain nuclear materials and equipment not covered by existing agreements. This offer was referred to in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy on 24 June to a question from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates),Official Report, column 266.

  Israel
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received regarding the shooting of Munir Abu-Nijmeh and Ismail Abu-Nijmeh on the Jerusalem/Ramaldah road on 31 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  One member of the Abu Nijmah family was shot dead and another injured, reportedly by an Israeli citizen, following a traffic dispute involving two vehicles on a main road on the outskirts of Jerusalem. It is our understanding that the matter is under investigation by the Israeli police and that there may be criminal charges.

  Mr. Sheik Riaz Ahmed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his letter to the hon. Member for Bradford, West, dated 5 March, concerning Mr. Sheik Riaz Ahmed, who was refused entry into France in December 1992, when he expects to receive a reply from the French authorities; when he expects to write again to the hon. Member for Bradford, West; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy at Paris sent a formal note to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 17 March to seek a satisfactory explanation as to why Mr. Ahmed was refused entry to France and raising the question of compensation. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I have a report.
  499
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received about the circumstances in which Mr. Graham Noble, of Brighton, was arrested and detained by Serbs in the Krajina; what charges have been laid against him; what access the British ambassador in Zagreb has been allowed to Mr. Noble; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Noble was detained near Otocac in Croatia on 6 June and is being held in Knin. The Serbs say they are investigating his activities; we understand that no formal charges have so far been made against him. Her Majesty's ambassador in Zagreb has visited Knin but has not been allowed access to Mr. Noble. The ambassador continues to press for access; Her Majesty's embassy in Belgrade has asked the authorities there to use their influence with the Krajina Serbs to assist in this. The International Committee of the Red Cross is in touch with Her Majesty's embassy in Zagreb about Mr. Noble. Its representative in Knin has reported that Mr. Noble is in good health and is being well treated.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to appropriate authorities about the cases of missing persons arising from the abduction of wounded patients from hospitals in Vukovar in 1991; what progress has been made in securing the names of those abducted; what undertakings have been sought about the return of those abducted and about the return of the bodies of those who have died; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 17 to 19 December 1992 an international forensic team, working for the United Nations Commission of Experts, conducted a preliminary site exploration of a mass grave 6 km south-east of Vukovar. The team's findings were consistent with eye-witness testimony which alleges that the grave contains the bodies of patients and medical staff members of Vukovar hospital who disappeared during an evacuation of 20 November 1991. The commission plans to carry out a further investigation of the site but does not intend to attempt identification, exhumation and return of all the bodies. This is a matter for the Croatian authorities.

  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the nationality and description of those vessels reported to the United Nations as attempting to breach the embargo on the former Yugoslavia in the Adriatic and on the Danube.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 23 April 1993,Official Report, columns 244–45. We now know that the Condor I and Mys Khnistalnyy breached sanctions in early April. Five barges have also been intercepted: Vihac, Kumanovo, Orasac, Velebit and Kaimakalan. All these vessels have been reported to the United Nations Sanctions Committee for investigation. No vessels have been reported to the United Nations for breaching the blockade since April.

  Burma
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Burma concerning the imprisonment of opposition leaders; and if he will make a statement.
  500
  Mr. Goodlad
  With our European Community partners we have repeatedly urged the Burmese authorities, bliaterally and in the relevant international bodies, to release unconditionally all political detainees, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Kuwait concerning human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since the liberation of Kuwait, we have made repeated representations to the Kuwaitis about the need to respect human rights. There have been welcome improvements in Kuwait in this regard.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 853, what meetings United Kingdom representatives have held with United Nations officials concerning the proposed referendum in the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British representatives are in contact regularly with United Nations officials in Western Sahara. The Secretary-General has just been to Western Sahara and we await his report to the Security Council on his visit.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Turkey concerning the treatment of Kurdish people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford, (Mr. Garel-Jones), to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 28 April,Official Report, column 440.

  We welcome the new Turkish Prime Minister's commitment to the free expression of different ethnic, cultural and linguistic characteristics.

  We frequently make clear to the Turkish Government the importance we attach to combating terrorism within a legal framework and with full respect for human rights.

  We regret the decision by the Kurdistan Workers Party to end the ceasefire and condemn the recent upsurge of violence in southeast Turkey, the attacks on hotels in Antalya and the actions against Turkish diplomatic and other premises in Western Europe.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions are being taken by Her Majesty's Government's representative to monitor the ceasefire and preparations for elections in El Salvador; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Her Majesty's ambassador in San Salvador is in close contact with ONUSAL, the
  501
  United Nations observer mission which has been monitoring implemention of all aspects of the peace agreement signed on 16 January 1992. ONUSAL's mandate has now been enlarged to include supervision of preparations for the March 1994 elections.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the numbers and financial value of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom for 1990, 1991 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  Information on this topic is regularly published in Business Monitor MQ6 "Overseas Travel and Tourism," which is available in the Library of the House.

  Football Safety
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 460, what is the relationship between local authorities, police authorities and the Football Licensing Authority in determining the safe capacity of standing terraces in the second and third divisions of the Football League.

  Mr. Sproat
  The vast majority of second and third division football grounds are designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. It is the responsibility of the local authority to issue a safety certificate for such grounds, in consultation with the police and fire authorities. This sets out how many spectators may safely be admitted to each part of the ground. The terms and conditions of safety certificates are for local authorities to determine, although they are expected to take account of the advice contained in the Government's "Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds". The guide covers all aspects of sports ground safety, including the calculation of the safe capacity of terracing.

  The Football Licensing Authority was established under the Football Spectators Act 1989. Under section 13 of the 1989 Act, the FLA is charged with keeping under review the discharge by local authorities of their safety certification functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 in relation to sports grounds at which designated football matches are played. Specifically, the authority may, after due consultation, require a certifying authority to include in any safety certificate such terms and conditions as the FLA may specify in writing.

  Following the review of the Government's all-seater policy last summer, football clubs in the second and third divisions of the Football League were permitted to retain some standing accommodation, provided it was safe. The FLA subsequently commissioned a report on safe terracing by the Football Stadia Advisory Design Council. This document, which was published at the end of March, augments the advice already available to clubs in the "Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds". The FLA will, if necessary, use its powers under the Football Spectators Act to ensure that retained terracing meets the necessary safety standard and that the permitted capacities are set at a safe level.

  We are consulting the FLA about the extent to which clubs will be required to upgrade their terracing in line
  502
  with the recommendations of the Football Stadia Advisory Design Council's report. My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement shortly.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Federation of Master Builders to discuss ways of assisting the construction industry.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend intends to meet regularly representatives from all sectors of industry. He has no plans at present to meet the Federation of Master Builders.

  Contribution Holidays
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total amount of pension fund surplus represented by(a)employer/employee contribution holidays, (b) improved benefits and (c) taxable refunds to the employer in each year since 1986; and what proportion of surplus reduction is represented by each method.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available in the form requested. The tables below give information on large self-administered pension funds reporting to the Inland Revenue on proposed action to remove surpluses following the provisions in the Finance Act 1986, and on total refunds to employers from occupational pension schemes.

  Large Self Administered Schemes, bv method of reduction of Surplus. 1987–88 to 1992–931

  £ million

  Method of reduction

  Amount of reduction

  Proportion of surplus reduction Per cent.

  Contributions holiday (employer)

  7,932

  38

  Contributions holiday (employee)

  155

  1

  Contributions reduction (employer)

  3,169

  15

  Contributions reduction (employee)

  566

  3

  Refund to employer2

  1,174

  6

  Increase in benefits

  7,471

  36

  New benefits

  106

  1

  Total

  20,574

  1The figures shown represent the total to be eliminated by each method. Some of the planned reductions are timed to fall in years subsequent to 1992–93. Amounts are based on the actuary's estimated reduction for each category.

  2 The figures for refunds to employers exclude amounts paid over by schemes reported to be wound up in each year.

  Refunds to the employer from all occupational pension schemes Schemes reporting in refunds

  £ million

  1987–88

  85

  1988–89

  208

  1989–90

  380

  1990–91

  578

  1991–92

  403

  1992–93

  235

  503

  Inland Revenue Special Office 2
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the former head of Inland Revenue special office 2; and on what date he was last performing his official duties.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The officer concerned was suspended from duty on 11 September 1992. Investigations were commenced by the Metropolitan and City police company fraud department and these investigations are continuing.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will identify the functions and purposes of Inland Revenue special office 2, together with its staff establishment and annual cost in 1992–93.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Special office 2 is one of 10 offices in the Inland Revenue which specialise in the investigation of difficult or complex cases which are outside the scope of other parts of the Department, involving mainly avoidance and non-compliance where large amounts of tax are at stake. Special office 2 is based in London.

  For 1992–93, there were 15 staff and the cost of running the office was £685,000.

  Value Added Tax
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rules governing VAT charges when a Government agency bids successfully to provide a commercial service to a Government Department.

  Sir John Cope
  Commercial services supplied by executive agencies to Government Departments are liable to VAT according to the normal rules.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Departments spent on legal advice regarding the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 for the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 29 June 1993]: The Chancellor's Departments have spent approximately £8,000 on such advice in connection with their 1992–93 market-testing programmes.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. Atkins
  The Northern Ireland position was set out in the Secretary of State's policy statement on green housekeeping, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. This has been circulated to all staff in the Northern Ireland civil service and in the Northern Ireland Office.

  The policy statement specifically refers to recycled paper. hardwoods and peat. Although not specifically
  504
  mentioned, the use of low-energy light bulbs has been part of the energy conservation programme managed by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Economic Development. The position on cars is that for some years we have been specifying vehicles which are either diesel-powered or use lead-free petrol. Replacement cars are now specified with catalytic converters.

  Airport Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates Ministers in his Department held a formal meeting with the Northern Ireland Airports Police Association during the past five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  No such meetings of this nature have taken place during the period in question.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Airport Police Association to discuss the changes in their force's management, control and duties consequent to the proposed privatisation of Belfast international airport.

  Mr. Atkins
  I plan to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Airports Police Association to discuss such issues in the near future.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the market-testing programme has cost his Department since November 1992.

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

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve health protection and safety conditions in the workplace.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 June 1993,Official Report, column 98. The Health and Safety Commission's plan of work for 1993–94 and beyond, to which I referred, will be published on 6 July and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department spent on legal advice regarding the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 for the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 29 June 1993]: Over the period of the market-testing programme announced in the White Paper, "Citizen's Charter: First Report 1992" (Cm 2102), advice on the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 has been sought from in-house legal advisers. It is not possible to identify these costs separately.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what consideration has been given by his Department to the provision of communication support in the workplace for deaf employees;

  (2) what action has been taken by his Department as a follow up to the "Evaluation of Special Schemes to Employment" report in October 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [ holding answer 29 June 1993]: As a follow-up to the evaluation of special schemes report, which was published in October 1990, we have asked the Employment Service to introduce in April 1994 a new major programme called "Access to Work". This will offer people with disabilities a wider range of assistance than is currently available, including communication support for deaf people in the workplace. I believe "Access to Work" will provide more people with disabilities with the help to take up opportunities of employment. In addition, from 5 July 1993, unemployed deaf people will be able to get help towards the cost of communicators at job interviews. Trials of other forms of communicator support will be taking place in four locations in 1993 and lessons learned will be taken into account in "Access to Work". Further details on "Access to Work" were provided in the reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) on 22 June, Official Report, columns 102–103.

PRIME MINISTER

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 583, how many representations on THORP he has received this year; and what proportion were (a) in favour of and (b) opposed to the plant.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 16 June,Official Report, column 583.

  Civil List
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what account is taken in drawing up the Civil List of contributions to the cost of the royal household received from(a) the Isle of Man, (b) the Channel Islands and (c) other countries where the Queen is Head of State.

  The Prime Minister
  None, as no such contributions are received for Her Majesty's Civil List.

  Treaties
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister further to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 922, how many treaties, since 1 January 1979, have been debated by the House in advance of their ratification by Her Majesty's Government, and what is this figure as a percentage of total treaties ratified.

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty's Government have ratified 243 treaties since 1 January 1979. These have been laid before both Houses in the normal way. They cover a wide variety of subjects and fall to the appropriate 506
  Government Department to administer. The information sought is not centrally recorded and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Murder Trials
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements are made during the period in which notes, tapes or transcripts of murder trials are held, for their safe storage and preservation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for ensuring that a verbatim record is taken of all trials in the Crown court, as required by rule 18 of the Criminal Appeal Rules 1968. The record is taken by shorthand and/or mechanical means. Under open tender contracts with the private sector which came into effect on 1 April 1993, the responsibility for the safe storage and preservation of such records is that of the contractor whose staff took the record. The contractor is bound by the contract to ensure that the record is kept for not less than five years and to provide transcripts requested during that period. Transcripts are not automatically produced for cost reasons in any category of cases, but these may be purchased by the Department or the public from the contractor concerned.

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of requests made to each EC country in each of the last three years for the return of British children believed to have been abducted to the EC country in question.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: The figures requested are as follows:

  Requests for return

  Country

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Belgium

  1

  0

  0

  Denmark

  0

  0

  1

  France

  7

  9

  5

  Germany

  8

  13

  1

  Greece

  0

  0

  0

  Ireland

  0

  13

  5

  Italy

  0

  0

  0

  Luxembourg

  0

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  8

  7

  2

  Portugal

  2

  0

  0

  Spain

  7

  12

  5

  1 Janurary-June

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of British children(a) abducted from Britain who are currently believed to be in each EC country and (b) abducted from Britain who have been returned from each EC country over the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: The figures requested are as follows:

  507

  June 1990 to June 1993

  Country children

  (a) Number of children abducted

  (b) Number of children returned

  Belgium

  3

  1

  Denmark

  1

  0

  France

  35

  1

  Germany

  26

  4

  Greece

  1—

  1—

  Ireland

  26

  3

  Italy

  1 —

  1—

  Luxembourg

  1—

  1—

  Netherlands

  26

  4

  Portugal

  7

  1

  Spain

  47

  7

  1 Figures not available.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Status
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what annual capital sums have been made available to St. Francis Xavier's college in Liverpool since it acquired grant-maintained status; what additional capital allocations have been made in each year; and for what reasons and purpose.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following capital grants have been made:

  Year and project description

  Formula capital allocation £

  Named capital allocation £

  1990–91

  Flat roof repairs

  19,000

  32,000

  Furnish and equip Design and technology block

  80,427

  Removal of asbestos

  188,724

  1991–92

  Laboratory refurbishments

  28,1

  201,372

  1992–93

  30,28

  nil

  1993–94

  New general and technical rooms

  Not yet claimed

  750,000

  1 Emergency capital grant.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to respond to the application for grant-maintained status for St. Peter's Roman Catholic school, Bournemouth.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend expects shortly to announce his decision on this application.

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much the market-testing programme has cost his Department since November 1992.

  Mr. Boswell
  The cost of the programme—in direct staff costs and consultancy costs—has been some £188,000 since November 1992.

  Student Incomes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the annual income available to a student in higher education receiving a full student grant and making full use of the student loan facility in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Boswell
  The following resources have been available through the mandatory award and student loan to students studying away from the parental home:

  Academic year

  Grant £

  Full-year loan £

  Total £

  1990–91

  2,265

  420

  2,685

  1991–92

  2,265

  580

  2,845

  1992–93

  2,265

  715

  2,980

  1993–94

  2,265

  800

  3,065

  Different rates of grant and loan apply to students living in the parental home or studying in London, and different rates of loan apply to the final year of most courses. The grants are means-tested, and additional allowances are available in certain circumstances.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Light Rail Projects
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 405, when he expects to make an announcement regarding the light rail projects currently being considered by his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The four light rail projects referred to in the reply of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 14 June are still being considered by my Department. For commercial reasons, I cannot disclose any information on individual projects supported. or being considered for support. by my Department. It is for the companies concerned to disseminate information as they see fit.

  Steel Imports
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 138, what inquiries he has made regarding imports into the United Kingdom of allegedly subsidised structural steel from other EC member states.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have no evidence at present to suggest that structural steel producers in other EC member states are directly subsidised. Where we have evidence of illegal subsidisation we do not hesitate to press the European Commission to take action against those concerned, as we have done in the case of the Italian steel company, ILVA.

  Gathering the necessary evidence is difficult and we rely to a large extent on commercial sources. My officials have discussed this matter with the British Constructional Steelwork Association. If the association, its members or any other party can produce evidence to suggest that illegal subsidies are being paid to structural steel producers we will pursue the matter vigorously with the European Commission.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take into account the level of public money invested in new and unoccupied industrial estates in current assisted areas when considering any change in status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The criteria that have been used in the assisted areas map review were set out in the public consultation document issued last year. As we made clear, unemployment levels have been the main determinant, though a number of other relevant factors have also been taken into account. The availability of presently unoccupied, publicly funded industrial or commercial premises is not judged to be relevant in determining areas for inclusion in the assisted areas map.

  Coal Subsidies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the subsidies to be made available to coal producers are available for extra sales to the non-electricity supply industry market.

  Mr. Eggar
  As indicated in the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal", the subsidy is to be made available on genuinely additional sales for electricity generation. It is not available for coal sold into other markets.

  Companies Acts (Inspectors)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations were taken into account in deciding whether to appoint DTI inspectors under the Companies Acts in the cases of Maxwell Communications Corporation and Polly Peck International.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Inspectors have not been appointed into either Maxwell Communications Corporation or Polly Peck International. However, inspectors were appointed last June to investigate and report on the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc. The inspectors have been asked to look in particular at the offer for sale of the company shares.

  In deciding whether or not to appoint inspectors, consideration is given to the criteria laid down by statute —principally sections 432 and 442 of the Companies Act 1985—and to whether the appointment of inspectors would be in the public interest.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  Nuclear reprocessing is a proven and safe technology for which there is a continuing demand. It is a commercial matter for the owners of the spent fuel to decide whether to reprocess or to seek alternative management options.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council on 16 June.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Council reached unanimous agreement on the framework of an action plan to help 510
  launch widescreen television services. The four-year plan will be for Community funds, together with funds from othere sources, to be used to partially offset the additional costs to broadcasters and programme producers of broadcasting TV services, including high definition TV services, in the widescreen format. The settlement represents a considerable negotiating success for the United Kingdom. The 850 mecu Community subsidy originally proposed has been reduced to 228 mecu — £160 million; broadcasters and programme makers may use technologies other than the analogue MAC standards, such as PA LPlus or fully digital technologies; and the United Kingdom secured a valuable commitment that United Kingdom-based companies contributing to the action plan will be given due recognition of this in future European collaborative research and development and standardisation activities into digital TV.

  The Council agreed a resolution on the Commission's review of the Community telecoms market. This states that voice telephony services will be liberalised by 1 January 1998, with an additional derogation period of no more than five years for Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland and, if justified, no more than two years for Luxembourg. The Commission will produce, by 1995, a green paper on liberalisation of network infrastructure. The United Kingdom and three other member states urged them also to carry out studies by the end of 1993 on network provision for corporate users. A common position was agreed in principle on the Council directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states concerning satellite earth station equipment modifying the scope of Council directive 91/263/EEC, establishing harmonised procedures for type approval. There was also a short debate on the Green Paper on Postal Services during which the Commission set out a timetable for future work in preparing draft directives. The Commission also briefly reported progress in preparing a Community programme for support of trans-European networks in the tele-communications field.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the Patent Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since its establishment as an executive agency of the DTI in 1990, and its subsequent move to trading fund status in 1991, the Patent Office has become a more commercially oriented organisation. I am now undertaking a review of its role to consider how best to build on this progress. Such reviews normally take place around three years after an agency has been established.

  The review will consider whether other forms of ownership and management might offer better value for money and enable the Patent Office to offer a better service to its customers. I will be asking independent consultants to assess the market in which the office operates; and to identify and consider as wide a range of options for its future as possible, including the possibility of putting some or all of it into the private sector, and of involving the private sector in running the office in ways which fall short of full privatisation. A number of consultancy firms have been invited to submit proposals. The chosen firm will be appointed shortly and will report later this year. I will report to the House on my conclusions.

  Russia
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the arrangements for providing export credit facilities to Russia.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been advised by the Export Credits Guarantee Department's accounting officer that in his view the risks involved in giving guarantees for exports and investment in Russia under sections 1(1) and 2 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 do not meet ECGD's normal underwriting criteria. However, in view of the importance which the Government attach to encouraging trade with Russia, I have instructed him to make arrangements for such guarantees to be issued. These guarantees will be excluded from ECGD's break-even objective for new business.

  EUREKA
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on EUREKA and United Kingdom involvement in and support for the initiative.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  EUREKA is a pan-European initiative to encourage industrial collaboration in research and development; membership currently comprises the 12 EC countries, six EFTA countries, Turkey, Hungary and the EC Commission. The EUREKA ministerial conference which I attended in Paris on 24 June 1993 agreed that Russia should be admitted as soon as the last.appropriate technical elements have been completed.

  Of the l93 new projects announced at the conference, 46 involved United Kingdom participants, a record number for the United Kingdom. In addition there were three new United Kingdom participations in previously announced projects. Thirty-one of the overall United Kingdom total went ahead without Government support demonstrating the awareness by United Kingdom organisations of the wider benefits of EUREKA. I congratulate all those United Kingdom organisations taking part in these and other EUREKA projects which demonstrate that the United Kingdom remains a strongly committed participant in the initiative.

  On 26 May 1993, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced a refocusing of the Department's science and technology policy. As part of that refocusing, from I September 1993, the DTI will provide support for United Kingdom organisations to enable them to take part in feasibility studies and other consortium building activities to generate new EUREKA projects. From that date, firms' eligibility for support for the implementation phase of EUREKA projects will be confined to small and medium-sized enterprises of under 250 employees in accordance with the EC definition.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department spent on legal advice regarding the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 for the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 29 June 1993]: During the period of the market-testing programme identified in the "Citizen's Charter" White Paper last November, the Department's solicitor has advised on this matter in the
  512
  normal course of his duties. We are not able to distinguish the cost of advice on the particular issue in question from other advice on establishments and market testing issues.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of people in receipt of invalidity benefit receive an additional pension; and if he will publish figures showing(a) the average weekly additional pension in payment and (b) the distribution of recipients rising in increments of £1, giving figures separately for men and women.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest information available is in the table.

  All persons

  Males

  Females

  Number in receipt of IVB

  1,306,000

  976,000

  330,000

  Number where AP in payment

  1,085,000

  817,000

  268,000

  Percentage in receipt of AP

  83·1

  83·7

  81·2

  Average AP in payment

  £11·08

  £12·48

  6·79

  AP up to £1

  147,000

  97,000

  49,000

  AP £1·01 to £2

  108,000

  71,000

  38,000

  AP £2·01 to £3

  81,000

  53,000

  28,000

  AP £3·01 to £4

  62,000

  38,000

  23,000

  AP £4·01 to £5

  44,000

  30,000

  14,000

  AP £5·01 to £6

  41,000

  28,000

  14,000

  AP £6·01 to £7

  37,000

  25,000

  12,000

  AP £7·0l to £8

  35,000

  25,000

  10,000

  AP £8·01 to £9

  34,000

  23,000

  11,000

  AP £9·01 to £10

  33,000

  25,000

  8,000

  AP £10·01 to £11

  29,000

  21,000

  7,000

  AP £11·01 to £12

  28,000

  22,000

  6,000

  AP £12·01 to £13

  27,000

  22,000

  5,000

  AP £13·01 to £14

  29,000

  23,000

  6,000

  AP £14·01 to £15

  25,000

  21,000

  4,000

  AP £15·01 to £16

  23,000

  18,000

  5,000

  AP £16·01 to £17

  22,000

  20,000

  2,000

  AP £17·01 to £18

  21,000

  18,000

  3,000

  AP £18·01 to £19

  22,000

  20,000

  2,000

  AP £19·01 to £20

  20,000

  18,000

  2,000

  AP £20·01 to £21

  15,000

  14,000

  1,000

  AP £21·01 to £22

  19,000

  16,000

  2,000

  AP £22·01 to £23

  17,000

  15,000

  1.000

  AP £23·01 to £24

  15,000

  14,000

  1,000

  AP £24·01 to £25

  16,000

  15,000

  1,000

  AP £25·01 to £26

  12,000

  11,000

  1,000

  AP £26·01 to £27

  13,000

  12,000

  1,000

  AP £27·01 to £28

  14,000

  13,000

  1,000

  AP £28·01 to £29

  12,000

  11,000

  1,000

  AP £29·01 to £30

  8,000

  7,000

  1,000

  AP £30·01 to £31

  10,000

  10,000

  1,000

  AP £31·01 to £32

  9,000

  8,000

  1,000

  AP £32·01 to £33

  8,000

  7,000

  1,000

  AP £33·01 to £34

  8,000

  7,000

  1,000

  AP £34·01 to £35

  4,000

  3,000

  *

  AP £35·01 to £36

  5,000

  5,000

  *

  AP £36·01 to £37

  5,000

  4,000

  1,000

  AP £37·01 to £38

  4,000

  3,000

  *

  AP £38·01 to £39

  5,000

  4,000

  *

  AP £39·01 to £40

  2,000

  2,000

  *

  AP £40·01 to £41

  3,000

  3,000

  *

  AP £41·01 to £42

  3,000

  3,000

  *

  AP £42·01 to £43

  3,000

  2,000

  *

  AP £43·01 to £44

  3,000

  3,000

  *

  AP £44·01 to £45

  1,000

  1,000

  *

  AP £45·01 to £46

  2,000

  1,000

  *

  513

  All persons

  Males

  Females

  AP £46·01 to £47

  1,000

  1,000

  *

  A P £47·01 to £48

  2,000

  2,000

  *

  AP £48·01 to £49

  3,000

  2,000

  *

  AP £49·01 to £50

  *

  *

  *

  AP £50·01 and over

  *

  *

  *

  Notes:

  1. Figures based on a I per cent. sample of Incapacity Benefit claimants at 30 March 1991.

  2. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  *Indicates less than 500.

  4. IVB = Invalidity Benefit.

  AP = Additional Pension.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will discuss with the trustees of the Independent Living (1993) Fund the quality of the data available to them about the circumstances of severely disabled people and projections of their needs in reaching their decision to exclude the terminally ill, and others whose conditions are not stable, from the scope of the fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The decision that the trustees took was on a question of policy and was therefore their sole responsibility.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions officials of his Department attended meetings of the board of trustees of the Independent Living (1993) Fund; and what role they played at these meetings.

  Mr. Scott
  Officials of my Department are invited to attend these meetings by the trustees. They attend as observers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether reviews of individual cases funded by the Independent Living (1993) Fund will take place on a six-monthly basis in line with the trustees' intention to arrange six-monthly packages of care with local authorities; and what assessment he has made of the administrative and financial implications of this.

  Mr. Scott
  Administrative issues, such as the review of cases, are matters for the trustees and director of the Independent Living (1993) Fund.

  Quarry House, Leeds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the insurance value of art works in Quarry house.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department is self-insuring which means that the art work in Quarry house has not been valued for insurance purposes.

  Housing Benefit (Students)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what response he has made to the National Housing and Town Planning Council publication, entitled "Making a Difference-Housing Benefit for Students"; and if he will make a statement;
  514
  (2) what recent representations he has received regarding housing benefit for students in relation to the 1993 summer break.

  Mr. Burt
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and members of the public. I have seen the National Housing and Town Planning Council publication. In general, it is the educational maintenance system which is designed to provide support for students, not the social security system, and we have no plans to change this. Housing benefit is, however, available to vulnerable students such as lone parents, those who are disabled, and those with dependent children, not just during the summer vacation but throughout their course. In addition, non-student partners can claim on behalf of the couple if they satisfy the normal qualifying conditions.

  Household Income Statistics
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the next edition of the households below average income statistics will be published.

  Mr. Lilley
  The new edition of the households below average income—H BA I—statistics covering the years 1979 to 1990–91, has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The figures show that average disposable household incomes have grown in real terms by 35 per cent. between 1979 and 1990–91. Increases were not confined to a few top earners, and there have been appreciable increases in average income for all family types and all economic status groups. Pensioners have done particularly well, with pensioner couples showing an increase in average income of 48 per cent. after housing costs.

  A complex picture emerges in the outcomes for the lower income groups. This is because of changes in the composition of the bottom 10 per cent. of income distribution, the particular point in the economic cycle captured by this edition, and the peculiarities in the way the incomes of the increasing number of self-employed are reported in the family expenditure survey from which this analysis is drawn. There are also strong indications that income results for the bottom 10 per cent. of the income distribution do not reflect their true standard of living. There has been a marked increase in their possession of consumer durables and three quarters of those who reported zero incomes spent more than the average for the population as a whole. The results shown in HBAI for the lowest income group cannot, therefore, be interpreted simply and should be treated with some caution.

  The new family resources survey, which is due to replace the family expenditure survey as the data source for HBAI, will place special emphasis on gathering information from households on low incomes and so should help to improve the reliability of the data.

  "Paying for Care: Lessons from Europe"
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee entitled "Paying for Care: Lessons from Europe"; and if he will make a statement on the report's findings.

  Mr. Scott
  The report provides interesting information about support provided for carers in other European countries. We will study it carefully as part of our ongoing consideration of provision for carers.
  515

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 8, how many claims for disability living allowance were received in 1992; what proportion were agreed to; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  A total of 705,000 claims to disability living allowance were received in 1992, these included new and top-up claims and transitional attendance allowance and mobility allowance cases. Virtually all these have since been cleared.

  Of the 553,000 claims cleared during the year 1992, 62 per cent. resulted in an award being made at the initial adjudication stage; this does not include transitional cases.

  Pensioners (Housing Benefit)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average level of pensioners' savings when they first apply for housing benefit; and what is the average expenditure of their savings before they qualify for such a benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  Average amount of pensioners' savings at time of successful claim for housing benefit is in the table.

  Overall £

  In receipt of Income Support £

  Not in receipt of Income Support £

  All pensioners

  880

  260

  1,280

  Pensioners with any savings

  1,900

  730

  2,290

  Note: Figures were derived from the HB and Community Charge Benefit (CCB) Management Information System (HBMIS) annual I per cent. sample of HB/CCB cases in Great Britain in May 1991.

  Information about savings of pensioners who did not qualify for HB and the average expenditure of pensioners' savings before they qualify for HB is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects his review of standard spending assessments to be concluded; and what consultation there will be with local authorities and hon. Members on the outcome of the review.

  Mr. Gummer
  Our review of standard spending assessments will be completed in time for any changes to be incorporated in SSAs for 1994–95.

  We have invited local authorities' views and my officials are consulting the local authority associations.

  I shall consult in the usual way on my proposals for the rate support grant settlement for 1994–95 including SSAs, in the late autumn.

  Centre for Accessible Environments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next visit the Centre for Accessible Environments to discuss the built environment and problems facing people with a disability.
  516
  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the centre at present.

  Climate Change Convention
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to ratify the climate change convention discussed at the UN Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom has undertaken, along with our G7 and EC partners, to ratify the convention by the end of 1993.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation to strengthen the powers of the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Audit Commission, and the auditors which it appoints, already has a wide range of powers under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and the Local Government Act 1992. Nevertheless, if specific, soundly based measures to strengthen those powers were proposed, we would be willing to consider further legislation.

  Water Companies (Nitrates)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he is making of the total cost to water companies of removing nitrates and fertilisers from public water supplies in pursuance of the European Community directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Assessment of the financial impact of European directives and other obligations on water companies are carried out by the Director General of Water Services. I understand from him that to meet the costs of implementing the nitrate standards in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations in England and Wales, water companies' capital expenditure programmes have included –74 million to the year 1991–92 and are at present forecast to require a further £120 million to the year 2000—at 1992–93 prices.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has held with the Director General of the Office of Water Services on the issue of compulsory water metering.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have discussed a range of issues with the director general, including water metering. But it is for each water company to determine its method of charging, subject to the overriding requirement that they do not show undue preference to or unduly discriminate against any class or group of customers.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with British Coal and the National Rivers Authority regarding pollution of the River Wear arising from pit closures in County Durham.
  517
  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 28 April 1993,Official Report, column 429.

  Opencasting
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he is considering to limit the effect of opencasting on communities and their environments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have already announced the Government's intention to revise the planning guidelines on opencast coal. Following publication of the White Paper on the Government's coal review, we are proceeding as quickly as possible to public consultation. On 25 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the former Secretary of State issued interim planning guidance which will apply pending that revision.

  Housing Association Homes
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he expects the Government's target of 153,000 housing association homes over the years 1992–93 to 1994–95 to be reached.

  Sir George Young
  The Housing Corporation estimates that over the period 1992–93 to 1994–95 its capital programme will provide 170,000 housing association homes. This is considerably more than the 153,000 promised in our election manifesto.

  National Parks
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current administration of the national parks.

  Mr. Gummer
  Our policy statement on the national parks, published in January 1992, promised legislation to create independent authorities to administer the eight national parks in England and Wales currently run as county council committees. We remain fully committed to this proposal; the legislation will be introduced as soon as time permits.

  Council Tax
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received proposing elimination of anomalies with band A in the new council tax provisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend has received some representations, but we are not persuaded that there is a case for changing the present arrangements.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the levels of disconnection of domestic water supplies to recover debt.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of hon. Members and others, expressing concern about the number of domestic water supplies disconnected.

  District Auditors
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the powers available to district auditors to require the prompt attendance of witnesses and to avoid the destruction of documentary evidence relevant to their investigations.

  Mr. Curry
  Auditors already have extensive powers, set out in section 16 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, to obtain documents and interview persons to enable them to carry out their audits. Nevertheless, I would be willing to consider specific, soundly based proposals to review those powers.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the powers available to district auditors to require the prompt attendance of witnesses and presentation of evidence relevant to their investigations.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell).

  Water Charges
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had this month with the Office of Water Services about the cost and method of charging for water.

  Mr. Yeo
  I met Mr. Byatt on 22 June to discuss a wide variety of topics, including progress on his periodic review of limits on water charges to apply from 1 April 1995 and the Department's consultation document "Using Water Wisely", which addressed methods of charging for water.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the availability of accommodation for rent in the private sector.

  Sir George Young
  Information from the housing trailer to the 1991 labour force survey indicates that around 1·8 million households were living in privately rented accommodation in England in 1991.

  Shared Ownership
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for extending shared ownership in the social housing sector.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Housing Corporation's plans provide for an increase in the resources devoted to shared ownership from £261 million this year to £330 million in 1995–96.

  Local Government
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the financial methodology adopted by the Local Government Commission and its implications for decisions on future local government structures.
  519
  Mr. Curry
  We have said that change to local government structure should be worth while and cost-effective over time. This does not mean that the cheapest option should be selected everywhere, or that all changes must be cheaper than the status quo. But costs should be assessed on a consistent basis, as our guidance to the commission makes clear. A methodology for financial appraisals has been developed by the commission's advisers, Ernst and Young, and I understand that they have invited comments on it. We will be examining this methodology to ensure that it is in accordance with our guidance.

  London Docklands (Banquet)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the banquet the London Docklands development corporation held on 7 May.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have received one letter.

  Green House Programme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost of the greenhouse programme.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of £60 million is being spent under the programme between 1991–92 and 1993–94.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage more sales under right to buy.

  Sir George Young
  The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill will extend the opportunity of home ownership under the right to buy to a new group of tenants. Those who cannot afford to buy outright will be able to buy on rents-to-mortgage terms, paying no more in mortgage payments than they currently pay in rent.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have sold off all their council housing stock.

  Mr. Gummer
  Twenty-three local authorities have, with the agreement of their tenants, disposed of the ownership of all or most of their housing stock through large-scale voluntary transfers to housing associations. Of these, the following fifteen have sold all their housing stock:

  East Dorset DC

  Hambleton DC

  Medina BC

  Mid Sussex DC

  Newbury DC

  North Bedfordshire BC

  Ryedale DC

  Sevenoaks DC

  South Buckinghamshire DC

  South Wight BC

  Suffolk Coastal DC

  Swale BC

  Tonbridge and Mailing BC

  Tunbridge Wells BC

  West Dorset DC

  The following eight local authorities have retained ownership of hostels or part shares in dwellings sold under shared ownership schemes:
  520

  Breckland DC

  Broadland DC

  Bromley BC

  Chiltern DC

  Christchurch BC

  East Cambridgeshire DC

  Rochester upon Medway CC

  Surrey Heath BC

  Urban Policy
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current urban policy.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Members for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy).

  Darwin Initiative
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delays in implementation of the Darwin initiative announced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Yeo
  Following the Prime Minister's initial announcement of the Darwin initiative and the announcement by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), about its funding a major consultation exercise elicited over 200 responses. An independent advisory committee examined the responses and recently reported its recommendations to Ministers. We hope very soon to invite bids for specific projects.

  Environmental Action Fund
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to contract out the management of the environmental action fund for 1993–94.

  Mr. Yeo
  I am considering plans to contract out management of the environmental action fund and hope to announce a decision shortly.

  Low-energy Lamps
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in drawing up an energy labelling scheme for low-energy lamps.

  Mr. Yeo
  All light bulbs, including low-energy bulbs, already show their electricity consumption in watts both on the bulb itself and on the packaging. In the case of low-energy bulbs, most manufacturers also show on the packaging the electricity consumption of an equivalent conventional tungsten bulb. The Energy Efficiency Office (EEO) has recently published a short consumer guide "Energy Saving Lightbulbs—The Facts" which has been widely distributed by the major retailers to shops where the bulbs are sold.

  The European Commission is investigating the need for a directive for the mandatory energy labelling of lighting as part of a plan to introduce energy labelling of all major electricity consuming appliances. The Government support these plans.

  Paris Commission
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the decision taken at the Paris Commission meeting in Berlin on 16 June; and if he will set out the reasons for the United Kingdom's position on each of the proposals voted upon.

  Mr. Yeo
  The following list shows the outcome on the proposals for decisions and recommendations considered at the 15th joint meeting of the Oslo and Paris commissions, held in Berlin from 14 to 19 June, and the position adopted by the United Kingdom on them:
  a. Recommendation concerning the limitation of pollution from existing primary iron and steel production installations (PARCOM recommendation 93/1): adopted by a three-quarters majority—Belgium, Portugal and Spain entered reservations—the United Kingdom accepted this recommendation;b. Decision on the phasing-out of the use of hexachloroethane in the non-ferrous metal industry (PARCOM decision 93/1): adopted by a three-quarters majority—Germany and the United Kingdom entered reservations, as did the Commission of the European Communities—the United Kingdom reservation is because we have not completed the assessment of the cost of complying with the decision;c. Recommendation for the reduction of marine pollution originating from the phosphate fertiliser industry: not adopted; the United Kingdom did not support this recommendation because it was insufficiently developed and would increase pressure to transfer the production concerned to areas discharging into seas outside the Paris Commission area;d. Recommendation for further restrictions on the use and discharge of mercury: not adopted in its original form, because the part dealing with the imposing of a ban on the import of arm and leg shock-absorber hands containing mercury required clarification of the powers of EC member states to impose such a ban in the absence of Community action; a received Recommendation on fin-flier restrictions on the discharge of mercury from dentistry (PARCOM recommendation 93/2) was adopted by a three-quarters majority—France, Portugal and Spain entered reservations—the United Kingdom accepted this recommendation;e. Recommendation on the elaboration of national action plans and best environmental practice for the reduction of inputs to the environment of pesticides from agricultural use (PARCOM recommendation 93/3): adopted by a three-quarters majority—France and Portugal entered reservations—the United Kingdom supported this recommendation;f. Recommendation on the phasing out of cationic detergents DTDMAC. DSDMAC and DHTDMAC in fabric softeners (PARCOM recommendation 93/4): adopted by a three-quarters majority—the United Kingdom entered a reservation—the United Kingdom reservation was because the evidence that available substitutes are less environmentally hazardous is not available except to the firms that have developed them, and because formal action is unnecessary, given the 90 per cent reduction in usage in recent years;g. Recommendation on the reduction of nutrients from agriculture: not adopted, only two countries supporting it; the United Kingdom did not support it, because it would have required unnecessary action by the United Kingdom;h. Decision on the phasing-out of short-chained chlorinated paraffins not adopted; the United Kingdom did not support this decision because we have not completed the assessment of the cost of complying with the decision;i. Recommendation concerning increases in radioactive discharges from nuclear reprocessing plants: this proposal, tabled by Denmark, was not presented;j. Recommendation on the total level of radioactive discharges into the maritime area: this proposal, tabled by the Republic of Ireland, was not presented;522 k. Recommendation concerning increases in radioactive discharges from nuclear reprocessing plants: this joint proposal from Denmark and the Republic of Ireland was not adopted—Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom had reservations, as did the Commission of the European Cornmunities—a revised Recommendation concerning increases in radioactive discharges.from nuclear reprocessing plants (PARCOM recommendation 93/5) was adopted by a three-quarters majority—Belgium, France and the United Kingdom entered reservations, as did the Commission of the European Communities—the—United Kingdom reservation was because the first limb of the recommendation made no progress beyond the commitment in the 1992 action plan, while the second limb both was too vague to provide a proper basis for a PARCOM recommendation and, insofar as it provided for a role for the Paris Commission in the decision process, was inappropriate.
  The acceptance by Belgium of decisions and recommendations was ad referendum, pending the completion of internal procedures; where the adoption of a measure depending on Belgian acceptance, therefore, that adoption is provisional pending confirmation of the Belgian position. PARCOM decisions bind those contracting parties which vote for them or subsequently accept them; PARCOM recommendations have no binding force.

  Street Cleaning
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in his policy to bring forward proposals for voluntary involvement in street cleaning.

  Mr. Yeo
  Last year, my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State announced two new initiatives concerning voluntary involvement in improving the quality of the local environment. One was for a network of community environment wardens, the other was a study of the United States "adopt-a-road" scheme. Having consulted the voluntary sector on these proposals. we are commissioning a feasibility study by consultants on how best to explore the potential of the community environment warden concept. This work will take account of the study carried out by the Tidy Britain Group of the "adopt-a-road" schemes.

  Radioactive Waste Repository
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what economic assessment his Department has conducted of the implications of delaying the Nirex scheme for a radioactive waste repository.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department is keeping under continuous review all the consequences of changes in Nirex's plans for a deep disposal facility for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste.

  Energy Management Assistance Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 619, how many applications for the energy management assistance scheme have so far been received; how many grants have been paid; what are the expected savings in carbon and financial terms from each scheme; arid what proportion of grant scheme is being monitored to assess eventual performance.
  523
  Mr. Yeo
  Since the scheme started on 1 April 1992 there have been 1,828 applications received and 1,331 grants paid.

  A review to assess potential carbon savings on each application will be carried out shortly. Currently average savings identified on each application are 13 to 16 per cent. of energy bills.

  Arrangements are in hand to monitor applicants' eventual performance under the scheme, but the proportion of cases to be assessed has not yet been decided.

  Business and the Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of his advisory committee on business and the environment.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment was established in May 1991 for a two-year term. The Committee will publish its third progress report shortly. The Government have reviewed the role of the committee and will make an announcement about its future in the near future.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total volume of carbon dioxide emissions for the United Kingdom in 1990; and what was the contribution made to those emissions by(a) power generation, (b) transport, (c) industrial production, (d) agriculture and (e) each main sector of manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Yeo
  Estimates of United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions are published annually in the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics". The 15th digest, published in May this year, shows that in 1990 the United Kingdom emitted 158 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) as carbon dioxide. Of this total, 54 MtC came from power stations, 34 MtC from transport, 40MtC from industry and 1 MtC from agriculture. Refinery emissions accounted for 5MtC of the industrial total.

  Reallocating power station and refinery emissions to final users increases estimated industrial emissions to about 53 MtC. The discussion document on our national programme for CO2 emissions, published in December 1992 gives 1990 emissions on this basis for the following energy intensive industries:

  Sector

  MtC

  Iron and Steel

  9

  Other metals

  9

  Mineral Products

  4

  Chemicals

  9

  Paper and Board

  3

  These sectors were responsible for about 65 per cent. of industrial emissions in 1990.

  Environmental Damage
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Her Majesty's Government received European Commission document ENV 170 COM (93) 47 "Final on Remedying Environmental Damage"; and what response he expects to make to the Green Paper.
  524
  Mr. Yeo
  The Department received the document on 15 June 1993. The Government will submit their comments to the European Commission in due course.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what meetings he has had with the London residuary body; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has had no meetings with the London residuary body.

  Architects Registration Acts
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration his Department's deregulation unit is giving to repealing the Architects Registration Acts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, (Mr. Waterson) on 2 February 1993,Official Report, columns 89–90.

  As part of the Government's deregulation initiatives, we propose to repeal the Architects Registration Acts, at the earliest legislative opportunity.

  London Docklands (Entertainment)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the expenditure on entertainment and press and public relations from public funds of the London Docklands development corporation for each year since its inception; what is the budget for the current financial year; and what is classed as entertainment and press and public relations for these purposes.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 17 June 1993]: The infrommation requested is as follows:

  Total £ million

  1981–82

  1·1

  1982–83

  2·5

  1983–84

  1·9

  1984–85

  2·3

  1985–86

  1·7

  1986–87

  1·7

  1987–88

  1·8

  1988–89

  1·8

  1989–90

  3·3

  1990–91

  3·0

  1991–92

  3·2

  1992–93

  3·5

  The expected expenditure for 1993–94 is £3·5 million. The figures comprise advertising, events and associated expenditure, corporate publications and the cost of the LDDC visitors' centre and press office.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Silverware
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will make a statement on the involvement of Aldous Antique Furniture Restoration in the purchase and sale of House of Commons silverware.
  525
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  This a matter for the Director of Catering Services and I shall ask her to write to the hon. Member.

WALES

  Outdoor Centres
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to ensure that outdoor centres in Wales follow safety standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As employers, operators of outdoor activity and education centres have a general duty under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to have regard to the health and safety of all persons, including non-employees, affected by their activities. In June 1992, the Wales tourist board, in association with the Sports Council for Wales, launched a voluntary accreditation scheme for activity holiday centres which sets down detailed safety guidelines.

  The Government will be considering whether further measures are needed in the light of investigations into the recent Lyme Regis incident. Possible changes to the existing statutory framework, the need for a regulatory body and additional guidance will be carefully considered.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for 'Wales if he will give for each travel-to-work area in Wales(a) the rate of economic inactivity between ages 16 and 65 years and (b) the percentage of the working population dependent on benefits as a primary source of income.

  Mr. Redwood
  Rates of inactivity, from the 1981 population census, are given in the table. 1991 census figures for travel-to-work areas are not yet available and there is no information on sources of income for travel-to-work areas.

  The economically inactive population includes housewives, the retired, students and others who make an important contribution to society but fall outside the standard definition of the work force.

  1981 economic inactivity rales for residents aged 16 years or over and under 65

  Travel·to·work area

  Per cent.

  Aberdare

  32·9

  Aberystwyth

  30·3

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  31·4

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny

  31·7

  Brecon

  29·1

  Bridgend

  30·2

  Cardiff

  28·3

  Cardigan

  34·5

  Carmarthen

  30·8

  Conwy and Colwyn

  29·9

  Denbigh

  31·2

  Dolgellau and Barmouth

  32·1

  Fishguard

  33·4

  Haverfordwest

  30·7

  Holyhead

  33·5

  Lampeter and Aberaeron

  34·3

  Llandeilo

  31·7

  Llandrindod Wells

  29·9

  Llanelli

  32·0

  Machynlleth

  30·7

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  31·7

  Monmouth

  29·6

  526

  Travel·to·work area

  Per cent.

  Neath and Port Talbot

  31·3

  Newport

  28·5

  Newtown

  28·2

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  29·8

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  31·1

  Porthmadoc and Ffestiniog

  32·7

  Pwllheli

  37·0

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  30·0

  South Pembrokeshire

  33·1

  Swansea

  29·7

  Welshpool

  30·8

  Wrexham

  30·0

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each travel-to-work area in Wales(a) the population and (b) the latest unemployment rate.

  Mr. Redwood
  Population data from the 1981 census and the latest unemployment rate for each of the travel-to-work areas can be accessed on-line by the staff of the Library of the House. Population data from the 1991 census are currently not available for travel-to-work areas.

  Campylobacter
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of campylobacter-induced illnesses have been recorded in Clwyd in each year since 1987; and what measures are being taken to reduce the risk of exposure to this illness.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The data requested are given in the following table:

  Numbers

  1987

  291

  1988

  251

  1989

  330

  1990

  315

  1991

  321

  1992

  356

  The Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food has been considering what measures could be taken to reduce the incidence of campylobacter infection, and is due to present an interim report to Health and Agriculture Ministers shortly. A further report on campylobacter will be produced when the results of surveillance and research work recommended in the report are available.

  General government advice about food hygiene and avoidance of cross-infection is relevant to campylobacter. Note: Figures given are laboratory reports of campylobacter reported to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre of the Public Health Laboratory Service by laboratories in Clwyd.

  Facilities, Dyfed
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the(a) abattoirs, (b) community hospitals (c) NHS dental surgeries, (d) fire stations, (e) general practitioner surgeries, (f) jobcentres and (g) local livestock marts located in each local authority area of the county of Dyfed in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985 and (iii) 1988.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information available is given in the tables. Lists of individual general practice medical and
  527
  dental surgeries are not maintained centrally. Each family health services authority maintains local directories of doctors and dentists.

  Abattoirs

  Operational

  1980

  1985

  1988

  Llanelli district:

  Llanelli Wholesale Butchers, Pwllbach Abattoir, Dafen Llanelli

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Talyclun Slaughterhouse, Llangennech, Llanelli

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Carmarthen district:

  Teify Pare Slaughterhouse, Lampeter Road, Llanybyther

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  The Abattoir, Fairlane, Carmarthen

  Yes

  No

  No

  Riverside Slaughterhouse, St. Clears

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  South Pembrokeshire district:

  Kilvelgy House, Kilgetty

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Lyserry Farm, Stackpole, Pembroke

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Preseli district:

  Withybush Abattoir, Withybush Road, Haverfordwest

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  10 Kensington Road, Neyland, Milford Haven

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  61 High Street, Neyland, Milford Haven

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Milford Meats, Howath Way, Milford Haven

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Ceredigion district:

  The Slaughterhouse, Llanfair Road, Lampeter

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Llanwnen Slaughterhouse, Llanwnen, Lampeter

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Cardigan Slaughterhouse, Dewi James, Pentood Industrial Estate

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Hospitals

  Operational

  1980

  1985

  1988

  Community hospitals:

  Aberaeron

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Amman Valley

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Cardigan and District

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Cilymaenllwyd

  Yes

  No

  No

  Llandovery Cottage

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Mynydd Mawr

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  South Pembrokeshire

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Tenby Cottage

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Tregaron

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Other hospitals:

  Allt y Mynydd

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Bronglais General

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Bryntirion

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Cartrefle Unit

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Llanclli General

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  St. David's

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  West Wales General

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Withybush

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Local livestock marts

  Operational

  1980

  1985

  1988

  Carmarthen district:

  Station Road Market, Pontyweli, Llandysul

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Whitland Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  St. Clears Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Carmarthen Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Newcastle Emlyn Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  528
  Fire stations

  Llanelli district:

  Llanelli

  Kidwelly

  Tumble

  Carmarthen district:

  Carmarthen

  Llandysul

  Pontyates

  Whitland

  Newcastle Emlyn

  South Pembrokeshire district:

  Narberth

  Pembroke Dock

  Tenby

  Preseli district:

  Haverfordwest

  Milford Haven

  Fishguard

  St. David's

  Crymych

  Ceredigion district:

  Aberystwyth

  Tregaron

  New Quay

  Aberaeron

  Lampeter

  Cardigan

  Dinefwr

  Llandeilo

  Llandovery

  Ammanford

  There are also two volunteer stations at and Borth and Caldy Island. The list above was the same for each year requested.

  Job centres

  Aberystwyth

  Great Darkgate Street

  Ammanford

  Crown Buildings, Hall Street

  Cardigan

  Crown Buildings, Napier Street

  Carmarthen

  Darkgate Buildings, 3 Red Street

  Fishguard

  Crown Buildings, Brodog Lane

  Garnant

  26 Dynevor Road

  Haverfordwest

  8 Victoria Place

  Llanelli

  Units 1–9, Market Arcade

  Kidwelly

  Government Buildings, Bridge Street

  Lampeter

  Government Buildings, Pontfaen Road

  Llandeilo

  1 King Street

  Llandysul

  Bizerta House, Wind Street

  Milford Haven

  40 Charles Street

  Pembroke Dock

  91 Queen Street

  Tenby

  Civic Centre, The Norton

  Tumble

  Crown Buildings, Bethesda Road

  Note: The list above relates to the position in June 1993 No historical data are readily available.
  529

  Operational

  1980

  1985

  1988

  Llanybyther Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  South Pembrokeshire district:

  Pembroke Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Kilgetty

  Yes

  No

  No

  Preseli district:

  Crymych Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Haverfordwest Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Ceredigion district:

  Ystrad Market, Felinfach, Lampeter

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Lampeter Market, Station Road, Lampeter

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Devils Bridge Market, Aberystwyth

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Tregaron Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Cardigan Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Aberystwyth Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Talybont

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Brynberian Market, Crosswell

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Dinefwr district:

  Ffairfach, Llandeilo Bridge

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Llandeilo Town

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Llangadog Market, Llangadog

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Rhosaman Market, Brynamman

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Llandovery Market

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the police stations which were located in each local authority area of the county of Dyfed in the years(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Redwood
  The police stations located in each local authority area in Dyfed are listed as follows. The list is the same for both 1985 and 1992. Information for 1980 is not centrally available.

  Carmarthen

  Carmarthen, Newcastle Emlyn and Whitland.

  Ceredigion

  Aberaeron, Aberystwyth, Cardigan, Lampeter and Llandyssul.

  Dinefwr

  Ammanford, Llandeilo and Llandovery

  Llanelli

  Burry Port, Cross Hands, Kidwelly and Llanelli

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  Fishguard, Haverfordwest, Milford Haven, Neyland and St. Davids.

  South Pembrokshire

  Narberth, Pembroke Dock, Saundersfoot and Tenby.

  Source: Police and Constabulary Almanac.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) chemist shops or pharmacies, (b) mobile libraries, (c) (i) post offices and (ii) post office counters, (d) public houses, (e) rural schools and (f) village halls there were in each local authority area in the county of Dyfed in (1) 1980, (2) 1985 and (3) 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  Most of the information requested, if available centrally, is only collected on the basis of Dyfed county.

  Chemist shops or pharmacies

  Information on the number of pharmacies in Dyfed is given as follows:

  1980 (as at 31 December) 94

  1985 (as at 31 December) 92

  1992 (as at 30 September) 99

  Mobile libraries

  Information on the number of mobile libraries, as at
  530
  31 March, in Dyfed is given as follows:

  1980 18

  1985 17

  1992 15

  Post Offices and Post Office Counters

  The information is not readily available centrally.

  Public Houses

  The information is not available centrally.

  Rural Schools

  Information on the number of LEA-maintained schools, as at January, in Dyfed is given as follows:

  1980

  1985

  1992

  Nursery

  4

  4

  3

  Primary

  355

  335

  315

  Secondary

  35

  34

  31

  Special

  6

  6

  5

  Total

  400

  379

  354

  Village Halls

  The information is not available centrally.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the structure and financing of training of radiographers in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since I April 1993 the training of pre-registration radiographers comes within the Towards 2000 arrangements to ensure that NHS has sufficient numbers of adequately trained staff available to meet employers' requirements. Funding for this training is provided centrally while post-registration training is a matter for employers.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients of general dental practitioners in Wales have been recorded as having been infected as the result of cross-infection from hand-pieces that have not been autoclaved.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the change in real terms of invalidity benefit payments in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates of government expenditure on sickness and invalidity benefits in Wales are given in the table. The figures are expressed in real terms at 1990–91 prices using the retail prices index.
  532

  Sickness and invalidity benefits Estimated expenditure at 1990–91 prices

  £ million

  1979–80

  317

  1980–81

  301

  1981–82

  308

  1982–83

  312

  1983–84

  298

  1984–85

  325

  1985–86

  340

  1986–87

  347

  1987–88

  372

  1988–89

  376

  1989–90

  384

  1990–91

  404

WALES

  River Pollution
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Wales this summer to warn farmers of the environmental dangers of silage effluent entering river systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The National Rivers Authority recently issued a press release warning farmers of potential problems this year and urging that caution be exercised in the collection and disposal of silage effluent. The authority also offers advice to farmers by way of programmes of farm visits; by talks to representative organisations and by relevant leaflets which are available free of charge at the authority's offices.

  The Government's code of good agricultural practice on the protection of water provides detailed practical advice on avoiding pollution. In addition, under the ADAS free farm visits programme, farmers are offered assistance with farm waste plans, or free pollution advice. The Government's farm waste plan programme launched in a pilot area last year is being extended into two further areas in Wales so that more farmers will have the opportunity of benefiting from these plans.

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

  Full-time academic staff

  Colleges of the University of Wales

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Aberystwyth

  382

  365

  388

  387

  404

  Bangor

  394

  397

  414

  422

  436

  St. Davids, Lampeter

  72

  72

  76

  79

  74

  Swansea

  488

  499

  496

  556

  592

  College of Medicine

  355

  368

  360

  395

  395

  Cardiff

  606

  868

  900

  925

  952

  University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology1

  338

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 From 1988 the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology merged with University of Wales College Cardiff.

  Source: "University Statistics, Volume one—Students and Staff" published annually by Universities' Statistical Record.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the change in the number of academic staff posts in the university of Wales over the last four years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the complement of academic staff posts in the university of Wales is not held centrally.

  Special Needs Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made concerning the number of required housing places needed by people with learning disabilities in Wales in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Social services departments' own estimates are that a minimum of 90 places will be required in Wales for each year for individuals in the community needed to move into accommodation of their own. In addition, we are intending to resettle 110 individuals from long-stay hospitals in 1993–94 and 1994–95. Resettlement programmes have yet to be finalised for subsequent years.
  534
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of domestic water disconnections is set out in the table. Information on the number of industrial water disconnections is not held centrally. Separate figures for domestic only disconnections are not available prior to 1989–90.

  Domestic disconnections by water companies in Wales

  DWR CYMRU

  Statutory water companies1

  1989–90

  1,243

  113

  1990–91

  1,305

  0

  1991–92

  2,938

  13

  1992–93

  2,316

  132

  1 Chester Waterworks Company and Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company.

  University of Wales
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of full-time staffed academic posts at each of the constituent colleges of the university of Wales in each of the past five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the total number of full-time academic staff in post at each constituent college of the university of Wales, as collated and published by the "Universities Statistical Record", is shown in the table. The report for 1992–93 is not yet published.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the range of allocations given to all general practitioner fund holders for all hospital care which they purchase, showing the highest and lowest per capita expenditure for the practice population; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the range.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The per capita allocations to fund holders for the purchase of hospital services in 1993–94 range from £48·13 to £128·09. Individual allocations reflect the nature and extent of these services with which patients in the practice have been provided over previous years.

  Flooding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the subject of the recent flooding incidents in(a) the Meirionnydd area and (b) the Aberconwy area; and if he will make a statement.
  535
  Mr. Redwood
  There have been numerous representations on a range of issues relating to the recent flooding in the Aberconwy area. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I were also able to hear at first hand some of the problems being experienced, when we visited the area in the aftermath of the floods. One representation has been received, in respect of the Meirionnydd area.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average list size for general practitioners in Wales in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given as follows:

  Average list size for general practitioners in Wales (as at 1 October)

  Average

  1980

  2,086

  1981

  2,057

  1982

  2,013

  1983

  1,975

  1984

  1,946

  1985

  1,914

  1986

  1,881

  1987

  1,849

  1988

  1,851

  1989

  1,819

  1990

  1,813

  1991

  1,794

  1992

  1,743

  Wales Tourist Board
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the budget of the Wales tourist board in each year since 1988–89; and what is the proposed budget for next year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Wales tourist board's net budget provision since 1988 is shown as follows:

  Net total £ million

  –

  9·211

  –

  9·815

  –

  10·488

  –

  11·229

  –

  13·636

  –

  13·658

  The board's budget for 1994–95 has not yet been determined.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to alleviate the financial and other difficulties which will befall those farmers in Wales who have not submitted fully completed IACS forms to the Welsh office by the deadline set; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The governing EC regulations stipulate the information which farmers have to provide and the time scale within which they are required to do so. The Commission has indicated that the rules allow some flexibility in analysing the information submitted to avoid imposing unjustified penalties. I will take full advantage of this flexibility when the EC has clarified the extent of it.

  Coastal Radioactivity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment has been made during the clean-up of homes and other buildings along the north Wales coast, following the recent flooding, of the spread of radioactive contamination from the Irish sea and the sea shore inland.

  Mr. Redwood
  No such assessment was necessary as the recent flooding in north Wales was due to excessive rainfall and no homes or other buildings were affected by seawater.

SCOTLAND

  Clyde Dredging
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has about reduced levels of dredging being carried out by Clydeport; and what representations he has made to Clydeport about the dredging of the Clyde;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to oblige Clydeport to dredge the Clyde either in whole or in part;

  (3) what policy proposals he has to ensure that the River Clyde is adequately dredged in the future;

  (4) who is responsible for dredging the Clyde.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Clydeport Ltd., as successor to the former Clyde Port authority, has a permissive power to dredge the Clyde river channel to the extent that it is considered necessary for the maintenance and improvement of the port, but has no statutory duty to dredge.

  It remains the Government's policy that port authorities, including Clydeport Ltd., should manage their businesses on a commercial basis and that the costs of dredging should be met by charges to the users of ports, or by other parties who benefit from the dredging. The Government have no plans to introduce legislation to alter this situation.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the consequences of reduced levels of dredging of the Clyde for(a) navigation, (b) flooding and (c) the environment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that a study to examine the effects of the cessation of dredging of the River Clyde, commissioned by Clydeport Ltd., and Strathclyde regional council, with the aid of European regional development fund grant support, reported in September 1989. Its main conclusions were that

  (a) Available draught for navigation would be reduced:

  (b) Extreme high tide levels would not increase significantly. However, low water levels in extreme weather conditions would he considered higher than at present. This could cause some increase in the risk and incidence of indirect flooding in the unlikely event of several extreme rainfall events occurring in short succession; and

  (c) mudbanks would build at the sides of the channel, particularly at wider parts of the river.

  Local Government
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about community councils in his consultation paper on local government in Scotland.
  537
  Mr. Stewart
  Five hundred and eighty-two responses to the consultation paper "Shaping the New Councils" commented on the future role of community councils, including 475 from community councils themselves. The responses ranged from those in favour of retaining the existing powers for community councils to those in favour of an expanded role.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific support local authorities receive from his Department to enable them to contribute to the dredging of the Clyde.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government do not support local authorities directly in relation to operations such as dredging. It is the responsibility of each local authority to allocate resources from within the total made available to them as they see fit.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the Association of Scottish Community Councils; and if he will meet representatives of the Association of Scottish Community Councils to discuss the future of community councils.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Association of Scottish Community Councils will provide a welcome focal point for community council activity in Scotland. My officials have already met representatives of the association to discuss their views on the future role of community councils. These are being taken into account in our deliberations on local government reform.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards a continuing role for community councils.

  Mr. Stewart
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on 10 June,Official Report, columns 275–76.

  Multiple Occupation Houses
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what information he has on the number of houses in multiple occupation in each local authority area;

  (2) how many local authorities have initiated resolutions for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, under the order made in terms of the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1981;

  (3) how many Scottish local authorities have introduced a registration scheme for houses in multiple occupation; and what provisions are made to ensure that these premises are provided with reasonable means of escape in case of fire;

  (4) what proposals he has to encourage local authorities to introduce a licensing or registration scheme for houses in multiple occupation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not held centrally on the number of houses in multiple occupation or on the number of resolutions for licensing schemes as they do not require the Secretary of State's approval. He has approved registration schemes in eight authorities.

  Housing authorities' powers to ensure houses in multiple occupation have reasonable means of escape in case of fire are not dependent on their being registered or
  538
  licensed. An authority can require a landlord to carry out works to provide a means of escape. If he does not do so, the authority may carry out the works itself and bill the landlord. The fire authority can close all or part of a house in multiple occupation immediately if it considers that there is a serious threat to life.

  Guidance notes were issued in August 1991 suggesting how housing authorities might effectively exercise their powers to deal with houses in multiple occupation, including their powers to establish registration and licensing schemes.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his planned capital expenditure on hospital building for the next five years in Greater Glasgow, Lothian and Lanarkshire health boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is not possible to provide capital expenditure figures on hospital building for the next five years for Greater Glasgow, Lothian and Lanarkshire health boards. Health boards and trusts have been given provisional capital allocation figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 only. These reflect only the consequences in those years of the 1993–94 allocations and do not take into account new starts in 1994–95 or 1995–96.

  The figures are as follows:

  Provisional Capital Allocations

  Health Boards/Trust

  1994–95 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  20·048

  18·

  Southern General Hospitals NHS Trust

  2·

  1·

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  0·

  0·

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  3·081

  2·

  Lothian Health Board

  18·

  13·

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  0·

  1·175

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  9·

  10·

  Monklands and Bellshill NHS Hospital Trust

  2·

  1·

  Nursing Homes
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 759 if he will describe the steps taken to ensure that health boards carry out their statutory duty to inspect nursing homes at least twice a year, and that the person registered actually does provide or make arrangements for the provision of medical serices for residents; and how many nursing homes have had adverse reports since the statutory requirements came into force.

  Mr. Stewart
  Health boards have a statutory responsibility, under the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 as amended, to visit and inspect all nursing homes in their area at least twice a year. If that duty is not carried out, the health board is in contravention of section 4(3) of the Act. Details of registration and inspection visits are contained in health board annual reports.

  It is the responsibility of the health board registration and inspection team to ensure that the person registered provides, or makes provision for, medical services for residents. Nursing home residents are entitled to receive the same range of NHS services as they would expect to receive in their own homes.
  539
  Information is not collected centrally about nursing homes who receive adverse reports. It is for health boards to take action on homes which require to improve their standards.

  House of Commons
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer from the Secretary of State for Health to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) of 21 June,Official Report, columns 34–39, if he will publish a list of awards given to voluntary organisations under the equivalent legislation in Scotland in 1992–93.

  Mr. Stewart
  In 1992–93, grants totalling £5.2 million were awarded to 156 voluntary organisations under section 10(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and £956,000 to 49 organisations under section 16B of the National Health Services (Scotland) Act 1978. Taking the two schemes together, this represents a real terms increase of 8 per cent. over 1991–92 and of 132 per cent. over 1978–79. Details are given in the table:

  Grants paid to voluntary organisations in 1992–93 under Section 10(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968

  Organisation

  £

  Aberdeen and North East Association for Mental Health

  6,473

  Aberlour Child Care Trust

  18,059

  Action on Phobias Association

  299

  Age Concern Scotland

  73,693

  All Saints Church/Care Management Project

  14,518

  Alternative to Detention Project

  13,401

  Association of Local Voluntary Organisations (Lanark)

  26,021

  Alzheimers Scotland

  98,128

  Angus Association of Voluntary Organisations

  23,583

  Annandale and Eskdale Council for Voluntary Service

  27,507

  Apex Trust Scotland Ltd.

  179,987

  Argyll and Bute Federation of Councils on Alcohol

  44,685

  Arran Council for Voluntary Service

  17,520

  Assynt Centre

  550

  British Association for Adoption and Fostering.

  31,000

  Banff and Buchan Resource Information and Development Group Exchange

  26,037

  Badenoch and Strathspey Council of Social Service

  28,345

  Barnardos-Tayside Young Abusers Project

  42,957

  Barony Housing Association

  25,000

  Barra and Vatersay Council of Social Service

  27,725

  Berwickshire Association of Voluntary Service

  14,809

  Borderline

  1,200

  Borders Pre–5 Voluntary Forum

  16,699

  Brittle Bone Society

  250

  Bute Community Links

  22,607

  Caithness Mental Health Support Group (Drop In Centre)

  3,995

  Caithness Voluntary Group

  27,027

  Call Centre

  18,070

  Care In Action (Scotland)

  35,506

  Carers National Association

  40,229

  Carolina House Trust

  6,500

  Community and Voluntary Organisations Council

  19,858

  Centre for Housing Research

  12,500

  Childline Charitable Trust

  10,000

  Childline Scotland

  31,854

  Children In Scotland

  94,340

  Childrens Hospice Association Scotland

  4,000

  Church of Scotland Board for Social Responsibility

  117,562

  Comhairle Nan Sgoiltean Araich

  16,912

  Community Service Volunteers

  850

  Crossroads

  37,986

  Cruse Bereavement Care

  1,108

  Dementia Services Development Centre

  74,072

  Dail Scotland

  12,096

  Disability Scotland

  229,700

  Disablement Income Group

  5,175

  Disfigurement Guidance Centre

  150

  540

  Organisation

  £

  Dumfries & Galloway Mental Health Association

  3,000

  Dundee Association for Mental Health

  1,099

  East Lothian Voluntary Organisations Network

  18,398

  Edinburgh Association for Mental Health

  3,960

  Eric Liddle Centre Appeal

  24,000

  Ettrick and Lauderdale Council of Social Service

  13,903

  Falkirk District Association for Mental Health

  2,000

  Family Care

  28,856

  Family Mediation Scotland

  64,031

  Glasgow Council for Single Homeless

  15,000

  Gordon Rural Area Information Network

  27,864

  Hamilton and East Kilbride Befriending

  3,599

  Handynet

  32,978

  Harris Council of Social Service

  18,982

  Headway House Association

  899

  Highland Federation of Councils for Voluntary Service

  195

  Home-Start Consultancy

  25,000

  Huntly Mental Health Association

  1,941

  Intermediate Treatment Resource Centre

  29,647

  Inverclyde Voluntary Association for Mental Health

  12,748

  Islay and Jura Council for Voluntary Service

  30,107

  Kincardine and Deeside Council for Social Service

  30,525

  Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes Association of Voluntary Organisations

  20,000

  Kyle and Carrick Council of Voluntary Organisations

  15,188

  Levenmouth Council of Social Service

  1,974

  Lewis Council of Social Service

  33,471

  Link: Glasgow Association for Mental Health

  2,968

  Marriage Counselling Scotland

  91,998

  Midlothian Voluntary Action

  12,726

  Mobile Projects Association (Scotland)

  17,800

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship Scotland

  11,770

  National Children's Home (NCH)

  59,185

  National Foster Care Association (HQ)

  34,340

  Nithsdale Council of Voluntary Service

  20,493

  North and West Sutherland Council of Social Service

  13,903

  Penumbra

  64,927

  Perth and Kinross Association of Voluntary Service

  16,778

  Perth Association of Mental Health

  1,400

  Play Matters

  4,500

  Plus National

  37,311

  Positive Help

  20,000

  Quarriers/Scottish Child and Family Alliance Borders Development

  21,875

  Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (HQ)

  98,698

  Rehab Scotland

  15,000

  Ross and Cromarty Council of Social Service

  26,550

  Roxburgh Association of Voluntary Service

  14,407

  RSSPCC—Overnewton Centre

  77,452

  Scottish Association for Mental Health (HQ)

  104,004

  Stillbirth and Neo-natal Death Society

  2,600

  Scottish Adventure Playground Association for Handicapped Children

  650

  Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters

  21,143

  Scottish Association for Victim Support Schemes

  642,500

  Scottish Child Minders Association

  75,035

  Scottish Council for Single Parents

  30,859

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (Give As You Earn)

  15,000

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (HQ)

  290,770

  Scottish Home Visiting Resource and Training Unit

  1,500

  Scottish Society for Mental Health (Homes)

  38,057

  Scottish Society for Mental Health (Respite Care)

  25,774

  Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  242,204

  Scottish Association for the Deaf

  7,628

  Scottish Child Law Centre

  20,000

  Scottish Community Education Council

  4,700

  Scottish Downs Syndrome Association

  300

  Scottish Institute of Human Relations

  16,875

  Scottish Pre-School Play Association

  101,103

  Scottish Refugee Council

  5,957

  Scottish Spina Bifida Association

  500

  Scottish Spinal Cord Injury Association

  14,699

  Scottish Users Network

  1,000

  Scottish Womens Aid Ltd.

  95,141

  Scottish Council for Single Homeless

  13,921

  541

  Organisation

  £

  Sense In Scotland

  49,550

  Shelter

  19,300

  Shetland Council of Social Service

  30,532

  Skye and Lochalsh Council for Voluntary Organisations

  25,060

  South Ayrshire Link-Up Consortium

  16,560

  Speyside and District Council of Social Service

  21,097

  Stepping Stones

  34,038

  Stewartry Council for Voluntary Service

  21,068

  Stirling and District Association for Mental Health

  11,000

  Stirling Council of Social Service

  22,385

  Strathclyde Out Of School Care

  5,180

  Talbot Association

  14,821

  The Corner Group

  660

  The Pillar Project

  8,134

  The Richmond Fellowship

  26,939

  The Rock Trust—Society of St. Francis

  3,300

  The Salvation Army

  1,399

  The Thistle Foundation

  66,000

  Torry/Kincorth Team for Confused Elderly People

  731

  Tweeddale Association for Voluntary Service

  13,427

  Uist Council of Social Service

  22,347

  United Kingdom/United States Exchange Programme

  3,150

  Voluntary Organisations North East Fife

  14,200

  Voluntary Groups—East Sutherland

  20,567

  Voluntary Action—Inverness

  21,333

  Voluntary Action Orkney

  34,590

  Voluntary Action West Lothian

  21,229

  Voluntary Association of Nairn Groups

  14,261

  Volunteer Development Scotland

  109,201

  West Lothian Voluntary Council for Disabled People

  625

  Waverley Care Trust

  20,000

  Wellspring

  1,154

  Who Cares? Scotland

  5,000

  Wigtown Council for Voluntary Service

  23,862

  Women's Royal Voluntary Service

  1,000

  Women's Support Group

  5,000

  Young Families Now

  18,036

  Grants paid to voluntary organisations in 1992–93 under section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978

  Organisation

  £

  Action On Smoking And Health Scottish Committee

  102,000

  Age Concern Scotland

  8,100

  Aids Care Education And Training (Scotland)

  7,000

  Alzheimers Scotland

  30,000

  Bells Palsy Self Help Group

  4,400

  Breast Care And Mastectomy Association

  7,840

  British Association Of Immediate Care

  1,800

  British Red Cross

  500

  Brook Advisory Centre

  7,000

  Cancerlink

  6,100

  Childrens Hospice Association Scotland

  15,000

  Community Service Volunteers

  11,700

  Dementia Services Development Centre

  20,600

  Disability Scotland

  28,439

  Enuresis Resource And Information Centre

  2,000

  Epilepsy Association Scotland

  3,300

  Family Planning Association

  15,700

  Leukaemia And Cancer Childrens Fund

  35,000

  Medical Commission On Accident Prevention

  2,400

  Muscular Dystrophy Group—Scottish Council

  3,200

  National Association For The Welfare Of Children In Hospital

  5,400

  National Aids Trust

  35,000

  National Association For The Childless

  1,800

  National Childbirth Trust

  15,487

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship (Scotland)

  4,400

  Natural Family Planning Group

  1,400

  Play In Scottish Hospitals

  16,800

  Play Matters

  1,750

  Primary Immunodeficiency Association

  6,270

  RSSPCC—Overnewton Centre

  13,120

  Scottish Aids Monitor

  102,000

  Scottish Association For Mental Health

  23,500

  542

  Organisation

  £

  Scottish Association Of Sign Language Interpreters

  2,000

  Scottish Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

  2,200

  Scottish Child And Family Alliance

  3,400

  Scottish Cot Death Trust

  2,500

  Scottish Council On Alcohol

  131,250

  Scottish Drugs Forum

  85,850

  Scottish Heart and Arterial Disease Risk Prevention

  Group 72,000

  Scottish Huntingtons Association

  15,850

  Scottish Motor Neurone Disease Association

  3,500

  Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service

  7,500

  Scottish Partnership Agency

  46,192

  Sense In Scotland—National Deaf Blind & Rubella Association

  12,500

  St. Andrews Ambulance Association

  11,407

  Stillbirth And Neonatal Death Society

  2,700

  The British Fluoridation Society

  5,900

  Twins And Multiple Birth Association

  1,000

  Volunteer Development Scotland

  10,790

  Woodlands
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the area of new private planting of commercial coniferous woodland, excluding native pine and broadleaf planting, in each year between 1987–88 and 1991–92 in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what is the forecast of private planting of commercial coniferous woodland in the United Kingdom, excluding native pine, for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 24 June 1993]: The information is given in the table. It shows the areas of conifer planting and restocking—other than native pine —which have been undertaken, or are expected to be undertaken, with the aid of Forestry Commission grants.

  (hectares)

  Year ended 31 March

  New planting

  Restocking

  Total

  1988

  21,326

  2,527

  23,853

  1989

  22,347

  2,659

  25,006

  1990

  10,251

  2,566

  12,817

  1991

  8,909

  2,956

  11,865

  1992

  7,460

  3,811

  11,271

  19931

  5,671

  3,475

  9,146

  19942

  8,500

  3,000

  11,500

  19952

  9,100

  3,000

  12,100

  1 Provisional.

  2 Estimate.

DEFENCE

  Equipment Exhibition
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 30 April,Official Report, column 590, from which countries buyers have been invited to attend the Royal Navy and. British Army equipment exhibition in September.

  Mr. Aitken
  it has been the consistent practice of successive Administrations not to release details of invitations to attend British forces equipment exhibitions. Invitations are issued on a confidential basis and it would be a breach of trust to disclose details.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for
  543
  Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) of 30 June, Official Report, column 591, if he is yet in a position to announce the projected cost of mounting the Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition to be held in September; and what was spent on such events (a) in 1991 and (b) in 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have little to add to my reply of 30 April. As was the case in 1991, all direct costs will be recovered from participating companies. There was no British military equipment exhibition in 1992.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Aitken
  It is MOD policy that all procurement decisions take account of the environmental implications of the available options. Accordingly, recycled paper is purchased for all types of paper stationery applications wherever it can be obtained at a reasonable cost and is adequate to the task. Low-energy light bulbs are fitted as replacements wherever suitable light fittings are available and energy-efficient lighting systems are installed during building refurbishment programmes. Softwoods and other materials are used in preference to tropical hardwoods whenever possible; where the use of hardwoods is considered essential, our contracts specify that only hardwoods obtained from sustainably managed sources are to be used. Existing guidelines permit the use of peat based soil improvers on the defence estate. These are currently being reviewed and will take into account the outcome of current DOE work on peat extraction and use. Most types of vehicles purchased by my Department run on diesel fuel, with petrol engines being restricted to certain specialised vehicles. When the latter are purchased, we stipulate that they should be fitted with catalytic converters.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the crash between a low-flying Tornado and helicopter near Kendal and the near-miss between another low-flying Tornado north of Skipton; if he will set up and publish the result of inquiries into both incidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The mid-air collision between a RAF Tornado GR I, on a routine training sortie and a civilian Bell 206 JetRanger helicopter, carrying out a pipeline inspection, occurred on 23 June 1993. Tragically, the two people in the helicopter were both killed in the accident. The Tornado aircraft landed safely at BAe Warton with no injuries to the service personnel. An RAF board of inquiry has been convened and in addition an investigation will be carried out by the air accident investigation branch. A summary of the findings will be published.

  A Logan Air Shorts 360 aircraft has filed an airmiss report, involving a Tornado aircraft, with the Civil Aviation Authority. The incident occurred at 1924 hours on 22 June 1993 and will be fully investigated by the independent joint airmiss working group (JAWG). The JAWG's report will be published.
  544

  HMS Repulse
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the release of coolant from HMS Repulse on 20 June; what quantity of radioactivity was released; how many personnel were contaminated in the accident; and what is the estimated cost of the clean-up operation.

  Mr. Hanley
  The quantity of coolant spilt was about one pint and its radioactive content was barely detectable above background levels. No contamination was detected on the three personnel involved. The cost of the clean-up operation was negligible.

  Budget and Personnel
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the April 1990, April 1993 and projected April 1996 figures for(a) the budget of, (b) the number of civilian personnel employed at and (c) the number of military personnel employed at (i) RNAD Trecwn, (ii) RNAD Milford Haven, (iii) RAF Brawdy, (iv) P & EE Pendine, (v) Merrion camp, Castlemartin, (vi) Penally camp, (vii) Manorbier range and (viii) HM mooring and marine salvage depot, Pembroke dock.

  Mr. Hanley
  On current plans, the details requested are as follows:

  Personnel

  Budget £ million

  Civilian

  Military

  (i) RNAD Trecwn1

  April 1990

  12·1

  381

  0

  April 1993

  8·6

  378

  0

  (ii) RNAD Milford Haven closed in March 1991. It operated as a sub-depot of RNAD Trecwn and its budget was contained within the overall Trecwn budget—figures given under (i) above. In April 1990, it employed 161 civilians.

  (iii) RAF Brawdy2

  April 1990

  n.a.

  147

  799

  April 1993

  5·9

  82

  143

  April 1996

  n.y.d.

  77

  88

  (iv) P & EE Pendine3

  April 1990

  n.a.

  59

  11

  April 1993

  9·6

  58

  12

  April 1996

  n.y.d.

  58

  12

  (v) Merrion camp, Castlemartin4

  April 1990

  2·9

  51

  4

  April 1993

  3·2

  51

  4

  April 1996

  n.y.d.

  51

  4

  (vi) Penally camp

  April 1990

  n.a.

  11

  0

  April 1993

  0·6

  14

  0

  April 1996

  n.y.d.

  15

  0

  (vii) Manorbier range

  April 1990

  0·4

  8

  2

  April 1993

  0·4

  7

  3

  April 1996

  n.y.d.

  7

  3

  (viii) HM Mooring and Marine Salvage Depot, Pembroke dock5

  April 1990

  2·2

  148

  1

  545

  Personnel

  Budget £ million

  Civilian

  Military

  April 1993

  3·2

  127

  0

  April 1996

  n.y.d.

  6—

  6—

  1 RNAD Trecwn is scheduled to close in March 1996.

  2 RAF stations did not have individual budgets prior to the introduction of the new management strategy in 1991.

  3 Budget figures for 1990 are not available on the same basis as those for 1993 and 1996 because of changes introduced under the new management strategy. Strength numbers refer only to Ministry of Defence personnel and do not include Property Services Agency staff or contractor staff.

  4 Budget figures include contributions from the federal German Army of £1,700,000 for 1990 and £2,000,000 for 1993 and 1996. An additional 50 season civilian casuals were or will be employed for each year.

  5 Budget and personnel figures include marine services and the shore establishment project office.

  6 Subject to review.

  Personnel Overseas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) of 19 October 1992,Official Report, column 162, on the number of British military personnel in the United States of America, how many British service personnel are stationed in (a) Ascension Island, (b) Belize, (c) Brunei, (d) Cambodia, (e) Canada, (f) Cyprus, (g) Diego Garcia, (h) the Falkland Islands, (i) Gibraltar, (j) Hong Kong, (k) Turkey, (1) Western Sahara, (m) Western Samoa and (n) Yugoslavia; and what is the estimated cost to public funds for each of these countries.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Rapid Reaction Corps
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, columns 477–78, what are the types of divisions that Germany, Italy, Turkey, Greece, the United States of America and Spain will be providing for the rapid reaction corps; and what details he has concerning the personnel and equipment that will be provided by these countries to the rapid reaction corps.

  Mr. Hanley
  The types of divisions to be provided to the ACE rapid reaction corps if required are as follows:

  Germany: one armoured division

  Italy: one mechanised division and elements of corps troops (including a reconnaissance brigade)

  Turkey: one mechanised division

  Greece: one mechanised division

  United States: one mechanised division

  Spain: one light infantry division

  Each division will be manned and equipped in accordance with national establishments and inventories.

  Defence Industry
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 475–76, if he will publish a detailed and declassified analysis of the factors that have influenced his consideration of the need to retain a viable and effective defence industry when making procurement decisions; what information sources he uses when considering the
  546
  need to retain a viable and effective defence industry; and what staff in his Department are involved in his considerations of the need to retain a viable and effective defence industry.

  Mr. Aitken
  The importance of retaining a viable and effective defence industry is self-evident. It is in the United Kingdom's defence interest that there should be a commercially strong supplier base, able to compete effectively to provide good value for money in meeting the requirements of the armed forces for equipment and services. The success of the United Kingdom defence industry in overseas markets also has direct and indirect benefits for my Department; and the industry is a major employer.

  We gather information on the defence industry from many sources. These include industrialists themselves in their frequent contacts with all levels of my Department; representations made on their behalf, including those from hon. Members; the trade associations, with which there are regular contacts; and our dealings with other Government Departments.

  Advising on the implications for industry of individual procurement decisions is one of the tasks of project staff throughout my Department's procurement executive. In addition, it is one of the responsibilities of the central staff of the procurement executive to provide advice on matters affecting the defence industry.

  Maralinga
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning his recent meeting with Mr. Gareth Evans, Foreign Minister of the Australian federal Government, regarding the clean-up of the Maralinga site.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following a meeting of Australian and United Kingdom Ministers and officials on 17 and 18 June, and consideration by the Australian Cabinet, it has been agreed in principle that Her Majesty's Government will pay £20 million to the Government of Australia in full and final settlement of Australia's claims against the United Kingdom regarding the rehabilitation of the former British nuclear weapon test sites at Maralinga and Emu in South Australia. The precise terms of the settlement will be the subject of a written agreement between the two Governments, the details of which are expected to be finalised soon. Her Majesty's Government remain of the view that our legal responsibilities for rehabilitation have already been fully discharged and the payment is therefore being made on a strictly ex-gratia basis. Nevertheless, we believe that this represents a satisfactory solution to a long-running dispute between the United Kingdom and Australia.

HEALTH

  Health Care Costs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per head of providing health care in(a) inner London and (b) the rest of England; and what is (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures of total expenditure derived from the 1991–92 annual accounts of district health
  547
  authorities and family health services authorities in England indicate that total expenditure per head was £655 in inner London and £460—representing 70 per cent. of the inner London figure—in the rest of England.

  These figures exclude expenditure by regional health authorities and special health authorities.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the latest statistics on the number of deaths in surgery for each of the hospitals in the Trent regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The health service indicators graphical package for 1990–91 contains information on the standardised number of deaths by district health authorities occurring in national health service hospitals. This is available in the Library. 1991–92 figures will be published shortly.

  Health Care (Form AG3)
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many successful claims were made for health care costs using form AG3 in the last year for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of courses of adult dental treatment and sight tests obtained at reduced cost by people covered by AGS certificates and numbers of optical vouchers used by people covered by AG2 or AG3 certificates issued under the national health service low-income scheme in England in 1991–92

  Courses of adult dental treatment

  Sight tests

  Optical vouchers

  1125,000

  54,000

  2289,550

  1 Figure derived from a 5·5 per cent, sample produced by the Dental Practice Board.

  2 Figure derived from 2 per cent, sample of all vouchers reimbursed by family health services authorities.

  European Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the actions taken by her Department in support of the European Year of the Elderly within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department, in co-operation with the Department of Social Security, has overall co-ordinating responsibility in the United Kingdom for the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations. Officials from the Department participate in an advisory committee on the year at European level.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the year in the United Kingdom at the age resource awards, which were presented in London on17 December 1992 by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Following consultation with a wide range of national voluntary and professional bodies, statutory authorities and other relevant Government Departments, we have set up a group to advise on the conduct, promotion and evaluation of the programme of events to celebrate the year. The group involves representatives of organisations
  548
  reflecting the interests of older people, and will take direct account wherever possible of the views and preferences of older people themselves. The programme in the United Kingdom is focusing on four major themes:

  Combating 'ageism' and promoting positive images of aging;

  Volunteering;

  Health promotion and active leisure, including remaining mentally active;

  Social integration, including problems of isolation and loneliness, information needs, housing, transport and community care issues.

  Task groups have been set up to examine each of these themes and put forward specific proposals.

  There are two elements to the year in the United Kingdom: a core programme involving national events focusing on the four themes, including cultural and sporting events, exhibitions and conferences; and a general programme, consisting of local and regional activities. A number of high-profile initiatives have already taken place and several important forthcoming events are planned, including a major European symposium in Birmingham in October on the theme "Promoting Health in Europe: Investing in Older People at Work."

  The Department is also funding a secretariat—based at Age Concern England headquarters—to co-ordinate the core programme and to disseminate news and information.

  Drugs (Use-by Dates)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued to hospitals as to the use of drugs after their use-by date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has issued guidelines on the safe and secure handling of medicines which contains guidance requiring hospital staff to return all out of date drugs or medicines to the pharmacy for disposal. Copies of the guidance will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has of hospitals using drugs which are past their use-by date; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Countess of Chester Hospital
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place between her Department and Merseyside regional health authority in respect of planned reductions in provision for the Countess of Chester hospital; and what estimates have been made of the effects of these cuts on patient care.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provision of services at the Countess of Chester hospital national health service trust is a matter for the trust in consultation with local purchasers. I understand that the hon. Member is to meet the chairman and chief executive of the trust to discuss this matter.

  Patient Care
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions she has given to health authorities to require hospital trusts to publish decisions made by the board which have an effect on patient care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the general practitioners in the area served by Doncaster health authority, and their location, according to those who are fund holders and those who are not.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally but may be obtained from Doncaster family health services authority (FHSA). The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. K Jones, the chairman of Doncaster FHSA, for details.

  Neo-natal Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 28, on the number of neo-natal cots and nurses, if she will specify the definition of particular local circumstances.

  Mr. Sackville
  The organisation of neo-natal care services varies from region to region and is dependent on a number of different factors: the number of births, the case mix—the balance between special care and the different levels of neonatal intensive care—the local geography and variations in demand. None of this can be prescribed centrally and must therefore be for local decision, taking into account any guidance from professional and other bodies.

  Grading Appeals
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 27 May,Official Report, column 672, how many (a) clinical and (b) NHS staff grading appeals were outstanding in (i) the West Midlands regional health authority and (ii) South Birmingham Health District in (1) June 1991., (2) June 1992, (3) December 1992, (4) March 1993 and (5) June 1993; and how many of the appeals in each category outstanding in June 1993 had been outstanding for (A) up to six months, (B) between six months and one year, (C) between one and two years and (D) over two years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available centrally is shown in the table:

  Outstanding Grading Appeals as at 31 May 1993

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  South Birmingham Health Authority

  Nurse clinical grading appeals:

  Local level

  1,526

  719

  Regional level

  1,424

  47

  Other NHS staff grading appeals:

  Regional level

  58

  0

  District health authority chairmen

  District health authority

  Name

  Occupation

  Northumberland

  Mr. J. Baker

  Managing director

  South Tees

  Mr. P. A. Marsden

  Managing director

  North Durham

  Prof John Clarke

  University professor

  East Cumbria

  Mr. I. Carr

  Company chairman

  Gateshead

  Vacancy

  —

  South Cumbria

  Mrs. A. Graham

  Retired civil servant

  Hartlepool

  Mr. B. Hanson

  Development engineer

  General Practitioner Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of general practitioner consultations per head in each family health service authority in 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what was the average number of general practitioner consultations per head of those aged over 65 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Euro-constituency Boundaries
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the 1993 electorates for United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies to be used in drawing up proposals for the revised European parliamentary constituencies will be published.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) is today publishing the required information in OPCS Monitor EL 93/2. Copies are available in the Library. Further details will appear in the usual OPCS annual reference volume which will be published in August.

  Housing for the Elderly
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have taken place with social services departments of local authorities to ensure that sufficient priority is given to housing needs for the elderly.

  Mr. Bowis
  Under arrangements introduced on 1 April, it is for individual local social services departments to assess the community care needs of people in need of social services. They will consider, with other agencies, including housing authorities, how these needs can be met within local priorities. The community care support force visited a number of local authorities to offer advice and guidance as part of its overall work in helping authorities implement the community care reforms. Further advice on housing and community care issues is contained in the joint Departments of Health and the Environment circular (LAC(92)12) issued last September, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of individuals appointed to the chairs of district health authorities and chairs and non-executive directorships of NHS trusts within the Northern region, listing their occupation and sex.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is shown in the table:
  551

  District health authority

  Name

  Occupation

  North Tees

  Mr. D. Otter

  Chartered accountant

  North Tyneside

  Mrs. S. Murray

  Housewife

  Newcastle

  Mr. A. Crute

  Solicitor

  Sunderland

  Mr. G. Bedell

  Lecturer

  South Durham

  Dr. John Marshall

  Business school director

  South Tyneside

  Mr. W. Darling

  Pharmacist

  West Cumbria

  Vacancy

  —

  NHS trusts

  Name

  Occupation

  Newcastle Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Rev. Bryan Vernon

  Anglican Chaplain

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. I. Cheyne

  Lecturer

  Mr. D. Wilson

  Management consultant

  Prof. Ian Ferrier

  Lecturer

  Mr. B. Roycroft

  Social services director

  Mr. N. Price

  Housing officer

  Norlhumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. R. Stewart

  Chartered accountant

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. P. Moth

  Public affairs controller

  Dr. Jacqueline Higson

  Company director

  Mr. A. Ferguson

  Company director

  Mr. A. Knight

  Company director

  Mr. D. Smith

  Chartered accountant

  Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. F. Hoult

  Company chairman

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. M. Border

  Teacher

  Mr. R. Middleton

  Financial adviser

  Mr. J. Ward

  Company director

  Miss H. Goodworth

  Nurse

  Dr. Roger Freeman

  Lecturer

  Royal Victorial Infirmary and Associated Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. A. Galbraith

  Lecturer

  Non-executive directors:

  Prof. John Davison

  Medical consultant

  Mrs. S. Wilson

  Personnel director

  Miss A. Willis

  Retired nursing officer

  Mr. P. Stoddart

  General manager

  Mrs. K. Brunton

  Public relations manager

  Cleveland Ambulance NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Dr. Alistair Thomson

  Retired medical officer

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. T. Weastell

  Chartered accountant

  Ms S. Bush

  Personnel director

  Mr. K. Flethcher

  Solicitor

  Mr. K.. Hellawell

  Chief constable

  Mrs. P. Campbell

  Voluntary worker

  North Tees Health NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. J. Graham-Bowman

  Magistrate

  Non-executive directors:

  Ms J. Slater

  Job centre manager

  Mr. P. Jackson

  Chartered accountant

  Miss J. Brown

  Lecturer

  Mr. R. Stewart

  General manager

  Mr. C. Porter

  Management consultant

  Northgate NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Hutchinson

  Retired chartered surveyor.

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. J. Stephenson

  Citizens Advice Bureau manager

  Ms S. Adams

  Personnel consultant

  Mr. G. Rutherford

  Managing director

  Mr. J. Handley

  Retired company director

  Prof. John Rear

  Barrister/Polytechnic director

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. A. Collins

  Housewife

  552 553

  Name

  Occupation

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. Collier

  Solicitor

  Mr. J. Webster

  Personnel manager

  Mrs. H. Thompson

  Company secretary

  Mr. R. Kingdor,

  Retired chief executive

  Mr. S. Still

  Business consultant

  Gateshead Community Health NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Smith

  Retired county treasurer

  Non-executive directors:

  Ms P. Remfry

  Development officer

  Mr. M. Scott

  Auctioneer

  Mr. D. Mitford

  Solicitor

  Dr. Raymond Jackson

  Retired GP

  Mr. R. Dixon

  Managing director

  Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. A. Graham

  Television/radio production consul!

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. P. Simpson

  Retired managing director

  Mrs. F. Cartmell

  Part-time school secretary

  Mr. D. Dickinson

  Retired Royal Mail executive

  Mr. I. Pirnie

  Retired naval officer

  Mr. J. Clayton

  Company director

  Durham County Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. P. Wynne

  Community worker

  Non-executive directors:

  Prof. Charles Baker

  University professor

  Mr. M. Hemingway

  Company secretary

  Mr. D. D'Arcy

  Company director

  Mrs. E. Wallis

  Voluntary worker

  Mr. N. Martin

  Part-time business consultant

  Gateshead Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. C. Morton

  Personnel director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. N. Cookson

  College deputy principal

  Mrs. A. Cooper

  Managing director

  Mr. D. Irwin

  Project manager

  Dr. James Dalgleish

  Retired GP

  Miss M. Da vies

  Company chairman

  South West Durham Mental Health NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mrs. J. Pease

  Company director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. Bright

  Lecturer

  Mr. J. Scally

  Director, development corporation

  Mrs. C. Hillery

  Part-time editor

  Mr. N. Hart

  Solicitor

  Mr. P. Briggs

  Managing director

  Northumberland Mental Health NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. D. Reay

  Retired chief executive

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. Davison

  Retired social services director

  Prof. Mary Bromley

  Lecturer

  Mr. S. Gibson

  Solicitor

  Mrs. J. Turner

  Retired nursing officer

  Mr. H. Herron

  Chartered accountant

  South Cumbria Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. E. Holmes

  Retired general manager

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. S. Godfrey

  Personnel manager

  Mrs. M. Davies

  Retired head teacher

  Mr. L. Davies

  Retired quantity surveyor

  Mr. J. Davies

  Company director

  Dr. Rodney Leach

  Chief executive

  South Tees Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. R. Murray

  Retired chief executive

  Non-executive directors:

  Mrs. H. Sillars

  Company director

  Dr. Susan Miller

  Lecturer

  Mr. J. Wilson

  Company director

  Mr. G. Bowles

  Managing director

  Mr. G. Crispin

  Dean, Teeside Polytechnic

  South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Miss D. Blenkinsop

  Retired nursing officer

  554 555

  Name

  Occupation

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. R. Graham

  Director/company secretary

  Mrs. M. Mills

  Retired nurse

  Mrs. F. Walker

  Solicitor

  Mr. M. Wright

  Company chairman

  Mr. E. Russell

  Finance manager

  West Cumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. E. Urquhart

  Insurance inspector

  Non-executive directors:

  Dr. Peter Inglis

  Chemical consultant

  Mr. G. Lamont

  Chartered accountant

  Mrs. C. Madden

  Solicitor

  Mrs. R. Porter

  Head teacher

  Mr. D. Gill

  Managing director

  Westmorland Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Reay

  Retired personnel director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. Hawkes

  Retired company director

  Mr. G. Turnbull

  Retired consultant gynaecologist

  Mrs. C. Hensman

  Housewife

  Mrs. S. Evans

  Solicitor

  Mr. M. Lund

  Management consultant

  Vaccination
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to the NHS of vaccines provided on prescription solely for the purpose of foreign travel.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Employees
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 182, if she will provide comparable information in respect of (a) a district general manager/chief executive, (b) a chief finance officer and (c) a unit general manager.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

TRANSPORT

  European Transport Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) of 21 June,Official Report, columns

  Name

  Occupation

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. R. Graham

  Director/company secretary

  Mrs. M. Mills

  Retired nurse

  Mrs. F. Walker

  Solicitor

  Mr. M. Wright

  Company chairman

  Mr. E. Russell

  Finance manager

  West Cumbria Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. E. Urquhart

  Insurance inspector

  Non-executive directors:

  Dr. Peter Inglis

  Chemical consultant

  Mr. G. Lamont

  Chartered accountant

  Mrs. C. Madden

  Solicitor

  Mrs. R. Porter

  Head teacher

  Mr. D. Gill

  Managing director

  Westmorland Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. Reay

  Retired personnel director

  Non-executive directors:

  Mr. D. Hawkes

  Retired company director

  Mr. G. Turnbull

  Retired consultant gynaecologist

  Mrs. C. Hensman

  Housewife

  Mrs. S. Evans

  Solicitor

  Mr. M. Lund

  Management consultant

  556
  59–60, what were the voting figures for each decision taken at the European Community's Transport Council held on 7 and 8 June; and if he will make it his policy to include in further statements on council meetings information on whether formal votes were taken.

  Mr. Macgregor
  The Transport Council resumed on 19 June the meeting that it had held on 7 and 8 June. No formal votes were taken.

  Traffic Regulation Conditions (Buses)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, columns 58–59, where each of the traffic regulation conditions were imposed and for what reason in each case; and which conditions were subject to appeal and on what grounds appeals were allowed.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on each traffic regulation condition imposed since 1986 and details of those that were subject to appeal is given in the table.
  557

  TAO

  Location

  Reason

  Appeal

  1987

  3. NWTA

  Carlisle

  Danger

  No

  Mallyclose Drive (part)

  Hopeshill Drive (part)

  Forest Hill (part)

  4. NWTA

  Trafford

  Danger and congestion

  No

  Buckfast Road

  Redcroft Road

  Hawthorn Lane

  Totnes Road

  Brayton Avenue

  Walton Road

  5. NWTA

  Stockport

  Danger and congestion

  No

  Princes Street

  6. NWTA

  Trafford

  Danger and congestion

  No

  Grove Lane,

  Timperley

  7. NETA

  Hartlepool

  Danger

  No

  Area not specified

  8. NETA

  Kelloe

  Danger

  No

  Area not specified

  9. SEMTA

  Oxford

  Danger

  1Yes

  Queens Road

  Cornmarket

  10. SCOTTA

  Dalkeith

  Danger and congestion

  No

  Eskbank Road

  11. SCOTTA

  Currie

  Danger

  No

  Currievale

  1988

  12. NETA

  Hemsworth

  Danger

  No

  Woodlands Crescent and

  Springvale Rise

  13. NWTA

  Blackburn

  Congestion

  No

  Ainsworth Street

  Penny Street

  Railway Road

  Church Street (part)

  Salford (part)

  Starkie Street

  14. NWTA

  Wigan

  Danger

  No

  Stow Road

  (Revoked later at request

  of local authority)

  15. NWTA

  Blackburn

  Congestion

  No

  Penny Street

  (Revoked later at request

  of local authority)

  16. NWTA

  Carlisle

  Danger

  No

  Green Lane

  Kirkstead Road

  Acredale Road (part)

  Buchanan Road (part)

  Lediard Avenue

  Lund Crescent (part)

  1989

  17. NWTA

  Sefton

  Danger

  No

  Albert Schweitzer Avenue

  Howard Florey Avenue

  Louis Pasteur Avenue

  Alexander Fleming Avenue

  1990

  18. NWTA

  Oldham

  Danger

  No

  Several roads in Shaw

  1991

  19. NWTA

  Trafford

  Congestion and danger

  No

  Ayres Road and Henrietta

  Street

  558 559

  TAO

  Location

  Reason

  Appeal

  1992

  20. NWTA

  Bolton

  Congestion and danger

  No

  Glengarth Drive

  21. NETA

  Sheffield

  Congestion

  'Yes

  Various central streets and

  part of Ecclesall Road

  22. NETA

  Barnsley

  Danger

  No

  Kendray Street and

  Pontefract Road

  1993

  23. SCOTTA

  Edinburgh

  Congestion

  1Not yet

  St. Andrew's Square

  1Notes:

  1. TRC No. 9 (Oxford). An appeal was lodged on the ground that there was no danger to other road users. The TRC was confirmed on the ground that though there was no danger to other road users there was evidence of severe congestion. It was varied slightly with regard to hours when the restrictions applied.

  2. TRC No. 21 (Sheffield). An appeal was lodged on the ground that the deputy traffic commissioner acted ultra vires in that he banned new bus registrations and did not specify any times when the TRC should operate. The appeal was allowed in part: the ban on new registrations was lifted and the TRC was varied making it operational from 7 am to 7 pm on Mondays to Saturdays only.

  3. TRC No. 23 (Edinburgh). The TRC has just been determined and no appeal has been lodged but the 28–day period in which an appeal may be made has not yet expired.

  4. There have been three appeals by local authorities against the decision by the traffic commissioner not to impose the TRCs requested. These appeals were all dismissed.

  Traffic Director, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total staff complement of the Traffic Director for London's office; what is its annual budget; what reports it makes to the Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Office of the Traffic Director for London has a staff of 12 and a budget for 1993–94 of 10 million. Under schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Act 1991, the traffic director is required to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State on the discharge of his functions together with a statement of accounts.

  Red Route
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure relief from red route-related traffic in respect of Windsor road N7, Fairbridge road N19, Stanhope road N6 and Cressida road N.19; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The traffic director intends to carry out a review of the pilot red route to ensure that it is operating within the framework set out in his network plan. If traffic problems on the roads mentioned are related to the red route, the traffic director will consider what measures can be taken. Otherwise, any action would be a matter for the appropriate highway authority.

  Channel Ports
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to ensure that the port of Ramsgate, serving Dunkirk, is restored to the same trans-Europe network map that features Dunkirk serving Ramsgate.

  Mr. Key
  We do not propose at present to press for any additions to the trans-European road network map. The current network proposals reflect key routes of greatest interest to intra-Community road traffic.
  560
  The importance of good road access to Ramsgate has been recognised already by the Government's substantial support, through transport supplementary grant, to Kent county council's programme of road improvements between Ramsgate and the M2.

  Channel Tunnel (Signposts)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (I) what proposals his Department has for the improvement of the signposting of the channel ports in general and of Port Ramsgate in particular;

  (2) what proposals his Department has to ensure that destinations in east Kent in general and the Isle of Thanet in particular are clearly signposted for the benefit of travellers emerging from the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Key
  The M20/A20 will be the principal route to the channel tunnel and the ports of Folkestone and Dover. The A2/M2 route will continue to serve Sheerness, Ramsgate and other east Kent towns. Although our signing will reflect this generally, in the case of either route the signing will not be restricted to the towns and ports which that route primarily serves.

  We are now reviewing the signing of east Kent towns. Our plans include signing both Canterbury and Ramsgate, along with Folkestone and Dover, eastwards on M20 from the channel tunnel exits.

  The details of the signing arrangements are necessarily complex and I have written to my hon. Friend about them.

  Newcastle Western Bypass
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is(a) the design capacity of the road, (b) the maximum daily and hourly use of the bypass after its complete opening and (c) the maximum daily and hourly use of the road currently for the Denton Burn, Ponteland road and Great North road interchanges of the Newcastle western bypass.

  Mr. Key
  The Department does not use the concept of design capacity. It uses a range of flows to provide starting
  561
  points for the economic, environmental and operational assessment of carriageway width options. In the case of this road the range of flows is 30,000 to 46,000 vehicles per day. This range of flows does not provide any indication of the ultimate traffic flows which the carriageway can carry.

  The Newcastle western bypass was fully opened to traffic in December 1990. No hourly traffic flows are available. The 1991 annual average daily traffic flows are as follows:

  Traffic flow

  Great North Road to Kingston Park

  44,000

  Kingston Park to Ponteland Road

  44,000

  Ponteland Road to Stamfordham Road

  55,300

  Stamfordham Road to Denton Burn

  55,300

  The 1992 annual average daily traffic flows are as follows:

  Traffic flow

  Great North Road to Kingston Park

  44,400

  Kingston Park to Ponteland Road

  47,800

  Ponteland Road to Stamfordham Road

  55,700

  Stamfordham Road to Denton Burn

  61,000

  Road Signposts
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to implement to improve road and destination signing and to clarify the regulations that relate to such signs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Destination signing reflects the relative importance of different destinations for traffic management purposes, taking account of distance; it is kept under review in the light of changing traffic patterns in any given area. New designs for the layout of signs, with a clear format relating closely to road status, have been developed following comprehensive corisultation and a subsequent trial. These signs will be incorporated in the new traffic signs regulations which I expect to lay before the House around the end of the year.

  Gatwick Express
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that a competitive market should be allowed to operate in the event of the Gatwick express being privatised on the route between Gatwick and Central London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The promotion of competition in the provision of railway services is a key objective of our privatisation proposals. We have made it clear that on-track competition will be moderated for the first generation of franchises to the extent necessary to ensure the successful transfer of British Rail's passenger services to the private sector, and to ensure that the taxpayer receives value for money for subsidising services. These concerns will determine the degree of competition to apply between the Gatwick express and other services on the route between Gatwick and central London; and that will be decided before the Gatwick express is offered for franchise.
  562

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many EC member state farmers have completed their set-aside forms on time; and in which states a lower proportion of forms has been received than in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  The Commission has asked member states in general terms to report on the implementation of the integrated administration and control system. We understand that, as yet, the information it has received is not complete and no complete Community picture on this matter is currently available.

  Tuberculosis (Badgers)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received regarding the need for carcases of dead badgers to be checked for tuberculosis; and what is her assessment of the dangers to cattle of unchecked tuberculosis in the badger population.

  Mr. Soames
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 June 1993, c. 328–29]: I would like to make it clear that the statement that badgers infected with tuberculosis do not pose a significant threat to the national cattle herd was based on scientific evidence that the disease in badgers has been associated with breakdowns in cattle herds only in south-west England and in a limited number of other areas.

  Waterside Habitats
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received about the possibility of applying set-aside payments to the creation of riverside buffer zones, in conformity with option 2 on the recreation of waterside habitats set out in her Department's consultation document on the habitat improvement scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We received a large number of comments from many organisations on our consultation document on the proposed habitat improvement scheme. The option for water fringe habitats was widely welcomed. We are currently finalising our proposals for the scheme which we will be submitting to the Commission as part of the agri-environmental programme for England.

  Cormorants and Goosanders
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will place in the Library a copy of her Department's new application form for licences to control cormorants and goosanders.

  Mr. Soames
  Yes. The new form is designed to assist applicants in providing the sort of information the Ministry requires to make licensing decisions. It will result in a more streamlined and therefore speedier decision-making process.

  Vitamins
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations have been made by her Department to the European Commission concerning its directive on vitamins.

  Mr. Soames
  In early 1992, there was an exploratory discussion in Brussels on the possibility of a directive on dietary supplements, including vitamins. However, there have been no subsequent developments.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names, occupations and current employers of those who currently

  Executive bodies

  Chairman

  Deputy chairman

  Members

  £/per annum

  £/per annum

  £/per annum

  Agricultural Training Board

  115,600

  7,147

  —

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  16,676

  40 per day

  40 per day

  Food From Britain

  32,100

  —

  1,930

  Home-grown Cereals Authority

  18,270

  6,313

  23,145/3,263

  Horticultural Development Council

  25,011

  —

  40 per day

  Horticulture Research International

  20,624

  4,098

  —

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  53,789

  26,584

  26,313/12,829

  Regional Flood Defence Committees

  28,988/l1,235

  —

  —

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  29,612

  13,835

  6,313

  Wine Standards Board of the Vintners Company

  3,231

  —

  813

  1 Now based on two days per week instead of 1.

  2 Depending on how many days worked.

  Tribunals

  Chairman/deputy £ per annum

  Members £ per annum

  Agricultural Land Tribunals (England)

  221

  —

  Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal

  300

  177

  Milk and Dairies Tribunal (England)

  91

  —

  Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal

  246 (Junior)

  —

  Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal

  300 (Silk)

  113

  Public Corporation

  Covent Garden Market Authority

  32,411

  6,313

  564
  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. Jack
  [holding answer 25 June 1993]: No changes have yet taken place in the remuneration for members of the MAFF advisory bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1991"—a copy of which is available in the Library of the House—nor for the agricultural wages board or agricultural wages committees. For the executive bodies, tribunals and public corporations the new rates payable for 1 April 1993 are as follows—all figures are sterling:

  Members of public bodies receive the same rates of travel allowances as civil servants, but subsistence is paid according to actual costs. There have been no changes to this agreement since the publication of "Public Bodies 1992".

  The biographical information on appointees is not held centrally in the form requested. However, appointments are made on the basis of suitability, merit and personal expertise and announced in. Ministry news releases, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

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.

Public Interest Immunity
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the increasing use of public interest immunity by departments of state, government agencies and statutory bodies is consistent with their expressed policy of "openness".
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, the Government do not keep a central record of the number of claims made for public interest immunity, but I do not believe there has been any appreciable increase in recent years. The Government are committed to a policy of openness and will be setting out proposals to carry this forward in a White Paper before the Summer Recess. There are always some matters which it is not in the public interest to reveal, and even in countries with freedom of information legislation, protection is provided for the most sensitive material.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I am delighted that there will be some proposals put forward. Does the noble and learned Lord not agree with me that, increasingly, the use of public interest immunity, because it is invoked inevitably by the Government, is being seen as a device to prevent disclosure of incompetence, malpractice and abuse of the system—to coin a phrase used yesterday in another place—and that this is something that needs to be dealt with now before it gets out of hand?
Lord Rodger of Earisferry: My Lords, as I indicated in my first reply, am not aware of any evidence that public interest immunity certificates are being used to any greater extent than in the past. Therefore, it follows that I do not agree with the noble Lord that public interest immunity is being used in the way he suggests.
Lord HaiIsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I declare a former interest in the matter. Does my noble and learned friend realise that in most government departments—certainly, in the departments I have experience of—there are papers stuffed with intimate details concerning the private lives of individuals which it would not be in the public interest to disclose and where it is absolutely essential that public immunity should be claimed where it is available? Unlike almost every other form of prerogative, the courts have the right to override public immunity where the interests of justice require it and they act responsibly and even-handedly in the matter.
Lord Rodger of Earisferry: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is, of course, correct. Anyone who has ever been concerned with the administration of criminal justice will recognise exactly the point he makes; namely, that many documents come into the hands of the authorities which contain information of a sensitive and personal nature referring to many individuals which it would clearly be wrong to make public. As my noble and learned friend added, it must be remembered in this general area that whereas it is the duty of the authorities in appropriate cases to make the claim, that claim is always subject to scrutiny by the courts and, in appropriate cases, despite the claim being made, the courts may order disclosure.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that we are in a difficult situation when a Member of another place uses the privileged protection of that place to make serious allegations? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be wholly wrong for the Serious Fraud Office to claim public interest immunity against the background of a Member of another place using the privileged protection of that place to make serious allegations?
Lord Rodger of Earisferry: My Lords. the situation relating to what is proper in connection with proceedings in another place is a matter for the Speaker and the authorities of another place and I would not wish to comment upon it. All I can say is that in an appropriate situation—I am not talking about the situation that has been mentioned—where a claim for public immunity was appropriate. it would be the duty of the Serious Fraud Office to make that claim.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend clear up a point for me? It is undoubtedly acceptable to practically everyone that there should be some form of public interest immunity. However, do Ministers, when presented with a document to sign, have discretion in that matter or does the law require them to sign that document?
Lord Rodger of Earisferry: My Lords, the position, which has been explained on a number of occasions, is that when, having considered the documents which are placed before him and all the circumstances, a Minister decides that it is in the public interest that these documents should not be disclosed, he does not have a discretion in the matter. At that stage he has a duty not to disclose them.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister is quite right. What occurred in another place yesterday is not the business of this House. I understand that a Statement is being made in another place dealing with that problem. Regarding the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, concerning statutory bodies, the Minister is not entirely correct in saying that there has been no extension of the practice. There has been a substantial increase in the number of people appointed to statutory bodies who have already been found wanting in the performance of their duties. In some cases there have been questions of probity. That

801
is part of the public record. However, in no case have the Government taken action against those people. In some cases they have even sent them on their way with a golden handshake. Those are irrefutable facts. Is it not time that the Government extended to members of statutory bodies the strictures which apply to people in local government who, if they are found wanting and fall by the wayside, are quickly hauled before the courts and dealt with?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, if I have understood the question correctly it falls rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, statutory bodies are like everybody else in this area. Where it is their duty to claim public interest immunity in relation to papers, they must do so.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that public interest immunity, and other matters, cannot be made effective unless the Official Secrets Act is observed? Will he say to what extent there has been any difficulty in recent years in enforcing it?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton will be familiar with the fact that legislation on official secrets has been modified in recent years. We are all optimistic that with that modification it should be possible to enforce the Act satisfactorily in future. Of course, I take the point that if it is not enforced satisfactorily that could lead to difficulties of the kind my noble friend mentioned.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I was surprised to hear that there are no statistics as to the number of public immunity certificates which are issued? Does he not agree that in the absence of any such statistics there is a feeling among practitioners that there is a growing use of these certificates? Their use is certainly not diminishing. Does he also agree that although judges now have the power —which, as he will know, is a very recent one—to look at the documents for which immunity is claimed, it does not follow that they will overrule the person or body applying for immunity? Finally, does he agree that in terms of the administration of justice this is a somewhat dangerous practice and that claiming immunity for documents which could be used in a trial is a right which should be used sparingly and only in the last resort?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I note that the noble Lord is surprised that no statistics are kept in this matter. I am not quite sure what the purpose of such statistics would be. After all, if one has to claim public immunity, that is in response to a request which is made for documents. It follows that it is only if requests are made, and perhaps in proportion to the number of requests made, that certificates have to be granted. Therefore, I do not believe that statistics would of themselves assist very much.
There is always the safeguard, which has been much developed by the courts, that at the end of the day it is for the courts to take the final decision. They have done so and, as the noble Lord will be aware, in many
802
cases they have overridden the claim for public interest immunity. I believe that that is a satisfactory way of handling the matter.
I recognise that, in the case of prosecutions, public interest immunity certificates are a matter of particular sensitivity. Since that is a matter which, as the noble Lord knows, is under investigation by Lord Justice Scott, it would be best to say no more about it.

Pit Closures: Environmental Effects
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to prevent subsidence and landslides, and the possible pollution of water supplies, following pit closures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, it is the responsibility of British Coal to consider and assess the environmental implications of its proposals in relation to the closure of individual pits. There is close liaison between British Coal and the National Rivers Authority on all questions relevant to the authority's responsibilities, including any implications of proposed pit closures.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, but is it not the case that the final responsibility in this case must be that of the Government? After all, we are talking about a nationalised industry. Is she aware of the recent press reports which show that, particularly in County Durham, the closure of certain mines may lead to subsidence, landslides and pollution of water supplies if pumping out does not continue? Is the noble Baroness saying that the Government have no responsibility in this case?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, quite rightly identified this as a serious problem, about which the Government are indeed concerned. British Coal and the authority have been in discussion regarding potential problems in the North East for some considerable time. I am delighted to say that in this instance, as in many others, the media are ahead of the facts. Pumping has not ceased at the mines in the North East. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness by saying that the Government will ensure that British Coal's current role in respect of the physical legacy of historic mining will be carried on after privatisation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it is precisely on the point of privatisation that I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question, because from my past experience I am well aware of the sense of responsibility which the National Coal Board and British Coal have had in these matters. When the industry is possibly broken up under different ownership, how will these matters be regulated and carried out?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord has much experience in that area. It is experience which indicates that taking action in advance is the best way to deal with the question of subsidence;

803
otherwise it may be too late. The principle that the polluter pays will be retained. However, perhaps I may assure him that in the 1992 environment White Paper the Government gave an undertaking to consider what long-term measures may be needed to deal with water pollution from abandoned mines. It is a matter which is well in focus.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some of the pits which will be privatised will go out of business in the normal course of events leaving no one responsible? To what extent will the Government take bonds with regard to privatised pits to ensure that there are funds to meet liabilities?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do not have an answer on that issue, but I shall obtain one and write to my noble friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure that no slippages or landslides take place in the areas where recently coal mines have been closed? The Minister will appreciate that the Aberfan tragedy is still very much in the minds of people in Wales. We are desperately anxious that no comparable crisis or tragedy occurs again. Does adequate communication and co-operation exist between British Coal and the local authorities? The local authorities are very much alive to the dangers that exist in their areas.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord draws attention to a tragedy which I believe will stay in people's minds for ever. All tips are required to be inspected at specified intervals by civil engineers. Under present legislation, local authorities can serve notice on any tip owner to carry out necessary works to prevent a tip constituting a danger.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that pollution of water supplies is already occurring? Where pits have been closed, pumping has ceased, and still waters near the coal mines are dependent on pumping water from the pits to keep the water pollution free, sewage is already developing, algae blooms are occurring, and fishing has had to cease. Water pollution has already begun. Will the noble Baroness draw the attention of British Coal and the National Rivers Authority to the issue? As chairman of the Anglers Co-operative Association in Wales, I am guarding the interests of fishermen and anglers. We are worried that pollution has already begun. Something ought more properly to be done about it.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord looks after the interests of his friends with much energy. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, the authority can prosecute those responsible for unlawful discharges. I shall draw the attention of the authorities to the noble Lord's question. I am sure that he, too, will draw the attention of the authorities to the problem.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, it is estimated in relation to the Durham coal mine in particular that it will cost £2 million a year to keep the
804
pumping stations open. The Government pick up the tab for decommissioning nuclear power stations, so surely it is the responsibility of Government to pick up the tab for maintaining the pumping stations in future, at least in the North East coalfield and elsewhere where pollution may occur.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Baroness confuses two issues. However, as I stated in my original Answer, the commitment from the Government to ensuring that matters are resolved is absolute.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, many of us would have gained the impression from the exchanges so far that subsidence and water pollution after the closure of pits were related solely or mainly to recently closed pits. Is it not a matter which lasts sometimes for generations after the closure of former mining areas?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble and learned friend draws attention to the fact that it is not an instant problem. It is a matter on which we have ensured that there will be answers when it occurs. We have no knowledge of situations where coliery closures have been directly responsible for a landslip activity.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem has been described by the environmental director of Durham as a potential environmental catastrophe? Bearing in mind the anxiety about privatisation, and what will occur after privatisation, will she assure the House that the exact legal and financial responsibilities for the mines which are to be privatised will be clearly outlined in the legislation to be brought before this House?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed his anxiety on this issue on earlier occasions. Perhaps I may again reassure him that it is an issue which will be well identified in the Bills to come before the House.

GP Services: Rural Areas
2.54 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Fier Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy to reduce the number of small general medical practices in rural areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, no.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which I had half expected. Is she aware that the parameters laid down for fund-holding practices, the methods by which special clinics are paid for, the reimbursement for computerisation, and the means by which dispensing doctors are repaid for drugs and containers are steadily undermining the practices of rural doctors which will very soon become unviable. What do the Government propose to do to ensure that those

805
practices remain viable and that the patients in those practices receive equal treatment with patients in urban areas?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have a general practice payment scheme as well as an inducement payment scheme for doctors in rural areas. Fund-holding practices already make up 20 per cent. of the rural practices. That compares very well with the proportion for the country as a whole of 14 per cent.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yet again perhaps I may endorse the monosyllable which was the first Answer. Will the Minister bear carefully in mind that the small general medical practice in rural areas is of exceptional importance? It is an important central strand in the life of those communities. Not everyone has a motor car, and public services generally are decaying. To sustain those practices is of paramount importance.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thoroughly endorse everything the noble Lord says. It is because of that commitment that the Government have ensured that GPs are better paid and better equipped and that they have stronger primary health care teams with more ancillary staff and more practice nurses. In my view they have never done the job better.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in isolated rural areas there can be a problem of getting cover for GPs for holidays and time off? Does she agree that GPs need more help and support rather than less and that the problem of a two-tier system might arise?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. We are aware of problems that rural GPs have in terms of cover. That is why in 1991 we introduced a revised scheme for GP rural practice payments. It is being reviewed at the moment. I believe that it has been successful.

Serbia: International Sanctions
2.57 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the effectiveness at present of international sanctions against Serbia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, sanctions are having a dramatic effect on the Serbian economy. At the Copenhagen European Council, European Community leaders reaffirmed the importance of sanctions as one means of pressure on Serbia, and their determination to ensure rigorous enforcement of the various UN Security Council resolutions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. In view of today's report of a fierce offensive by the Bosnian Serbs, what
806
pressure is being brought to bear internationally upon the regime in Belgrade to stop them providing assistance?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it has already received a good deal of pressure from the whole community not to supply arms to the Bosnian Serbs. One of the major problems is that already there are vast quantities of arms in the hands of the Bosnian Serbs within the Bosnian border.
There is also no doubt in my mind that further supplies are getting over the border from those who do not adhere to any instruction which might be given from Belgrade. But we shall continue, with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, to do our best to stop that and to get the warfare stopped altogether.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the whole status of the United Nations is crumbling? People look at what is happening in Bosnia, with hundreds of people being slaughtered and thousands being made homeless—world opinion is aghast—and they feel that nothing practical is being done about it and that there is nothing like the immediate action which was taken as regards Kuwait. Is it possible for our Government to raise the matter with the United Nations and if the only answer is world force, then so be it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the UN is not crumbling. It has worked better over recent years than ever before. We may not like all that comes up in the UN but the nations are working better together than ever before. When the noble Lord says that nothing practical is being done, he should tell that to my 115 staff working in Bosnia to get help through, and to the 2,500 British troops working alongside the Spanish, Belgian and French. He should also realise that we do not stop, either in the UN or among our partners, trying to find a resolution to this terrible problem.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the recent decision by the United Nations Security Council not to allow arms to be sent to the Bosnian Moslem Government—a view which many of us share —will the Minister agree that it becomes all the more important to show that we are not in any way biased against one particular community?
In the light of that fact and the reports that there are still a great many weapons crossing the Drina River even now, will the noble Baroness tell us what steps may be taken to stop that source of supply to the Bosnian Serb army?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful for that question. It enables me to inform the noble Baroness that we have increased our contribution in terms of the number of customs officers working on sanctions assistance missions to 15. Others are doing likewise. We are doing all we can and the United Kingdom has played a leading role in the efforts to tighten the enforcement of the passage of banned goods into Bosnia.

807
Another point that we must realise is that, even with the provision of equipment which we have given to Serbia's neighbours to try to help them, and even with the enhanced communications networks that we have provided, there is no way that we or any of our partners in the UN who are trying to stop this terrible slaughter will succeed in preventing it until the people themselves decide to stop the slaughter. However, we shall go on trying.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, on another aspect of the matter, would it not be well to carry in our minds the suggestion that the Germans and the Japanese might alter their constitutions to provide military help in these cases?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. I believe that this is under active consideration in both countries. However, when and how they decide to do so must be a matter for them. What they could help with—and in some ways I believe they have already done so—is the provision of equipment, which does not involve men of their armed forces.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as the Minister claimed that the enforcement of sanctions continues, could she give the House some indication of precisely how many UN monitors are being employed in the work? Could she also give an indication of the quantity of goods actually seized in the pursuit of the enforcement of sanctions against Serbia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sorry that at this moment I cannot, from the Dispatch Box, give the noble Baroness the exact figures and I do not wish to inform her incorrectly. I shall write to her and put the letter in the Library. Our 15 officers are accompanied by similar numbers from other countries and the whole effort has greatly increased over the past two months. That I know to be a fact, but I shall write to the noble Baroness with the details.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the difficulties with which we are faced is that throughout Bosnia—whether in the Serb, Croatian or Moslem areas—both military and civil authority is crumbling and fragmenting? We face a situation with warlords all over the place, even spreading into Serbia itself.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right, authority is crumbling. There is also a rejection of instructions given by the headquarters. Over recent days we have watched, noting the situation in Sarajevo, where although it is vital to maintain the political process, there has obviously been a breakdown in the authority and cohesion of the Bosnians.
While authority may be breaking down, other people are still trying with great difficulty to work for peace in many of the areas and we should do our best to help them. That is why we go on, as we have done, saving hundreds of thousands of lives by our actions.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords. is my noble friend aware that Milosevic is now presenting himself as a man of peace? There is no end to the lying that goes on.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, he may now present himself as a man of peace, but I think that in all our memories that was not so a few weeks ago.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm recent reports that despite the talks in Geneva and Sarajevo, Serb and Croat Bosnian forces are combining, if only temporarily, to attack Moslem held areas?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have heard similar reports to those of which my noble friend speaks, but we all know that sometimes the forces combine one week, only to fight one another by the end of the same week.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the one-hour Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will be taken. Following the recent agreement by the House to this new procedure for time-limiting dinner break Unstarred Questions, no speech on the Question should exceed 12 minutes in length.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
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.]
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 393:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Regulations and Directives: prior approval by Parliament
(". Her Majesty's Government shall not give approval in the Council of Ministers to any Regulation or Directive of the European Community, the European Union or the European. Central Bank under the Treaty on European Union unless the same shall first have been fully debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, will be aware, because I notified her office this morning, of the purpose of the debate. Although ostensibly it is covered by the amendments named, it is to obtain from the Government a precise account, a precise definition of our present position and the position (on the assumption that the Maastricht Treaty is ratified)

809
under the Luxembourg compromise. Hitherto, the compromise has been assumed to have afforded some protection to the United Kingdom where vital national interests are at stake.
There are quite a number of people for whom this is of little concern. Others in our country view with equanimity the passing of powers away from the Westminster Parliament to the European Community. Many take that view and it is quite understandable.
However, a number of noble Lords in this House and people outside it have from time to time been uneasy about the passage of power from the British Parliament to the Community. That has been accomplished not only through the original Treaty of Rome and as it emerged following the renegotiation in 1975, but also through the Single European Act and the treaty we are now considering. I believe the Committee will agree that to some extent they have derived some small comfort and reassurance from the statements that have been made from time to time by successive governments, who have sought to reassure them. But notwithstanding the treaties that have been concluded and the documents that have been signed, in the last resort if vital national interests are affected they can be taken care of. If the Committee will bear with me for a moment, I shall give some examples of the kind of reassurances that have been given, and I believe probably accepted by the British public to whom the observations were addressed.
In the committee report Cmnd. 4715 in 1972 (some 20 years ago) the then government said:
"On the question where a government considers that vital national interests are involved it is established that the decision should be unanimous".
That was also reinforced at the time of the famous referendum of 1975, when the Government issued to the populace at large some explanatory memoranda explaining to them what the treaty meant in an endeavour to obtain public support for a continuation of the United Kingdom within the then Common Market. Fact No. 2 of the document stated:
"No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government".
That seems quite explicit enough.
Members of the Committee may recall the time when my noble friend Lord Stoddart and myself, speaking from the Front Bench on behalf of the Labour Party, sought to battle quite extensively against some of the provisions of the Single European Act. My noble friend and myself, and many others, once again raised the question of what the fallback position was. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said:
"The Luxembourg Compromise is not, and never has been, a provision of the European Community treaties. It is a political understanding based on the so-called Luxembourg accords of 28th and 29th January 1966, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, quoted from the letter that I sent him, I went into some detail on this point".—[0fficiu/ Report, 17/10/86; col. 1084.]
The noble Baroness went on to define what the Luxembourg compromise then was and said that the member states declared that:
"Where in the case of decisions which may be taken by a majority vote on a proposal of the Commission very important interests of one or more partners are at stake,
810
members of the Council will endeavour within a reasonable time to reach solutions which can be adopted by all the members of the Council while respecting their mutual interests and those of the Community in accordance with Article 2 of the treaty".—[Official Report, 17/10/86; col. 1084.]
The noble Baroness went on to say that the French delegation considered that:
"Where very important interests are at stake the discussion must be continued until unanimous agreement is reached".
She added:
"It is that French declaration which constitutes the basis of the Luxembourg Compromise".—[Col. 1084.]
The noble Baroness went a little further than that. She was anxious to assist in the matter and she fortified her opinion by saying:
"That the Luxembourg compromise is unaffected by the Single European Act is not just the view of the United Kingdom. Our view was supported in a recent survey of the Single European Act by an independent and prominent law firm specialising in Community law which said:
'The continued resort to the Luxembourg Compromise is in no way prohibited even in the new areas open to majority voting'.
It is also borne out by a statement issued by a French Government spokesman in September [1986] when he said:
'The Council of Ministers will be able to decide by qualified majority more frequently than at present without in any way bringing into question the ability of a member state to invoke the Luxembourg Compromise when a question of vital interest is concerned".—[Official Report, 17/10/86; col. 1085.]
So far the Government have been pretty unequivocal about the matter. My noble friend Lord Stoddart and I ventured to express some doubts about it at the time, and on our joint behalf I said:
"I am satisfied that in the final analysis the veto is no longer effective".—[Col. 1085.]
Regrettably, as I shall seek to show presently, we were quite right. Nonetheless, when the same question was asked, the noble Baroness, in the course of the Second Reading debate which took place in this House recently, was able to say without equivocation that our position under the Luxembourg compromise was in no way affected by this Bill.
We now come into an area of dissent. According to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—who I am sorry to say does not seem to be in his place this afternoon —in the debate that took place on 24th June last, a quite different view was expressed. He referred to events that took place while he, at the same time as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was there, was himself in the Cabinet and ought to have known what was happening. The noble Lord said:
"When my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister (Mr. Peter Walker was Minister of Agriculture and I also was a member of the Cabinet), she tried to veto a grossly excessive price increase. I hate to use the modern popular phrase, but she was told to get lost; and that is exactly what happened". —[Official Report, 24/6/93; col. 486.]
The noble Lord went on to say, in regard to Germany,
"On the next occasion it was Chancellor Kohl of Germany who decided to veto a cut in the subsidy for cereals. My noble friend Lady Thatcher decided that she would not try to exercise a veto to prevent Chancellor Kohl stopping a reduction in the cost of the CAP. So what happened on two occasions, admittedly separated by two or three years, was that my noble friend Lady Thatcher, who after all is just as formidable a character as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce"—
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!—
"on the first occasion was forced to quit the field and on the second occasion decided not to stand and fight".—[Official Report, 24/6/93; col. 486.]

811
The Committee will recall that I intervened in the debate at that stage to remind the noble Lord, Lord Cock field, of what actually happened in May 1982, which he acknowledged was probably the occasion to which he referred. What do we find? I ventured to remind noble Lords at that time—17th October 1986—of the events that took place in 1982, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred. I said:
"There can be no doubt that we tried to exercise our veto in 1982 at a time when the right honourable gentleman Mr. Peter Walker was Minister of Agriculture…I quote from his account given to another place on exactly what transpired. This occurs at col. 352 of Hansard of 19th May 1982".—[Official Report, 17/10/86; col. 1082.]
Mr. Walker said:
"Together with Denmark and Greece we strongly protested when the Presidency, encouraged by the Commission, announced that for the first time since 1966 the principle of obtaining unanimity where a very important national interest had been invoked was to be violated and that a decision was to be taken in accordance with the treaty arrangements for majority voting…I placed it on record that I considered that the conduct of the Presidency of the Commission and the member States which had joined in this procedure had created a very sad and damaging day in the Community's history and that the Council had quite unjustifiably chosen to depart from the established working practices based on the agreement reached in 1966".—[Official Report, Commons; 19/5/82, col. 352.]
I have a very simple question to ask the Minister. What is the present position? It is no good telling me or the Committee that the position is unchanged or unaffected or producing such Foreign Office and Civil Service jargon as may be fed in for the purpose of delivering it to this Chamber. I want to know the actual position. It can be one of two things. Either the British Government, if they consider that a vital national interest is at stake, can invoke the Luxembourg compromise, or the other governments participating in the meetings can override Britain's concept of its national interest and, on the basis of what they consider to be Britain's national interest, fail to assent to the application of the Luxembourg compromise.
A straight answer can be given to that question. Either we as a government—it is immaterial which political party is in government—can veto any proposal put forward under Maastricht or any of the treaties (we have that right if we consider our national interests are at stake) or our veto can be overridden. It is no good saying that the position is unaffected or is at it was before if that earlier position itself was unambiguous or contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom. The matter is very simple. If it can now be defined, there is some measure of reassurance. If it he true that this Government, or any succeeding government, on reviewing some of the asinine proposals that come from the Commission (supported by the other member states when it suits them, which in monetary terms it very often does) have the power to veto and that veto is effective, many of our anxieties will have disappeared.
The Liberal Benches will not be moved in a similar way because a sack of potatoes tied together, with the Treaty of Rome around it, is sufficient. I am talking now of the ordinary general public and some Members of the Committee whose misgivings over some of the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty may
812
have been alleviated and who may have thought that after all, if vital national interests were concerned, we could retain our sovereign independence in the matter. If that is the case, we can all be reassured. I should rejoice. I do not relish continuing this very detailed argument over what I consider to be a worthless piece of paper anyway. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 393, Amendment No. 393A:
Line 4, after ("unless") leave out ("the same shall first have been fully debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament") and insert ("such approval is given on the understanding that it is subject to withdrawal within 60 days if Parliament shall so direct').
The noble Earl said: The point of this amendment is to achieve supervision of treaties and actions under the treaty by Ministers. We have supervision in the Select Committees and it is admitted that they do very good work. We examine the treaties. But there is no means of retroactively amending a directive or a direction when it has emerged from the Commission. I believe that we should have such a power. It is a very simple but rather vital point. I beg to move.
Lord Jay: I reinforce the request that the question of the validity of the so-called Luxembourg compromise should if possible be cleared up once and for all. There was no doubt what it meant in 1966 when President de Gaulle made his famous pronouncement. It meant that if the government cif any member state decided that a matter was cif first-class national interest to that country, the decision overrode anything in the Treaty of Rome. It was not a provision of the Treaty of Rome requiring unanimity. In President de Gaulle's opinion it clearly overrode the whole machinery of the treaty. He expressed that in a rather picturesque and characteristic sentence. He described the Commission of the European Community as "a group of clever and perhaps useful men but not a government". The implication was that governments in the last resort took decisions and that the authorities in Brussels were what Sir Winston Churchill used to refer to as important functionaries. Fonctionnaires is no doubt the correct term. Thatwas the situation in 1966.
At the referendum in 1975, the main theme of the Government's publicity and the arguments of those who wanted a "Yes" vote were that 'we were wholly protected because the Luxembourg compromise allowed the British Government in the last resort to say that, whatever appeared in the Treaty of Rome, on a vital matter of national interest we could not be overridden. Some people, including myself, would. modestly point out that this was in no way included in the treaty and that we therefore felt there was a slight weakness in the validity of the Luxembourg compromise.
A few months ago Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, a former French president, made a speech in which he said that the Luxembourg compromise was no longer in force and had no validity today. Since that lime—only a few weeks ago—Mr. Balladur, the present French Prime Minister, said that the Luxembourg compromise was

813
in force and that the French Government contemplated using it in the matter of the common agricultural policy and the GATT Uruguay Round.
It seems to me profoundly unsatisfactory when we have to learn the truth about this matter from French politicians, however eminent; even more so, if they contradict one another. Much more might be said, but I feel that that is sufficient argument for asking, indeed appealing to, the noble Baroness to tell us exactly what is the validity of that compromise today, legal, political, moral or otherwise, so that we all know where we stand.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to enter into the debate on the issue on which my noble friend the Minister will no doubt reply; that is to say, the issue as to the degree of consent that this Parliament has to one of these measures. I simply want to invite the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary nature of the amendments.
Amendment No. 393, in the name of my noble friend Lord Tebbit, which was moved at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, says that for an order to be approved,
"the same shall first have been fully debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament".
Equally, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Onslow refers to,
"the same shall first have been fully debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament".
That is the most extraordinary drafting. How anybody is to decide whether or not a matter has been fully debated I do not know. For example, if a matter is debated in another place and in due course a closure is moved, as it often is, would it be argued that the matter had not been fully debated and that therefore the approval which was given was invalid? Indeed, suppose in this Chamber, where we deal with these matters fairly sensibly, your Lordships agreed the Motion without debate or with purely formal debate. Would it be said that it was not fully debated and that therefore the agreement was ineffective?
I therefore leave the Committee with the point that, whatever the Committee's view on the general merits of the issue, the two amendments are badly drafted. They could not possibly be put into our law and will be utterly ineffective.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may be given the opportunity to answer that point. Nobody would he happier than I, if the general principle of debate was conceded, for the amendments to be torn up and for a government representative to write them properly. There is no argument about that. Nobody intends to push the matter to a Division. We are trying to discuss the actual problem which my noble friends and I believe that we have identified.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I wanted to say something similar. As he often does so well, my noble friend made a speech of "splitting hairs" upon the amendment. He may be right in regard to the wording. However, most of my objections throughout have
814
been that our power of veto has been taken away when, years ago, we were guaranteed that it would be there forever.
We should not raise further points which could obscure the main question —and which my noble friend could answer clearly—as to whether or not our power to veto stands as set out in the Luxembourg compromise. Are the French right? What is the position? We should not worry about whether or not the wording of the amendments is sufficient.
I greatly admire the way in which my noble friend splits hairs. He is right in terms of the literal position. But do not let it obscure a clear answer to a clear question on something which is vital to the whole issue.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Surely when it is proposed to amend the law it should be amended in a sensible form, whatever the motives or intentions. When a proposal which is put forward for amending our law is nonsense, it should be pointed out clearly and effectively, whatever the general view of the policies concerned. I am extremely surprised that my noble friend, who is normally so excellent in his determination to see that your Lordships' Chamber legislates sensibly, apparently does not mind nonsense being put forward.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I do not want to enter into this discussion. It will not take us anywhere. In any event, the situation was made perfectly clear by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—he was only moving the amendments as a peg upon which to hang a constructive discussion on an important subject. That is the spirit in which I wish to say a few words.
When we look at the text of the Luxembourg compromise, we see that it really was not a compromise; it was an attempt to make one. One cannot erect a political attempt to compromise into anything more than it truly was. That is why my noble friend Lady Thatcher—who is fortunately here —was unable, according to her lights, in her interests and in the interests of this country, to achieve a veto. It does not have within it the means of doing that. When one looks at the situation carefully we see why.
Article 3 says that the six delegations note that there is a divergence of views on what should be done in the event of failure to reach agreement. That is not a very propitious start. Only the French—nobody else appears to have done so—took the view that discussion at the Council of Ministers should continue until unanimous agreement is reached. Therefore the essence of the attempt to make a compromise was no more than appears under the first heading; that the Council of Ministers will endeavour, within a reasonable time, to reach solutions that are adopted. It is no more than that.
If that analysis is right—I truly believe that it is and I have the text in my hand—it is beside the main point to demand from the Government today any further interpretation. The position today is in fact what it was at the time when my noble friend Lady Thatcher sought valiantly to exercise a veto but was unable to

815
do so. Nothing has changed. It is an attempt at a compromise; it is not a binding compromise; it never has been and cannot be erected into such.
Lord Tebbit: Perhaps I may briefly comment on a couple of points that have arisen. I rejoice to hear what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said in his advice to us that we should reject unclear or badly drafted legislation. I take it that he will vote against the treaty on Third Reading, otherwise he would appear to be straining at a gnat having swallowed a whole caravan of camels.
In response to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I would say that his view is an interesting one. However, it neglected one point which was made so effectively by our noble friend Lord Cockfield; that is, that the Germans had exercised a veto in the Council over a matter of agricultural policy. The veto that they exercised was against a proposal to reduce prices, whereas the British veto, which was rejected, had been against a proposal to increase prices.
The Committee will recollect that my noble friend Lord Cockfield concluded from that—indeed, he made it a large part of his argument about the nature of the Community as a whole—that there had been a deal between France and Germany over the agricultural policy in which it was clear to both the parties that they had a right of veto, but that no one else did. My noble friend expressed this as a fact of life which we would simply have to accept and said that it was no good railing against it. I am not sure whether I necessarily accept that, but that was the view of my noble friend Lord Cockfield. And it is a matter of historical fact that the Germans exercised a veto on an identical matter, except for the sign, of prices in the agriculture committee, where we had not been allowed to have a veto. So the veto exists; it has been used. To say that it is not there seems to fly in the face of experience.
I should like to put another point to my noble friend before she replies. As we know, Her Majesty's Government, rightly or wrongly, regard the proposal, which is part essentially of the social chapter but is being forced on us under the guise of a health and safety ruling, to bring about a limit of a 48 hour week in the United Kingdom with some distaste, to put it mildly. For a long time it has been denounced at extraordinary length by Ministers of the Crown. The matter came to a head recently in the Council. A veto was not cast. Now Ministers say that they will take this matter to the European Court of Justice. Well, maybe so. That is very interesting. But what if the verdict goes against us? Will we then veto the proposition? Why did we not veto it anyway if it is Her Majesty's Government's view that it is such a bad thing?
I understand from my own sources, which are not very far removed from government, that the Minister was advised that she should not attempt to cast a veto because it would be declared by the others that the veto was not valid, and that is why no veto was cast. I should like the assurance of my noble friend that no such advice was given and that the reason that the veto was not cast was not any doubt at all about its
816
validity. I should like her to assure me that it is the belief of Her Majesty's Government and their advisers that had a veto been cast, it would have a valid veto.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is rightly concerned that amendments should seek to improve and that they should be in order. I sincerely hope that when we come to debate Amendments Nos. 399 to 404 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, which will put the Bill itself in better shape, the noble Lord will listen to the arguments. Indeed, I am confident that after listening to the arguments he will feel sure that the Bill will be improved if those amendments are cirri I hope that he will feel able to support them.
I rise only very briefly on the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I want to ensure that the confusion is cleared up. On the 48 hour week, he asked whether we could not first of all have used the Luxembourg compromise—the veto—when this was being discussed in the Council of Ministers as now we have to go to the court for it to decide. lie then went on to ask whether, if the court decided against us, we would use the veto. If my memory serves me correctly, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, during the course of this debate, told me that it was not possible to use the veto after a court decision had been made. The veto, in other words, had to be used before the matter was taken to the court. If the veto is not used before the matter is taken to the court, then the veto can no longer be used. If we do not use it at the time when the decision is being taken and it goes to the European Court, and the European Court declares against us, we then have no opportunity again to use the veto. It is very important to establish just when the Luxembourg Compromise can be used and when it should be used. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to clear up that matter.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may start by saying that I thought, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose interventions from time to time we all find very interesting, that he took a very lofty view about parliamentary draftsmanship today so far as concerns Back- Benchers and even, if I may say so, Front-Benchers, because I have often been guilty of putting down an amendment that may not have been nonsense but may have been ineffective. We simply do not have the availability of parliamentary draftsmen or even perhaps his great expertise in this field, though I wonder whether some of the amendments that he has put down from time to time have not been somewhat ineffective.
I do not take the view that the noble Lord has taken about the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, which is designed, as I understand it, to provide Parliament with greater powers to scrutinise the situation. I should have thought that it is always desirable, if it is possible, for matters coming before the Council to be debated in Parliament before that takes place. But it is not always possible. That is th.e difficulty. So many issues come before the various councils and, notwithstanding the valiant efforts of

817
the Scrutiny Committees in both Houses, we do not have the ability to debate all these issues at the most appropriate time. Of course there are occasions where Ministers wish to have the endorsement of their point of view by Parliament, particularly when it is likely that it will achieve all-party support—that is often quite useful —before a Council meeting takes place. So I do not blame the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I do not often agree with him but I think that he is perfectly entitled to do what he has done on this occasion.
The anxieties that have arisen with regard to the Luxembourg compromise arise because of the extension of qualified majority voting under the Maastricht Treaty. The background to this has been very well rehearsed, particularly by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and also by the Select Committee on European Union back on 23rd July 1985. In its document, the Select Committee set out the background to the matter and the nature of the dispute that had arisen between the French and the other member states back in 1966.
I have to say in passing that the policy of the empty chair which preceded this, which was embarked upon by the French Government under President de Gaulle at that time, was one designed not to facilitate the progress of the Community. But what it lead to was the Luxembourg compromise, which as I understand it has been used on 13 occasions between 1973 and 1985. I shall want to come back to that in a moment but I think that it has lost its former authority as a European Community convention, and I do not particularly want to see it revisited. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I take it that the noble Lord is perfectly happy that we do not have a veto even when we believe that the important interests of this country are involved?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I would like to develop the argument in my own way. In the course of doing so I hope to be able to deal with the point which the noble Lord raised, but I wish to do that in a logical way. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the Luxembourg compromise has never had any legal status; it is simply an agreement to disagree and no more and no less than that. What it comes to in practice is that it applies to the extent that the member states are inclined to let it apply, but only of course when qualified majority voting itself is to be applied.
So what is a very important interest? Clearly, there is no possibility of any objective criterion which is capable of independent assessment. It has to be subjective and the view of the government seeking to invoke it in a particular way. In practice, while member states do occasionally throw into the discussions which take place in the Council the possibility of their erecting the Luxembourg compromise, the reality is that when member states—at least as regards the kinds of issues that I was dealing with although, of course, I cannot deal with the entirety of the Council decisions—discussed their problems, for example, in the transport and
818
environmental councils and even in the general affairs council dealing with nuclear safety post-Chernobyl, people did in fact say that they might invoke the Luxembourg compromise from time to time.
It is always important that the argument should be made by the Government seeking to invoke it. It is no use simply saying "We think that this is an issue which is very important to us and therefore we might invoke the Luxembourg compromise". If the Government concerned put forward the argument in a coherent and positive way to indicate that they are genuinely going to be disadvantaged in some vital way, then it is wrong to assume that other member states will always fail to respect that.
As I say, in a number of very important matters that arose in the councils which I attended on the issues to which I have referred in general, the Luxembourg compromise was never invoked, not even over the issue of Gibraltar in dealing with the question of aviation which was back in 1986. The two countries which were deeply concerned about the argument; namely, Spain and Britain, patiently negotiated a compromise, neither invoking the Luxembourg compromise. But one might have thought, listening to some of the contributions today, that we simply and glibly say that a vital national interest is involved and therefore we are going to invoke the compromise.
The truth of the matter is that there is a feeling of reciprocity about these issues. Member states do feel: "There but for the grace of God go I". They do not wish to see the doctrine invoked by others for that reason. Therefore, I do not believe that it is necessary to carry out any amendment to the treaty. That would clothe the doctrine with an authority which it has never previously had and, in my view, never should have. It is essentially a doctrine of last resort and it should not be used in any abusive manner lest it reduces the work of both the Commission and the Council to a deadly halt. I have a faint suspicion that that is in fact what lies in the minds of some of those who propose the use of the Luxembourg compromise in the way which some of these amendments support.
One has to take account of the elaborate procedures for scrutinising and changing Community proposals before they even reach the Council table where they are further very closely scrutinised. I believe that qualified majority voting represents an incentive to arrive at quicker decision-making in a whole variety of ways that will enhance the Community, but that member states, despite that, will still strive to maximise consensus, if not total unanimity.
For example, there have been areas in transport policy where it has been perfectly possible, before the Single European Act, to utilise qualified majority voting. It was not done because member states, perhaps wrongly, decided that it was better to try to ensure that one achieved unanimity in these fields. But I do not believe that it helped to develop transport policy. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, arguing very strongly the other day about shipping cabotage. In that regard the Greek Government have consistently said that vital national interests are

819
involved. They also prayed in aid something very similar, which I need not go into now, in order to frustrate the policies of the Community in that respect. The noble Lord might not say that the Greeks have a vital national interest and that the issue of cabotage was so important to the Community that that the Greeks had to say should have been avoided. I do not know the noble Lord's views about that, but I know that he feels very strongly about cabotage.
As regards road haulage, as the Minister will know herself because she was involved with transport, for years the Germans sought to say that the liberalisation of road haulage was absolutely incompatible with their interests and they used every and any argument to that end. There was no question of using the Luxembourg compromise. Eventually (it was only the other day) a decision was taken to make the liberalisation of road haulage become a reality. So I do not believe that it is very sensible to seek to give a kind of statutory basis. That would be a great mistake. I do not believe that revisiting the Luxembourg compromise in the way which has been suggested here represents a sensible position.
What the Government have done in relation to the procedures at Maastricht—and we do not agree with it—is to use a procedure whereby an individual member state might he excluded from the Community's policy without jeopardising collective action. I shall not go into the question of whether the Government were right or wrong about that, because it is obviously a matter on which we have very different views. But it is not an illegitimate way to proceed and it is not the Luxembourg compromise.
In trying to put the Luxembourg compromise into the form that these amendments seek, what worries me is that effectively it will stall progress altogether. It will make it virtually impossible to arrive at a sensible consensus based either on qualified majority voting or more particularly on something which is broader than that. I believe that it would be fundamentally wrong to adopt these amendments. From this side of the Committee I counsel that noble Lords should reject them.
4 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: The lead amend ment in this group of amendments; namely, Amendment No. 393, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the amendments tabled to it by my noble friend Lord Onslow, would, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has said, require the Government to obtain the approval of Parliament before agreeing resolutions and directives in the Council of Ministers. There are many explanatory memoranda put to the Committees of both Houses. I know because I sign many of them before they are put out. But the requirements in these amendments, while placed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and my noble friend Lord Onslow, to get us to explain the situation, would not be practical in any sense.
Let me try to explain what I accept is a complicated situation and respond to the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. The real question is: what is the Luxembourg compromise? It
820
is a political agreement. It is based on the Luxembourg accords of the 28th and 29th January 1966. These brought to an end six months of difficulties stemming from France's withdrawal from participation in the Council of Ministers. The text represents an agreement to resume business as usual while disagreeing about what should be done when a very important national interest is at stake.
Since then, member states have spelled out their positions more clearly, notably in the declarations accompanying the 1983 Stuttgart solemn declaration, which was signed by my noble friend Lady Thatcher. The essential features of the Luxembourg compromise are as follows: it applies only when the Council is taking a formal decision by majority vote on the basis of a Commission proposal. When a member state claims that a very important national interest is at stake, all member states are committed to try, within a reasonable time, to reach a general, acceptable solution. Some member states, notably Britain, France, Denmark, Ireland and Greece —although, as Members of the Committee have said, the Germans invoked it in 1985—consider that in those circumstances discussions must continue until unanimous agreement is reached. Some member states, notably France and Ireland, consider that the essential national interest must be directly related to the subject under discussion.
I could put the exact wording of the Luxembourg compromise into Hansard, and I am prepared to do so if your Lordships wish, but it was stated in the evidence given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of another place back in 1986, and it has been written into our records on many occasions. I shall certainly see that it is placed in the Library.
Some Members of the Committee obviously wish to see the Luxembourg compromise entrenched in a legally binding treaty article. I am not accusing the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, of that: he has never asked for that, to my knowledge. Perhaps I may answer why I do not believe that that would be right. The key point is that Her Majesty's Government will continue to defend our national interests within the Community through whatever means at our disposal. As I have said, the Luxembourg compromise is a political agreement, not a legally binding text, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to it. That is why it is unsuited to entrenchment in law. The continuing validity of the political agreement was not called into question during the political union negotiations, and nothing in the Maastricht Treaty conflicts with its continuing existence or suggests that the compromise cannot be invoked.
Perhaps I should tell the Committee that in the French National Assembly debate on 12th May last year on the revision of their constitution necessary to give effect to the Maastricht Treaty, the then French Foreign Minister said:
"No Government exists which would accept that., in a Community debate, a vital interest should he sacrificed in any way".
That was endorsed by M. Bérégovoy. the then Prime Minister, in the National Assembly in May 1992, when he said:

821
"France has never given up and will not give up the right in a serious crisis to protect its fundamental interests. When the application of the majority rule would challenge interests judged vital for one of the states, the mutual commitment remains to continue to seek agreement among themselves".
Those are sentiments with which we totally agree and, as one noble Lord has said, M. Balladur, the present French Prime Minister, has said that the Luxembourg compromise is in force.
It is clear that, although it is not legally binding, others will support us in maintaining the Luxembourg compromise. The French, Danish and Irish (who all made declarations for the minutes to accompany the solemn declaration on European union signed by the heads of government at the Stuttgart European Council on 19th May 1983) reaffirmed the existence of the compromise—that is, that voting should be postponed where essential or where very important national interests were at stake. Even countries which previously took the view that the presidency must have recourse to voting where the treaty so provides have invoked the compromise. That is the German example, which has been quoted in our debate.
Five other member states, including the United Kingdom, refused to take part in a vote. That was how the decision was blocked. We did not do it because we agreed with the substance of the German case, but because all member states concerned attached considerable importance to the Luxembourg compromise. I believe that they will continue to do so. It is a political reality. The Luxembourg compromise was last used in 1988 by the Greeks on an agricultural price proposal. Together with Portugal, Denmark, Ireland and France, we supported Greece in the use of the Luxembourg compromise. So, although I cannot give a more recent example to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I can tell him that we supported the use of the Luxembourg compromise in 1988.
Perhaps I may turn now to what I call the 1982 saga, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and my noble friend Lord Cockfield in an earlier debate. It is true that the UK representatives at the Agricultural Council on 18th May 1982 asked for a vote on the annual price fixing to be deferred. That was because we had been unable to secure satisfactory decisions on the overall Community budget. But we were not supported on that occasion by enough votes of member states to be able to defer that decision. Only Denmark and Greece supported us —and that did not give us our 23 votes. That was because other states took the view that the compromise could be invoked only in support of national interests directly related to the subject under discussion.
I believe the Luxembourg compromise still to be an effective weapon. There have been many occasions when decisions which could have been taken by a majority vote were deferred because one or more member states were opposed to them. On another occasion back in July 1978, we invoked the Luxembourg compromise in the Fisheries Council because Commission proposals for the conclusion of fisheries agreements with Sweden and the Faroes affected our fundamental national interests. No vote
822
was held. Because we retain the right to invoke the Luxembourg compromise even if there is no direct relationship, we shall not hesitate to do so if we believe that it is the right thing to do.
That brings me to the question that was asked of me by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. He asked why the veto was not exercised against the working time directive. We voted on something very different from the original directive that was brought before the Council. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Employment, Mrs. Shephard, gained enormous support for improving the directive. It surprised even those of us who were involved. What existed at the end was nothing like the directive which had come to the Council at the beginning. In other words, my right honourable friend had gone on talking, had continued working to improve the directive, and had used the very technique which is so important if we are to improve what comes forward.
We voted, as we did in the end, because the proposal had been much improved; but we gave notice, at the same time, that we objected to the proposal which went through because of the legal base upon which it had been introduced. Members of the Committee will remember that it was introduced under Article 118a which is the health and safety provision which, of course, has qualified majority voting. We announced our intention to challenge that decision because of the legal base. That is the challenge which will go to the Court of Justice. But it was not our judgment that the amended proposal put at risk a vital national interest, much as we continued to dislike it, because the proposal that my right honourable friend went on working for was something that was a good deal more acceptable than that which we started out to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked a question about "invoking the veto", as he called it—the Luxembourg compromise—after a matter has been to the Court of Justice. I do not think that one could have a political veto after a matter had been referred to the Court of Justice. I took the advice of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. He tells me that, indeed, it would not be possible: if you are going to use the Luxembourg compromise you must do so at the decision-taking stage before it is referred to the Court of Justice. I hope that that adequately answers the noble Lord's point.
I should like to continue with my response because I am sure that we want to make progress in our debates. In answer to questions posed on the issue, I have said that one cannot make—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has sought previously—a clear distinction between the occasions when the Luxembourg compromise was formally invoked and where it was tacitly applied. In fact, I even answered a question to that effect way back in 1986 from the Foreign Affairs Council.
I believe that it is in the nature of things that the mere existence and the threat of the use of the Luxembourg compromise is often sufficient to secure changes in the proposed legislation to the satisfaction of the state concerned. I am also fully aware of the anxieties which, if there were to be no Luxembourg

823
compromise, would arise in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He has pursued the issue relentlessly, and rightly so. However, I must tell him that it is a political decision and not a legal one; and, indeed, I have explained exactly why that is so.
I must tell the noble Lord that I believe Amendment No. 393 to be unnecessary. We have existing scrutiny procedures for regulations and directives which, on the whole, work well. However, in his support, I shall be improving scrutiny wherever that is really necessary, as the noble Lord already knows. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and thank him for the important and valuable role that he has played in our EC scrutiny over recent times.
The Government value the scrutiny given both by this Chamber and another place. However, it would not be appropriate or practical for each and every regulation or directive of the Community to be fully debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Certainly, I believe that it would be inappropriate to enshrine what is essentially a matter of scrutiny in legislation.
We want to have a working system. Our scrutiny system works; indeed, it is much admired by other countries. I believe that we should leave it alone and get on with the job. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wishes to intervene. I give way.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I can take her back to the point she made about the 48-hour week proposal. I was not surprised to hear that the Government had opposed it and had taken the point that the legal base chosen was incorrect. We do not take that view, but that is not the point. However, to say that it was a candidate for the use of the Luxembourg compromise —which is what I thought the Minister suggested—would be utterly absurd. There is in fact a perfectly legitimate political point of view about the matter and one which we do not share. Would it not be useful in terms of invoking this vital national interest that it should, perhaps, be done where there is very clearly overriding support in all parties for a situation which the Government are seeking to invoke as a vital national interest?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: First, I shall check the Hansard record most carefully. I certainly did not mean to say—my noble friend Lord Ullswater confirms that I did not; and I am grateful to him —that we considered using the Luxembourg compromise. I was describing a situation where others—not the Government—had suggested that it might be used. In that case, we did not even come to a vote when we finished discussing the working hours' directive. It was not necessary to do so when we had so greatly amended the whole situation. In any event, we intended to submit, via the European Court of Justice, the resultant directive (which was a much slimmer volume than the original) to the European Court of Justice because of the base that had been used.
824
However, as regards the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the Luxembourg compromise might only be used where all parties are in agreement, I do not think that that is a practical proposition. A government is elected to govern and a government could not share the blame with the Opposition if they got it wrong because the Opposition would not want to take it. As I said, I do not think that that is a practical proposition.
In conclusion, and before the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, responds, I must say that I believe that the whole atmosphere about the kind of changes that we have been discussing has changed. It was quite clear from the Copenhagen European Council which noted the Commission's commitment to wider consultation before submitting new proposals that there would be more chance for debate and discussion. I hope that the Green Paper system from the Community will provide a good opportunity for national Parliaments, including this Chamber, to influence regulations and directives at an early stage but without Amendment No. 393 which I urge Members of the Committee to reject.
Lord Jay: Before the Minister finally sits down, could she make quite explicit what I believe was implicit in what she said; namely, that the Luxembourg compromise remains in force vis à vis the United Kingdom in exactly the same sense as it does for France and Germany?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: At the end of quoting both M. Dumas and Prime Minister Beregovoy of France, I said that we agreed with what they said. That is exactly it.
Lord Tebbit: With reference to what my noble friend said concerning the 48-hour-week decision, we have seen a new phenomenon. I have often referred to the slices being taken off the salami one by one until the sausage has disappeared. It seems to me that this is a case where the slices are being produced one by one until we have the whole darned sausage. That is why it should have been dealt with at. a very early stage. However, my noble friend would ease my worries in that connection if she could assure me that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, it is a vital British interest that the social chapter should not be applied to the United Kingdom.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: We have already found a way to deal with that without the Luxembourg compromise. That is why we have the social protocol. I really do not think that there is anything more to be said about it.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may try to sum up what I thought my noble friend said. It is that the Luxembourg compromise is a convenient bargaining tool and it has no legal force whatever. The other people may want to gang up against us and say that it does not work and there is nothing that we can do about it. That is a rock which I see but which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, does not. Maybe he is Nelsonian and I am not. That appeared to me to sum up my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I wish to express my appreciation for the constructive and honest way with which the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, dealt with my questions. I am sure that with her officials and everyone concerned she has made every conceivable endeavour to answer fully the questions that I ventured to raise.
What troubles me a little is the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who spoke on behalf of my party. He indicated that as far as he was concerned —and presumably that encompasses the party as a whole—he envisaged that the role, if any, of the Luxembourg compromise should be progressively reduced. He did not regard the Luxembourg compromise as being anything to which he paid particular regard. I am accustomed to dealing with commissioners and my noble friend must know that imputing to me on the basis of what I have said any desire to incorporate the Luxembourg compromise into the Maastricht Treaty is a lot of nonsense. I did not seek, and I do not seek, to incorporate the Luxembourg compromise into the Maastricht Treaty, and my noble friend knows that very well. It is a typical way of diverting the argument from the principles which I laid before the Committee.
In the interests of brevity I deliberately omitted a quotation from an authoritative source. It was a point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, pegged himself. He pointed out somewhat gleefully my argument that the French declaration constitutes the basis of the Luxembourg compromise, and he asked, "What about the rest?". My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis endeavoured to supply the rest from a Select Committee Report of 1985. I shall go furth.er and more authoritatively and refer to a statement made by the Government in 1986 which supersedes anything given in the Select Committee Report of 1985 to which he referred. I shall complete the statement, which was:
"By definition, that compromise, which is sometimes called a veto, is only applicable to decisions to he taken by a qualified majority and, although the French view was in a minority in 1966"—
a point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, seized—
"it now [1986] represents the clear view of at least five member states—France, the United Kingdom. Ireland, Denmark and Greece. Moreover, as noble Lords will know, in 1985 a sixth government, the German government, invoked the Luxembourg Compromise".—[Official Report, 17/10/86; col. 1084.]
I believe that in a way that disposes of some of the contributions which were thoughtfully made today by Members in various parts of the Committee.
I return to the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, which I must study very carefully indeed. It may well be that we must return to the matter on Report because one thing troubles me and I hope that the Minister will be able to solve it. I am troubled because the version of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who was a Member of the Cabinet in 1982, gives a totally different account. That must be resolved and I hope that it will be resolved a long time before the Report stage. In the meantime, I renew my grateful thanks to the noble Baroness.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord put a final question to his Front Bench, and I hope that I may put a question to my Front Bench. My noble friend's explanation is that she is perfectly happy to allow the situation to stand as it is. She said that it works well, it allows negotiation, we are able to improve things and she is happy about that. Is my noble friend still happy about the changing of horses? Does she not believe that resisting our request under one heading —the 48 hours—and then suddenly switching to health and safety is a manoeuvre which must somehow be dealt with? Would it not be a good move if we could, if not in the words of these amendments, find a way of preventing someone starting a race on one horse, finishing it on another horse and claiming to be the winner?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: It started under Article 118a and it has always been under Article 118a because it was raised as the working time directive under the health and safety provisions. Therefore, it has not changed horses, to take my noble friend's analogy. There is no doubt in my mind that if there is what to all of us appears to be the wrong use of a legal base the raison d'étre Court of Justice is to resolve these matters, and that is exactly where we have sent them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe that we have discussed the matter as much as we can and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 393A and 393B, as amendments to Amendment No. 393, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 393. by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 394 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 395 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 396:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Report on duties of sovereign as citizen of the Union
(". In implementing Article 8 of Title II of the Treaty establishing the European Union, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament for approval before 31st December 1993 and annually thereafter a report on those duties, if any, to which the Sovereign is to be subject as a citizen of the Union.").
The noble Lord said: I wish to introduce Amendment No. 396 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tonypandy. He is extremely sorry that he cannot be here this afternoon for the good reason that he is in Cardiff with Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. He has left me to deal with the theoretical aspects of the Sovereign's duties while he helps with the practical aspects of the Royal Family's activities. I think that he has much the better part. I cannot hope to match the eloquence and passion that he brings to our debates but I shall do my best to explain our amendment.
In dealing with the Queen's possible future duties under the treaty, we have sought to bring forward as helpful, reasonable and uncontroversial an amendment as we can devise. We were helped in its drafting

827
by the Public Bill Office, to the members of which I express our thanks. I hope that what we are now proposing will commend itself to the Committee and that the Government will accept it.
The amendment does not deal with the complicated question of the Royal Prerogative nor with our own relationship with the Sovereign as Her Majesty's subjects. In a debate in this Chamber on 17th February, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, explained the Queen's position. On Second Reading of the Bill the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that:
"there is a distinction between the concepts of citizenship and of allegiance. We owe allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. We will continue to do so when we are citizens of the Union. Citizenship of the Union differs from national citizenship, particularly in a monarchy like that of the United Kingdom. Here the citizen is also a subject. Maastricht will not make us subject to anyone other than Her Majesty and we shall not owe any allegiance to the European Union… the treaty in no way alters the Monarch's constitutional position in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 8/6/93; cols. 714–5.]
That is clear and reassuring. It is, however, a measure of the concern in this Chamber and outside that the noble and learned Lord felt it necessary to say that. But at any rate our own relationship with the Sovereign will be unaltered. That is deeply satisfactory. In our generation we are extraordinarily fortunate in having as our head of state a Queen whose dignity, dedication and hard work are beyond praise.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Moran: Our amendment is concerned with the Sovereign's own position under the treaty in relation to the citizenship provisions which we debated in this Committee on 22nd June.
It became clear then that citizenship of the European Union was to apply without exception to every man, woman and child who was a national of a Community country, and that it was to be compulsory. Now I was greatly surprised that when the citizenship proposals were included in the treaty, no arrangements were made to exclude Community heads of state, whether they were hereditary monarchs or elected presidents. I am sure that if you and I had been drafting these provisions the first thought which would have occurred to us was what arrangements should be made for heads of state. But no provision seems to have been made for them. They are all, apparently, including the Queen, to become plain citizens of the Union like the rest of us. The noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong about this. But if I am right, I find this state of affairs hard to understand. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would tell us what consideration was given to the question, what line Her Majesty's Government took on it in the negotiations, and why it was that exceptions were not made for the Queen and other heads of state in the Community.
It seems to me rather surprising that M. Mitterrand, who is France's principal representative on the European Council and is also himself a head of state, and one who seems to take the privileges of that position fairly seriously, should have agreed to this. It is my understanding that the treaty was originally
828
confined to its core economic provisions—the three stages of European monetary union, the single currency, which will be the watershed leading us to a unitary European state, and the European Central Bank, which is to run our economies. But apparently Chancellor Kohl and M. Mitterrand (who else, since it is they, as we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and others, who call the shots in the Community?) decided that some political provisions must be included as well. So perhaps citizenship was put in rather hurriedly with little thought given to the position of heads of state. I do not know. I hope the noble and learned Lord can enlighten us and explain why heads of state of Community countries are being required to become citizens of the Union.
It does, after all, seem to me extremely odd that the Queen should be required to be a citizen of anything; let alone a body outside her own realms. I am sure that many Members of the Committee will also consider it odd and far from satisfactory. I myself find it extraordinary that the Government should have agreed to it. However, the fact is that they have so agreed and that under the treaty the Queen is, as I understand it, compelled to become a citizen of the Union. Under the treaty, like the rest of us, she will have rights and duties.
The question of rights is, I imagine, scarcely one that will trouble the Sovereign. The rights specified in the treaty do not seem to me likely to affect Her Majesty. I cannot well imagine Her Majesty petitioning, appealing to an ombudsman, seeking consular protection overseas or standing for the Westminster City Council and I do not believe that she has any problems about free movement in Europe. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us on Second Reading that Her Majesty would be entitled to exercise the rights conferred upon citizens of the Union. But, he said,
"it would be a matter for Her Majesty's choice, on the advice of her Ministers, whether in any particular situation she did so."—[0ffieial Report, 8/6/93; col. 715.]
So much for rights; the question of duties is less clear. Article 8 of the treaty refers to duties. It says:
"Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby".
I repeat:
"and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby".
Therefore, clearly there are to be duties. Ministers have repeatedly asserted that there are at present no specific duties under the treaty, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us on Second Reading that the principal duty, which, he said, we have all had since 1972, is,
"to obey the laws of the Community so far as they have direct effect in national law and are binding on individuals."—[Col. 715.]
But clearly new duties may be imposed in the future. The citizenship provisions were included in a rather surprising part of the treaty—clearly in ordler that they can be interpreted by the European Court of Justice. So those interpretations may result in new duties. The treaty could also, I think, be amended in future by the Council in a way which could impose specific duties on all citizens of the Union, including the Sovereign. Or duties could perhaps arise by the

829
creeping, imperceptible process of gradual integration pushed on by the Commission, of which we have heard in this Committee stage. Duties could be of many kinds, from trivial obligations up to paying taxes direct to Brussels or being conscripted into a European army. At all events, duties are mentioned in the treaty, so obviously duties there will be.
Hence our amendment. It does not tamper with the treaty. It simply means that the Government would have to tell Parliament if at any stage duties were to be imposed on the Sovereign and that Parliament should approve any such duties. The amendment would simply be a safeguard, an insurance against anything being done affecting the Sovereign without our knowledge and consent. I cannot think that anyone could object to that. It would also have the merit of discouraging any British government in the future from agreeing to any inappropriate duties which could be imposed on the Sovereign. No doubt this year, and perhaps for some years to come, the government could make a nil return in their report. That would be a reassurance to us all and would, I am sure, be well received in all parts of both Houses. The safeguard is for the future.
I hope, therefore, that this amendment will receive general support, and that the Committee will agree to it. It is an essentially commonsense amendment, which I unhesitatingly commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I draw to the attention of my noble friends on the Front Bench this thought. Can they imagine either Disraeli or Churchill allowing those duties to be imposed upon the Sovereign? The contrast between Disraeli, who made his Sovereign Empress of India, and the present Prime Minister, who made his Sovereign a citizen of the Union, needs no underlining.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I suggest respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that it would be wholly inappropriate to include this proposed new clause in the Bill because his argument is based upon an anxiety which is a total misconception; namely, that the Queen is a citizen and, indeed, is subject to any of those duties because assuredly she is not.
In speaking to Amendment No. 2, when Article 8 was considered in the context of citizenship of the Union, I said that the Sovereign was not involved in Article 8 and that I should advert to that again when speaking to this amendment. On a totally objective analysis of Article 8, citizenship of the Union, as dependent upon nationality, confers a dual status—in the case of a monarchy such as ours, a subject of a monarch and a citizen of the Union. Under Article 2 citizens of the Union have rights under the Maastricht Treaty, which amends the Treaty of Rome, the ECSC and EURATOM, which also imposed duties upon citizens.
But our Sovereign is not a citizen; nor indeed are the subjects in other sovereign states, members of the EC, who are citizens of those states. The rights of the
830
citizens of the Union are, as has been said, set out in Article 8e. Clearly, at face value—we need not go through them again —none could conceivably apply to the monarch. One cannot say that none of them conceivably apply to the monarch, but no court anywhere in the world could so construe them as applying to the monarch. If no rights are conferred upon the Sovereign by Article 8, assuredly no specific duties are imposed. The drafting concept is unitary and reciprocal as regards rights and obligations. No duties are apparent, or are referred to in the article, and such duties as there may be for the citizens arise under the Treaty of Rome as amended and the Single European Act.
As far as I am aware, it has never been suggested that the Treaty of Rome or the Single European Act, signed by plenipotentiaries on behalf of six sovereigns and six presidents, impose any duties whatever upon the sovereigns, upon the presidents or upon the plenipotentiaries. The magnitude of the misconception all but beggars belief. So what is the basis of the proposal to insert this new clause which, if carried, would be sent to another place further to delay a Bill that is already too long delayed? It cannot be said, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, that this is a measure of safeguard because there is nothing to safeguard. No rights and no duties are conferred upon the Sovereign.
On reading the Second Reading speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, the only fear—it has not been stated —that is evident is perhaps sired by misconception out of a fear of federalism. If that be so, assuredly Article 8 cannot, on any construction, serve as a launch pad for federalism. I listened with attention to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Onslow. I believe that the whole purpose of this amendment is simply not understood. It is to be hoped that it will not be acceptable to the Committee.
Baroness Strange: The use of the word "citizen" as applied to Her Majesty the Queen revives unpleasant echoes of the French Revolution when the Queen of France was referred to as Citoyenne Capet. We all know where that led. I think we would all feel happier and safer if our own Queen remained sovereign and subject to none.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: I seek clarification of what appears to be, on the face of it, an important question as regards the citizenship of the Union of the Sovereign. In the first place, there must be a difference between our own Sovereign and the heads of state of other governments and other nations, especially heads of state who are elected. We cannot put President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl in the same bracket as our own Sovereign because presumably, except in exceptional circumstances, our own Sovereign is head of state while she is alive whereas President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl can once again become ordinary citizens of their own countries, and

831
presumably of the Union, when they leave office. Leaving that aside, I cannot believe that this question was not considered in the framing of the treaty.
It has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that perhaps the matter was overlooked. I know a little about the way in which the Community operates. I would imagine that the matter was certainly considered. I should have thought that it would be considered at some length. There must have been a reason why heads of state were not excluded from the conferring of rights and the imposition of duties in this case. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord replies to the debate he will assure us that the matter was considered and that there was a good reason for not excluding heads of state, and what that reason was.
I have two further questions on which I would 'welcome enlightenment. First, if the noble Lord's amendment were accepted on a Division, would it have any effect? It seems to me that as it is at present framed it would allow us to be informed about any new duties that were imposed upon the Sovereign but that does not seem to me to be a form of consultation. Unless I have misunderstood the amendment, it seems to me the only difference it would make is that if any duties were imposed upon the Sovereign and if they were altered, we would only be entitled to be told about them after the event.
Secondly, in the context of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is it true—this is an important issue and it would certainly affect my judgment if the Committee were to divide upon this amendment—that under the current treaty, no rights would accrue to the Sovereign as a citizen of the Union? Is it equally true that no duties would therefore be imposed upon her? If the Government can assure us that that is the case, my attitude to the amendment would be much changed. But if that is not true and if, under the treaty, rights are accrued to the Sovereign and duties are imposed upon her, I believe that this is an important amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to deal with a question which has just been raised by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches. I would like to know whether he regards the treaty as making our Sovereign a citizen of the Union at all. I would be interested to have his answer to that question. If that is so, does it carry with it the implication that at any rate some of the duties of a citizen of the Union could be imposed upon her? If that is the case, the matter seems to be a little more serious than perhaps some of us had realised.
Lord Richard: I hope I may make two observations. It seems to me there are two issues raised by this amendment. The first is public concern about the position of the Sovereign in relation to the Maastricht Treaty and the second is the device—I do not use that term in a pejorative sense—which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is proposing to try to deal with the parliamentary situation.
It is fair to say that there is some public anxiety about the position of the Sovereign in relation to the Maastricht Treaty. I hope that when the noble and
832
learned Lord sums up the debate he can be clear and unequivocal as to the position that the Monarch would occupy in the event of the Maastricht Treaty being passed. Some of the questions 'which have been raised, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, are pertinent and deserve an answer. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can give one.
I turn now to my second point concerning the terms of the amendment. Almost irrespective of the answer which the noble and learned Lord gives to the first point I would have difficulty in accepting the proposals which are contained in the amendment. I do not believe that the issue needs the excessive parliamentary scrutiny which is set out in the amendment. Therefore, while I share some of the anxieties which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and look forward to the answer which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give the Committee, if there is a Division on the amendment, I could not advise my noble friends to vote in favour of the amendment.
Lord Moran: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It seemed to me that he was suggesting that under the treaty Her Majesty the Queen would not, as a citizen, have any rights or duties. If that is so—and in due course the noble and learned Lord will tell us what the position is—then my anxieties would fall away. If no duties are to be imposed on Her Majesty there is no need for the Government to report them to Parliament.
However, as I understood it, the noble Lord argued that the Queen would have no rights. Has he read the speech by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at Second Reading in which the noble and learned Lord said:
"Some of your Lordships have asked whether Her Majesty would herself be entitled to exercise the right; conferred upon citizens of the Union. The answer is yes".—[0fricial Report. 8/6/93; col. 715.]
That seems to be an important statement. It is that which has in part led to the anxiety which I feel.
I agree very much with the points made by my noble friend Lord Chalfont. Obviously everything turns on whether Her Majesty is to be, as we are, a citizen of the Union and, if so, whether she will have rights and, specifically, whether she will have duties which could include in the future duties which are not at present specified. That is the point which I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to clarify.
Lord Tebbit: There are two points which I should like to raise with my noble and learned friend. If the word "duties" had not been in the treaty—and we are assured that there are none so that word need not have been there—the matter would be very simple. If at some subsequent stage, after the next in.tergovernmental conference, for example, there was a proposal to impose duties of some kind then quite clearly during those negotiations it would be entirely reasonable and proper for those negotiating on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to make the point at that stage that the Monarch should be exempted from those duties.

833
However, that is not the case. Unfortunately there is a reference to duties, although we are told that there are none. Therefore, should it be decided at some future stage that the question of duties for the citizens of the Union should be introduced a change in the text would be required to except the Monarch from the position in which she is placed by this treaty. In this treaty she is like every other citizen of the Union, with rights and duties, although there are no duties. Therefore, we would have to make an exception. We would have to create two classes of personality: ordinary citizens of the Union, and our Monarch—or perhaps heads of state generally.
It would be much more difficult to do that in the future than if we had done it ab initio. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend takes a similar view to me. Perhaps he can assure me that in his view. should duties ever be proposed, particularised or specified, a new class of person would be introduced into the treaty; namely, a head of state or, most particularly, our Monarch.
Secondly, I say to my noble and learned friend that anxieties have been expressed, which may be slightly far-fetched but I should like his reassurance, that a duty is placed upon the Monarch in this treaty since she is not merely a citizen. She is a legal, constitutional personality—or whatever is the appropriate designation. She is part of Government. She is more than Mr. Smith or Mrs. Brown, and more than one of Her Majesty's Ministers. Under those circumstances, as a constitutional personality, is she bound to uphold the objectives of the treaty?
That is an important question, for if she is so bound to uphold the objectives of the treaty it would be possible that at some time her duties in that regard could come into conflict with her position as the Queen in Parliament. We are always told that if something was absolutely unacceptable the United Kingdom could renounce the Treaty of Rome. That is surely theoretically possible. However, until the renunciation had come into effect on her signature, Her Majesty might be bound to uphold the Treaty of Rome. That would be a difficult position at that juncture.
Therefore, I should like to be assured that Her Majesty, in the personality of the Monarch—the Queen in Parliament—is under no obligation whatever as a citizen to uphold the objectives of the treaty. If she were there would undoubtedly be a potential constitutional conflict between her two duties.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: It is surely the case that the Queen always acts on the advice of her Ministers.
5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): The amendment and this debate touch on matters of considerable importance. They are matters with which all of us will be concerned. I shall endeavour to state as carefully as I can what I believe the position to be in the light of our law up to this moment.
834
First, I want to remind the Committee, just in case that might be necessary, that Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty, in the position in which it appears, is a new article to be inserted in the Treaty of Rome as amended. Therefore, "this Treaty", referred to in the second sentence of Article 8, is the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. That therefore requires us to consider the existing situation. We should forget Maastricht altogether for the moment.
In 1972 the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Queen in Parliament, passed an Act to give effect as the law of this country to the Treaty of Rome and laws properly made thereunder. That treaty contained power under which duties could be imposed on individual citizens. To take some examples which arise, I refer to the tachograph and the proper net which one can use for fishing. By virtue of that Act of Parliament the law of the United Kingdom introduced those duties, just as Parliament might directly introduce other duties in accordance with the ordinary procedures which we use for making enactments.
As regards the Community, the law is effective in this country only as part of the law of this country by virtue of that Act of Parliament. Therefore Her Majesty the Queen has the same relationship to that law as to any other law enacted by Parliament; and, of course, her consent was given in respect of the Act of Parliament of 1972.
One has to remember that the special position of Her Majesty the Queen in relation to the law of this country arises from the fact that the courts of this country are her courts; and that the general rule at common law in this country is that the Queen, as head of state, the Monarch, is not subject either to criminal or civil proceedings in the United Kingdom. There are very special provisions for certain aspects of her private right. But that is the general rule.
Accordingly any provision of European law as incorporated into the law of this country will be subject to exactly the same arrangements. There is no question of the European law being enforced in this country except through the national courts, and in accordance with the system that we have which regulates the position of our Monarch as head of state. That means that when the position of the Monarch is considered there is no machinery whatever by which any duty under the European law could be enforced against her. It is precisely the same position as applies in respect of the ordinary law laid down by Parliament in this country.
The part of the Treaty of Maastricht which we are discussing was certainly subjected to detailed consideration and, so far as I know, no suggestion was made that it was either necessary or appropriate to exempt heads of state from the operation of Article 8. I believe that the reason that I have just given sufficiently explains that. There is no way in which the article overrules or affects the arrangements between the head of state—in this country our respected and much loved Monarch—and the courts of the country.
As regards other courts—the Monarch may go abroad and find herself in France or Germany—she is exempt from any process under the law of France or

835
Germany by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Therefore there is no question of legal duties being created upon the Monarch, enforceable in the courts of this country. Therefore I submit to the Committee that the position of Her Majesty the Queen is entirely secured by the arrangements that have been made.
Perhaps I may turn to one or two other matters. I stated in my Second Reading speech—I believe it to be correct—that Her Majesty the Queen is a national of the United Kingdom; and obviously that is the most important matter. Attached to that, the consequence would be that she will be a citizen of the union. There is no suggestion that she will become, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, a plain citizen of the union. Her prerogatives and ranks as the Monarch of the United Kingdom are in no way diminished. All that is said is that being a national of a member state, she shall be a citizen of the union.
The Earl of Onslow: Will my noble and learned friend allow me to intervene? Is she not also a citizen of Canada, Australia, and other countries of which she is a Monarch? Could she not get out of such citizenship by claiming to be a citizen of Canada? Does that not have some effect?
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that it is a little dangerous for me to speak on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. However. I believe that one of the last things she would wish to do would be in any way to abandon her right as a national of the United Kingdom. We are all proud and glad of that fact. She is a national of the United Kingdom.
I wish to come to the question of duties which my noble friend Lord Tebbit and others have raised. No one will have heard me say that there are no duties on citizens of the European Union. What I say is that the duties are imposed by exactly the mechanism of the 1972 Act and the Single European Act. There are no new duties imposed by virtue of this Bill except under the same types of mechanism. The Committee will notice—it is of considerable importance—that Article 8e provides for the possibility of provisions being brought forward,
"to strengthen or to add to the rights laid down in this Part".
That is to say, the rights attached to citizenship of the union by that part. There is no machinery in that article for adding to the duties. In other words, the duties that are in question are the duties which may be laid down under the machinery of the Treaty of Rome as amended, which has been, of course, exemplified over the years since 1972.
Accordingly, my submission to the Committee is that the unique position of Her Majesty the Queen arises from her relationship to our national law. The mechanism—it is the only mechanism—by which the European law becomes part of our national law is by virtue of the authority of Acts of Parliament which make it so. Therefore there is no need for any additional machinery.
In particular I suggest to the Committee that the proposed amendment has a number of defects. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out that it is a matter of record only rather than consultation. I submit to the Committee that to adopt any such
836
provision would give a quite erroneous impression of the true position so far as concerns the Monarch. In this connection, her true position is founded on the relationship between the Monarch and her courts. It is only through her courts that any of the duties imposed upon other nationals of the United K.ingdom could be enforced within the United Kingdom itself.
I very much appreciate the anxieties which have been expressed and I have sought to deal with the matter as carefully and fully as I can. I am sure that all Members of the Committee would wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in saying that we, as a country, have been served in a most. remarkable way by our beloved Sovereign over many years. Her Majesty's Government would wish to do absolutely nothing of any kind in any way to diminish her position. On the contrary, in accordance with the oath that we have all taken on coming into the House, we would wish to maintain her position in the fullest possible sense.
The consent of Her Majesty the Queen is given ultimately to Acts of Parliament that pass both Houses. When her rights and interests may be affected, she is also in the habit of laying them before Parliament for the purposes of a Bill going through the House. She did so in relation to the Act of 1972. and she will do so, I understand, in relation to this Bill. She did that in the House of Commons and I understand that she will formally do so in this House. The principal reason for that being required in this instance is that her prerogative to ratify treaties is modified by the necessity to have an Act of Parliament before any question of proceeding to Stage 3 of the Economic and Monetary Union could arise. That is a qualification on the prerogative to ratify treaties which lies with Her Majesty.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the Committee will feel that, far from enhancing the position of Her Majesty, to pass the amendment might be to cast quite an unnecessary doubt upon it.
Lord Jay: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, to a non-lawyer. one point is not altogether clear. I thought that he said that because the courts are Her Majesty's courts, no duty can be laid upon her by those courts. Therefore, she was, as it were, exempt, he said, from the European Communities Act 1972–to use a non-legal term. The noble and learned Lord also said, however, that she becomes a citizen of the European Union as a result of this treaty. If she becomes that as a result of this legislation, how is it that the legislation has that force which apparently the 1972 Act does not? I am afraid that is not clear to a non-lawyer.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I sought to explain this, and obviously it is important that I. should make it as clear as I can. When Parliament passes an Act, it does so in. the knowledge of the relationship between Her Majesty and her courts. The general rule to which I referred is that Her Majesty, as a private person in right of the Crown, cannot be brought before her own courts. Therefore, in passing any kind of legislation

837
which appears to impose duties, there is no infringement of Her Majesty's position in that respect. I say that that is true of the Act of 1972; it is true of the Act of Parliament that made the necessary changes in our law to enable Her Majesty to ratify the Single European Act; and the same would be true if this treaty were to be ratified.
However, that does not prevent rights being assigned to Her Majesty if Parliament wishes to assign rights to her. I have said that by being a national of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty will obtain thereby the rights that obtain as a result of the treaty, in connection with the matters referred to in the treaty conferring rights. I pointed out that if those rights ever came into question at all, they would be exercised only on behalf of or on the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that as regards practicalities—with which we ought to deal—it is highly improbable that any specific rights mentioned in Article 8 would ever be in question for Her Majesty. Thus, from the practical point of view, even on the rights side in respect of Article 8, there is no particular addition to Her Majesty's rights thereby conferred. There are formal additions, but nothing of great importance.
As regards duties, the position is different because duties depend on the enforcement arrangements. Because of the relationship between Her Majesty and her courts, there is no question of that.
Lord Monson: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down for the second time, would he agree that the existing post-1972 duties, arising from the European legislation of which he spoke, are already incorporated into English law and Scots law? It is those laws which we obey and which are the means for ensuring our obedience to those duties. In other words, it is through English and Scots law. Why, then, is it necessary to incorporate the word "duties" into the treaty at all? It is surely totally superfluous.
The Lord Chancellor: The situation is that under the treaty it was wished to make reference to and incorporate provisions about citizenship. As my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn said on Second Reading, the aspiration involves the idea of duties as well as rights. Therefore, it is fair, in presenting the matter, to notice in the provisions that there are duties. But they are the duties which arise from the sources already identified and by the same mechanisms. Those are: the Treaty of Rome, the treaty amending it (the Single European Act), and, if Maastricht is ratified, the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty under which duties can be created. But those are all of the same kind and arise in the same kind of constitutional relationship. The point I wish to emphasise is that Article 8 does not create any new mechanisms for additional duties on anyone.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble and learned friend has answered clearly and without question that the Royal Prerogative is not involved. He made that perfectly clear, and that is safe. But since he reiterated the statement he made in his Second Reading speech
838
that under Maastricht Her Majesty becomes, like everyone else, a person, there is a risk. It may be one that we cannot see at the moment, and it is difficult to envisage; but there must be a risk that she, as a person, quite apart from her Royal Prerogative, could be involved in it. Is it possible to insert something at some stage which will protect her as a person, in addition to her Royal Prerogative powers as a Monarch?
The Lord Chancellor: The question is whether any addition would be wise or useful. As I have sought to explain, the position depends entirely on the relationship between Her Majesty and the laws of this country. That is what we are talking about—the laws of this country, as they are affected if the Bill is passed.
Lord Tebbit: I wish to thank my noble and learned friend for having explained the matter with a lucidity and clarity with which it has not been explained before. I would that we had had his explanation perhaps a week or two ago, it would have been extraordinarily helpful.
Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend to advise me whether I am right in interpreting what he said. The duties to which the Treaty of Maastricht refers are those duties which are already imposed in the Treaty of Rome, not extra duties which, for some reason, in this treaty become involved in the Treaty of Rome by (if I may coin a phrase) the "tachograph" route—that is to say, the perfectly normal process of European legislation becoming English law through the medium of the Treaty of Accession.
If I am right in following my noble and learned friend down that route, any new duties which might be thought of at some time in the future—let us say, something quite extraordinary such as European national service—would have to be enacted in the form of a further amendment to the Treaty of Rome. They would become effective in the United Kingdom through exactly the same route as the obligations to obey the law of the tachograph, and would therefore not affect Her Majesty, since, as he has said, she cannot be required to submit to her own courts.
The Lord Chancellor: What the noble Lord said is absolutely correct. The situation is that by virtue of the Treaty of Rome first of all, power was given to the Community institutions in accordance with the procedures laid down to make legislation which by virtue of the 1972 Act becomes effective as part of the law of the United Kingdom. Those powers have been enlarged under the Single European Act, and they have been altered, or will be altered again, under the provisions of this treaty and this Bill if it becomes an Act. But these are all similar, as the noble Lord said —and as a distinguished former Member of the Government, he has had considerable experience.
All the duties which can be laid down under that procedure must be referable to powers which are granted under these treaties to the Community. Therefore the protection of the citizens of this country against what I might call, for the sake of argument, foreign-imposed laws, is that the powers which have been transferred to the Community institutions are defined and laid down. Nothing could be laid upon the

839
citizens of this country by virtue of any of these treaties which is not covered by powers which are laid down in the treaties. That is the basic protection which I believe every Member of this Chamber would think to be right. The authority of Parliament is required, and that authority can be given, as it has been given, by giving authority to others to make the rules under particular provisions; but no further authority than that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for the explanations that he has given. But can he perhaps help me with one further final point which concerns the legal precedence which these articles take? I have been looking again at Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome, which I believe is the article which first gave the power to import British legislation from the European Economic Community. I think my noble and learned friend has mentioned that article before.
In Article 189—and I gather it is still that article under which we propose to import legislation and therefore to acquire the duties of that legislation under British law —no mention is made of citizenship. Furthermore, Article 189 is quite a long way down the batting order in the Treaty of Rome, whereas Article 8 is being imported as a new clause right up at the top, and for the first time establishes citizenship of the Union. My question to my noble and learned friend is: can he assure the Committee that the duties which according to Article 8 clearly flow from the new rights conferred under the new citizenship of the Union can in no way be equal to the duties that we have acquired in the past under the Treaty of Rome?
The Lord Chancellor: As I said earlier, Article 8 is incorporated into the Treaty of Rome as amended, if Maastricht is ratified. The complete body of treaties dealing with the European Community—I leave aside for the moment Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community—are the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Treaty of Maastricht. These have to be construed, so far as they amend one another, as a single document. The fact that an article is -Article 189" does not give it any less force than if it were Article 188. You have to take account of the whole. The logical structure of the document may be of some importance, but so far as giving effect to the document is concerned, the rules adopted by the European Court and every other rational tribunal is that you must look at the whole document in reaching a conclusion.
Article 189 is of course the authority under which the Community can operate. But the basic powers which are fundamental to that operation come, in many cases, much earlier in the treaty. For example, the common agricultural policy provisions are much earlier in the treaty. So there is no particular significance in that. But I want to take perhaps a very slight exception to what my noble friend said towards the end of his question to me. I think he suggested that the duties were in some way related to the new rights. I do not think that is, strictly speaking, true. I think the position is that the duties which are in question here are duties which would be imposed under the
840
Treaty of Rome as amended in the way I said, and the rights will be all the rights given by these treaties, including of course the rights referred to specifically in Article 8. But there are other rights which arise or may arise under the treaties as well as these. Article 8 provides certain additional rights. One must take account both of all the duties and all the rights in this connection.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. I was merely going on what Article 8 says, which is that for the first time,
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established".
I believe that that is so for the first time. The article continues:
"Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union"—
and I believe that is so for the first time. The second paragraph states:
"Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty"—
and there is not even a comma: it goes straight on to say,
"and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby".
So I read those duties as flowing from the new rights of citizenship of the Union. I am very happy to have had my noble and learned friend's reply, but I should have to study it rather carefully in Hansard to understand how much progress I have made.
The Lord Chancellor: I invite my noble friend to do just that, but I think the important situation is, as he said: citizenship for the first time; rights and duties not for the first time.
Lord Moran: First of all, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been of considerable importance. In particular, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for the very clear and helpful explanation that he has given. As a very plain citizen indeed. I feel abashed to be confronting the supreme legal authority in this country on a matter that is, to a very large extent, legal in content and I am hardly competent to do so.
The noble and learned Lord, however, made it clear that Her Majesty is to be a citizen of the Union. He has already spoken about her rights. What he said about her duties has been partially reassuring. However, it seems to me that he made it quite clear that if in future duties were to be imposed on any heads of state, or certainly on the Queen, they could not be enforced against Her Majesty in the courts, either in her courts in this country or in other parts of the Community. But I cannot imagine that we would ever reach the point of seeking to enforce—that was the word that I understand the noble and learned Lord to have used—such duties against Her Majesty. It seems to me almost inconceivable.
I know that we are discussing in this treaty provisions for the Court of Justice to fine national governments; but I cannot imagine that the question of enforcement would ever arise. In what the noble and learned Lord said, he made clear that the Queen could have duties imposed on her under the treaty but that they could not be enforced against her. It seems to me as a plain citizen that it would have been much better if the Community governments, when they

841
negotiated this treaty, had done the obvious and sensible thing and exempted heads of state from citizenship. That would have been far simpler. It would have been understood by everybody and would have avoided all the problems that we have run into. I regret that so little thought seems to have been given to the problem and that we simply relied on the impossibility of enforcement, which seems to me very unsatisfactory.
When we drafted this amendment, we did not know what the noble and learned Lord has just told us. I do not think that any of us in this Chamber knew what he has since very helpfully made clear. In a way that underlines the point that I was trying to make.
This amendment, which suggests that the Government should report to Parliament on the position about duties, was designed to ensure that the Government should keep Parliament informed of the position. None of us would have known what we have learnt from the noble and learned Lord this afternoon if this amendment had not been moved. It is only because we have been able to raise the matter in this Chamber that the noble and learned Lord came and explained the position exactly. I should like that to be the position in the future.
To put it the other way round, to object to our amendment is to say that the Government should not report to Parliament on any duties that might he imposed on the Sovereign in the future, that Parliament should not be required to approve such duties whatever they might be, and that such duties might be imposed on the Sovereign without any reference to Parliament. I believe that few Members of the Committee would want to take that line.
It was suggested to me—I have no idea whether or not it is true—that, all things being equal, the Government might not have had any trouble accepting our amendment as it stands on its own but that they are concerned, above all, with avoiding any amendment of the Bill which would require consideration in the other place. We have now discussed this amendment for just over an hour. If it were to be agreed, I cannot imagine that consideration of it in the other place would greatly delay ratification of the treaty. Frankly, if there is to be a balance between the convenience of the Government's business managers on the one side and safeguarding the Sovereign's position on the other, there can surely be only one choice.
I should like to consider very carefully what the noble and learned Lord said. In many respects this amendment is out of date because it was drafted before he gave that explanation. I am concerned about the general principle that anything affecting the Sovereign's position in the future should be put to Parliament and Parliament should be told. The Government should have an obligation to inform Parliament and to seek Parliament's consent. That seems to me fundamental and of the greatest importance. I shall look carefully at what the noble and learned Lord has said this afternoon and if I feel that it is not fully satisfactory, I shall come back to it
842
at Report stage. At this stage, I do not propose to divide the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 396A not moved.]
Lord Tebbit: I feel that we are going just a little too fast. Amendment No. 396A was discussed but I understand that it is within this Chamber's rules of order if I were to say of that amendment that it provides a right to renounce citizenship of the Union parallel to those—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I must interrupt my noble friend. I was informed by the noble Lord who tabled the amendment, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that it was not to be moved. Therefore I did not call it.
[Amendment No. 397 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Annual report by Bank of England]:
[Amendment No. 398 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 399:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("and") and insert ("including").
The noble Lord said: I very much hope that these two groups of amendments to which I put my name (Amendments Nos. 399 to 401 and 402 to 404) may come as something of a relief to the Committee as a whole. They are not designed, as so many previous amendments have been designed, to remedy what many Members see as defects in the Treaty on European Union itself. They are an honest attempt to remedy obvious drafting deficiencies in the Bill.
The deficiencies occur in Clauses 3 and 5, both of which were drafted with unusual speed when the Bill was going through the other place, without the usual full and proper consideration by the legal draftsmen. Indeed, I understand that the Government in the other place had reservations about accepting the amendments which imported Clauses 3 and 5 into the Bill. Whether that was because they found the substance of the clauses or their drafting unsatisfactory, I am unable to say. In either case, the amendments are aimed purely at improving the drafting. I hasten to add that the wording of the amendments is not my own. It has been given to me by very senior legal draftsmen who must be regarded as being as expert as any in the land.
Amendments Nos. 399 to 401 will improve the drafting of Clause 3 of the Bill. The Committee will note that Clause 3 makes reference to Article 108 of the Treaty on European Union. As Article 108 is mercifully short, it might be helpful to the Committee if I quote it in full. Article 108 reads:
"Each member state shall ensure, at the latest at the date of the establishment of the European system of central banks, that its national legislation including the statutes of its national central hank is compatible with this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB".
Clause 3 purports to set out the procedure by which this country shall meet the terms of Article 108; I submit that it fails to do so. Amendment No. 399 would substitute the word "including" for the word "and" in the second line. It is an amendment about

843
which those who advise me feel quite strongly. I can see that it does not look absolutely essential to a layman such as myself. Indeed, I find the placing together of the word "including" with the word "ensuring" somewhat cumbersome. Nevertheless, it would more closely meet the intentions of Article 108 of the treaty and I feel sure that the Government could come up with an improved amendment if they were minded to accept its spirit.
While the Government are considering that possibility, it may be helpful for them to examine the question of whether or not the word "annual" is necessary, which has the effect of requiring the Governor of the Bank of England to report annually. That seems to be rather overdoing it when set against Article 108 of the treaty. It may be that the statutes of the ESCB will require annual reporting. If so, I must apologise to your Lordships for not being sufficiently familiar with them.
Be that as it may, Amendments Nos. 400 and 401 are progressively more necessary. Amendment No. 400 would meet the opinion of those who have advised me that it is not adequate simply to provide for an order. I am advised that it should be at least a statutory instrument, thus ensuring that the order will be printed and made public. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend will be able to agree with that advice and I look forward to his reply.
I would not have thought that there could be room for disagreement when we come to Amendment No. 401. The main trouble with Clause 3 of the Bill as drafted is that it does not say what happens if the annual report of the Governor of the Bank of England is not approved by both Houses of Parliament. We are simply left hanging in the air if either House decides not to approve it. Nor is it clear what purpose is served by making the report subject to the approval of Parliament, which is what the clause as drafted appears to do.
On the other hand, I am advised that the contents of the order are matters with which Parliament should be concerned since it will presumably make provision for the kind of things which should go into the report. The effect of Amendment No. 401 would therefore be to make not the report, but the order, subject to an affirmative resolution.
The same kind of difficulties afflict Clause 5 of the Bill. That clause is intended to meet our commitments under Article 103(3) of the Union treaty, the relevant part of which is also mercifully brief and reads as follows:
"For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance, Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy and such other information as they deem necessary".
The trouble with Clause 5 is that it requires Her Majesty's Government to submit to Parliament, for its approval, a report which would be an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in Article 2 of the treaty. But as with Clause 3 of the Bill, Clause 5 as drafted is silent as to what happens if Parliament withholds its approval. Once again the
844
clause leaves us hanging in the air. Therefore, Amendment No. 402 would leave out the words, "for its approval".
Baroness Trumpington: Order. Perhaps I can ask my noble friend why he is speaking to Amendment No. 402, if he is doing so, because it is in a different group.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I apologise. I thought that I had made it clear that I was speaking to both groups of amendments. If that is not in order I am happy to speak only to the first. They come together as similar drafting points in Clauses 3 and 5. I am in your Lordships' hands If it is in order. I shall continue.
Amendment No. 403 deals with the problem that Article 103(3) of the treaty requires member states to forward their relevant information only to the Commission. It does not, as Clause 5 suggests, require them to forward their information to the Council and the Commission. The Committee may feel that that is not all that significant and, being a layman, I am unable to judge how much importance should be attached to it. But Clause 5 of the Bill is clearly out of tune with Article 103(3) of the treaty. I should have thought that it is the kind of defect which the Committee would want to correct.
Be that as it may, even a layman such as myself can see that Amendment No. 404 is needed. It clarifies what happens if either House of Parliament does not approve the required report. Amendment No. 404 would prevent the submission being made to the Commission in those circumstances, which I trust my noble and learned friend would agree would be the appropriate course of events. I hope that my noble and learned friend can agree that the amendments are helpful and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The two groups of amendments are unusual since, as my noble friend Lord Pearson said, rather than being addressed to wider issues, they are addressed explicitly to the wording of the clauses as they appear in the Bill. Notwithstanding what my noble friend said, I urge the Committee not to endorse his Motion.
The first of the amendments would delete the word "and" in line 2 and insert the word "including". My noble friend said that the result would perhaps be. rather unsatisfactory English. I simply say that whether or not that is so, the amendment is not necessary. It is quite plain that as the clause stands it covers the implementing of Article 108 as a whole, and that includes not only the ensuring of compatibility of the statutes of the national central hank, but also the other things already contained in Article 108. One could debate what particular language might have been chosen and I am perhaps not the best person to defend the language of the clause, which was drafted by people other than myself. Nonetheless, it satisfactorily, if not perfectly, makes sense and would not give rise to difficulties in practice.

845
We then have two amendments which are really put together by my noble friend—Amendments Nos. 400 and 401. He first makes the point about the order being made by statutory instrument. There is no need for the order to be made by statutory instrument. The Committee will be familiar with many kinds of orders which are made, which do not need to be made by statutory instrument but which are perfectly satisfactory from the point of view of Parliament.
The difficult point is that if one looks at the effect of Amendments Nos. 400 and 401 taken as a whole, one sees that whereas Parliament would have a chance to comment upon and approve the order which had to be made, nothing would be said regarding approval of the report. That would be giving up the substance of the matter for.the form because surely Parliament would wish to have the opportunity to examine the content of the report rather than the content of the order which would give rise to the report of the Governor of the Bank of England. For that reason, contrary to what my noble friend said, this would be a wholly unsatisfactory amendment which would destroy the purpose of the clause inserted in another place, the purpose of the clause being to allow Parliament to scrutinise, to examine and to pass comment on the terms of the governor's report.
Of course the Committee will realise that Article 108 is only to be implemented at the third stage, so it presupposes that the United Kingdom had got as far as the third stage, at which point the Bank of England would be independent. So it would be for the Governor of the Bank of England, and not for us, to determine what his attitude would be were Parliament not to approve his report when it was submitted, because he would be acting as an independent governor at that stage. For all those reasons, contrary to what my noble friend suggests, I would ask the Committee not to endorse the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble and learned friend leaves Clause 3, would he agree that the last part of the clause, which reads,
"shall be subject to approval by a Resolution of each House of Parliament",
is exactly the same as saying that there shall be an affirmative resolution before approval can be given? In other words, in substance the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch would not add anything on that point.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It would not add anything but it would change the effect. As I understand the amendment, it would mean that it would be the order which would be subject to approval whereas, as the clause is drafted at present, it is the annual report which is subject to approval. It is a matter of considerable importance which of those it is because the House, and Parliament as a whole, would wish an opportunity to approve or not the governor's report rather than simply the order which would give rise to the report. So although I accept what my noble friend says about the affirmative resolution point, the resolution would, on the other hand, be attached to a different matter—to the order
846
—whereas, in the version which we have before us, unamended, the matter relates to the report itself. I believe that that is what was intended by those who put down the amendment, which is now Clause 3, in another place. I believe that that makes sense.
In Clause 5 we are dealing with information to be submitted to the Commission or Council, under Article 103 or Article 104c of the treaty. It provides that before that information is submitted the Government shall make a report to Parliament. The information which is thereafter submitted is to be based on the report once it has been approved. Again, this clause was not originally in the Bill but was introduced by the Opposition in another place and was accepted by the Government.
As my noble friend Lord Pearson has said, Article 103 deals with monitoring economic performance in member states—what is known in the jargon of the treaty as "multilateral surveillance". Article 104c deals with member states avoiding excessive budget deficits. That is known as the excessive deficits procedure. I should stress that both the procedures require information to be submitted.
I shall deal with the articles separately. First, with regard to Article 103, I should explain that even at present what is in substance this kind of surveillance takes place under an existing Council decision on convergence which was adopted unanimously by member states in 1990. So what Article 103 does is to build on existing practice. The information which the United Kingdom supplies under the present arrangements is based on material either drawn from the financial statement and budget report or which can be derived from it. And so it is considered in that context by Parliament. Therefore, there is no objection in principle to the idea that Parliament should consider the report which forms the basis of information to be submitted.
The position is, again, that the drafting is perhaps not as clear as it might be. But it was made absolutely clear by the Opposition spokesman in another place that the intention of the clause was that any report under the clause would need to receive the approval of Parliament before any submission was made to the Council or to the Commission. I should stress to the Committee that the Government agree with this intention. Therefore, in answer to my noble friend, I am quite happy to give the commitment that any report under Clause 5 will be submitted by the Government to Parliament for approval and that information will be submitted to the Commission or the Council only when approval has been secured. I think that that deals with the point which my noble friend raised on that matter.
My noble friend then suggested that it was proper to delete the reference to the Council. He suggested that there was no reference to the Council which was appropriate in this clause. It is right to say that one has to look at the drafting of the clause quite carefully. I do not carry a torch for it but my noble friend will see that it states:
"Before submitting the information required in implementing Article 103(3) of the Treaty",

847
certain things will be done. That is how it opens. But if one looks at the end of the clause one sees that the report,
"shall form the basis of any submission to the Council and Commission in pursuit of their responsibilities under Articles 103 and 104c".
Therefore, whereas the clause opens with Article 103.3, it closes not only with Article 103 but with Article 104c.
One has to look at the whole clause. When one looks at it in that way one sees, as my noble friend said, that in Article 103.3, for the purpose of the surveillance, member states shall forward information o the Commission. One has therefore the basis of the report to the Commission which is referred to in Clause 5. But if one then turns to Article 104c, which is a third stage clause, one finds that in Article 104c.9 there is provision, if a member state is failing to put into practice the recommendations which the Council is making under the third stage, that the Council may give notice to that member state to take appropriate measures to make the reduction which the Council deems to be necessary. Then it says:
"In such a case, the Council may request the Member State concerned to submit reports in accordance with a specific timetable in order to examine the adjustments effort of that Member State".
Under Article 104c, which is where the Council comes into it, there is provision for reports to be made to the Council.
For the sake of completeness, I should add that under Article 104c.14 one sees that further provision relating to the implementation of the procedure is set out in the protocol. If one then turns to the protocol and looks at Article 3—it is a bit of a paper chase—one finds that there is an obligation that member states shall report their planned and actual deficits and Ihe levels of their debt, promptly and regularly to the Commission. I therefore take it that the intention of the draftsman of this particular clause was to sweep up references to the Commission and Council under these various provisions in Articles 103 and 104c.
In those circumstances, it would follow that the drafting of Clause 5, even if not perhaps as elegant as it might he, is not inappropriate in the way suggested by my noble friend. Therefore, I ask him to withdraw this amendment as well as those referring to Clause 3.
6 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. At this stage of the evening, I would not dream of attempting to press the matter further with him or with my noble friend Lord Renton. I was glad to hear him say that perhaps the wording of Clause 5 is not as perfect as it might be. I believe that I, together with those who advise me, had better have a closer look at what my noble and learned friend has said to see whether we might want to bring back something more accurate at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 400 and 401 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Convergence criteria: assessment of deficits]:
[Amendments Nos. 402 to 404 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 405 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Committee of the Regions]:
[Amendment No. 406 not moved.]
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston moved Amendment No. 406A:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) Her Majesty's Government shall advise any person proposed under subsection (1) above that if appointed he should in exercising his duties as a member of the committee give due consideration to the need for the decentralisation of Community administration as a step towards the "harmonious and balanced development of economic activities" as stated in Article 2 of Title II.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment which I now move brings back the memory of going to Brussels and meeting the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, at the same time as meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. Even at that early stage of the Common Market the one thing that struck me was that we were beginning to build in Brussels and Luxembourg another golden triangle of congestion and hopeless living accommodation. I have already referred to the amendment which I am now moving when we were debating another group of amendments. At this stage it merely seeks to find out the Government's attitude to what I consider to be a very fundamental subject.
If the Common Market is to succeed, if we are to go on building the unity of Europe, then it is important that everyone should feet involved in the Community. It is not good enough to treat the peripheral areas as though they contained only people who needed the dole. Ultimately, that kind of attitude leads to a dependency culture which I also mentioned the other day. In the end, resentment is built up in that someone in a different place and who is very remote both in distance and in culture, is determining the lives of people in the peripheral regions. If one considers the South of Italy, it is no coincidence that that is where the residue of the Italian problem lies.
When one considers the threat to the United Kingdom, it does not come from the South of England. The threat to the United Kingdom arises when certain things happen such as those which occurred recently; for example, when Scotland sincerely believes that it is not counted as part of the United Kingdom. I shall not say any more about that. One should not insult the Members of the Committee by making a long speech, already written, about an issue of that kind. It is an extremely fundamental subject and everyone will understand it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was an MP for a constituency inside one of the peripheral areas. I am not sure which one it was.
Baroness Trumpington: Wallasey.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Some people like to refer to it as the Wirral. However, it does not make any difference. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, knows all about the situation. She knows of the attitude which has developed in Liverpool. There is no need for me to mention the social problems which have arisen

849
there recently; but they stem from the fact that the inhabitants believe that they are on the perimeter and that nobody really understands them or their problems.
The powers-that-be in Europe can decide to send largesse, money in large parcels, to Europe; but that does not serve the purpose. What is the Government's attitude to this matter? It is not asking much. I simply ask whether the Government will advise the people appointed to the regional council that one of the major factors on which they should concentrate is the decentralisation of the administration of the Common Market.
I say that for two reasons. First, if the concentration of activity arising from European Union activities continues to concentrate in that area of Europe, then the problem will reach such an extent that the standard of life in the area will not improve. Secondly, at the same time the rest of the European Union will be denied what is vitally necessary —that is to say, the jobs created in administration in the European Union and the identification of the people in the peripheral areas with the European Union as a whole. I beg to move.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: This seems to be turning into a Merseyside debate with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, moving this amendment and myself, as Chalker of Wallasey, answering for the Government. I believe that we are extremely conscious of the needs of all our regions within the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no doubt that over the years in which I served in another place, the difference which we were able to achieve in the way in which the needs of the regions, peripheral or otherwise, were considered in Westminster, was very welcome indeed.
The European Parliament is not the most popular of institutions in this or in another place. But I watched as the elected members of the European Parliament began to carry out their duties in Strasbourg and how the needs and anxieties of the regions were being thoroughly looked at by Parliament. They sometimes had very funny ideas about solutions; but nevertheless, the problems were discussed as they had never been discussed before.
We also saw successive European Commissioners —of which one former member, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is here this evening—go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that the needs of the peripheral regions, whether far off places in Greece or Denmark, let alone in the United Kingdom or anywhere else, were taken into account.
In moving his amendment, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, is really asking for reassurance that that pattern will continue. He is also asking for the decentralisation of Community institutions. I believe that through modern technology we are coming closer together, anyway. Perhaps I may momentarily refer the Committee back to our debate on trans-European networks, which are mentioned in the Maastricht Treaty. Such networks are one of the ways in which the needs of the peripheral regions can be brought, and will be brought, to the notice not only of the Commission, but also of the Council of
850
Ministers which takes the decisions. Therefore, I advise the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that his amendment is not necessary because of the other developments that are taking place.
Because I do not believe that the amendment is a practical suggestion, perhaps I may give the noble Lord one assurance. The Government have already pledged themselves to look at the needs of the regions in relation not only to national decisions, but also to the development of the Community's further regions. I say that knowing the debate that has taken place about the structural funds and about how new objective I status will be given to parts of Scotland and, indeed, to Merseyside when it is decided by the Council of Ministers. I understand that there is unanimity among the Ministers who will discuss this matter, and that it will come forward shortly.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, will accept that there is a whole host of different ways in which the needs of the periphery of the Community are being brought together at its centre. The opportunities for discussion are being enhanced by the Committee of the Regions. Each country is to decide its own membership of that committee. This country's members will be elected members of local authorities. In that way, there will be a second safeguard on top of the undertakings which the Government have freely entered into to make sure that the needs of the regions are fully understood. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I wonder whether the Committee will allow me to say just a few words before my noble friend Lord Sefton replies to the Minister. I appreciate that the Minister is doing her best to reassure the regions that their interests will be considered; but the Maastricht Treaty deals with the development of Europe in the years to come. I suspect that behind the amendment which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Sefton is the view that once foreign policy becomes part of the EC's remit, there is no justification for all the machinery connected with co-ordinating foreign policy throughout Europe to be based, on the one hand, in Brussels (where there are well over 100,000 EC jobs at present) or in Luxembourg on the other hand. Anybody who has seen the complex at Luxembourg will realise that many thousands of jobs are located there. There is no reason why the machinery that is put in place to develop a common foreign policy should be based in either Luxembourg or Brussels as opposed to London, Edinburgh, Newcastle or Liverpool—a place very dear to the Minister's heart.
That is true of defence policy also. I served for five years on the Western European Union, and I am firmly of the view that, far from being strengthened, the WEU should be wound up. If there is to be a common defence policy, there is no reason why the machinery that goes with the creation of that common defence policy—the Commissioner responsible for defence and all the backup that is necessary —should be based in either Brussels or Luxembourg as opposed to London, Edinburgh, Newcastle or Liverpool.

851
All that I am asking the Minister is that as this policy develops, as it will develop, she will keep those points in mind. When referring to Brussels and Luxembourg, one could refer also to Strasbourg but to a lesser extent because only the Parliament building and some administration is based there and the Parliament building is not even owned by the EC: it is owned by the Council of Europe. All these three centres (but Strasbourg to a lesser extent) are becoming saturated with EC jobs while there is nothing in administrative terms in our peripheral regions to reflect the fact that we are members of the EC. All that I am asking the Minister is that as the market develops and new powers are given, consideration should be given to decentralising the administration into the peripheral areas.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I understand what he noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has just said. I had hoped that what I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, about our intention to utilise trans-European networks would give him that assurance. It will not always be practical to move to other places parts of the institutions which have grown up in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, but as our technology develops, there is plenty of room for doing things at a distance. Indeed, distance learning is one of the subjects that we have already discussed in relation to this Bill.
Perhaps I may make one factual correction to what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said. The amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, does not cover the common foreign and security policy because that is a separate pillar under the Maastricht Treaty. It is quite separate from the Community and the Treaty of Rome. I should like that to be made clear on the record.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, will feel reassured. I give him my personal reassurance that I did not include Wallasey in my title without continuing to care for the region that I represented for so long.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Who could resist such an appeal? I would not dream of doing so, and in any case I would not dream of holding up the Committee. As I said in an earlier debate, the sooner this debate is over, the sooner we accept Europe and the sooner we start working for Europe, the better. I am heartened and pleased by what the Minister has said because there may now even be a chance of changing the Government's attitude to the decentralisation of administration. When one looks at Vauxhall Bridge and sees MI5 and MI6 crowding the place out and asks the Minister why they cannot be moved in view of modern technology in which communications between the outlying depot and the centre are much more efficient than in London, the reply comes back that the civil servants need to be in London because a Minister may have to control them or consult them. That would apply also to the Common Market. One
852
gets a vision of the Minister sitting in his plush office and 2,000 civil servants waiting at his door to greet him. It is patently absurd.
I thank the Minister for her assurance. She can rest assured that I, too, will be looking at decentralising administration which need not be in Brussels and that I am waiting.to see when it moves out to the peripheral regions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 407:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Further Treaties amending the Treaty of Rome
(". Her Majesty's Government shall not, in the European Community, European Union, or the institutions of either of them, negotiate or give formal or informal approval to any proposal for any further Treaty amending the Community Treaties or any one of them unless there shall first have been laid before Parliament and approved by a Resolution of both Houses a Command Paper setting out—

(a) the policy and objectives of the Community or the Union in putting forward the proposals;

(b) the full details thereof; and

(c) Her Majesty's Government's policy in relation thereto.").

The noble Lord said: Before moving this amendment, I should like to renew my apologies to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for my inability to do so yesterday evening. I do not know that his forensic skills will be much challenged by what I have to say since the issue which I am now putting forward is of a political rather than a legal nature.
I should like to return to something which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said at an earlier stage —namely, that any increase in the competences of the Community is a matter for treaty. It is not quite clear that he meant that literally because, for example, in the course of our debates on education it was apparent that the Community had found ways of entering—sometimes very usefully—into that sphere, although it would be difficult to find a precise, legal basis in the Treaty of Rome. We were told on that and I believe on other matters that in a way the Maastricht Treaty is a catching up in legal form of what, to some extent, already exists in practice. Nevertheless, in principle, clearly my noble and learned friend is right. Certainly, our partners in the Community believe that further treaties involving the amendment of existing ones should be envisaged.
As I pointed out on Second Reading, there is some contradiction in our picture of what has been happening; that is, the picture presented to us by our Government and that sometimes presented by spokesmen of other governments. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was very emphatic yesterday in pointing out that the original proposals in some fields had been much improved by the constant and devoted negotiating skills of those who have represented us on the various bodies concerned.
Ministers are always inclined to take a rather reassuring attitude. They tell us that we should not worry too much, that the thing is going along satisfactorily and that the idea that it could suddenly be catapulted into quite a different state of affairs is illusory. Nevertheless, I am sure that Members of the Committee will have noted that, on the morrow of the

853
second Danish referendum when the Danes, for reasons which they found adequate—though some may find them illusory—agreed to ratify the Maastricht Treaty, the incoming President of the Community (the Belgian Prime Minister) announced that he thought that there would be scope this very autumn for another summit meeting which could look at an immediate revision of the treaty. That proposal cannot have found great favour as we have not heard much more about it. I take it that it is now generally agreed that there will be no such conference for revising the treaty until 1996, the year actually specified.
Nevertheless, it must also always be in our minds that there is nothing to prevent the presidency for the time being—and we still have this rotating presidency which is, I think, one of the weaknesses of the whole structure—if it sees fit, and if it has support, from calling a conference to revise the treaty.
The purpose of the amendments is to suggest that, in future, there should be a way in some form or other —I would not attach particular merit to one procedure as against another —for Parliament to ascertain in detail what is likely to be proposed in respect of amending the treaty and the negotiating mandate with which Ministers and their officials will go to such revision meetings.
I do not see how that can, in general terms, possibly be opposed by Her Majesty's Government as they must be well aware that the difficulties that they have had in persuading the country of the merits of the treaty—we know that they have had difficulties, or we would be having a referendum—are partly derived from the fact that people find not merely that the treaty is difficult to understand (a claim that I find exaggerated) but also that it embodies moves about which they do not feel they have been adequately consulted. Moreover, even their Members of Parliament, in some cases, do not appear to have managed to establish the relations with their constituents on the matter that one might expect.
No doubt there are Members of the Committee who have received a great many letters about aspects of the Maastricht Treaty. The fact that we "non-elected" persons are thought to be suitable recipients of points of view suggests that there has been some breakdown in the communication between government and people which must he the bedrock of any important change in our treaty arrangements, or in the circumstances that arise out of them.
It would also appear, although it may be happening more slowly, that that is becoming a feature of public opinion in several other Community countries. There is a sudden realisation that as a result of what appeared to be rather technical procedures—for example, the introduction of this or that new clause into an already much-amended Treaty of Rome—we are being asked to live in a rather different world. Indeed, the previous amendment raised one aspect of that world; namely, its impact upon the peripheral regions of the Community.
Therefore, it seems to me to be worth drawing the Committee's attention even at this late stage of the
854
current proceedings to the fact that we have facing us —possibly sooner, but certainly not later than 1996 —a treaty which, if some people in continental countries are to be believed, would mean a massive step towards a centralised form of government. We must face that fact. It is desirable that we should have in existence the parliamentary machinery which would enable a government to go into such negotiations with the assurance that they were carrying along with them the majority of the citizens of this country. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank my noble friend at the outset for his apology. I take the view today that we are both fellow casualties of the postprandial roller-coaster. If we can leave it at that in amity, I shall be most grateful.
The matter under discussion is quite serious. The proposed amendments—namely, Amendments No. 407, 408 and 414—are grouped under the heading "Further Treaty Negotiations". I shall be very brief. However, in a sense, it cannot be denied that the amendments affect the position of the Monarch under our unwritten constitution. They inhibit the exercise of the Royal Prerogative on the advice of government to conclude treaties with other heads of state. They preclude Her Majesty's Government from concluding any further Community treaty without the prior approval of Parliament.
My noble friend referred to forensic skills. However, there is nothing skilful or forensic about it; it is just plain, straightforward stuff. These amendments were not introduced into the Bill by another place. Another place is not likely to think again, already not having thought at all—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: They did not have a chance to think—they just did not think. Therefore, Members of the Committee may well consider that it would be a curious assumption of power, perhaps savouring of a hint of arrogance, for this Chamber to send the amendments to another place for debate. They are amendments which conflict with the fundamental constitutional principle that Parliament may not legislate to bind a future Parliament. There is no precedent; there is no good reason. The proposal is wholly impracticable and, indeed, it could well be misunderstood as directed not only against government but also against the exercise of prerogative.
That it is a wrong precedent: the treaty-making power of the Monarch has never been ceded, qualified or called into question. That there is no good reason: the treaties concluded as between heads of state, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was at pains to point out a few moments ago, cannot affect our own domestic law without the assent of Parliament. That it is impracticable: Members of the Committee may remember the process described by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who is in his place. I refer to Hansard of 23rd June, col. 358, where he describes the continuing process of negotiations as between member states implemented by the treaty-making process.

855
Maastricht, as I see it, is in any case somewhat out of date. It is just a step in this process, in due course to be followed inevitably by another such step. If we are to keep a seat at the negotiating table, if we are to pursue what has been our traditional policy of diplomacy during the centuries and long before the Common Market was thought of —which was to keep an eye on what is going on in Europe in order to advance and protect our interests, and surely that is the policy that we must continue to pursue within the EC—the empty chair will serve us no better today that it has ever served in the past.
The system adopted—and we cannot act otherwise—is that the treaties are concluded as between heads of member states and are then submitted to the respective Parliaments. There is no viable way in which the United Kingdom can "buck" the system without serious damage to our standing and influence in the affairs of Europe within what we hope will become the enlarged European Community.
Further delay in the passage of this Bill, already too long delayed, would be seen by other member states as yet another manifestation of our incomprehensible insularity: the odd man out playing at blind-man's buff. Members of the Committee may well think that by convention and tradition the role of this Chamber is to uphold the constitution and the exercise of the royal prerogative; not as innovators to initiate these proposed derogations from the constitution.
For those reasons it is the hope that the Committee will not accept the amendments.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: It is normally reasonable that Members who have put their name to the amendments should speak before others but I shall let that gently pass. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that the amendment affects the Royal Prerogative. I suggest that that has already been done by writing into the Treaty of Maastricht that it will be renegotiated and committing the Royal Prerogative to renegotiate a new treaty in 1996. As regards an attempt being made to bind a future Parliament, Article Q of the Maastricht Treaty provides that the treaty shall be for an unlimited period. Therefore, the argument produced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, appears to be totally fallacious.
The view put forward by my noble friend Lord Beloff appears to be self-evidently sensible to those of us who have doubts about the actual workings of the treaty and who are of the opinion that it will invariably implode inwards when its incompetences are realised by everyone and not just by a few. It seems to me that if we are to renegotiate a new treaty it is important that the Government go to the negotiating table with the support of both Houses of Parliament, with the support of the people and with the support of a policy which has been clearly laid out as regards what is required, rather than what happened at Maastricht. That was, basically, a reaction to what the French and Germans had done and to say, "Oh, because Lady Thatcher is no longer here we had better do something", and landing ourselves in the muddle in which we now find ourselves.
856
I know that the noble Lords, Lord Aldington and Lord Cockfield, will move their wise old heads in askance when I say that the treaty will eventually collapse. I bet a pound to a kipper that it will.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his criticism of these amendments, which are unacceptable. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has identified an area in which it is possible that our procedures can be improved. I suggest that the noble Baroness might consider referring the matter to the Procedure Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, firstly and rightly, that these proposals modify the Royal Prerogative to negotiate and sign treaties. That is not answered by saying that the future negotiation of a treaty is envisaged. Even if it is, as the matter stands at present the prerogative of the Crown stands unmodified.
There is a second reason. It would be quite absurd to modify the Crown's prerogative in the narrow sphere of treaties relating to Europe. That anomaly simply does not make sense. If it is to he modified at all it should be modified generally. I surmise that the amendment was drawn in the way that it was in an attempt to keep within the Long Title. I am by no means certain that it has done so. It is difficult to argue that these amendments are consequential on the Treaty of Maastricht.
However that may be, there is the further reason that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, put forward; namely, that it is a fundamental constitutional doctrine that, in the famous words of the common law, Acts derogatory of future Parliaments bind them not. Anything that is passed by one Parliament can be altered by a future Parliament: so that is never attempted because it is an act of futility. However, I believe that, there may be scope for improving our procedures. The normal parliamentary course in relation to treaties is that the Crown has the prerogative to negotiate and sign treat ies but in order to ratify, in the case of a complicated treaty, the Crown is bound to try to secure any necessary alteration in our domestic law which will bring it into line with new treaty obligations. That is what this Bill does.
In theory, doing that, there should be no difficulty in parliamentary control, albeit ex post facto, over the alterations that have been effected by the treaty. In the case of this treaty and this Bill Members of the Committee have ranged widely and have been uninhibited by strict rules of order. Many of the discussions on amendments must have gone beyond the normal rules. It may well be, therefore, that the Procedure Committee would wish first to examine whether what has been done in this case is an advisable precedent. If it is not, it may wish to consider whether something along the lines of what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Earl who has just spoken might be introduced into our procedure.
I can see that there are very grave difficulties, although something of that kind is done in the United States where, although the President has the

857
prerogative of treaty making, in modern times, not infrequently, members of Congress are identified with the negotiating machinery. I must say that the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, being associated with the Prime Minister at Maastricht, Edinburgh or Copenhagen provides a light note in the proceedings on this Bill. However, something of that nature may be considered alongside what has been proposed in the amendment. But, in the meantime, I agree entirely that the amendments are not acceptable.
Lord Aldington: I remind the Committee of the procedure that has taken place in this Chamber before the Maastricht Treaty was negotiated. I agree entirely with what my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord said about prerogative. However, behind the strict words of the amendment, I detect a desire on the part of my noble friends whose names are to the amendment that Parliament should be associated with the policy behind the proposals which Ministers will negotiate with other Ministers. That is exactly what happened in the case of Maastricht.
Members of the Committee may have forgotten that a special ad hoc Select Committee was set up. It carried out a full inquiry into economic, monetary and political union. We addressed to your Lordships a very full report which was debated twice. During the course of the negotiations, which seemed to cover all the points that we took up, there was a slight change and a further inquiry was carried out and a further report made to your Lordships. There was then a further debate, to which the Government responded giving their views.
It is true also in the case of Maastricht that this place as well as the other place considered the Government's proposals in great detail before the treaty was finally negotiated. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that there is no need to consider again the procedure in connection with amendments to the European Communities Treaty. A Select Committee exists to deal with such matters and it will continue the precedent set by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, when she was chairman of that committee.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said. At first sight this may appear to he a reasonable amendment but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out, it is of major constitutional importance because it changes the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature.
Changes of that kind have been made over the centuries, although not always to the public advantage. However, they have been made. If they are made, they should be made as a result of proper and full consideration and not as a result of feelings on one particular issue.
I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Aldington that those matters were very fully debated both in this Chamber and in another place. If we feel that additional time should be given to debating those matters, no doubt that can be done. But we should
858
not, under any circumstances, make major constitutional changes on the basis of a single and particular case.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I pick up a few of the comments made on this group of amendments. There is absolutely no doubt that what my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Cockfield, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale have said about the amendments is very true.
The amendments would fetter the prerogative in the field of treaty making. I know that that is not unprecedented in EC law but it is quite clear that Amendment No. 407 would impose not a specific fetter but a general fetter on treaty making. That is why, in short, I cannot accept Amendments Nos. 407, 408 and 414.
It has been a consistent practice as regards treaties for Parliament to pass any necessary domestic legislation after signature but before ratification. I believe that that practice affords sufficient protection of Parliament's legitimate right to influence and any future substantive amendments to Community treaties will require an Act of Parliament just as we had the Single European Act and just as we are now discussing a Bill on the Maastricht Treaty. That is Parliament's opportunity to have its say.
I understand the procedural anxieties which have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Beloff and I understand also the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. At times the Committee has been in some doubt about whether we were debating the amendment before us. However, as those Members of the Committee have said, that is a matter for the Procedure Committee.
I urge Members of the Committee to vote against the amendment if it is pressed. It would be not only wrong to fetter our procedures but I believe that it would be a very unwise step. I cannot accept those amendments.
Lord Beloff: It is not my purpose to press this amendment but I must make it clear that there is an unbridgeable gulf between myself and my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Cock field and others who take the same view.
The amendment does not refer to the general power of making treaties by the use of the prerogative. Treaties are made on many occasions and some are minor; for example, to cede a distant islet or make a particular provision for some commercial matter. We are here—and I agree in this regard with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—dealing with a major constitutional issue. However, the constitutional issue is not the relationship between the legislature and the Executive. The constitutional issue is the wish of some persons in this Chamber and outside it and on the continent of Europe that Britain should become part of a European superstate to which successive meetings to amend the treaties will direct themselves, as has been made quite plain by Chancellor Kohl, by President Mitterrand and by other European leaders.
This means we are discussing something on a totally different level from our internal constitutional

859
arrangements. Once we have entered into that situation, the balance between the legislature and the Executive in this country will become of relatively minor importance to anyone except the specialists. I implore Members of the Committee to take their minds off the current debate in this Chamber or indeed in this country and observe more closely what is being urged upon us in Europe. At that point we may find our enthusiasm for entering into further arrangements diminished. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 408 and 409 not moved.]
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 410:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Meaning of "municipal elections"
(". The term "municipal elections" in Article 8b of the Treaty on European Union shall mean in the United Kingdom elections at town, parish, district or county council level only.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment flows from Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty which establishes for every citizen of the United Kingdom a citizenship of the European Union which they neither asked for, nor have they accepted. They must have been as delighted as I, and no doubt the Committee, to read the incredibly generous rights that have been imposed upon us. Article 8b states:
"Every citizen or the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides".
As we in this Chamber have no right to vote in general elections in this country anyway, the Committee can imagine the delight that filled my heart on reading that article. I thought how wonderful it was that I should be given a righ be given a right — I never asked for that in the first place — to vote in an election in another country. Thate is too Iudicrous even to contemplate. howerver, having handled that delight with as much joy as I could meant. I have been led to believe that the influence of Humpty-Dumpty has reached other states of Europe and that the other states of the Community have read into this word anything that best suitedc them. It is of critical importance that the meaning of the term "municipal" —that has been variously interpreted by memeber states —within United kingdom law is absolutely clear. That is the sole intention of this amendment. It is an attempt to probe Her Majesty's Government on the precise meaning of the term and it is an attempt to suggest that some clarity be introduced into domestic law. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: I wish briefly to intervene as this matter was considered by Sub-Committee E of a Select Committee of this Chamber. We produced a precise report upon the matter, and the provisions that are set out in the Maastricht Treaty while not identical to our recommendations run entirely within the spirit of those recommendations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): In the debate on citizenship that took place in this Chamber the other day, I twice gave an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who was concerned about the matter, that "municipal" in this
860
context cannot be taken to mean national. I am happy to give my noble friend Lord Morris that assurance again this evening. I shall try to make the position as clear to him as I can because he still labours under an anxiety.
In our domestic arrangements we have basically now three types of elections: elections to the European Parliament; parliamentary elections and municipal elections. In the national context, municipal elections mean local authority elections. In international law, though, the word "municipal" has a different meaning. It is used to draw the distinction between, on the one hand, international law and, on the other hand, national law. In international legal parlance domestic law is called municipal law. In this international parlance the word "municipal" is not used to mean national in the context of elections. It never has been and it is well known not to do so.
My noble friend is worried for fear that the word "municipal" in the Maastricht Treaty might be taken to mean that Article 8b refers to national elections. I can assure him that that is not so. It applies only to local elections and elections to the European Parliament and not to national elections. This is well known and it is clear to all our partners in the European Community. I hope therefore that I have been able to lay to rest any ghosts of apprehension or fear which my noble friend might still have harboured.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend finally sits down, does what he has said mean that a British subject residing in Germany can vote in Lander elections or only in bürgermeister elections?
Earl Ferrers: If a person was resident for a certain length of time in another country in the Community, he would be able to take part in that country's local municipal elections but not in its national elections.
The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend has not answered the question. Lãnder are states in the Federal Republic of Germany. Can we vote in state elections in federal countries abroad or not?
Lord Richard: Before the noble Earl answers, I should tell him that the invisible people in the Box are nodding hard in assent to the proposition.
Earl Ferrers: I am deeply indebted as I always am to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately I do not have eyes like a chamaeleon but I am happy to give the confirmation which my noble friend seeks. The answer is "Yes".
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: Can my noble friend say whether, for instance, British subjects or French subjects who are resident in Germany for a certain period of time will be able to vote in European parliamentary elections?
Earl Ferrers: That is the subject of amendments that will be discussed later.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I did not intend to intervene at this point but the nods of assent in relation to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on whether British citizens will be allowed to

861
vote in Länder elections in Germany raise another interesting point. Have I understood correctly that British citizens will be able to vote in Länder elections?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What would be the position if, for example, we altered our local divisions into regions rather than counties and districts as they exist at the present time? Would there be a risk under this provision that, say, Frenchmen or Italians coming over here would be able to vote in regional elections and that they would be the English equivalent of Länder elections?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has a vivid imagination and he tries to speculate on What might happen if we altered the arrangements for voting in this country. We must address the basic question which is that the word "municipal" in international law refers to national things as opposed to international things. In the context of elections "municipal" does not mean national elections; it means local elections. It would be up to the government of the day of the country concerned to decide whether, if it altered its internal arrangements, that would constitute a municipal election. My understanding of the hypothesis which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, puts forward is that it would still be a case of a local election.
Lord Monson: What would be the case if some form of Northern Ireland Assembly were to be revived? Would continental Europeans resident in Northern Ireland be able to vote in elections for that assembly?
Earl Ferrers: Again, it is undesirable to try to fulfil all kinds of hypotheses. I come back to the original point, which is that if it is a national election they will not be able to participate. If it is a local election they will.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: I am sorry to come back to my noble friend, but I did not ask him an imaginary question. I thought that I asked him a concrete question: would a British or French subject resident in Germany be allowed to vote in elections for the European Parliament in Germany?
Earl Ferrers: The answer to that question is in the affirmative.
Lord Cockfield: There is no problem about that. It is specifically covered by paragraph 2 of Article 8b.
Lord Morris: In the light of that information from my noble friend, for which I thank him, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 411 to 420 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage should resume not before 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
862
House resumed.

Income Support: Pregnant Young Women
7.1 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will implement the recommendation of the House of Commons Select Committee on Health that: "Pregnant 18–24 year olds who qualify for Income Support should receive it at the full adult rate".
The noble Countess said: My Lords, the Minister must be well aware of the increasing concern for the well-being of single mothers between the ages of 18 and 24 who are dependent upon social security benefits. I have received letters from the Royal College of Midwives, which also gave the views of the Health Visitors Association, Maternity Alliance, social workers and a great many branches of the National Childbirth Trust.
As a member of the farming community I know that if any of my pregnant animals should for any reason become malnourished their progeny, if the pregnancy comes to term, will in all probability be weak, possibly malformed and poor growers. We do our utmost to ensure that our animals are properly housed and that they receive an adequate diet, for they are our assets. That maxim should also apply to human mothers, particularly those who are unable to maintain themselves financially and for whom the Government assume responsibility.
The babies born to each generation are the assets of the community. It is for all of us to ensure that all children who survive are born whole, healthy and with the capacity to grow up to become happy, productive citizens. Try as they might, the Government have been totally unable to convince me and those concerned with the care of pregnant mothers that these young women need less money upon which to survive than those who are over 25 years old.
To say that the day-to-day living expenses of pregnant women between the ages of 18 and 24 are not significantly different from those of others in that age band is nonsense, for a number of reasons. Pregnant women of all ages and from all walks of life are constantly advised to attend ante-natal clinics regularly. That involves travelling costs over and above those for their non-pregnant counterparts. Once at the clinic the usual practice is for expectant mothers to be given a diet sheet and advice about supportive clothing. The diet sheets, which are substantially the same for each clinic, suggest three cooked meals a day with intervening snacks. They include a wide variety of foods which are well beyond the means of women of any age in receipt of income support.
As the Minister knows, Maternity Alliance has calculated that a woman needing to maintain herself and her unborn baby at the bare minimum nutritional level would have to spend over half of her social security benefits on food. That would leave her with about £15 a week to pay for her fuel bills, special clothing, personal needs and travel. She would also

863
want to accumulate clothing and furniture for her baby, for the Social Fund maternity payment is about one-tenth of the amount needed to buy even the minimum of a new baby's needs. So what happens? Spending on food is the most elastic part of the budget of the poor. When other, apparently more pressing, expenses need to be met spending on food will have to be reduced.
Even the witnesses representing the Department of Social Security before the Select Committee on Health floundered when questioned about the ability of people on income support to provide themselves with an adequate diet. To say that the diet of clients must be adequate because there is no evidence pointing the other way is not 'by any stretch of the imagination a sound base. It is easier to refuse to confront a potentially embarrassing situation by stating repeatedly that there is ho evidence to prove that there is a problem in the hope that the statements will eventually be believed than it is to conduct proper scientific research which might prove just the opposite. If such research had been carried out I suspect that the Government would have discovered that the dietary needs of pregnant women aged between 18 and 24 would be substantially the same as those of the over-25s, though there would be variations in needs and tastes within both groups. There also appears to be an assumption that all the young women concerned have easy access to cooking facilities and shops and markets where they can purchase the fresh food they need cheaply. That, of course, is not the case.
Another excuse—I was going to say a reason—which is regularly trotted out by Ministers, is that the under-25s have lower earnings expectations and fewer financial responsibilities. When will the Government accept that income support is not a substitute for earnings? In those halcyon days when the Minister's department was known as the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance I was trained to advise clients that National Assistance was a subsistence allowance based on need. Has there really been a change in philosophy since then?
The needs of a pregnant woman, whatever her age, are for shelter, food and clothing. Suppliers do not discriminate. What evidence does the Minister's department have to substantiate his oft-made assertion that this group of young women have fewer financial responsibilities than their older counterparts? Does he have any evidence to show that pregnant women over the age of 25 are less likely to share accommodation than those under 25? Do they not all expect to contribute to the expenses of a shared household?
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but as far as I can ascertain no sound evidence, that young women get themselves pregnant in order to escape the parental home or to avoid work or training. The legal responsibility of parents for young children ends when the children reach the age of 16. It is natural for a young person to fly the nest and seek an independent life as soon as he or she is able to be self-supporting, but we must remember that there are a number of other reasons why young people leave home. Young girls do not need to become pregnant to do so. It is
864
unlikely that the level of income support will be a sufficient incentive, and to become pregnant deliberately with all that parenthood involves, is surely a major disincentive.
There is copious medical evidence to substantiate that babies born to young, undernourished women are often premature. Those which go to term are frequently under weight and suffer chronic health problems. Mothers are often unable to breast feed and their children fail to thrive. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will expand on that point.
Finally, we come to the cost. The Government have estimated that it would cost £360 million to increase the level of income support for all 18 to 24 year-olds to the full adult rate. I am conscious of the fact that. the Exchequer could not bear such an increase. The rate of income support is increased to the full adult rate for 18 to 24 year-old women as soon as the baby is born. Why can it not be raised as soon as the: pregnancy is confirmed? The difference is only a. matter of months.
All that I ask tonight is that those babies born to young mothers who must rely upon income support are given the same chance. to live and thrive as those born to older mothers in the same situation. They are.. after all, our future.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, if we are to do anything about the health and well-being of the least well off of our citizens—and I take i t for granted that everyone in this House will at least pay lip service to the thought that we should do that —we must start with pregnant mothers. Some time in the past few years Sweden reached a world landmark in being the first country to record equal average birthweights for all social classes. It is a real mark of shame that Sweden should be the first and only country to achieve that benchmark. One would have thought that it should be the aim of all countries and all political parties. Whether or not we agree with various forms of equality, there is agreement, I should have thought, on the necessity for an equal start for all children.
The Question may be about young mothers but, as the noble Countess pointed out, it refers even more to foetuses and babies. However much noble Lords may fight against it—and some will fight harder than others—there is a tendency to think that pregnant 18 year-olds or 20 year-olds, and especially those who do not have a husband or a supporting family, must somehow be undeserving. I know that that group is only a small number among those about whom we speak this evening, but it is an important small number. I believe that it is right that I should address my remarks today to that extreme case.
We are not talking about mothers and whether they are deserving. We are talking about children. There is nothing deserving or undeserving about a small child. It is the clear duty of any government of this country to ensure that no children born in this country are disadvantaged because their mothers, however marginalised they may be by society, are unable to afford a decent diet for themselves and for their children. I should like to think that it went without

865
saying that the Government accept that duty. Nevertheless, I should like to hear the Government say that they do. Even more importantly, even if it can be shown that in a large number of cases, or even in a small number of cases, that situation does not arise, I should like the Government categorically to assure us that they will take the necessary steps to ensure that it does not arise.
The Government have heard the case that the noble Countess has deployed. When they have heard the evidence which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will put before them—that in fact these mothers and children do not obtain sufficient nourishment to start the children off on anything like an equal footing in this world—it will be necessary for the Government to state that they will immediately take the necessary steps to put the situation right.
7.12 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to speak in support of the Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lady Mar.
The dietary needs of a pregnant woman are very important all through her pregnancy, but especially so in the last three months. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy in the Commons recognised that there were probably modest additional requirements during the last three months of pregnancy. That would seem to be a step in the right direction, as additional requirements have been recognised; especially so during the last three months of pregnancy. That is a time when extra nutrition is desirable both for the mother and for the growing foetus.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government would consider ensuring that in any benefit office there is one officer who is trained to assist those young pregnant girls of 18 years to 24 years on how best to manage their benefits. Many of them may have had little experience in managing their finances and are most likely to be worried and frightened, especially if they have been in care and perhaps have no family who will or can help them.
There is, of course, the need not only for a well balanced diet but also for clothing, especially in the later stages; and, of course, the need to keep warm. I should have thought that those requirements would be the same for a 24 year-old as for a 25 year-old. A young girl of 24 years and 11 months must be longing for the day when she is 25 if she is pregnant and on income support.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to note the following quotation from a report on poverty in York in 1899, when Joseph Rowntree observed,
"That if York was typical, then the impediment to the rearing of healthy children is not the ignorance of the mothers so much or nearly so much as that the conditions of modern life do not enable them to supply their children with sufficient sustenance".
That is the vision of a man living in the last century. It could be said to apply equally today.
Evidence from the Department of Social Security to the House of Commons Select Committee on Health referred to in the second report for the session 1991–92
866
on maternity services, estimated the cost. Assuming that income support was paid at the 1991–92 rate and was paid throughout pregnancy, and estimating the number of pregnant women aged 18 years to 24 years on that benefit, the cost would be about £4.5 million. The evidence also suggested that the additional annual cost of paying income-related benefits to pregnant women who in 1991–92 received the 18 to 24 year-old rates was around £5.5 million.
Those figures do not agree with the Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to a Starred Question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on 3rd March, reported in Hansard at col. 657. The Minister stated that the added cost of increasing the rates for those under 25 would be about £360 million. Can the Minister say how that figure is arrived at? Does he include all 18 to 24 year-olds on income support, or only those pregnant 18 to 24 year-olds? The figures seem rather disparate and I am puzzled at such a difference in the amount.
I wish to return to the matter of a good diet. As I have already said, it is very important that a healthy diet is maintained, especially in the last three months of a pregnancy. That at least would try to ensure a healthy baby at birth, not forgetting the mother's health as well. Surely it could well save money if the child was healthy and not, sadly, in need of constant medical attention or care in residential accommodation and if possible psychological troubles for the mother which could be very distressing could be avoided.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend the Countess of Mar is to be congratulated on bringing this issue before the House. I refer to her as "my noble friend" advisedly because it is seldom that I disagree with her when she raises, as she often does, questions relating to injustice or iniquity in the health or social services.
She has put the issue clearly before the House. I do not accept the Government's position in their reply to the Select Committee's recommendations any more than does the noble Countess who described them to us.
I remind noble Lords that we are not talking about the whole range of pregnant 18 to 24 year-old women; we are talking only about those entitled to income supplement, a sizeable proportion of whom may be, or are on the way to becoming, single parents. I suggest that it is highly likely that such young women may be very hard pressed financially, for instance in maintaining an independent dwelling, and in having additional expenses concerned with preparing for their babies' needs. The noble Lady and the noble Countess have referred to those issues.
As was pointed out in evidence to the Select Committee, expenditure on food is a flexible budget item. If other unavoidable expenses such as household bills are heavy, less than is desirable may be spent on food. The noble Countess expanded on that very successfully, I thought.
There has been much discussion about whether it is possible to purchase a "healthy" diet for an average price. I do not intend to enter that discussion, except

867
to say that fruit, vegetables and whole grains, which have recently been shown to be even more important to good health than we already knew, are relatively expensive items. It has been shown in a number of surveys that those on low incomes buy much less fruit and vegetables than those who are better off. Fruit and vegetables contain, as well as vitamin C (which we all know about), dietary fibre, anti-oxidants, trace metals and essential fatty acids, all important in the development of nervous and vascular tissue—in other words brain and blood vessels.
It is now fully documented and accepted that the incidence of low birth weight and prematurity is associated with low socio-economic status, even allowing for other associated factors such as smoking, which is more common in people of low socioeconomic status. In particular, it has been shown that poor nutritional status is much more common among the mothers of low birth weight and premature babies than among those who deliver babies of normal weight. I refer the noble Lord to the work of Wendy Doyle and Professor Michael Crawford, of the Institute of Brain Chemistry, who have published a series of papers based on their work in Hackney, East London.
Low birth weight and prematurity are associated with higher perinatal mortality and subsequent physical and mental handicap—of considerable cost to the state. One estimate is that all cases of congenital mental retardation, blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy or autism cost us about £2 billion per annum in care. Of course, not all cases of those conditions are associated with low birth weight, but a high proportion are, and others are quite likely to be associated with maternal malnutrition or sub-nutrition in early pregnancy.
Doyle and Crawford, together with Professor David Barker of the Medical Research Council's epidemiology unit in Southampton, have evidence that many disorders of later adult life have their origins in early foetal life, just after conception, before the mother is even sure that she is pregnant. They depend on the nutritional state of the mother at that time. This would suggest that to wait until pregnancy is established before increasing income supplement is closing the door after the horse has bolted. (I felt that that was not perhaps the right metaphor, when talking about babies who have not yet been born, but I could not think of another one!)
Logically, all women on income supplement, of child-bearing age, should receive a special dietary supplement. I suggest that it should come with an information pack on how to spend it wisely. If all women of 18 to 24 who are on income supplement were paid at the same rate as adult women or women over 25—the noble Lord may confirm that it would cost £360 million—I believe that as a first step it would be a wise investment. However, I realise that that goes beyond tonight's Unstarred Question. I shall come back to your Lordships with such a suggestion as I have just made when the research necessary to back the proposal has been completed. Professor Crawford has just such a project in mind at the moment.
I am sure that the Minister will inform us that a
868
young pregnant woman in real need can turn to the social fund for emergency help; that her income will be augmented in any case when the baby is born. That would miss the point that we are making and miss the boat as regards the pregnancy. I suggest that in any case personal stresses will be greater for such a young, single pregnant woman, as has already been pointed out. She may not be well enough organised to claim every additional benefit to which she may be entitled.
The number of women under 24, living alone, pregnant and in receipt of income supplement will not be all that great. I do not have the exact figure, but perhaps the Minister can help us in that respect when he replies. A cost of £5.5 million was mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. Possibly that sum would apply to that group of women about whom we are talking. I am sure that the noble Lord will elucidate. Whatever the number of women, the argument for following the advice of the Select Committee in another place, that pregnant 18 to 24 year-olds who qualify for income support should receive it at the full adult rate is to me unanswerable, both in terms of justice and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, pointed out so well, of even greater importance in terms of the health of a vulnerable part of' the next: generation. Surely that is the responsibility of any government who claim the right to remain in power.
7.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. referred to the Joseph Rowntree report of 1899 relating to conditions in York. I should remind her and the House that we have moved on since then I should also like to say to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss—and I accept that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, does not agree with what we have to say—that we have in this country what is arguably the most comprehensive social security safety net throughout the whole of Europe, far better than many of our colleagues. Things have moved on a great deal since then.
It is also important to remind the House to bear in mind that on this occasion the debate has been about increasing money directed towards social security benefits at a time when pressures on government: expenditure have never been greater. I shall return to the costs later on.
The debate has centred upon what many would consider to be the special needs of pregnant women. Previously, this question has been raised with the emphasis on the suggestion that young, pregnant women need additional nourishment. I think that. the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked for a dietary supplement. I have to say that we would not want to return to the old days of supplementary benefit and the various complexities that existed with supplementary benefit. But on that point which the noble Lord raised about some supplement for pregnant women on income support, it is worth reminding the House that those pregnant income support beneficiaries also receive free milk tokens which entitle them to seven pints of milk per week—a very valuable addition, with the added calcium which comes with milk, for

869
pregnant women—and free vitamin supplements. It is therefore not true to say that pregnant women receive no more than others aged 18 to 24 on income support. Further, once the child is born, it is entitled to free liquid milk or dried baby milk and free vitamins. That help will continue as long as the family receives income support and the child is under five years old.
I accept that there has been considerable concern expressed on the question of diet for this particular group. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, stressed this matter very much. I should just like to refer to the report by COMA which advises the Department of Health. In its report on dietary reference values, COMA set down a framework for the United Kingdom of nutritional requirements to be met through diets. Those can be met through an endless variety of diets but, more important, COMA (the committee on the medical aspects of food policy) did not conclude that pregnancy incurred significant additional contributions. Further, the MAFF National Food Survey indicates that the diets of people in all income groups contain adequate levels of most nutrients. However, I am advised that as a whole—and this is what we are informed—the population needs to eat less fat, more bread, cereals, pulses, seasonal vegetables and fruit in order to maintain good health and prevent major diseases. The calculationsby MAFF have shown that a diet which meets the latest dietary advice need not be more expensive, indeed it can very often be cheaper, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who is a doctor, would confirm. In addition, advice from MAFF and the Department of Health indicates that there is no need to buy special, more expensive food in order to eat more healthily. The whole range of foodstuffs available at affordable prices is so wide that a healthy diet is obtainable within anyone's means.
The noble Countess referred to the health of babies generally. I am afraid that I have no break-down of figures dividing them up according to social classes and according to income groups. But I think it is worth reminding the House and the noble Countess of just what has happened to figures showing still-births or deaths within seven days of birth per 1,000 births in England and Wales over the past 10 years. In 1982 it was 11.3—historically, a very low figure, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will accept. The figure has been coming down steadily over the years. But in as short a time as by 1992 that figure had dropped to 7.9. That is down 3.4 per 1,000. By my calculations, that is a drop of some 30 per cent. That is a fairly large drop between 1982 and 1992 and it belies any accusation that there is a large number of people for whom a healthy diet is not available.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to Sweden and that country's admirable record—it is praiseworthy—and that only Sweden has an average birth weight more or less the same for all social classes. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to low birth weight in the lower social classes, and obviously that was something to be deprecated.
We accept that there is evidence of an association between ill-health and adverse circumstances, but
870
there is little to identify specific causes, such as diet or nutrition. Possibly, there are other causes. The nutritional content of the diets of all people is remarkably familiar. If I may refer back to COMA, that committee and the nutrition task force have jointly commissioned a study looking at methods of investigating the links between nutrition and low income. I can certainly give the assurance that is something we would certainly take into account and bear in mind according to what they might report.
But on the general issue, our support for 18 to 24 year-olds does of course escalate notably following the birth of a child. When their baby is born, single mothers are entitled to a higher personal allowance and additional income support in the form of family premium, the lone parent premium and personal allowance for the child. Taken together with child benefit and one parent benefit the extra income support gives an overall income of £73.60 per week to 18 to 24 year-olds. That is, an increase of £38.80.
Again, it is worth stressing and, to be fair to the noble Countess, she did stress this point, we are talking only in relation to the single 18 to 24 year-olds. When we are dealing with couples in this particular class—this is a very important point to get over to the House—there is no distinction between the 18 to 24 year-olds where at least one is over 18 and 24 year-old or over 24 year-old couples. As I said, as soon as the child is born they will be getting the higher rate. Furthermore, a maternity payment will normally be available from the Social Fund to help with any additional costs due to the arrival of a baby. The maternity payment has increased substantially since its introduction in 1987. Currently it is £100; that is a 25 per cent. increase on the original figure from 1987. That makes the maternity payment a substantial and useful contribution from the state towards the additional expense a new baby brings. Of course, anyone receiving income support is also entitled to receive housing benefit, should they so need it.
The needs of the family figured prominently during the deliberations that led up to the 1988 social security reforms. The cornerstone of those reforms was the creation of a benefit system that would enable us to do more for those in greatest need. It has been the establishment of these benefit reforms that has enabled us to target extra help to low income families with children worth something around £1 billion a year from this April.
There has also been general comment on the lower level of income support paid to all people between the ages of 18 and 24. As I said on earlier occasions, the levels of benefit for this group take account of the fact that the majority live in someone else's household.
I was asked what evidence there was that under-25s were less likely to live independently. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked how many there were living independently. The latest available figures reveal that of the more than half a million—that is, 561,000—people receiving the 18 to 24 rate of income support, only around 100,000, a little under 20 per cent. are receiving housing benefit. The implication

871
must be that the others have fewer financial responsibilities and are therefore less likely to live independently.
The noble Countess again pressed me on how we justified the different rates of income support for the 18 to 24 year-olds. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, mentioned the Starred Question in the name of my noble kinsman, Lord Russell, on 3rd March. I can only repeat the explanations that I gave on that particular occasion. There are four reasons why we have different rates. The first, as I stressed on that occasion, is the added cost of increasing the rates of those aged under 24—some 360 million. I accept that that is for all 18 to 24 year-olds. The second is that there are the lower earnings expectations of people under 24. The fact that they have fewer financial responsibilities is again a point that I have mentioned. The third reason, as I have just mentioned, is that they are likely to live as part of someone's household. On that occasion, the figures, which were last year's figures, showed something around 15 per cent. of those on income support—it is now something like 20 per cent.—to be in receipt of housing benefit. The fourth reason is that we do not believe that levels of benefit should be an incentive to leave home or an attractive alternative to seeking work or training.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble kinsman for giving way. I would be very grateful if he could explain to us why lower earnings when in work are reason for lower benefit when out of work. I simply do not understand this.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble kinsman did not listen to me. Lower earnings and financial responsibilities go along together. As I am trying to explain, where there are lower earnings, there are frequently lower financial responsibilities. For that reason, we think that it is quite justifiable having a lower rate of income support. 'We do not see a case, as I have made perfectly clear—and further to that I can add the explanation that there are massive costs involved which even my noble kinsman accepts—for increasing the rate for the 18 to 24 year-olds to the same rate as that for the 25 year-olds and above.
Further, at the last up-rating in April 1993, all income-related benefits were increased by 3.6 per cent., which is fully in line with the Rossi index and the same (the two coincided in that year) as the RPI. Further, 18 to 24 year-olds will have gained from the fact that people receiving income support are no longer required to pay local taxes.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, also asked whether special advice was available in the benefits agency offices. That was a very good point and certainly something which ought to be addressed. I can inform the noble Lady that 16 to 17 year-olds, who are the most vulnerable of this group, are dealt with by specially trained officers advised by a member of the management team. Further, money management advice is available for all income support recipients as part of the Social Fund service. In addition the benefits agency has devoted much effort to improving customer service. I know that certainly from my own personal experience of visiting benefit offices, one of
872
which I visited only today. Certainly, it is something that they would very much wish to do in providing the best possible service for all those who have to make use of the Department of Social Security.
Many points have been made during this debate. I have to say that we see no convincing evidence to suggest that the needs of pregnant women aged 18 to 24 are so significantly different from others in that age band (the 18–24 year-olds) that any special treatment is appropriate over and above what is already available. I can, however, give the assurance that income support is, and will continue to be. closely monitored. We shall continue to ensure that the position of 18 to 24 year-olds and others receiving benefit is maintained.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.40 to 8 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
House again in Committee.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 421:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Provisions for uniform electoral procedure
(". Before 31st December 1993, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before each House of Parliament a Command Paper setting out how they intend to adopt provisions laid down by the Council in accordance with Article 138(3) of the Treaty on European Union.").
The noble Lord said: It will not have escaped the attention of the Committee that we on these Benches take every possible opportunity to urge the case for reform of the electoral system both to achieve more representative outcomes and to give voters more choice and involvement in elections. It seems particularly important in the case of the European Parliament that there should be a fair and representative electoral system. I say that for three reasons.
First, Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome calls for a uniform electoral procedure in all member states. In March of this year, as the Government will know, the European Court of Justice ruled that the treaty should be upheld in this matter by the Council. The Council now has in front of it a proposal from the European Parliament for a common system based on proportional representation. The proposal originates in a committee chaired by Mr. De Gucht. The last time that I had the privilege of discussing the matter in this Chamber with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, he was pleased to describe Mr. De Gucht, I think pejoratively, as a Belgian socialist. I was not quite sure which of those two terms was the greater term of abuse. But he then redeemed what might appear to have been a slightly chauvinistic approach from a Government that wishes to be at the heart of Europe by pronouncing his name rightly. I shall not seek to emulate him; I shall stick with the rugged Anglicised pronunciation.
In producing the proposals, Mr. De Gucht said:
"I have made it as difficult as possible for Britain to say no"
Despite his hopes, I dare say that the Government will find ways of saying no.
The second reason that we need to reform the system by which we vote in Britain for the European Parliament is that without proportional representation the overall balance of the European Parliament could be seriously disturbed by the British election results. The Committee will be aware that of the Members of the European Parliament, in the Socialist group roughly one-quarter come from the United Kingdom; in the People's Group (the Conservative group) roughly one-fifth come from the United Kingdom. I can quite see that for those who do not like the European Parliament and believe that it should be kept as weak as possible, that is a very good reason for resisting reform. I understand that. But for those who believe that a strong and credible European Parliament is part of the solution to the so-called democratic deficit, such deformation of the will of the people of Europe by one country must be a matter of considerable concern.
There is a third and final reason for having proportional representation for European elections. It is incumbent on those who want proportional representation to acknowledge the fears of those—it may include the Government—who see PR for Europe as the thin end of the wedge. They feel that if there is reform of European elections, it would lead, as night follows day, to a demand for reform of parliamentary elections. On these Benches, we would certainly say so. But it would be right to accept that European elections are in kind completely different from Westminster elections. They do not produce a government or purport to do so. There is no coalescence of parties to form a government in Europe. The argument of the thin end of the wedge is particularly difficult to sustain when one considers that for 15 years in Northern Ireland there has been a system of proportional representation for certain elections.
So the case for reforming British elections to the European Parliament to conform with the uniform electoral procedure seems to be a strong one. I note that Amendment No. 422 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which has also been grouped with this amendment for debating purposes, calls for a report on progress towards a uniform electoral procedure but expressly excludes the question of proportional representation.
Perhaps I may anticipate the arguments that the noble Lord intends to use. He will forgive me if I have got them wrong. It is difficult to know what "a uniform electoral procedure" is capable of meaning unless it has to do with the electoral system. Simply to say that it means that all adults shall vote or all adults shall vote by secret ballot is almost tautologous in terms of democratic elections. It does not advance the argument any further.
For those three reasons I believe that the case for reform of the British electoral European system is
874
almost irrefutable. That is probably why on several occasions—to be more accurate, on more than one occasion—this Chamber has supported proportional representation for the European Parliament. Turning to the Labour Benches, that is also probably why the Plant Commission, which was set up by the Labour Party, has recommended proportional representation for the European elections. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, the eponymous chairman of that commission, asked me to say that he had hoped to be here and in his capacity as chairman of that group he would have wanted to support the amendment that we put forward tonight.
The amendment does not call for proportional representation for European elections. It is much more modest and appropriate to the Bill. It does not itself propose electoral reform. It simply asks the Government for a report by the end of this year on how they intend to move ahead to a uniform procedure, which they signed up to in the Treaty of Rome. Several amendments this afternoon have called for reports from the Government to Parliament. That seems right. I argue that this is an area of such central importance that a report from the Government seems more than appropriate. I very much hope that in responding, the Government will feel able to accede to this modest proposal. I hope so all the more as I see the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, on the Government Benches and know of her long-term and constructive interest in these matters.
If the Government were wise they would greatly widen the basis of their support for the Bill. To some extent they have depended on the support from these Benches in this Chamber. They would widen support in Parliament and the country if they showed themselves generously open to the concerns of a substantial body of their fellow citizens which goes far beyond the ranks of the Liberal Democrats.
This evening in another place the European Parliamentary Elections Bill is being debated. The Government must find a way to have elected six extra Members of the European Parliament. Shortly this Chamber will be considering that Bill. It is right at this stage to say that I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. However. I hope that in responding to it the Government will try to take the sense that if they are to introduce new Members to the European Parliament and look for wider support in Britain for their adhesion to the Maastricht Treaty, they should accept the sense of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: As the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. said, the amendment in my name and Amendment No. 423 are grouped with his amendment and I shall speak to the one in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beloff.
As the noble Lord said also, the amendment goes rather wider than his amendment in a way that should commend itself to my noble friend and to the Government. It would preclude the use of proportional representation in elections to the European Parliament. As the Committee will know, the

875
Government have set their heart, mind and shoulder against such an electoral system and should therefore have no objection to Amendment No. 422.
There are some countries, such as Italy, that use some form of proportional representation. But we should look at the speed at which Italy—which has had a terrific number of governments over the past few years—is trying to ditch that system and change to our own much more satisfactory system of first-past-the-post.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is right to describe a variety of electoral systems. However, will he accept that for European Parliament elections all our fellow Members use the system of proportional representation?
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord responds to that. he should understand also that the Italians have not gone for a total first-past-the-post system. They have gone for something much closer to the German system of additional Member seats.
Lord Swinfen: That may be. It was my understanding that the Italians had gone for a first-past-the-post system but I shall look further into the matter.
Baroness Seear: There is no need to look further into the matter. We are telling you; you are wrong!
Lord Swinfen: I can be wrong on occasions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can be of help to my noble friend. The Italians have abandoned the system of proportional representation which served them so badly. But is he aware that what they will go to, if it can be agreed, is a system where most of the Parliament will be elected by the system of first-past-the-post? There will be additional Member seats, as in the German system, but the basis of the system is first-past-the-post. He is correct that they have abandoned the usual variety of proportional representation.
Lord Tordoff: With respect to the noble Lord, once one gets into an additional Member system, one is getting into a proportional representation system. The whole purpose of the additional Members is to have a proportion in the Parliament according to the voting. The fact is that the Italians have not changed their system in relation to elections to the European Parliament. That is what we are talking about tonight.
Earl Ferrers: As we all seem to be chipping in during my noble friend's speech, perhaps I may also. It may be more suitable to allow my noble friend to continue; otherwise, we shall be not only out of order, but also out of cog with our thoughts.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for that interruption. However, I have no objection to other noble Lords from around the Chamber trying to put their point of view. There have been arguments throughout the whole of the Committee stage of the
876
Bill as to whether or not Members should be allowed to put their points of view. I am delighted that that is the case.
My view is that proportional representation in many countries leaves long periods of uncertainty after an election while negotiations between parties take place in order to produce a coalition government which, if the parties disagree, does not always last very long. The system has also given the opportunity to small extremist parties to wield undue influence, an example of which is the party in France led by M. Le Pen. The ultimate example of that was the seizure by the Nazi Party in pre-war Germany which brought Hitler to power with only 32 per cent. of the vote.
In many forms of proportional representation the vote is merely for the party and not for an individual. One of the great strengths of our present system is that the elected Member of Parliament, whether of our own national Parliament or indeed the European Parliament, is answerable to his constituents. If they do not approve of the way in which he acts, they will ensure that they get rid of him at the next election, which is not always possible with some forms or proportional representation.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Elles: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I should imagine that he will not have any problem in asking the Governrnent to resist any change in the electoral law of the United Kingdom to any system of proportional representation. Therefore it should not be an argument that takes too long in your Lordships' Chamber.
Perhaps I may say a few words, having been a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years—I was an elected Member from Thames Valley—about my experience with my other colleagues in the European Parliament. I represented nearly 500,000 electors who knew me, I am happy to say, considering the post I used to receive every weekend from my constituents and the number of times I was invited to speak to them.
On asking my colleagues in the European Parliament how often they visited their constituents, one charming Frenchman said to me. "If I get three times a year a letter in Le Monde, I am satisfied". That was the only link he had with the people of France. In fact, if one spoke to ordinary Members of Parliament they were extremely jealous of our system; they' recognised that we had responsibilities to our electorate; we knew what was going on on the ground and they did not. They had no connection.
Another point that I should like to make is that in the first Parliament I was in, from 1979 to 1984, by the time we reached 1984 there were well over 70 Members who had failed to be elected in 1979. It is an abuse of the democratic system. They were on lists and as soon as somebody either died, was promoted, made President of the European Commission or a Member of their own nation's government, the person lower down on the list was put in their place. Therefore those people had failed to be elected during the European parliamentary elections.

877
I consider that to be a gross abuse of the system. There were at least 70 people in 1984 who held such a position. I have not checked how many there are today. I know personally that three were not elected in 1989 and are now there enjoying the privileges of being a Member of the European Parliament. I am happy to say that that cannot occur under our system and I hope that we shall never opt for a proportional system.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Before the noble Baroness sits down, it is worth saying that if she represented 2 million people I am sure that they would remember her and her name would be familiar to them. However, in one regard the noble Baroness inadvertently misled the House.
It is the European Parliament that is recommending that the British adopt a proportional representation system. Therefore the distaste that she describes on the part of her fellow Members of the European Parliament of different countries for their own systems and their hankering after the British system, does not seem to have come to effect in practice.
Baroness Elles: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to that comment. Of course, Mr. De Gucht does not answer for all the Members of the European Parliament. I am happy to say that people are gradually beginning to change because they are beginning to understand, as in Italy, the folly of having proportional representation.
Lord Tordoff: Whether or not all Members of the European Parliament agree with Mr. De Gucht has been shown by the vote in the European Parliament, which supported the De Gucht proposals. Those have now gone forward as the proposals from the European Parliament. Therefore the European Parliament made it clear that a uniform system as a minimum should be a proportional system.
It is not a question of Mr. De Gucht's personal preference. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to Mr. De Gucht as being not only a Liberal, but a Belgian, in terms that suggest it is something particularly nasty. The fact is that that is the wish of the European Parliament, and for good reason. The balance in the European Parliament has been totally distorted by the unfortunate electoral system that we use in this country.
Lord Beloff: We have now been discussing for almost six days a very important measure which involves, in my view, the incorporation of the United Kingdom into a European superstate. But even those who deny this interpretation assert its importance. From the Benches opposite me we have had almost no contribution of substance. Their Benches have largely been empty. And yet this evening, all of a sudden—
Lord Tordoff: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Beloff: No, I shall not give way. There are things on which one gives way and things on which one does not give way.
Lord Tordoff: I wish to—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Beloff: But this evening the Pavlovian instinct works. Mention proportional representation and a Liberal will emerge from behind every bush. Yet, if they are so interested in the European Parliament as to be worried about the electoral system, why did they not take the opportunity to examine the very real problems of the European Parliament—to which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred in passing with regard to the need immediately to have six extra members to balance those from the former East Germany—because it is clear that in its present form the parliament will not survive enlargement?
If there were proportional numbers of members from the countries which it is proposed to admit they would not be able to go on using the Council of Europe building in Strasbourg. They would need Wembley Stadium or its equivalent. It is a body which already finds it difficult to do serious work—for instance, on financial control—and when enlarged would find it impossible to do any work. Therefore, one would think that it is much more important to concentrate on how that parliament is to operate in the new circumstances, if we are to have the new circumstances, than to go on peddling the old nostrums which almost every country in Europe is beginning to despair of. Italy is only one example.
It is perfectly clear that what people want, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, is some relation—personal or active—with their representative. What we have in the European Parliament is a democratic deficit because it cannot be considered a serious parliament alongside the parliaments of our several countries. That would have been a worthy subject, once the Liberal Democrats turned up. I am sorry that they have not made use of the opportunity.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may respond to what has been said from the Benches opposite. In the first place I thought that it was customary in your Lordships' House that if someone rose he was given leave to intervene. But apparently the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has a different set of standards. I wish to make two points to him. First, these Benches have not been empty. They have been attended throughout the whole of these long hours of Committee stage. There have been on average five or six people on these Benches at all times. There have been moments when the number has been down to two or three but we have been well attended. We have not spoken because, frankly, we made our Second Reading speeches at Second Reading and not at the Committee stage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I wish to oppose Amendment No. 421, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and support Amendment No. 422, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I say straight away that it would have been better if the European Parliament had still been composed of delegates from national parliaments. That would have ensured the national control of the European Parliament and indeed I believe that there would have been better control of the legislation coming from the Commission.

879
As it is, the European Parliament is a totally irresponsible body, no matter how it is elected. Indeed, I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed out, that there are grave dangers in electing that parliament by proportional representation. We must not believe that because certain people say that proportional representation is more democratic than first-past-the-post that is necessarily so. We can show in many instances that PR is very much less de:mocratic. Indeed, there are dangers in the system, particularly the election with only 5 per cent. of the votes of some very peculiar people and parties to a particular organisation. That may be democratic or not, but there are dangers about PR. There may be benefits—I do not see them. I believe that, in this country anyway, first-past-the-post has served us very well over a long period of time. It may not have served the Liberal Party, although it seemed very satisfied with the system when it was able to form governments, and did nothing to change it.
There is another reason why I am concerned about this amendment and why I support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. A document was given to me tonight which is apparent)/ put out by the European People's Party, which is the Conservative Party in Europe. I have read through it very quickly and some of the things said there worry me very much and make me an even more fervent opponent of PR. Paragraph 201 of the document states:
"The European Union alone can secure Europe's future".
It goes on to say:
"The EPP"—
the European People's Party—
"calls for the gradual but resolute transformation of the European Community into a genuine political union on a federal model".
It continues:
"A federal Europe is now more than ever a necessary and realistic political objective".
The final quotation I shall make is this:
"It is the European Parliament, elected by universal suffrage, which primarily ensures that Europe is built on a basis of democratic legitimacy. It must therefore have the final say on constitutional and legislative matters".
I have read that for the benefit of the Committee and in particular for the benefit of Members of the Committee opposite. They may not have seen this document. It is a very serious document because the Conservative Party is part of the European People's Party.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He says that it worries him. Will he give a moment's consideration to how much it worries me? I have read the wretched thing. But I beg of the noble Lord to be absolutely factually correct because he has no need to overstate the case for it to be devastating. My friends who are Conservative Members of the European Parliament are not members of the EPP. They are affiliates of it. But: I am unable to get replies from them or from the chairman of the EPP when I ask whether they are committed to that document, which is the manifesto of the party to which they are affiliated. I do not know.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That was a very helpful intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and of
880
course he knows far more about the matter than I do. But the fact of the matter is that here we have an organisation which wants to displace national parliaments as the engine for legislation and all kinds of other things. It would be quite wrong under all these circumstances to support the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats although it would be very worthwhile for the Committee to take a vote on Amendment No. 422 because we would all then be able to use a cross or our mouths—I do not know where our hearts are.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when he suggests that the European Parliament should not necessarily be enlarged pari passu with the number of members of the total community. Nevertheless, this short debate has shown very clearly that the very idea of proportionality is like a red rag to a bull with some of the larger political parties in this country. That does not put me off from supporting Amendment No. 421 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I hope that: the Government will not approach this particular amendment with a totally closed mind.
Lord Plant of Highfield: I wish to add a sympathetic word to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate on the amendment. In fact, I have been discussing the issue of proportional representation with quite a large number of Conservative supporters at the Centre for Policy Studies until a few minutes ago.
It seems to me that there is a good case for accepting the principle of proportional representation for the European Parliament. I wish to rest the case on three general points. Irrespective of what one's view might be about proportional representation for other political bodies, there are three reasons why one might think that the European Parliament is a special case. To some extent representation should depend on function. The function of the European Parliament is rather different from that of the House of Commons.
First, the executive is not drawn from the European Parliament and that worries the defenders of the first-past-the-post system who wish to preserve that procedure in the House of Commons as the source of the Executive's authority. That is not so in the case of the European Parliament. Secondly, the size of the constituencies in the European Parliament undermines the case for standard first-past-the-post types of constituency representation. The relationship between an MEP and his or her constituency cannot be the same as that of a Member of the House of Commons and the constituency.
Baroness Elles: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that the United States Congress is also in an unfortunate position in that a Congressman represents more than half-a-million constituents?
Lord Plant of Highfield: The argument is cumulative. There are three reasons and I have just

881
given the second reason. I do not believe that any particular reason in itself is overwhelming, but the three taken together are important. I do not believe that any of the arguments are overwhelming. At the end of the day they are matters for political judgment. Those who argue in favour of first-past-the-post in the sense that it secures a close relationship between an elected Member and the individual constituent must be on weaker ground given the larger size of the European constituencies. Thirdly, the evidence that we had in the working party which I had the privilege of chairing for the Labour Party, was that the actual role of the constituency Member of the European Parliament is different from that of a Member of the House of Commons.
A Member of the House of Commons does a great deal of individual case work with individual constituents. The view we have, both from observers and from Members of the European Parliament, is that Members of the latter tend to relate far more to groups and institutions within constituencies and less so with individuals than is the case with Members of the House of Commons.
So for those three reasons, coupled with the general principle that representation might be thought to depend on function, there is a case for electing the European Parliament by a different method from that used in the House of Commons. That was the unanimous proposal made by the working party which I chaired and which was in fact endorsed by the Leader of the Labour Party. It is not yet, of course, party policy until after the party conference in October. Therefore, I am speaking about this matter from the Back Benches rather than as someone who has some responsibility for constitutional affairs on the Front Bench. There is a strong case based on the reasons that I have given.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Come along!
Earl Ferrers: My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham says "come along". I was only waiting for some other noble Lord to speak because the last time I tried to "come along", I "came along" too quickly and nearly deprived the noble Lord, Lord Plant, of participating in the debate, which would have been a great pity.
Amendments Nos. 421, 422 and 423 are grouped together. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, got so wound up with the thought of proportional representation being used in the European Parliament that he failed—possibly on purpose—to address his thoughts to Amendment No. 423. So I shall concentrate my thoughts on Amendments Nos. 421 and 422.
I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for moving the amendment because the Liberal Democrats, as we all know, are very keen on proportional representation and they never refuse or miss an opportunity to press their points home. The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Plant, was quite interesting. He is in the difficult process of trying to
882
turn his party round from the system of first-past-thepost to proportional representation, which is not an uncontroversial thing to do. We shall see what happens about that.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, seeks to find out how Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt the provisions for a uniform electoral procedure which is required by Article 138.3 of the Treaty of Rome. The Maastricht Treaty does very little to change the provisions of the Treaty of Rome on this matter. It is important to remember that the only change is that Article 138.3, as amended, will now stipulate that the Council must act unanimously if and when it adopts a uniform electoral procedure, but it can only do that after it has obtained the assent of the European Parliament to the Parliament's proposals and they have to be approved by an overall majority of the European Parliament.
It would make little sense for the Government to have to lay a Command Paper describing what the United Kingdom would do in circumstances which have not yet been discussed by the Council of Ministers—still less which have not been, as the amendment says,
"laid down by the Council".
At present, we have received no indication as to when the subject of a uniform electoral procedure is going to be discussed by the Council. The European Parliament has agreed, with amendments, the proposal that was prepared by the Institutional Affairs Committee of which Mr. Karel De Gucht, a Belgian MEP, was the rapporteur. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, chivvied me for saying that he was a Belgian MEP. He said that he thought that I was being pejorative. He is a Belgian MEP and neither the adjective nor the noun is supposed to be pejorative; it is merely a fact. He was the rapporteur.
At present we do not know whether or when the Council will discuss the proposals, or whether that will be done before 31st December 1993; the date which is specified in Amendments Nos. 421 and 422. I do not think that it would be sensible for Her Majesty's Government to publish a Command Paper before the matter had been fully discussed in the Council, when the proposals themselves may well be altered. We must look at this situation realistically. The fact is that the great diversity of national electoral systems which are used within the Community may well make it very difficult to reach a unanimous agreement of the Council on a uniform procedure.
I can assure my noble friends, Lord Swinfen and Lord Beloff, as regards Amendment No. 422, and my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that the Government have no intention of changing from the simple majority system, which we use for electing representatives to the European Parliament from constituencies in Great Britain. When the Council examines the proposal from the European Parliament we shall, of course, consider it on its merits. I should make it clear—this is very important—that any agreement on a uniform electoral procedure can only be reached by unanimity in the Council.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: As I had hoped, this has been an extremely lively debate. The Government will probably wan. to take note of the fact that all the speeches from noble Lords who spoke against the principle of proportional representation were from those opposed to the passage of this treaty—
Baroness Elles: I am sorry, no. Will the noble Lord kindly amend what he has just said?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I take the noble Baroness's point. What a terrible thing to have said. She is a notable exception to the fact that all the other speeches were from opponents of the Maastricht Treaty. I apologise to her.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, had indicated that he was opposed to the passage of the treaty.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was speaking in favour of proportional representation. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, detected that. On the question of a democratic Europe, it would be prudent for the Government to recognise who their friends are.
I do not want to detain the Committee except in one respect: I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that what he said about these Benches being deserted was unfair. My noble friend Lord Tordoff has already referred to this. Throughout the debate there have been between two and sometimes up to 12 Liberal Democrats on these Benches. I venture to suggest that in proportion to our membership of this House there has probably been a higher proportion of us sitting here through these debates than is true of the two major parties in this House, so I do not think we have anything to apologise for. The fact that we have not spoken quite as often as some other noble Lords may indicate that we should like to get the treaty through and to stop these Second Reading-type speeches being made for ever and ever. As I have said, I should like to withdraw the amendment although I am sure that we shall return to the subject many times—
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Lord sits down and since he is discussing proportional representation and the putting into operation of paragraph 3 of Article 138, would he care to take cognisance of the present position whereby the state of Luxembourg, with a population the size of Bristol, has six representatives, and to bear in mind that if that were followed through to the United Kingdom and the same proportionality were involved, the United Kingdom would be entitled to approximately 600 Members of the European Parliament? Would he like to comment on that?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, prepares to answer that, perhaps I may say that I know that the Liberal Democrats are extremely keen that everything should be proportional, but I do not think that he should assume that the number of speakers in favour of proportional representation out of the total number of noble Lords sitting in the Chamber represents the
884
opinion of the Committee because there are a great many of us who are also keen to get the treaty through but who decided to sit quietly and listen.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am sorry, but I am not sure that the noble Baroness and I are speaking about the same thing. Could she clarify the point that she has just made?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry if I was not clear. The noble Lord seemed to assume that because more speeches were made in favour of proportional representation than not—I am sorry, I mean the other way round—because more speeches were made against proportional representation than in favour of it (the noble Lord has confused me), that seemed to be associated with an antipathy towards the treaty. The noble Lord was making assumptions from that. But many of us who want to see the treaty through but who are not too keen on proportional representation were sitting quietly. I hope that he will agree that that was the case.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Yes, but the only point that I was making was that, on the whole, the Liberal Democrat Benches have not been as vociferous a:; normal simply because we hope to get the treaty through. I made no comment about the balance of speeches in the Committee save to identify those who have spoken against.
In conclusion, this is a subject to which I am sure the House will return on many future occasions, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 422:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Provision for European elections
(" . Before 31st December 1993, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before each House of Parliament a Command Paper setting out arrangements for adopting provisions laid down by the Council in accordance with Article 138(3) of Title II, Article 21(3) of Title 111 and Article 108(3) of Title IV of the Treaty of European Union, but not including any provision for change in the electoral law of the United Kingdom to any system of proportional representation or otherwis,;.").
The noble Lord said: We have already discussed this amendment with Amendment No. 421. but it is such an important matter that I think that I should test the opinion of the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 423 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 424 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 425 to 427 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Commencement (Protocol on Social Policy)]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 428:
Page 2, leave Out line 27 and insert ("calling for the adoption into United Kingdom law of the Agreement on Social Policy").
The noble Lord said: I should tell the Committee right at the outset that we now come to an amendment

885
upon which, unless there is a clear change of heart expressed on the part of the Government, it will be my intention to test the view of the Committee.
Amendment No. 428 is a clear amendment which calls for the eventual adoption by this country of the Agreement on Social Policy contained in the Maastricht Treaty. Its acceptance would mean that Clause 7 would state that the Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has passed a resolution calling for the adoption of the Agreement on Social Policy. More nonsense has been talked about this part of the Maastricht Treaty than probably any other part of it. And as your Lordships who have sat through this debate and who have read the debates in another place will know, that is saying a very great deal.
The issue that the Committee has to face tonight is not only that of the opt-out and of the institutional gyrations which that has produced; the issue is really whether or not we should sign up to the social agreement. It raises the whole question of Community competence on social policy. Indeed, in many ways this goes to the heart of one of the issues that we have been considering during the past six weeks.
It is therefore right that we should look at the treaty and see whence comes this competence and whence come the present provisions of the treaty. We go back to the Treaty of Rome and back to the Single European Act. I am looking at Command Paper 455 which incorporates the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act—at Title III (Social policy), Chapter I (social provisions), Article 117. The Committee should note that we are talking about the Treaty of Rome of 1972—nothing new, nothing modern, nothing being sprung on anybody and nothing that was negotiated at Maastricht.
What was agreed in the Treaty? The article states:
"Member States agree upon the need to promote improved working conditions and an improved standard of living for workers, so as to make possible their harmonization while the improvement is being maintained".
That is a clear statement of aims. There was clear acceptance by the countries which signed up for the Treaty of Rome that we agreed upon the need to promote improved working conditions and an improved standard of living so as to make harmonisation possible.
I remind the Committee of Article 118 because so often in our debates on the social protocol and the social chapter in relation to Maastricht, it has been presented as though it is something totally new and a major departure for the United Kingdom, with the Community trying to take competence and power in areas over which it has not had it before. I hope to satisfy the Committee that that is not true. Article 118 states:
"Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and in conformity with its general objectives, the Commission"—
I repeat, "the Commission"—
"shall have the task of promoting close co-operation between Member States in the social field, particularly in matters relating to"—
I invite the Committee to note this—
886
"employment; labour law and working conditions; basic and advanced vocational training; social security; prevention of occupational accidents and diseases; occupational hygiene; the right of association, and collective bargaining between employers and workers".
Those are the areas in which the Community is given competence to act and the Commission is specifically enjoined to act under the original treaty accepted by this country as long ago as 1972.
Article 118A, which follows, was introduced in the Single European Act. That is even more interesting. It introduces the concept of qualified majority voting in that general area in paragraph 2. There is nothing new in the concept of majority voting being brought into social policy. There it is in the Single European Act, accepted by the Chamber and another place. Paragraph 1 says:
"Member States shall pay particular attention to encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers, and shall set as their objectives the harmonisation of conditions in this area".
"Harmonisation" was then considered as the "f" word, although it started with the letter "h". One heard so many speeches at the time against the Commission's activities in respect of harmonisation. But there it is in the treaty accepted by the Government and the country in the Single European Act.
Then there is something that I am bound to say that I find even more interesting. Article 118B says:
"The Commission shall endeavour to develop the dialogue between management and labour at European level".
I repeat, "at European level". In other words, we should encourage a dialogue between European-wide employer organisations and trade unions,
"which could, if the two sides consider it desirable lead to relations based on an agreement".
Where does that come from? It comes from Article 22 of the Single European Act. It is not a new introduction. There is nothing cataclysmic or totally new coming in Maastricht. There it is in the old treaty.
I turn now to Article 119 which refers to equal pay and equal work. That is not a new concept. As I hoped to show earlier, all the concepts in the Maastricht Treaty go back to 1961 to the Social Charter of the Council of Europe which was accepted by this country in 1961 and ratified in 1965. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, shaking her head in agreement.
Baroness Thatcher: No.
Lord Richard: I am delighted that we are in agreement on this occasion.
There is no doubt whatever that many of the concepts contained in the Treaty of Rome go right back to 1961. The starting point is 1972 with the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act.
I now turn to Maastricht and the social provisions that are contained therein. If one looks at it in a fairly objective way, I have to say that it seems to me to be a rather modest and somewhat pallid document. For the life of me, I have never understood the furore that was caused when people actually looked at the treaty and saw what was in it. Many of the same concepts as were in the Treaty of Rome reappeared in Maastricht;

887
and many of the same concepts as were in the Social Charter of the Council of Europe reappeared in Maastricht. It says:
"The Community Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment"—
Lord Hacking: I am trying to follow the noble Lord's argument. Can he tell the Committee the section from which he is quoting?
Lord Richard: Article 118 of the Maastricht Treaty, which refers to any agreement on social policy concluded between the member states of the European Community with the exception of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am trying to show the Committee that the opt-out by Britain is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Perhaps we should study further what it says and then we can argue as to whether or not we should have signed it.
Article 1 says:
"The Community … shall have as [its] objective the promotion of employment".
Surely we agree with that, do we not?—
"improved living and working conditions"—
I think that we agree with that—
"proper social protection"—
I assume that we agree with that—
"dialogue between management and labour"—
I believe that we agree with that; at least, we have always said that we agree with that—
"the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment"—
we agree with that—
"the combating of exclusion".
I am bound to say that I am not quite sure what that means.
"To this end the Community and the Member States shall implement measures"—
I hope that members of the Committee will note the proviso that follows—
"which take account of the diverse forms of national practices, in particular in the field of contractual relations, and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy".
Anyone looking at that statement of general aims and intent would frankly have to work extremely hard in order to find a point of disagreement.
Article 2 says:
"With a view to achieving the objectives of Article 1, the Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in the following fields".
But what are those "following fields"? They are:
"improvement in particular of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety".
Are we against that? Surely not? We are not against improving working conditions; indeed, I have never heard a spokesman for the Government saying that they were not in favour of improving working conditions. Then there is,
"the information and consultation of workers".
I am sure that we are in favour of that. The Government told me often enough between 1981 and 1985 when I was in charge of such matters in the Commission how much they were in favour of information and consultation as regards workers, although they did not like the particular form proposed. The article goes on to cite:
"equality between men and women".
I assume that we are all in favour of that concept. Then there is,
888
"the integration of persons excluded from the labour market …To this end, the Council may adopt, by means of directives",
and so on.
Perhaps I may just read to the Committee two other passages: Paragraph 3 of Article 2 says:
"The Council shall act unanimously".
The latter word is one of which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will appreciate the true flavour. The passage continues,
"on a proposal from the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, in the following areas".
What are the areas in which we would have a veto if we had gone in? Well, one of them is,
"social security and social protection of workers".
Then there is also,
"protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated".
We also have a veto on that one. There then follows,
"representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers, including co-determination".
There too, we have a veto. Following that there is,
"conditions of employment for third-country nationals legally residing in Community territory".
There we also have a veto. Finally, we have a veto on,
"financial contributions for the promotion of employment and job-creation, without prejudice to the provisions relating to the Social Fund".
Those are specific exclusions set out in the social agreement. To describe them in the terms that they have been described is, frankly, absurd. If Members of the Committee would like the example or just one other proviso, perhaps I may just read from paragraph 6 of Article 2:
"The provisions of this Article shall not apply"—
I emphasise the word "not"—
"to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or to the right to impose lock-outs".
All those have come out. What are we left with? We are left with a series of aims in the field of social policy —that is, aims which are designed to improve the working environment and conditions of workers and the availability of information and consultation for them, equality between men and women and integrating people excluded from the labour market. That is the lot.
If one looks in the Social Charter for provisions which, somehow or other, will affect the whole of British industry and which will be Brussels-imposing upon the industrial lifeblood of this country—terms and conditions that Britain finds basically unacceptable and repugnant—one looks in vain; they are just not there.
Faced with that Social Charter, what did we do? Well, we opted out. But how did we opt out? Frankly, again, in the most absurd way. We said to the other 11, "We don't want to participate, but the rest of you, if you wish, should go ahead and carry on with your social policy; we shall have no part of it". We therefore agreed. I am bound to say that it is the most extraordinary agreement. We agreed to authorise those 11 member states—that is, all the others except Britain,
"to have recourse to the institutions, the procedures and The mechanisms of the Treaty for the purposes of taking among themselves and applying as far as they are concerned the acts and decisions required for giving effect to the above-mentioned agreement".

889
I am bound to say that I find that a somewhat mind-boggling proposition, so far as concerns the practical effects involved.
What will happen during the United Kingdom presidency? There will be a President of the Council. There will also be a social affairs council and a Social Affairs Minister. During my day I had the pleasure of meeting the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, at many Council meetings. The Social Affairs Minister will sit at the meetings and someone will say, "Now we are going to discuss the policy under the social agreement". The Minister will then vacate the chair. Presumably someone else—I am not sure who—will sit in the empty president's chair and the other 11 will continue with the discussion. The other 11 may or may not reach a conclusion, I know not.
Let us suppose that there is a proposal for a directive emerging from the other 11 under this extraordinary opt-out. What will happen at COREPER? Is the British Ambassador to the Community supposed to withdraw from COREPER when social policy is discussed? What will be the relationship between social policy being discussed by the 11 under the terms of the agreement on social policy and social policy being discussed under the original terms of the Treaty of Rome? I do not know how it is supposed to work and I do not believe that anybody knows. It is certainly unprecedented and, with great respect, it is totally unthought-out. What will be the relationship between these affairs and competition policy? How is the competition directorate supposed to react to the British opt-out? I do not know what is being said about it and perhaps at some stage the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, may be able to tell us.
Are we to participate in the health and safety provisions under Article 118a of the Treaty of Rome or are we not? If we are, on what kind of basis? As regards social policy, one leg is in if the label on it is Article 118a of the Treaty of Rome but the other leg is out if the discussion is to take place under the agreement on social policy merely by the other 11. As an example of Britain being at the heart of Europe that almost defies belief.
It is worthwhile putting on record that there are only two political movements in the whole of the Community which are opposed to the agreement on social policy. One is M. Le Pen's movement in France and the other is the British Conservative Party. I am bound to say that the company which the Conservative Party keeps is entirely a matter for itself but I really should have thought that that fact might be one which they would seek to ponder. All the other conservative parties in Europe and all the other members of the People's Party group in the European Parliament have signed up to the social protocol. UNICE, the European employers' organisation, does not object to the existence of the social protocol. Indeed, according to discussions that I have had with some of its members, it believes that the protocol is positively advantageous because there is a point of contact between them and the other social partners. It is also interesting that a recent conference of the
890
European People's Party's heads of government and party leaders commented on the Government's opposition to the social chapter. It stated that it:
"deplores the fact that the British Prime Minister and leader of the British Conservative Party, took a negative position at Maastricht concerning European political union, particularly with regard to a common social policy".
What a position to get this country into. It is not only people such as me and my political allies in Europe who are saying that the Government's position is wrong but every other conservative party in the Community and every other natural ideological ally of the Conservative Party is saying precisely the same thing. I find it difficult to understand why the Government find themselves in this position.
When one goes back to 1961 and looks at the social charter of the Council of Europe one sees that the aims were, if anything, more comprehensive than those set out in the Maastricht Treaty. We accepted that and we signed that treaty. Incidentally, a Conservative government signed the treaty; it was ratified in 1965. In the Treaty of Rome we accepted Community competence in the areas of social policy —and that was done by a Conservative government. In the Single European Act we accepted further competence in the area of social policy—and that was done by a Conservative government. When it comes to Maastricht the policy is suddenly presented as something totally new and utterly unacceptable which will ruin the British economy.
Perhaps I may conclude on this note. If being without the social chapter was so marvellous for the British economy I should have thought by now that we would be the most prosperous country in Europe, we would have the fewest people out of work and the best balance of trade in the European Community. I need not put the comparable figures for the other side of the picture. Our standard of living has fallen to eighth place in the European Community. Our unemployment is the highest; it rose by 65 per cent. between January 1990 and January 1993. Despite Britain having the unique advantages of North Sea oil and gas, only Spain in the European Community has a worse total deficit. That does not say much for opting out of the social protocol. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I have found it difficult to understand why the Government have been so determined not to subscribe to the agreement on social policy reached by the other 11 member states. The Government are rightly concerned about the need to preserve our competitiveness in the face of competition not only from Europe but from the United States, Japan and countries in the Pacific basin. As someone who was employed for many years in a large multinational company, I sympathise with that concern. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has said, Article 1 of the agreement states specifically that the measures to be implemented should take account of the diverse forms of national practices and the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy. That article could well have been inserted to satisfy the United Kingdom. Much as I dislike some of the Government's recent trade union legislation, there is

891
nothing in the agreement which calls for the repeal of that legislation. Article 2—and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to that—excludes specifically pay, the right of association, the right to strike and the right to impose a lock-out.
There is one clause in the agreement which has troubled me; that is, paragraph 3 of Article 2, which gives the Community competence with regard to representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers, including co-determination. There is a danger that that provision could give to representatives of employers and trade unions too privileged a position in the legislative process. However, even that clause requires the Council to act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission so that the Government could easily veto any proposal coming forward under that clause if they so wished.
In my view, it is, to say the least, regrettable that instead of continuing to be in a strong position to fight our corner within the Community, Britain has been excluded by the Government from the agreement on social policy. We are now barred by the protocol from taking part in further deliberations on matters covered by the agreement. Therefore, we shall be unable to influence the future development of European policy to ensure that it is suited to conditions in the United Kingdom.
If we wish to join the club later, we shall find ourselves barred by rules which have been framed without our taking a part in framing them. It would be much better if we were to accept the agreement now and I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Lord Kilmarnock: I, like the Liberal Democrats have preserved a Trappist silence since Second Reading and I am afraid that I must part company with them on this amendment. The A,greement on Social Policy to which the amendment refers and from which we opted out by means of the protocol pledges the other member states to continue along the path laid down in the 1989 Social Charter.
I was initially fairly relaxed about that document. I questioned its rather grand claim to constitute a:
"Draft Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights".
However, we already do quite a number of things described in that document. In effect, we have a minimum income through our social security system. We have the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. We afford European Community citizens the right to training and education courses on the same terms as our own people. We have reasonable health and safety regulations. We protect children and adolescents under various Acts of Parliament and so on. In some respects, we are ahead of our fellow member states. We welcome freedom of movement and I agree enthusiastically with Section 4 of the Social Charter, which refers to the elimination of those obstacles constituted by the non-recognition of certain categories of qualification or occupational skills. We have a better record on that than our neighbours. Try setting up as a doctor in France.
892
We may fall down on equal pay for equal work by men and women but one wonders what effect that would have on women's employment unless practised sensibly with scales of pay agreed at plant or local level.
The things that we do not do are the daft ones. We do not have a maximum duration of working time per week, which attacks the liberty of the individual and the freedom of contract. We do not have works councils and there is no sign of much demand for them from the Labour Party. There is a present tendency towards smaller production units, where the main hopes for growth lie. Profit-sharing schemes and workers' shares in the company are much more to the point.
When we come to the social agreement to which the amendment refers, we receive slightly confused messages as to what the other 11, without us, have signed up to. On heavy issues such as social security, employment contract and co-determination—which I presume means industrial democracy—unanimity is required. On other matters like equal pay, that is not required. Therefore, overall, I am left with an uneasy feeling that the social agreement to which the Labour Party invites us to subscribe, is backward-looking and smells more of the corporatism of the 1970s than the flexible labour market which the 1990s already demand and indeed impose.
There are other dangers. There have been alarming stories in the press recently about the decline of the EC's share in world trade, about which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, will know a great deal more than I do. But, if true, then labour costs are likely to lie close to the heart of the matter.
On the employment side the most optimistic forecasts predict 2,700,000 unemployed at the end of the century. Although that is lower in percentage terms than in several Community countries, it is far too high for the health of our public finances and indeed for the health and happiness of the people. Every conceivable effort must be made to reduce that figure. It is far higher than when the committee on unemployment under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, started its work in, I believe, 1980, when there was a shock, horror response to 1.5 million unemployed.
The Committee may be interested to know that our long-term element of unemployment, which we so much deplore, is lower as a percentage of the total unemployed than in most of the rest of the Community. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is not present but he suggested in a recent paper that this may be due to the lower costs of hiring and firing in Britain which make it easier for employers to shed labour in hard times and take it on in good times. British workers may therefore be more vulnerable to short-term but less vulnerable to long-term unemployment than our neighbours. Adopting rules which make it more difficult if not impossible to enjoy this flexibility seems to me frankly misguided. Social protection is fine in principle but not so fine when it is protection against employment.
I am in favour of convergence and the main economic indicators set out in the treaty, whether they

893
lead to a common currency or not, because they must help towards achieving a more stable economic environment for businesses and trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this in his recent Mansion House speech. I agree with him. However, I am much less in favour of convergence on social policy because that is the area of freedom we at present retain to deal with the results of the globalisation of the market in our own way.
We have a big debate coming up on social security and the welfare state. It is quite wrong in my view that we should surrender any freedom of action in that area to a supranational regulatory body. This is a field in which we have a right and a duty to make our own democratic experiments and grope towards our own solutions—which is what a number of individual states in the United States of America are currently doing.
On all these grounds my earlier relaxed view of the Social Charter as something we could rub along with and live with not too unhappily has hardened into support for the protocol. As I said on Second Reading, it may erode under challenge in the courts but it is worth trying to preserve. I believe it was an important achievement on the part of the Prime Minister.
If the Labour Party presses and wins this amendment, as it well knows, it risks losing the treaty in its entirety. I gather that that is not the policy of the Labour Party. Gesture politics would cost the Labour Party dear. That is no doubt why that party would be supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and his noble friends, who want precisely that. Unholy alliances have their costs. I shall be helpful to everyone this evening, except perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and his noble friends. If there is a Division I shall vote against the Labour Party's amendment, which it does not in fact seriously want to win —I do not see how it can want that—and I shall enlist as an irregular guerillero in the ranks of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, on a temporary basis of course, to assist him in winning a Division he wants and needs to win.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: I start with what may be regarded as a purely technical point but I believe there is substance in it. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has succeeded in drafting his amendment correctly because, if one amends the words of the Bill, one still retains in line 26 of page two the words,
"has come to a Resolution on a motion".
In ordinary English usage one can come to a negative resolution just as well as one can come to a positive resolution. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has assured us time and time again that we must not look at the way he has drafted his amendments because he had to draft them the wrong way round to enable him to debate particular points. However, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is a distinguished lawyer and I should have thought he could at least have got his drafting right. It is not that
894
I wish to attack his professional competence, which is of the very highest order; it is simply that if he has his drafting wrong, possibly he has his arguments wrong too.
It was always a matter of enormous relief to me that when I was in Brussels I never had to deal with the question of social policy. That was simply because while I produced the single market programme in six months, it took my colleagues another four years before they produced the Social Charter and by then, by the kind offices of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, I was safely back in the United Kingdom and could shelter behind the barricades. One may have excellent policies but there can, of course, be occasions on which the best of policies can be taken too far.
In this country we have a very long and honourable tradition of social policy, running right through the Factory Acts, to the recognition of trade unions—which was introduced by Disraeli, a Conservative Prime Minister—to the establishment of the welfare state. It was not the Liberal Party of Mr. Lloyd George which invented the welfare state. The welfare state was invented by Otto von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor of Germany, who was normally regarded as a Right-wing conservative, although I do not know whether he was as Right-wing as my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
It was Bismarck who introduced the concept of insurance against unemployment, sickness and old age. He did so on a very valid principle that we ought always to bear in mind. In those days, he faced the growth of communism and socialism. I do not equate the two; I am simply saying how Bismarck saw the situation. He felt that the best defence against socialism and communism was for the state as a whole to look after its citizens in times of difficulty and distress. We then moved that system to the United Kingdom when Mr. Lloyd George was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the early years of the present century.
I said earlier that even the best of policies can be taken too far. Perhaps I may give the Committee a specific example. When I was young and earning a great deal of money. the top rate of tax on earned income was 97.5 per cent.
A noble Lord: It must have been a Labour Government!
Lord Cockfield: No, it was not. That was under a Conservative Government, with Mr. Winston Churchill as Prime Minister. I am sure that not even my noble friend Lord Aldington would regard Mr. Winston Churchill as a socialist or a supporter of the Labour Party.
As time went on, it became recognised in the country generally that rates of taxation of that kind on personal income were insupportable and did great economic damage. It is to the perpetual credit of the Liberal Party that twice it forced the Labour Government to reduce the standard rate of income tax. If one ever wants an argument in favour of a hung Parliament, that is the only one I can think of.
Therefore, however valid, right and proper social policies are, they can be pushed too far. I am very

895
sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, did not complete his story of what was happening in Europe because even if one reads the memorandum which was produced by Jacques Delors (for whom I have the utmost admiration and with whom I had a very close and effective working relationship) for the Summit at Copenhagen, one will see the doubts creeping in about the competitiveness of European industry.
Much more importantly, yesterday the ruling Christian Socialist coalition in Germany decided to cut government expenditure by a figure which would rise to 50 billion deutschmarks a year. Being up to date I would have thought that that would have been on the tip of the tongue of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Not even the British Government have remotely had the courage to cut government expenditure in this country by a figure approaching that level. That has been done because of a recognition that the burden of social security has reached a level that even German industry, with its great competitiveness—and it is highly efficient—can no longer meet the competition it is having to face in the world. In other words, progress on social policy has reached the point where it is imposing a burden that cannot be borne without doing serious economic damage. To me, the only question is whether it would have been better for us to be inside the Community advancing that argument and seeking to get sense; or whether we are better off outside, saying, "A plague upon all your houses. You go your way and we'll go ours".
It is a difficult issue. I do not seek to answer the question. But to me that seems to be the essential issue. It is not a question of defending the present social policy at the barricades. Something has to be done about it; there is no question about that. It is purely a question of what is the best way. In the present difficult circumstances the line that was taken by our own Government may well have been the best line to take, in particular having regard to the vulnerability of British industry. I wish at times that we were a little more honest about our own failings. We have great strengths but we also have failings. Possibly, from time to time we ought to face up to them. We are in a more vulnerable position than many of the countries on the Continent. It may well be that in those circumstances the judgment of the Prime Minister was right.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, perhaps I may say as kindly and gently as I possibly can that if it was a great relief to the noble Lord during his period of office in Europe that he had no responsibility for social policy, that is absolutely nothing to the great relief of workers and people in this country that he had no such responsibility.
It has been noticeable in the debate that claims that this country should have freedom from the conditions of the social protocol have implied—it has not been stated explicitly—that that is so that our Government may hold down wages and earnings and have the freedom later this year, when a unified budget is 'presented to another place in November, to modify and reduce social benefits. It has never been stated by the Prime Minister or any other Government
896
representative or supporter, including the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that the opt-out was obtained in order to improve the social conditions of the people of this country. The Government talk about the need for flexibility. Their approach to flexibility is totally different from mine. My approach would be that described from the Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Richard. We ought to agree to the social protocol: to work to improve working conditions.; to improve employment prospects; to improve employment levels; and to meet the target of equal pay for equal work between men and women.
How on earth the Prime Minister can claim that to negotiate the opt-out of this country from all those provisions in the negotiations was an outstanding success on his part is beyond belief. Traditionally, a Conservative Government have sought to depress wage costs and other benefits by their unremitting attack on the trade union movement through the various trade union Acts, and amendments to those Acts.
Recently we had the astonishing situation on the trade union Bill where, on Third Reading., a rnajor amendment was introduced which took away further rights from workers. Local authorities were forced to contract out to private companies. Employees of the local authorities would have the choice of going to work for the private company or accepting dismissal.
That is the method that has been used by Conservative Governments since 1979 and which will go on being used in this country until a change of Government. It has nothing to do with the social contract. The CBI talks about the burden that the social contract would place on British industry, but it has failed to produce a single piece of evidence to show that it would do that. It does not happen. In the four or five key elements of employment costs, the United Kingdom has the veto. The elements have to be approved unanimously and therefore our country has the veto.
We are forced firmly to the conclusion that the reason why the Government want flexibility is not in order to meet or better what our 11 partners are doing in Europe but to depress living standards, wages and social benefits in this country because of the mismanagement of the economy over the years.
I wish to respond to two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. The whole question of the maximum number of working hours is clearly misunderstood, particularly by the noble Lord. The agreement does not state that working people can only work 48 hours. What it says, and what the Government astonishingly object to is that an employer cannot force an employee to work more than 48 hours in each week. That is totally different from saying that an employee can only work 48 hours.
I have heard it said that there is no demand for works councils. There are some in the United Kingdom, but I regard them as domestic works councils. However, the works councils that are being discussed in the context of this debate and of Europe are those which are set up across the boundaries of member states of the EC. Through them, we may deal with the situation where companies—and this is

897
particularly true of American companies—set up plants in different countries in the EC. Hoover is an excellent example: it established a plant in Dijon in the south of France and one in Cambuslang, near Glasgow, in Scotland and played one group of workers off against the other. Both factories have finished up with the worst of all worlds.
The protocol suggests that works councils should be set up across the boundaries of Europe so that workers in all factories can get together and discuss problems relating not only to their plant but also to the company as a whole. It is no great credit to the British Government that they have opted out of the social compact. Recently, the Department of Trade and Industry ran those disgraceful advertisements in Germany where posters published two league tables, one of earnings in this country and the other of earnings in Germany. The tables showed that labour costs through earnings in this country were only about two-thirds of those in Germany. It was meant to be a credit to the United Kingdom, but how insulting!
I point out to the Government that that difference had absolutely nothing to do with the opt-out and the social chapter. The labour cost differential has been there for the past 14 or 15 years but is nothing at all to do with Maastricht. For the Government to try to present that as evidence in support of their position on opt-out is misleading beyond belief. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was speaking for all the Cross-Benchers; I am assuming that he only speaks for himself—
Lord Kilmarnock: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to give way for a moment—I know that he has not been with us for very long. All Cross-Benchers speak strictly for themselves.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I understood that all Members in this Chamber spoke strictly for themselves—at least, that is the impression that I have gained during the debates on this Bill. I hope that what I have said has been able to attract support for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Richard from parts of the Committee other than the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Benches. We would be far from defeating the treaty if it were passed tonight. There is no point in the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and Lord Kilmarnock, saying to the Labour Party: "If you support the social contract and it is carried by the House tonight, you will wreck the treaty". That is saying that the Prime Minister is prepared to abandon absolutely everything else that we negotiated at Maastricht on this one single point. I do not believe that for a minute, and I do not ask the Committee to believe it either.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that during the late 1970s and the early 1980s I was representative of the Scottish local authorities on the Manpower Services Commission, which was responsible at that time for employment services and employment related training. It was a very great struggle to try to improve things at that time. In the late 1970s industry was desperately
898
uncompetitive in comparison with our European friends, the United States and Japan. The markets were there, but it was hard to win them. We had what was called "the British disease". Civil servants, as the Committee may well remember, talked of their job being "the orderly management of decline". The conventional wisdom, even in my own political party, was that there would never be so many jobs again, and we must simply accept that.
Then, in 1979, there was a general election and my noble friend Lady Thatcher took over the reins. Before long the Manpower Services Commission was being asked to work to a completely different set of assumptions. I remember one of the trades union representatives on the Manpower Services Commission coming back from a meeting with my noble friend and saying: "Believe me, the parachute brigade has arrived". High employment was not now seen as inevitable. The markets were there. The problem was inflexibility in the labour markets, in our jobcentres and employment services, and in our employment practices and skills. The problem lay in lack of incentive to employ people.
My noble friend and her employment Ministers, to whom I was responsible—first my noble friend Lord Prior and then my noble friend Lord Tebbit—were very determined indeed in their demands upon the commission. We were extremely surprised at their optimism. But it began to work. We saw it on the Manpower Services Commission and, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, we saw it equally on the Scottish Economic Council, of which I was also a member.
We have come a long way since those days. We have improved our productivity and work practices as well as the energy and enthusiasm of our workforce. A million more women came into the workforce during the 1980s, yet unemployment overall was halved. World recession has been a setback in our markets. But the productivity and potential of our business is there, ready to respond to the markets as they return. More than half those markets are within the European Community.
The social chapter threatens all that. It seems to me that Parliament owes it to our workforce not to reverse what has been so hard won by the workforce and the employers. Were we in any doubt of what the social agreement will mean in that respect, we need look only at the comparative figures for the non-wage employment costs across a number of countries. In Japan and the United States they are 24 per cent. and 27 per cent. respectively of the whole of employment costs. In the United Kingdom—not much worse than those figures now—those costs are 30 per cent. In Germany, France and Italy the figures are 46 per cent., 47 per cent. and 51 per cent. respectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, reminded the Committee of what is happening in Germany. There may be changes in that respect. It may well be that there will come a moment when the social agreement changes and we shall be extremely glad to take part in it. It seems to me that at the moment Parliament owes it to the British workforce to opt out of that agreement.
Baroness O'Cathain: I fear that we are in danger of being lulled into believing that the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Treaty of Maastricht are all one when it comes to the social contract. Certainly the marvellous rhetoric of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Ewing, made me feel that there is perhaps not much difference between them.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, went through Article 118 of the Treaty of Rome and Article 118A of the Single European Act. Let me repeat to the Committee the words in the extracts that he read:
"member states agree upon the need to promote … shall act in close contact …shall make studies delivering opinions and arranging consultations …shall consult … shall encourage … encourage improvement".
But the Maastricht Treaty states:
shall adopt by means of directives".
Lord Richard: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I am sure that she will not wish to mislead the Committee. I ask her to look, please, at Article 1 of the Maastricht Treaty. It talks about "the promotion of".
Baroness O'Cathain: Yes, but there seems to me to be a measure of coercion in Maastricht. I believe that we are right to opt out in this respect. The other measures "encourage" and "promote" and there is definitely a method which states that it,
"shall adopt by means of directives".
The Maastricht Treaty also says that such directives:
"shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings".
It says nothing at all about large undertakings. It seems to me that the difference between the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Treaty of Maastricht is that there is compulsion and that there will be discrimination against large organisations. I believe that that is not right. As I pointed out at Second Reading, the imposition of the additional higher social charges, which would be equivalent to the social charges in the mainland European countries at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, would impose an enormous burden on our industry and indeed on our major companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said also that of all the political parties in the European Community, only two did not agree to the social contract; namely, the party of Le Pen and the United Kingdom Conservative Party. That may be true of political parties, but the reality is different with businessmen on the ground. One can find a large measure of agreement between the businessmen in Germany, France, Belgium and in this country in regard to the imposition of social charges and the huge burden which would emanate from the Maastricht Treaty.
At Second Reading I referred to those charges; and in practically every case—certainly in the cases of Germany and France—the figures were over 70 per cent. compared just over 30 per cent. in terms of the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said, it is important that we maintain the competitiveness that has been won in such a difficult way over the past few years. British industry is much better that it was. It is winning the markets. Let us not
900
do anything that will militate against it. The UK Government have done the right thing in opting out, and I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. But she also made another valuable point (perhaps unintentionally) in regard to the progressive nature of the duties which have been imposed with the succession of treaties. We can all assume that the next treaty will go in the same direction.
I should like to say something also which may be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I am sure that he does not expect that and will be slightly hesitant when I offer it to him. Contrary to what my noble friend Lord Cockfield said, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, makes good sense from his point of view. After all, he speaks of two essentials in the debate. First, that he wants the treaty to be ratified; secondly, that if possible the social chapter should be part of it when it is ratified. My feeling is that, at the end of the day, if push came to shove, he would take the treaty without the social protocol rather than lose the treaty. Therefore his amendment is well judged. If he required that the outcome of the Motion concerning the protocol on social policy had to be one which came down against the social policy, he would have lost the social chapter. If the vote came down against the social policy, he would have lost the treaty. Therefore, from his point of view, the amendment is logically constructed.
However, I take a different view. As the Committee will know, I am opposed to the social chapter for the excellent reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, among others. In any case., I am against matters in this sphere being decided outside this Kingdom. Whether or not we should have a 48-hour week should be decided by British people in Britain and not in a forum where we are in a permanent minority. I know that that is not the view of all Members of the Committee. There are many who feel that they have a better chance in that larger forum; that is, they have an instinct that the British people would not do what they wanted and therefore they will look for their will to be imposed on the people of these islands by foreigners.
I take a contrary view, and I have the feeling that in that I would have the support not only of most Members of this House but the overwhelming majority of the people of these islands who are still attached to the idea that they like to pick their own governments and to make their own laws to the maximum possible extent. But I want also to say why I think that the social protocol, as it is in the treaty, is not of any great protection to us in the United Kingdom.
Let me put it this way. If that protocol was not in the treaty, if there were no mention in the treaty of social policy, we would be back to the situation winch was described by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. Now let us consider the manufacture of widgets in, shall we say, Lyon. Under those circumstances—that is, the circumstances of today —if he finds that he is losing business to a

901
manufacturer of widgets in Birmingham, he might feel that the competitive field was not fair and that it was slanted towards Birmingham rather than towards Lyon. But if he were to go to the court and say, "My Government imposes these costs on me which the British Government do not impose on my competitor in Birmingham", I think that the European Court would say, "We have the greatest sympathy with you but that is not a consequence of European law". If the treaty is ratified, even with the protocol, that same widget maker would go to the court and the court would say, "Ah, yes, it is European law which is imposing these costs upon you; European law which applies only to 11 states but nonetheless it is European law. And it is European law that is allowing the field of competition to be sloped against you". Now the court would not say, just like that, "We shall impose the whole of the social chapter", but it would be what I referred to this afternoon as the growing salami—slice, by slice, by slice, until we had got the whole sausage, one judgment after another, on grounds of competition, or perhaps of health and safety, until we had got the lot. So I take the view that we would be better off without that protocol.
I acknowledge that we shall not be able to get it out of the treaty because we have the saga, of which I shall remind the Committee as briefly as I can, of Amendment No. 27 and its successors in the other place. Let me remind the Committee that on 27th January Members in another place were told that, if they enacted Amendment No. 27—the famous Amendment No. 27—which said that the social chapter should not be part of the treaty, two things would happen. First, in doing so they would impose the social chapter on the United Kingdom; and, secondly, they would destroy the treaty by making our treaty different from that signed by the other 11 and that therefore it would require a new round of negotiations.
Enormous pressure was put on Conservative Members of Parliament over that issue at the end of January—all manner of threats were made against them—because it was said to be such a vital issue. It had been explained with great clarity by my right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Garel-Jones, in exactly the way I have described. But on 15th February it had all changed. The Attorney General was produced and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary appeared. He said that Amendment No. 27 was totally ineffective and that it really did not matter a scrap. Because of the Royal Prerogative, it did not matter what the other place said or indeed what we say; and the Government would ratify, under the Royal Prerogative, the treaty which they signed at Maastricht. Since there was no discordance in British domestic law it did not matter a scrap. Incidentally, Amendment No. 27 would not have the effect of bringing the social chapter to Britain.
That is why we have in the Bill, on page 1, the little note, excepting the social protocol. We are told that it is just a little piece of flummery which does not matter. I shall not go through the whole process, but in
902
consequence we also have in the Bill Clause 7 which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would amend. That clause requires that the Act will not become effective until after there has been a debate on a Motion on the social policy. That has been described by some people as the ticking bomb under the treaty and by others as an issue which does not really matter because it does not matter which way the vote goes as the treaty will be ratified anyway.
I wish to help my friends in government. It seems to me that the debate which is provided for by Clause 7 has some rather severe risks for the Government and that is why they did not want Clause 7 in the Bill. It was not their idea to have this debate; it was forced on them. If Parliament should vote to adopt the Protocol on Social Policy, the Government will have a very nasty problem. What should they do? Should they simply defy Parliament? I believe that to be very difficult indeed. So should they adopt the social chapter and say to our partner countries "We should like a very quick adjustment to the treaty"? I am sure they would agree to that without too much trouble. We shall all then have the social chapter.
I should not like that to happen—nor indeed would the Government. I believe it was this afternoon that I asked my noble friend—the days spent on this debate merge one into the other at times, but it is now almost over—whether she would say that it was a vital British interest to ensure that the social chapter was not imposed on us. She managed to avoid saying that. She escaped by saying "We have arranged it all by having the protocol". But is it a vital interest in the Government's view? If the vote went the wrong way for them, which would they abandon—their commitment to oppose the social protocol and social chapter or their commitment to see this treaty ratified? Which way would they jump? I do not know, and I very much doubt whether my noble friend the Minister will tell us. I should be very surprised if she did.
But I have a way of saving my friends in government from all this potential embarrassment—and that is for them to join me and my friends in voting against Clause 7 standing part of the Bill. That is what the Government wanted in the other place. I have given them the opportunity to achieve it in this place. Whether they join me or not, I shall vote this evening for what they believe in.
10 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I was riveted by the discourse of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I was waiting to see just what rabbit would come out of the hat. I am waiting with even more anxiety to hear the Minister's response because the noble Lord asked the 64,000 dollar question, to which we should all like to get a reply. I should add that the debates may all merge, day by day, one into the other, but each one is lightened, coloured and infused by the tenacity and determination of the noble Lord.
I should like to follow the noble Lord on one other point, and to underline something that he said. I believe it is of great significance and that we have talked about it only briefly. I refer to the possible "salami tactics" which he described when the decision

903
by the British Government to abandon or move away from the social protocol is tested under competition policy in the European Court. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was not entirely wrong in believing that under the terms of competition policy it might be extremely difficult to retain the advantages that the Government believe that they will get by opting out of the social chapter. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that the court would not find some elements of that to comprise unfair competition. Such advice as I have been able to take from very expert people in this area suggests that there may be a good deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said on that point.
I should like to refer to two other contributions to the debate. I refer first to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for whom I have great respect. I should like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said with regard to the misunderstanding about the 48-hour week because it was an important and significant misunderstanding. This House often refers to that particular directive as if it were related to a decision stating that employees could not work more than 48 hours a week. That is not the case. The case is that they cannot be obliged to do so. I should have thought that anybody who declares themselves in favour of the right of individual choice would regard that as upholding, not overriding, individual choice. It must be right that people cannot be compelled to work more than 48 hours a week. To oblige them to do so is a form of abuse that I should have thought that we had put behind us a very long time ago.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is it not the case that what she has described applies only until 1999, after which the 48-hour week will he obligatory?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I believe that is correct. But that is not the point at issue in the present discussion. The argument which I am about to put forward is that as members of the social chapter, we would be in a very strong position to influence that discussion which has not yet in any way been concluded. It is not the case at present that we would be bound in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for whom I have the greatest respect, said another thing which I do not believe to be quite accurate as he put it. He mentioned the advantages enjoyed by states in the United States as a result of being able to operate flexible labour markets. He is not wrong in that respect, except in three ways which are very close to the social chapter. Federal law determines that there shall be a minimum wage payment. Federal law determines that there shall no discrimination between men and women on the grounds of the amount that they are paid for equal work. Federal law determines that there shall be no discrimination against people of ethnic minorities on the grounds of the pay or conditions for which they work and to which they are subject. Those three sweeping provisions do, I think, go quite a long way to cast doubt on the claims for
904
flexibility in the United States that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, made. In that context he specifically referred to equal pay.
I should now like to spend a few moments on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I have the greatest admiration for the noble Lord. I have always found him a consistent and logical arguer and thinker in every context. He arid I worked together for many years. However, for once, I have to say that I did not find his argument convincing. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out, both the original Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act made specific reference to health and safety, working conditions, equal pay and other social provisions. To all of those the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was in one sense or another party, either as a Commissioner or as a member of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves why he now regards the social protocol as something in respect of which we should stay outside. However, I felt that his argument was very finely balanced.
Perhaps I may press the noble Lord for just a moment. The argument that he has consistently put forward is that the United Kingdom should attempt to influence the European Community from inside and that that is the proper place for it. He has advanced that argument in this Chamber and in other places time and again in respect of the position and the active involvement of the United Kingdom. However, that suddenly comes to a stop with regard to the social chapter. I do not understand why.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed to many of the provisions in the social chapter which go a long way to meet the interests of the United Kingdom. However, there are two declarations to which he did not have time to refer, one of which makes it plain that those provisions shall be minimal and that they shall have full regard to the needs of small and medium-sized industries. Time and again in the chapter reference is made to flexibility, to the need for there to be a response to the needs of small companies and, in many other ways, the whole provision of the social chapter is expressed in extraordinarily moderate terms. If the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is right—he may well be—that we are now about to enter a major discussion of the social costs that any modern economy can bear, then surely it is better that we should be inside the Community to debate such issues and not outside.
It is by no means clear that the greatest economic advantages invariably go for one side of the argument about ideology. Perhaps I may give the Committee just two instances. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, referred to unemployment. I do not think that she was quite right in suggesting that it had been halved since 1979—at least, that is not my impression of the statistics. However, there is one respect in which, undoubtedly, the Community countries of the Continent have a major advantage over this country. Perhaps I may take the examples of France and Germany. In both cases, the levels of youth unemployment compared to the general levels of unemployment are very much closer than they are in the United Kingdom. That is not because of what is

905
called "flexible labour policy"; it is because the Federal Republic of Germany and the other countries of the Continent have had worked-out and detailed apprenticeship policies which mean that the great bulk of young people in those countries are trained in a way that they are not in this country. That is a major advantage for those countries which believe in social policy.
Before I conclude, I shall refer to another instance. There is one area in which the United Kingdom has shown an immense level of social efficiency compared to most other countries. The National Health Service costs just over 6 per cent. of gross national product. The health services of the United States cost just over 13 per cent. of GNP; that is, more than twice as large a proportion of GNP, although 32 million American citizens are not even covered.
I simply wish to point out once again that the United Kingdom could make a major contribution to the discussion on social policy. There are steps that we have taken which would assist us in keeping public expenditure down without doing it at a cost to the most disadvantaged people in our society. I believe that we are right to believe that we should remain members of the Community and of the social chapter. I believe that we should have great reason to want to be part of a discussion which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, believes will take place and that we have much to contribute to that discussion.
Lord Eatwell: A number of references have been made to the likely impact of the social protocol on the competitiveness of the Community and the UK. We have heard today of the impact of the heavy social costs in France and Germany on the competitiveness of those countries. Since the share of world trade of France and Germany have stayed the same or increased since 1979, where the share of world trade of the UK has fallen, it seems to me that the impact of those social costs has not obviously inhibited their competitiveness vis-à-vis the UK.
The real reason why there is a discussion about the issue of competitiveness and why at the Copenhagen Summit, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, there was a degree of nervousness about European competitiveness is, to paraphrase a famous document, that there is a fear stalking Europe. It is the fear of the Pacific rim countries and the competitiveness of the European Community as a whole vis-à-vis the Pacific rim. That fear is being used as the pretext for the dismantling of social provision in this country and in other European countries; looking backwards at the gains that have been made and looking forwards with respect to resisting the implications of the social protocol.
I wish to refer specifically to the argument that the social protocol will result in a loss of competitiveness for the EC as a whole. Perhaps I may say as an aside that even if that is true —and for reasons which I shall sketch out I do not accept that argument—the impact on Community competitiveness of the common agricultural policy, which the Government accept, is vastly greater than any impact there might be of the social protocol.
906
I turn to the question of competitiveness and the role of the wage costs in competitiveness. Let us suppose that the technology used in Europe is the same as the technology used in the Pacific rim where wage costs are lower. One might expect that because wage costs are lower the prices are lower and that those countries are more competitive. That is true at any given exchange rate but it is not true when the exchange rate can adjust between Europe and the Pacific rim to balance the competitiveness which derives from different wages. That is exactly what has happened during the past 100 years as industrialisation has spread from one region of the world to another.
The real issue in the difference in competitiveness between ourselves and the Pacific rim countries is not wage costs but the fact that in many cases their techniques are superior. It is not the price of Japanese cars which ensures their competitiveness but the quality. It is not the price of video recorders which ensures Japanese dominance of the market but the fact that they are the only producers of video recorders. In particular, it is not the wage costs involved in Korean steel—wage costs are an extremely small proportion of the total cost—that have allowed the Koreans to steal markets from the US, but the quality of the steel that is produced. We have, therefore, the fear of the competitiveness of the Pacific rim. We should focus not on wage costs but on technique and skill. Investment in the labour force is a vital ingredient of technological superiority.
I suggest that the social protocol is a simple measure designed to protect individuals, yes, but especially to give them a stake in the system and to create a framework within which a high quality labour force can be developed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out, in a period of change Bismarck saw how important it was to give the labour force a stake in the system. In providing that stake the social protocol is an assistance to competitiveness and not a barrier. It encourages the commitment of the labour force to technological change; it encourages the labour force to invest in itself; and it encourages change and progress. The social protocol can be part of a competitive recovery for Europe. It is not a threat to that competitiveness.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: Taking part in a debate at this hour recalls the schoolboy joke about the noble Lord who dreamed that he was making a speech in the House of Lords and woke up to find that he was. I have not partaken of any discussion in this Chamber at this hour and it is impossible to do justice to the many issues that have been raised.
I recall the winning way in which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, introduced these amendments. He described them as trivial, trifling matters in the Treaty of Rome, the Social Charter and successive statements which should not trouble us. He asked why the Government should oppose them? The exact reverse question is: why should we be so concerned about them if they are so trivial? I have the answer. I hesitate

907
to deploy it because it may provoke the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, into a further instructive disquisition. However, the answer that I have, I have from him.
At an earlier stage in the debate the noble Lord, rather uncharacteristically, harshly chastised the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. He said that she had caused all the trouble by signing the Stuttgart Declaration in 1983. He went through that declaration and remarked on how radical the noble Baroness had been to have assented to what is described as a "solemn declaration". He listed the great statements of the vision of a united Europe, social progress, political and monetary union and so on. He said that the noble Baroness should have understood that 1983 sealed our fate. I am paraphrasing his words. The noble Lord is part of the Euro-mafia which sees those matters more amiably than some of us can manage to do.
The noble Lord said that Maastricht was quite trivial and he asked what all the fuss was about. He kept extraordinarily calm, as he usually does. He said that it is merely dotting i's and crossing t's and that it does not amount to anything. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, explained how Ministers often find documents in their boxes and they occasionally initial them without understanding fully what has been placed before them by their civil servants. However, the fact is—and this explains the often uncharacteristic depth of feeling that has now divided friend from friend in this wretched debate—that we have watched the story unfold since Stuttgart and before. We have seen the devious and slippery ways in which the Commission has taken advantage of certain words, terms and expressions in order progressively to create the sausages that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, keeps waving about.
From very general expressions about improving working conditions and developing and promoting various matters and so on, we get down to detail about hours of work, conditions of part-time working and all of that. We will shortly approach the proposal of a uniform European bedtime. That would be fair. We should have a level playing field. We should all pack up at the same time and not leave these industrious Germans and Italians to go on through the night.
The proponents of Maastricht really must understand that we are not merely tilting at these particular proposals, but we are full of fear and foreboding about the progressive, accelerating speed of development. Some Member of the Committee on the Government's side of the Chamber talked about the change in the mood at the Copenhagen summit which enabled our Prime Minister to return home without having been battered and bullied as the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, had been in the past. But still our man is isolated. He is still in a minority of one. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, lost her job for being in a minority of one. It was said her bat was being broken. 'Who is breaking Mr. Major's bat, because he is still in a minority of one? The difficulty is that there is a totally conflicting vision not merely about Europe and the future but about the nature of competition and the nature of a market.
I only have time to touch on a couple of points
908
because I do not see how anyone can get past the position of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that social costs, non-wage employment costs, on her figures, are double in Germany and France what they are in this country. We are discussing labour costs per unit of output, other things being equal. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referred to employment., investment, technology and training. Those latter aspects may be of help in some period ahead but here and now we are faced with loading those costs on to our production and we are not in a position to bear those costs and as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said, we do not want that kind of decision to be made in a foreign land.
I have rehearsed my final thought many times and I wonder whether everyone will break into a respectful silence and say "Hear, hear". The greatest vehicle in history for the transformation of standards of living has not even been technology; it has been trade and commerce. Trade and commerce are the means by which all other contributors to efficiency and progress are transmitted around the world more quickly through competition and all the rest of it. Trade and commerce are the ways in which we can achieve these objectives of the social chapter and the Social Charter. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to improved working conditions and higher standards of living. However, all he can think of is that the Government must achieve those aims and the Government must enforce better conditions. He believes the Government must take more power to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, believes that standards of living are still on the edge of indigent poverty, but they have risen through the market. The market after all is not such a remarkable thing, it is people who have sought to benefit their own position and in the process have benefited the position of others. If we have a vote and it is held at a reasonable hour, I hope that we shall absolutely reject this nonsense from the noble Lord.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has a wonderful gift for exaggeration. He said it was so late at night he felt he was addressing the Chamber in his sleep. I must tell the noble Lord he has seen nothing yet. He has not taken part in the debates on the Education Bill. The latest time at which I have addressed this Chamber is twenty to nine in the morning. I am extremely glad not to be beating that record on this Bill.
I shall not deal with the noble Lord's other exaggerations, as it would take too long. I support this amendment and I support the social chapter with the same reservations as my noble friend Lord Rochester. It is not a perfect social chapter. In this world very few things are. However, we believe that it is much better to support it than not to do so.
I listened with great care to the very impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. Listening to it, I was reminded of a story my father told of standing on the watershed between the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi. He said that it was flat ground so far as the eye could see, yet the water that fell on his left boot ran into the Gulf of Mexico and the water that fell on his right boot ran into the North Atlantic. The noble

909
Lord, Lord Cockfield, and I are very close indeed, but the water that falls on the boot of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will run into the Not-Content Lobby and the water that falls on my boot will fall into the Content Lobby.
There are arguments both of pragmatism and of principle. To me, one of the most important arguments is I believe, that we should accept existing treaty obligations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in his reading of Articles 117, 118a and 118b. I listened with great care to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. If the Committee will forgive a repetition, I was reminded of a passage from the Renton Report on the drafting of legislation, which I quoted in the Chamber yesterday, describing with the noble Lord's usual clarity the differences between the methods of British and European legislation. The noble Lord said that the key in understanding European legislation is to establish the intent. When one has the intent, the rest follows in explanation, clarification and interpretation. The intent of harmonisation is expressed in the Treaty of Rome. When I ask the Committee to accept that, I am not asking the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, to accept any foreign law. I am asking him to accept the European Communities Act 1972 as passed by this Parliament.
There is the further obligation that under the general principle of the Single European Act we are bound to equal competition, in which there is a social dimension. The 48-hour directive comes under the health and safety provisions of the Single European Act. I accept that the Government have a doubt whether it properly belongs under the health and safety provisions. I ask the noble Baroness the Minister only one question on this. When the European Court comes to give judgment on this matter, will the Government undertake to accept the judgment of that court and to implement it?
I am surprised that it should cause so much concern whether the length of hours of work can properly come within health and safety. I had thought that that principle had been established when this Parliament passed the 10 hours Act in 1847. Exactly the same speeches were made then about the appalling burden on business costs and the disastrous consequences that would follow. But so far as I can see, they did not.
Under the principle of the single market, there has to be equal competition. I share, as does my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, about what the European Court will do when asked to consider our position in the light of the doctrine of equal competition. I shall not use the phrase "level playing field". I cannot see how a party led by my right honourable friend the Member for Yeovil can possibly do that. I remember Yeovil Town's sloping pitch. I shall say that the whole of the single market rests on the principle of equal competition. I cannot see how we can accept that without accepting the social dimension in some form or other.
It is argued that the key point is acceptance that we compete within the global economy, and that we face competition from the Pacific rim and from other
910
countries. That argument is true. But I shall also ask noble Lords opposite to agree that in accepting that argument as true we do not have to accept it as the end of the matter. It is not the only argument to be taken into account. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, made about the need not to go too far in developing social policy. That is a powerful point. But it applies equally to the need not to go too far in the policy on which the Government have embarked of cutting labour costs.
We have said that we live in a global economy. In that global economy there has to be demand or there are no markets and there is no employment. The image that used to be used regularly a few years ago of the locomotive pulling the world economy has some force in it. If we take the power out of the locomotive, it does not matter how many cattle wagons we tie on at the back; the train will not move.
I believe, too, that attempting to lower one's social costs below those of one's competitors in the end becomes a form of protectionism. It is then open to all the objections which are usually made against protectionism: in effect, that it therefore reduces the total bulk of world trade; and that it therefore reduces the total size of the cake which we have to divide up. It is an argument which the Conservative Party has found familiar. I should like to ask the party to consider the argument in the circumstances.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said what he did about competition. Competition is not only in terms of price. Free marketeers much too easily think that it is. Competition is also in terms of quality. If we consider quality, I shall not at this time of night go into the question of trade. I shall only say that what my noble friend Lady Seear has "told us three times is true". Costs do not involve wage costs only. We have to think about health costs. My noble friend Lady Williams reminded us of that. Forcing wages down so that people may become ill may generate extra costs. Forcing them down so that people become dependent on benefits again may generate costs; and because those costs fall on the taxpayer they fall on all of us. That includes business.
I am very far from convinced that wage costs are the only costs that we have to take into account, or even necessarily that they are the biggest factor. In any case, we have accepted the principle already and we could not get out of it if we wished to do so.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I am sorry that no one from these Benches has contributed anything during two days of great debate. Even at this eleventh hour I wish to speak. I cannot possibly represent the Church of England; no one man could do that. I am relieved that we are not expected to express any view other than our own.
The Earl of Onslow: That is subsidiarity.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: Subsidiarity is a theological term.
When I attended the Committee this week I thought that I would vote against the amendment. First, I actually wish to see the bus moving. It is only

911
when the vehicle moves that one is able to find out whether the gears work and one can then steer it. One cannot steer a stationary vehicle. Furthermore, I believe that we are European; we should be in Europe. We have fought many battles on the soil of Europe in the past. Now we have to fight them, not with cold steel, but with ideas, with battles of the mind, even with moral battles. Therefore I wanted to see this legislation go through.
Secondly, I was of the opinion, when Maastricht was first spoken of, that many of the Eleven voted for the social chapter without thinking about it. I have no interest in anyone voting for something merely for the sake of it and then ignoring it. Furthermore, I do not take a great deal of notice of anyone who says to me: "You've got to vote for this, all the others are doing so". That would be to do the right thing for the wrong reason. I also heeded the warning that, if we put up our social costs, we should be uncompetitive and British industry, which is at present going through a fragile and vulnerable emergence from the recession, would be knocked.
However, I am now of the opinion that, if this Chamber and the Government were to accept the social chapter, that would not involve a major re-run of the debate in Europe. I believe it would be accepted gladly and we should be able to go forward. Further, if other nations have voted for it mindlessly, without looking into it, how better to bring them to a further consideration of the social issues than by being there ourselves, involved in the debate, on all fours with the others?
There will be many debates and negotiations in the years ahead. There is no way in which we can work together in Europe as I believe we should, though in an uncertain world we have a common culture, a common faith and, to a certain extent, a common experience of democratic institutions. That is something which we might well preserve for the world. Let us be there to help do that. There will be minute particulars of which we must take account. I do not believe that accepting the social chapter will set matters in concrete. There are bound to be meetings and proper compromises.
Then there is the question of whether we can afford it. I go along with those who say, "There is not only one kind of cost". On every management course to which I go—and I go to quite a few—there is much talk of the importance in a company or institution of the good feeling, the achievement of participation and commitment among the members of that company or institution. Here I repeat, possibly as many times as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, repeated a phrase which I had not heard before, self-interest often dictates that which justice demands. There is no way that we can rebuild the economic prowess and success—
Lord Vinson: Will the right reverend Prelate give way? I am sure he is deeply concerned about unemployment, but does he realise that a 10 per cent. increase on productivity costs could possibly, taking the nation as a whole, put another 100,000 people out
912
of work? That would be the penalty for adopting the social chapter at the moment. Would that concern him?
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I was glad to give way. Of course that concerns me, but I do not believe that we can rebuild an economy on cheap and under-rewarded labour. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the cost of that might be too great in trying to achieve success in the competitive markets.
With those thoughts in this fascinating debate, I conclude that not to pass the amendment would be to suggest all the wrong things, give all the wrong signals, and to indicate a curmudgeonly approach to the whole participation in Europe which I believe lies with the future.
Baroness Seear: I shall be very brief at this time of night; but I want to make one or two points that arise out of the issues which have been raised, and mention some points which have not been adequately raised, although the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, touched on the issues which I believe are of primary consideration.
There is no doubt that countries of the European Community, including our own, will be up against very tough competition in the global economy of which we are now part. The competition will get tougher. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, implied that it had very little to do with labour costs. That is only partially true, as I believe the noble Lord knows. He must know that many companies nowadays send a great deal of their less skilled work overseas because the labour costs are lower. That is not something that we can afford to ignore. Europe will find it very difficult to hold its own.
The growth rates in China only last year were 12 per cent. in GNP. When that great country takes off, the competition that it will present to Europe as a whole will be enormously difficult to meet. That means that there must be very drastic economic cha:nges in all the European countries if we are to meet that competition.
I argued in favour of, and not against, the social policy. If one is to make drastic economic changes of the order that will be required, one will get acceptance for them only if the people who are involved in those changes—it will mean people having to change their jobs, losing their jobs and retraining for new jobs—see that for them there is something in the changes. If one is able to offer them social policies and policies of retraining on a very large scale, and if they can see that those policies offer hope and a future, then they will accept drastic economic changes.
We have not yet begun to contemplate the scale of the changes that will be necessary. Therefore we need good social policies, ones which will convince the people who will be affected that it is worth their while to go through all the pain of change in order to get advantage in the longer run.
We may ask whether those social policies will be the same as we are talking about at the present time. I believe it may well be that we shall have to allocate the resources that we have for those changes in rather different directions from those that we have taken in the past.

913
I went a very long way with what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, had to say. The noble Lord knows a great deal about the matter and his argument was very convincing. But at one point towards the end I completely part company from him. If these changes are to be effective, they have to be carried out on the basis of the Community working together. Of course the changes will be drastic. It is essential that we should be there taking part in the formulation of the new types of social policy that will be needed to meet the new economic challenges.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Amendment No. 428, put down by the Labour Front Bench, as we know, seeks to amend Clause 7 of the Bill—the clause which my noble friend Lord Tebbit would like to see be deleted from the Bill. We accept that clause is the result of a new clause put forward by the Opposition during the Committee stage in another place. We shall come in a few moments to the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked.
It was the requirement to consider the question of adopting the protocol on social policy that requires us to come to a resolution on a Motion before the Act enters into force. The reason that the Government accepted that new clause was not that we were afraid to debate the issues. We are debating them now, and we shall debate them again. We are confident that a majority in both Chambers favours Britain's opt-out from the social agreement. If we joined it, the social agreement would do a number of very serious things. It would transfer more power from Westminster to Brussels. I believe that it would price British workers out of jobs, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, intimated, and it would make Europe as a whole less competitive. If there were no reasons other than those three, they would be the grounds on which we should have our opt-out from the social agreement. It will do nothing to help solve the unemployment to which many noble Lords pointed on Second Reading as one of the greatest challenges facing Europe.
The Labour amendment would require a government Minister to table a Motion abandoning the opt-out. We have no intention of doing so. It is already open to the Opposition to table an amendment to the Motion that the Government put forward under Section 7 (as it would be post Royal Assent) as it currently stands. I understand that a Labour spokesman in another place made it quite clear that they intended to do that.
The United Kingdom's opt-out contained in the social protocol is in any case an integral part of the treaty. That treaty has already been ratified by 10 of our partners. An amendment of this kind has no place in the Bill because it tries to prejudge future negotiations not consequential upon the present treaty. It is therefore outside the purpose of the Bill as stated in the Long Title, which may well be why similar amendments tabled in another place were not selected for debate. The change should not be made.
914
Clause 7 already gives both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to debate the social protocol. I am sure that we shall be doing that before long.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Tebbit, who has notified the Committee of his intention to oppose the Motion that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill, that as it stands Clause 7 is a commencement provision. Instead of coming into force the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent, it is to come into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on a Motion considering the question of adopting the protocol on social policy. As I said, the Government accepted the clause because they recognised that the other place wanted to hold a further debate on the social protocol. They are therefore prepared to see the inclusion of this clause in the Bill.
I turn to what my noble friend Lord Tebbit called his 64,000 dollar question. He asked whether the social chapter opt-out was vital in the national interest. I remind him that at Maastricht my right honourable friend the Prime Minister took the view that we could not sign up to the social chapter that the other 11 members wanted.
My noble friend asked what the Government would do after the Clause 7 votes. Was opting out of the social chapter a vital national interest? I have to tell him that the Government are confident that there is a majority in both Chambers in favour of our opt-out, as I said a few moments ago. Therefore, the question that he posed does not arise. I shall not speculate, as he tried to tempt me to do, about his wrecking tactics.
I should like to turn to some of the many excellent contributions made in the debate. But perhaps I should deal with the proposer of Amendment No. 428 before I deal with anyone else. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am at a slight loss to understand quite how a proposition to do in this Chamber what the Government wanted to do in the other place, but ran away from doing because they did not believe that they could carry the vote, would be an act of wrecking. It would be an act of kindness—not wrecking.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My noble friend sorely tempts me to enter into a wider debate with him, but because of the lateness of the hour I shall not do so. However, there will surely come a time when my noble friend might get rather more than he bargained for.
In proposing the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Richard, quoted extensively from the social agreement. However. I noticed that he did not mention Articles 3 and 4. He also asked me a number of questions. The agreement of the 11 to the social agreement allows for a wide range of legislation in social affairs by qualified majority voting. That is contained in Article 4, to which he did not refer. The potential cost of that may be substantial, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.

915
It is impossible to predict what proposals are likely to come forward under that agreement, but perhaps I can take some of the potentials. The following is merely an illustrative list of a few improvements in particular of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety. That provision goes beyond the limits of minimum standards for health and safety of workers to include, perhaps, facilities for the welfare of workers. The working conditions go into working patterns, minimum paid annual leave, parental leave and special leave. They continue into atypical work, pro rata access to all terms and conditions of employment for part-time, temporary and fixed term workers.
It is easy enough to ask, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, did: are we against good working conditions'? But there are matters, as many Members of the Committee have said tonight, that should be decided at national level. European-level agreements in areas such as these social areas are likely to put up our labour costs and increase labour market inflexibility. That means, as my noble friend Lord Vinson said in his interjection, putting people out of work. We already know that Europe's competitiveness is declining against the United States and the Far East. The last thing we should do—and that was the point of the debate at the Copenhagen summit—is to accelerate the process. That would be not only thoroughly unwise, but it would set a pattern which I do not believe the Community, for all its sensible policies (of which there are many), would be able to arrest.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked also how the United Kingdom would be able to participate in the EC social affairs activity. I can tell him. We will continue to participate in the activity in the social field under the Treaty of Rome. We remain committed to a sensible policy in this area; for example, a sensible policy in the area of health and safety. And we expect the Commission to continue to bring forward proposals for legislation by the 12. But the social agreement allows the 11 to go further, if they so choose, on a qualified majority voting basis.
We agreed to the 11 using the institutions of the Community when they discuss the measures brought forward under the agreement between the 11. It will be obvious whether or not a measure is being brought forward under the Treaty of Rome in which we are involved, or under the agreement in which we are not, because the measure would say so. It would cite as its legal base an article of the agreement of the 11, if that is what it came under, rather than an article of the treaty.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that the protocol might not stand up to challenge but it is still better than nothing. I took a note rather quickly, but I think those were his words. I have no reason to think that the protocol will not be effective. But I agree with him that even if it proved not to be a complete shield, the protocol would be worth having. As my noble friend the Foreign Secretary put it in another place: just because a burglar may climb over your fence, that is no reason to open your gate to him.
916
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to the concerns of business about excessive social legislation. I shall never forget that when I was a Member of another place the trade unionists in one of my local factories came to me and begged me to fight against the social protocol because of what it would do to their work and their opportunities for working. That is the story one hears when one talks in simple straightforward terms about the social. protocol to workforce after workforce. This Government's decision has been wholeheartedly supported by the CBI throughout British industry. The President of UNICE, Mr. Carlos Ferrer, referred to the working time directive along with the other social policy measures currently before the Council. He said:
"It seems very wrong—especially al a time of high unemployment—to be pressing forward with such measures which will destroy jobs and bring virtually no benefits in return".
He went on to call for some negative action. It was an appeal from the heart, on behalf of the millions of companies which UNICE represents. He said we should,
"stop taking measures which unnecessarily destroy jobs".
He went on to list those. He said that it was time the truth were told about the directive—the directive which disregards subsidiarity; the "top-down" measure from Brussels for rigid application in the four corners of Europe. He noted that it took no account whatever of the views of companies nor of existing practice. He said that it would not improve information and consultation of workers; rather, it would damage existing systems. He said that, above all, it would reduce competitiveness by seriously delaying the freedom of companies to take vital decisions in good time.
There is much more that one can say cif this. But the most important question is: are we doing what is right for growth in this country and employment in this country? Were we to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we would not do so.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, winding up for the. Liberal Democrats, used the phrase, "In legislation, intent is all". That is not so. It makes a great difference what legislative powers are given to carry out that intent. That is exactly why the Prime Minister chose to draw the dividing line and say that this is a protocol we cannot accept.
We have had a long debate. The hour is late. Clause 7 as it stands will provide the opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to hold another debate and vote on these issues. At the same time Amendment No. 428 would only serve to cause unnecessary complication. In fact, it would do us no good in our obligation to this nation, which is not only to get people back to work as quickly as possible but to make sure that vie do not put unnecessary barriers in the face of people seeking to provide employment as well as those who want it. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, I urge the Committee to reject it because it is in the best interests of Britain that it should be so rejected.
Lord Richard: I shall be extremely brief at this hour of the night. I wish to make but three points. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that her representation of the social chapter was a travesty

917
of the wording of the treaty and that her flesh-creeping as to how it would come out was overdrawn, exaggerated and inaccurate.
I wish to take up two points on the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. She chided me with the fact that I had not quoted part of the Treaty of Maastricht and she said that the wording in Maastricht was worse than the wording in the Treaty of Rome. I have to tell her that she is wrong. I do not want to spend a lot of time going through it tonight but perhaps she would be kind enough, in the still wee hours of the night when we are all sitting up poring over our Maastricht Treaty at three in the morning because we cannot sleep for worrying about the effects of the social charter on production costs in the United Kingdom, to look at the wording that she quoted and compare it with the equivalent in the Treaty of Rome. She will find that not only are they virtually identical, but that Maastricht is actually weaker than the Treaty of Rome. In that treaty it says that the Council "shall" produce directives, but in the Maastricht Treaty it states that the Council "may".
There is one major difference in which Maastricht is actually a step back from the position contained in the Treaty of Rome. It is not a step back which I particularly enjoy, but since we are being textual about this—as we should be about these very important treaties—we should get them right.
Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, talked about the non-wage costs. The figures that she gave prompted me at least to ask one question: if our non-wage costs are so much better than those of Germany, why is Germany doing so much better than we are?
Noble Lords: They are not!
Lord Richard: Over the past 25 to 30 years and under successive administrations, is it seriously being argued that the German economic performance has not been better than ours? Could it be—
The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Richard: No. We should come to a conclusion on this debate. Could it be perhaps that the Germans have a better trained and more highly skilled workforce than we have; that they have greater technological investment in their industrial processes and that they have perhaps a better informed and better consulted workforce? Dare one say in this Chamber that perhaps they might even have better management?
The last point I wish to make concerns the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. He made a speech in which he marginally came down in favour of the opt-out. That seemed to run counter to almost everything else that he has said in relation to this treaty. His theme, and that of many other noble Lords in this Chamber who have been in favour of it, has been that if one wants to influence the way in which the Community is moving one has to be involved in the discussions which are taking place. On the one issue alone where that is
918
focused; namely, in the social chapter, the noble Lord feels that perhaps the Government are marginally right to persist in their opt-out.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that he put his argument with great skill, but his conclusion lacked the conviction that his conclusions usually have. We have come to the end of this debate and I do not propose to take up any more time on it. The issue is simple: do we want this country to sign the social chapter and participate in European social policy or do we not? For our part and that of the party which I represent in this Chamber, we want this country to participate in the formation of European social policy.
11.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 428) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Barnett, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Blackstone, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Blease, L.

Monkswell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Carter, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Desai, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Healey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollick, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Varley, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Longford, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Lovell-Davis, L.

Worcester, Bp.

McCarthy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ackner, L.

Burton, L.

Aldington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Caithness, E.

Annaly, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Astor, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Attlee, E.

Clark of Kempston, L

Barber, L.

Cockfield, L.

Belstead, L.

Coleraine, L.

Blatch, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Blyth, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cranborne, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Brightman, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

919

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dudley, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Faithfull, B.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Flather, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Foley. L.

Plumb, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Prentice, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Prior, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Pym, L.

Gisborough, L.

Raglan, L.

Goschen, V.

Reay, L.

Hacking, L.

Rennell, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Harmsworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hesketh, L.[Teller.]

Sharples, B.

Hives, L.

Sherfield, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L

Stewartby, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Kintore, E.

Swinton, E.

Lawrence, L.

Thatcher, B.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Vinson, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Waverley, V.

Mancroft, L.

Weatherill, L.

Marlesford, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wise, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Montgomery of Alamcin, V.

Wynford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 156; Not-Contents,16.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ackner, L.

Burton, L.

Addington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Aldington, L.

Caithness, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Annaly, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Astor, V.

Carter, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Attlee, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Barber, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Belstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blackstone, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blatch, B.

Cockfield, L.

Blyth. L.

Coleraine, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Brightman, L.

Cranborne, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Crickhowell, L.

920

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Desai, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dudley, E.

Pender, L.

Eatwell, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elles, B.

Peston, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L

Elton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Faithfull, B.

Plumb, L.

Ferrers, E.

Prentice, L.

Flather, B.

Prior, L.

Foley, L.

Pym, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rennell, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Richard, L.

Goschen, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hacking, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Russell, E.

Harmsworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Seear, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Hollick, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sherfield, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Slynn of Hadley L.

Howe, E.

Stewartby, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Howell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Swinton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Thatcher, B.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lawrence, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Long, V.

Tordoff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas, L.

Trumpington B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Waverley, V.

Weatherill, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Mancroft, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Marlesford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wise, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wynford, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Onslow, E.

Beloff, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Bruce of Donington, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Tebbit, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Vinson, L.

Monson, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Morris, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 7 agreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 429 and 430 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Health Service Commissioners Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Probation Service Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eleven o'clock.

  POLICE RESPONSIBILITIES AND REWARDS: SHEEHY REPORT
  POLICE RESPONSIBILITIES AND REWARDS: SHEEHY REPORT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION
  INHERITANCE TAX-EXEMPT WORKS OF ART: VIEWING ARRANGEMENTS
  INHERITANCE TAX-EXEMPT WORKS OF ART: VIEWING ARRANGEMENTS
  INHERITANCE TAX-EXEMPT WORKS OF ART: CONSEQUENCES OF DESTRUCTION OR THEFT
  INHERITANCE TAX-EXEMPT WORKS OF ART: CONSEQUENCES OF DESTRUCTION OR THEFT
  NETTING RECEIPTS: BENEFICIARIES
  NETTING RECEIPTS: BENEFICIARIES
  GOVERNMENT POLICY
  GOVERNMENT POLICY
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD: ANCILLARY SERVICES
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD: ANCILLARY SERVICES