Sitting of 4 March 1993

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

RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS)BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 March.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Thursday 11 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Excise Duty
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the impact on British industry of rates of excise duty.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): My right hon. Friend has received a considerable number of representations on Budget matters.
    Mr. Pike: Recognising the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to jobs in Scotland and to the balance of payments, may I ask what the Government will do to ensure that that industry does not continue to be greatly disadvantaged by comparison with the wine industry? Are we going to allow it to be destroyed?
    Mr. Nelson: The Government acknowledge the importance of that industry and representations have been made to my right hon. Friend by the Scotch whisky industry and associations. I cannot, of course, anticipate anything that might be in the Budget.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend accept that the premium exporting industry of Scotland is the Scotch whisky industry, which delivers £1.7 billion worth of exports every year? Given the 10 per cent. reduction in United Kingdom sales of Scotch whisky in recent times, is not there good reason carefully to examine the relationship between the excise duties on whisky and those on other drinks?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is a tireless champion of the industry. The point that he has made today has been well made by the industry to my right hon. Friend and I am sure that he will take full account of those representations.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister accept that there is a vast haemorrhage of money from the Treasury because of the distortions caused by cross-border trade as a result of differing excise duties in the United Kingdom and in mainland Europe? Can he accept as Government policy a process of harmonisation of those rates to get rid of the cross-border distortions?
    Mr. Nelson: The Government always accepted that a cost would be involved in the single market, but it involves opportunities as well. The Government have undoubtedly taken measures to reduce yield loss through cross-border trading, including the deployment of about 130 Customs and Excise officers to inland surveillance, and from the beginning of this year there will be a considerabily increased number of prosecutions as a result of arrests.

    Trade Barriers
    Mr. Opphenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the economic cost of trade barriers.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): Trade barriers impose unnecessary costs on both industry and consumers and also deprive them of choice.

    437
    They impede the efficiency of the economy by distorting market mechanisms. A rapid, comprehensive solution to the GATT round would provide a non-inflationary stimulus to the world economy.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Of all the huge burden of protected industries that bear down on us all as a result of EC or national actions, is not the one whose extra costs particularly hit poorer people—because they spend proportionately more of their incomes on it—and which causes immense injury to virtually every other industry in the country—because they all have to pay over the odds for its product—and which severely damages the environment and people's health—because it produces excessive carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions —(Interruption.] I can see that Opposition Members finally recognise that I am referring to the coal industry. There is absolutely no excuse to extend the many decades of protection that the coal industry has enjoyed at the expense of virtually every other industry in the country.
    Mr. Portillo: The Government must and will take seriously the commitments on the environment that they made at Rio. We must, of course, be extremely wary of driving up the price of electricity to our industrial users, because that would put them at a competitive disadvantage. About 90 per cent. of the coal used in power stations in this country is produced in the United Kingdom. The problem of the coal industry is not predominantly one of import penetration: it is one of collapse of demand.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Minister agree that although trade barriers damage our balance of payments, much worse damage has resulted from neglect of our industrial base? Does he agree with the Prime Minister that that was a great mistake? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to rebuild our manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Portillo: During the 1980s, manufacturing productivity in Britain grew faster than in any other country in the G7, the group of the richest countries. Our manufacturing production reached its record position in 1990. During the 1980s we stabilised our share of world trade after a decade in which it had been falling. These are all remarkable achievements. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer went further in the autumn statement in providing some encouragement to manufacturing industry—for instance, by the scrapping of car tax and by providing extra money to the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important aspect of free trade is the free movement of capital? Does he agree also that the European Community should not do anything to discourage foreign investment in Europe, bearing in mind the large amount of such investment that is coming to Britain, such as Toyota in Derbyshire and Nissan in Sunderland?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Toyota is investing £700 million at Burnaston, near Derby. Nissan is expected to invest £885 million by the end of the year and to create 4,600 jobs in Sunderland. There is also the Toyota investment that is taking place at Shotton, which will provide 300 jobs. The plant will produce 200,000 engines a year and represents an investment of
    438
    £140 million. The free movement of capital is important and the conditions that make Britain such an attractive place for inward investment must be sustained.

    House Prices
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current house prices in London and the south east.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I am pleased to say that recent developments are consistent with the view expressed by my right hon. Friend in the autumn statement that the housing market should start to recover this year.
    Mr. Gerrard: Is the Minister aware that in east London three out of every five people who have bought houses in the past four years have a mortgage that is greater than the current price of their houses and that across Greater London nearly 40 per cent. of those who are in mortgage arrears have a mortgage that is at least £10,000 more than the value of their property? Does he accept that that is the inevitable result of a rundown economy with mass unemployment? When can householders expect to see sufficient recovery for their house values to be restored?
    Mr. Dorrell: I recognise that at the end of 1992 there was a welcome decline in the rate of repossessions as a result of the action that the Government took at the end of 1991 to make it easier for people who encountered mortgage difficulties to stay in their houses. I welcome the words of Mr. Michael Jones, the president of the National Association of Estate Agents. Referring to a survey that that organisation had conducted, he said:
    "There can be no doubt that recovery is now underway."
    I also welcome the fact that the chief executive of Bryant Homes said that, in his view, there was a
    "strong pattern of recovery showing through."
    Those are things which I hoped Opposition Members would welcome.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that mortgage rates are the lowest for a generation? That is a real achievement and one which should help house buyers in London and Greater London to deal with their problems. Does my hon. Friend agree that there were considerably fewer repossessions last year than in the past few years? Those are real achievements. We should start talking up the economy, not down.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is especially right to draw attention to the benefits to the housing market that stem from the fact that mortgage rates are now at their lowest level for 25 years. They are not academic benefits. They are manifesting themselves in the sales of house builders in the first two months of this year, which are 20 per cent. up on the same period last year. The number of people viewing new houses on building sites is 15 per cent. up on the same period last year. I hope that those who are willing to look will welcome these signs of recovery.
    Mr. Darling: Does the Minister accept that the signs of recovery are fragile and that one of the biggest obstacles to recovery in the housing market is unemployment and fear of unemployment, which is likely to subsist for some considerable time? Does he further accept that one of the problems in the housing market in London and the

    439
    south-east of England is poor transport links? Can he confirm that crossrail and the other rail projects announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement are to be axed?
    Mr. Dorrell: The biggest threat to recovery in the housing market is the activities of those who appear to have a vested interest in continuing to talk down the housing market. There is clear evidence for those who are willing to look at the signs that the market is beginning to recover. I should have hoped that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen would welcome that.
    Mr. Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the mortgage interest rate has a large impact on house prices? There are many low-cost mortgages on the market, but is he aware that many building societies make it a condition of borrowing that the borrower takes out the lender's in-house insurance policy? That tends to be prohibitively expensive and distorts the advantage that may be gained by low interest rates. Will my hon. Friend investigate that practice?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I share his commitment to ensuring that all aspects of the housing market work efficiently to the benefit of the consumer of housing—the owner-occupier.

    Trade Deficit
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he intends to take to reduce the balance of trade deficit.
    Mr. Portillo: Our traders are helped by low inflation, which is now at its lowest level for 25 years and below the European Community average. Our competitiveness has improved. Our annual unit wage costs are not rising. By contrast, they are rising by over 9 per cent. in Germany and in Japan. We have announced extra support for ECGD to help exporters.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister admit that the forecast trade deficit is likely to be about £15.5 billion? What a pathetic bunch this lot of Ministers are. Most of them come from the belly of the banking establishment, yet they have got Britain in hock. Who does the Minister blame for this mess? Does he, like St. John on the road to Maastricht, blame Lady Thatcher, or is he tied to her apronstrings? If he wants to alter Britain's balance of payments deficit, why does not he save £600 million by stopping the importation of coal, starting to export coal and saving the 31 pits? If he does that, he will turn the balance of payment deficits round.
    Mr. Portillo: I had a feeling that the hon. Gentleman might mention my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher. I know that he misses her greatly in this place. They were a great double act in their day. But the hon. Gentleman really should not be so pessimistic. We predict an increase in competitiveness for Britain of about 16 per cent. in 1993. That is made up of the lower exchange rate and, in particular, our very good performance on unit wage costs. As I pointed out earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), only a small proportion of coal is imported—about 10 per cent. of what is used in power stations. That is not the problem. The problem is the collapse in demand.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a significant proportion of imports into Britain is tied 1.0 production by the subsidiaries of foreign companies manufacturing in Britain and that we should increase the amount of our direct investment overseas, as distinct from stock market investment, so that we can increase the extent of our tied exports?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend must be right, at least in the short term. But I hope that, as companies establish themselves in Britain and as their investment reaches maturity, an increasing amount of their sourcing will be done from the United Kingdom. I heartily agree with my hon. Friend that in our overseas portfolio we want a good balance between investment in manufacturing and services and investment in stock markets abroad. There should be a balance of all those elements and of others as well.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: British shipping contributes a net £2·3 billion a year to our balance of payments and a further net £1·5 billion in related services, but every month, as a consequence of the Government's failure to act to enable it to compete fairly with overseas operators, major lines are ceasing to trade, ships are being registered under the flags of other countries and British crews are being replaced and are losing their jobs. Will the Government urgently introduce measures to assist the competitiveness of the industry, before this vital part of our maritime heritage and of our economy is destroyed and our balance of payments plunged still further into deficit?
    Mr. Portillo: The shipping industry is important to the British economy. Despite the gloom that was evinced by the hon. Gentleman, the Government have taken a number of steps to help the industry, which has been in a position to respond to the needs of national defence when it has been required to do so. At this stage, it would be unwise for me to say anything that might appear to prejudice the Budget.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of t he Exchequer how many companies were registered for VAT in 1979 and at the most recent available date.
    Mr. Dorrell: At the end of 1979, 1.3 million businesses were registered for VAT. The latest figure available on a comparable basis is for the end of 1991, when the figure was 1·7 million businesses.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show the resilience and remarkable entrepreneurial vitality of British industry? Rover has not only experienced a significant increase in sales recently, but has shown a remarkably flexible attitude to its work force. In the past six weeks, shop-floor workers have sold no fewer than 3,000 cars. Is not such dynamism in stark contrast to the purveyors of doom and gloom on the Opposition Benches, who glory in talking down British industry?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, first, to draw attention to figures published today by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which record that in the past three months motor sales were up by 7 per cent. on the previous three months and up by 16 per cent. on the same period last year and, secondly, to the fact that the

    441
    mix of policies that the Government have pursued means that 31 per cent. more businesses are now registered and active than when we took office in 1979.
    Mr. Milburn: What is the Minister's message to the 4,737 firms in the north-east that were driven out of business last year as a result of his policies? Does he recognise that the initiative and hard work of people who run small businesses have been betrayed by his Government's broken promise of an economic recovery? When will he act to unlock the skills, potential and enterprise of British people instead of laying them to waste?
    Mr. Dorrell: Every insolvency is a tragedy for those involved. We clearly want to avoid that and to create circumstances in which the number of insolvencies is reduced. I should have hoped that, in presenting a balanced picture, the hon. Gentleman might at least pause to reflect that even in 1991, which was a year of business difficulty, substantially more businesses were created in Britain than in any year when the Labour party was in power in the 1970s.
    Mr. Butcher: May I persuade my hon. Friend to seek a special derogation from Brussels to raise the VAT threshold to £100,000, as the collection of VAT from a large number of small companies raises a small sum and incurs huge costs, whereas collecting from the bigger companies raises the bulk of the money at a small cost? This would do much for job creation at a time when we are looking for optimistic signs and recovery.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes another interesting Budget representation. He has less than a fortnight to wait and see whether it will be acted on.
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the VAT burden that charities face.
    Mr. Nelson: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a great number of representations on behalf of charities, as is normal before every Budget.
    Mr. Tipping: In view of the strength of public concern reflected in the letters in Ministers' and hon. Members' postbags about the burden of value added tax on the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other charities that perform services that would otherwise fall on public authorities, will the Minister give urgent consideration to ways of lifting that tax on voluntary effort?
    Mr. Nelson: Representing a coastal constituency myself, I am very conscious of the vital role and valour of the RNLI, but it already receives special tax treatment through zero rates on a number of purchases, including lifeboats and carriage equipment, and on the construction, repair and maintenance of slipways. That special treatment is worth about £3 million a year to the RNLI. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot, of course, comment further on any representations made before the Budget.
    Sir John Hannam: In receiving representations from the various charitable organisations about their VAT, has my hon. Friend taken on board the fact that, in providing valuable services across a range of activities, local authorities and commercial companies are able to recover
    442
    VAT, whereas charities are not? Will he therefore consider the proposal for a VAT refund system for the services that they provide?
    Mr. Nelson: All representations are carefully considered before the Budget. Charities pay VAT on approximately one third of their expenditure, whereas the public pay it on about half. I do not think that my hon. Friend would want me to comment further today.
    Mr. Wigley: May I support the pleas made on behalf of the lifeboat and disablement charities? The fact that charities pay VAT on a third of their expenditure is no excuse for not considering alleviating the entirety of the burden on such organisations. Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that this time of financial difficulty, when it is hard to raise money, is absolutely the wrong time for the burden of taxation to be carried by organisations that will probably bear more than their share of public responsibilities, especially when community care develops from April? Please will the Minister reconsider?
    Mr. Nelson: I hear clearly what the hon. Gentleman says, but perhaps he will allow me to make the point that since the Government took office, a series of measures have been introduced to encourage charitable giving and charities now enjoy tax relief in excess of £1 billion a year. We have a creditable record, but we shall consider representations.

    Inflation
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequyer if he will make a statement on the effects of his policy on the rate of inflation.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): Our policies have brought the rate of inflation down to its lowest level for 25 years. Keeping underlying inflation inside the range of 1 to 4 per cent. over the remainder of this Parliament will represent a decisive breakthrough to permanently lower inflation.
    Mr. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lowest inflation rate for a quarter of a century is the best possible news for the future of the British economy? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will take no risks with the future of inflation, and that they will do all they can to ensure that it stays low and stable and in its target range?
    Mr. Lamont: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We fought a long battle to get inflation down, criticised all the time by the Labour party. We believe unambiguously that low inflation is very important for our trade, for manufacturing and for confidence for businesses. The fact that we have a level of inflation below the average of the European Community augurs extremely well for this country.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Now that the Chancellor appears to be accepting some credit for the present inflation rate, will he accept responsibility for the years of high inflation, low growth and mass unemployment, and apologise to the British people for those policies?
    Mr. Lamont: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the 1980s, he must at least be aware that we reduced inflation decisively during the 1980s. Bringing it down created jobs

    443
    and employment. Low inflation has been one of the Government's major achievements and we intend to stick with our policy of keeping it down.
    Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a number of us receive many letters from old-age pensioners and others on fixed incomes who are anxious about low interest rates. Will he bear it in mind that it is easy to explain to them that low inflation is their friend, provided that the costs of utilities such as railways and water do not rise well beyond the rate of inflation? Will he continue to bear down on those organisations to ensure that they keep their prices under control?
    Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend knows, prices in individual utilities are matters for the regulator, but I agree that low inflation matters more to pensioners, savers and people on fixed incomes than to any other section of the community. We intend to honour our promises and pledges to them, and to keep inflation down. My hon. Friend made an interesting point about the level of interest rates and I note carefully what he said. Even in the Treasury our postbag on interest rates, which is always large, is now split at least 50:50 in terms of higher rather than lower interest rates.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Does not every expert forecast say that during the year, despite everything that the Chancellor says, inflation and unemployment will rise? Given that the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would not devalue, and then did, promised that he would balance the budget, and then did not, and promised a recovery that has never arrived, has not his only consistent policy on inflation been his view that unemployment is a "price well worth paying"? Will he tell us whether he believes that unemployment will rise during the coming year—yes or no?
    Mr. Lamont: I am extremely interested to hear that at long last the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the word "inflation". He has made speech after speech, but has never before mentioned that word. That is not surprising, because none of his policies has ever shown the slightest appreciation of the problem of inflation, and the hon. Gentleman has never shown the slightest interest in bringing inflation down. He refers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] If the Opposition would stop shouting me down, I would answer the hon. Gentleman's question. He referred to the depreciation of sterling and the effect that that would have on the underlying rate of inflation. He will know that the depreciation has not led to an increase in inflation. We believe that the outlook in that respect is better than many commentators have said. The hon. Gentleman also referred to unemployment. I shall make it crystal clear to him that I want to see unemployment reduced—of course I do—but that I totally despise his attitude when he comes to the House with no recognition of the fact that unemployment on the continent of Europe, in the European Community, is forecast to rise beyond 11 per cent. Can the hon. Gentleman name one major country in which unemployment has not increased during the past year? There is not one.

    Retail Prices
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in retail prices during the month of January.
    Mr. Portillo: Between December and January the retail prices index fell by 0.9 per cent. This was the largest monthly fall recorded for nearly 35 years.
    Mr. Stephen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that what the economy of this country needs is low inflation, low taxes, moderate interest rates and a competitive exchange rate? It does not need a policy of raiding our constituents' pockets and spending their money, which is the only policy ever offered by the Opposition parties.
    Mr. Portillo: The list of features with which my hon. Friend began his supplementary question is absolutely right. I would add that the productivity performance of manufacturing industry is extremely encouraging and that our competitiveness is shown not only in the exchange rate but in our performance on wage unit costs. Those are very encouraging features. My hon. Friend is also right to say that the Labour party simply does not understand such matters and still looks to spend more money and to raise taxes considerably, believing that recovery can somehow be stimulated by higher spending. That is a delusion.
    Ms. Harman: Does the Chief Secretary not realise that what this country also needs is investment in training and in industry? Does he not understand the anger that there will be in this country at the fact that millions of pounds of European Community money earmarked for Britain, for training and investment in the regions, will not come here because the Government simply have not applied for it?
    Mr. Portillo: We seem to be rather a long way from the subject of prices. Nevertheless, I have no reason to believe that there will be any difficulty in providing the public expenditure cover that the European Community wants for European regional development fund grants. We have made pledges, we made provision in the public expenditure survey, and I imagine that Sir John Kerr will be in a position to write to Mr. Milian in the near future. I see no difficulty whatsoever.
    Mr. Sykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have heard more than the usual amount of nonsense from the little Clintons opposite—[Interruption.] —especially from Bolsover's answer to Hillary Clinton? If Opposition Members were really interested in helping the jobless they would abandon inflationary policies such as the minimum wage and the social chapter.
    Mr. Portillo: On the last part of his question, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is difficult to imagine policies that would be more destructive of jobs than are the minimum wage and the social chapter. The President of the United States has recognised the need to address his country's deficit. In the context of the United Kingdom, so far as I remember, that has never been recognised by the Labour party.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Minister subscribe to the old economic adage that any fool can get inflation down if he is prepared to tolerate a high enough level of unemployment?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not know whether that is meant to explain why the last Labour Government produced inflation at a rate of 27 per cent. If so, it is a rather poor explanation.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarkable figure for retail price inflation, combined with the very low figure for unit wage costs and the over-capacity in the property market and much of industry, suggests that we really are on top of inflation now and emphasises the importance of ensuring that, over the next two years, interest rates will be determined by domestic monetary conditions and not by reference to economies that are not in step with our own?
    Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made very clear the range of conditions that he will examine to determine the appropriate level of interest rates. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are significant disinflationary pressures in the economy. For example, the money supply—M4—is below the monitoring range at present and we have seen falling house prices. However, I should caution my hon. Friend that it is always easy, when inflation has been brought down, to believe that it does not matter. Inflation does matter, not least from the point of view of our competitiveness.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about VAT being imposed on food, books and newspapers.
    Mr. Nelson: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received a number of representations, and these will be considered very carefully in the period leading up to the Budget. However, I am sure that the House will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.
    Mr. Winnick: Inappropriate or otherwise, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that there would be no possible justification for a Tory tax on food, which would hit particularly hard the people in low-income households —the very people who have suffered enough under the Tory Administration? Would not the imposition of VAT on books and magazines break a clear pledge given by Ministers over the past few years?
    Mr. Nelson: I cannot comment on what may or may not be in the Budget, but I can comment on an extraordinary statement last July by the Labour economic spokesman Lord Desai, who proposed that VAT should be applied at the full rate to all zero-rated items. Do the Opposition repudiate that?
    Sir Terence Higgins: Is it not the case that the original structure of VAT, with a single positive rate and a zero rate for items of particular importance to families on low incomes, has stood the test of time? It would be wrong to alter that for short-term, revenue-raising purposes, particularly as narrowing the range of zero rating would result in greater pressure, especially from the European Community, to get rid of zero rating altogether.
    Mr. Nelson: I hear very well what my right hon. Friend says. I am sure that he shares my view that the Government secured a very important agreement with the European Commission and other member states, which allowed for the retention of our current zero rates.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am sure that the whole House has noticed that the Government's pledges about not raising or extending the range of VAT have got more feeble as the Budget gets closer. Is the Minister aware that extending the VAT base to all currently zero-rated categories would add £7 per week to the budget of the poorest 10 per cent. of households, which is 7 per cent. of their average household income? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that whatever measures the Government bring forward will take into account the interests of the poor and that they will not pass on to the poorest 10 per cent. of households the deficit reduction measures that they are contemplating?
    Mr. Nelson: What the hon. Gentleman has just complained about is exactly what his noble Friend proposed on behalf of the Labour party last year. I can give him the assurance that all these matters are carefully taken into account in assessing the Budget strategy.

    Retail Sales
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to visit Hendon South to meet the Golders Green chamber of commerce to discuss the level of retail sales.
    Mr. Lamont: I have no plans at present to visit the Golders Green chamber of commerce. To the best of my knowledge, I have received no such invitation. If I did so, however, I should be pleased to tell the chamber of commerce that the volume of retail sales in the three months to January has never been higher.
    Mr. Marshall: Welcome as the increase in retail sales is, does my right hon. Friend accept that the level of consumer confidence is still a fragile plant which could be anaesthetised for some months if VAT were imposed on food?
    Mr. Lamont: I have noted my hon. Friend's comment.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the imposition of VAT.
    Mr. Nelson: Many representations have been received, and these will be considered in the run-up to the Budget.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Minister received any representations from the bloodstock industry about VAT? Is he aware of the absurdity of the situation in which it is profitable to take horses to Ireland, leave them on the tarmac for 30 minutes to complete the transaction at the lower rates of VAT there and then fly them back to this country? Is he further aware that the French Government have managed to get a derogation from the VAT regime to protect their bloodstock industry? When will the Government do the same for the United Kingdom industry?
    Mr. Nelson: I have taken careful note of what the hon. Gentleman says. He will be aware that negotiations are taking place between Customs and Excise and the Jockey Club. I hope that they will come to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government have acted imaginatively over the years to ease the burden of tax on charities? Will he bear in mind, however, that the beneficial effects of those changes will be significantly undone if charities have to pay VAT on items that are currently zero rated? Will he listen sympathetically and respond positively to the calls to relieve charities of their existing burden of VAT?
    Mr. Nelson: The Government always listen sympathetically on such matters.
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total yield from VAT in 1978–79; and what is the expected total yield for 1992–93 in cash and in 1992–93 prices.
    Mr. Dorrell: The yield from VAT in 1978–79 was £4·8 billion, which is worth £13·2 billion at today's prices. The expected yield for the current year is £37·7 billion.
    Mr. Hall: The House will be aware that since 1979 the Tory Government have put up VAT from 8 to 17·5 per cent. and have increased the number of goods covered by VAT 14 times. That has added to the increased tax burden. Will the Minister confirm that if VAT is put on books, periodicals and newspapers, it will be in breach of Tory party election pledges, but in line with Tory actions in government?
    Mr. Derrell: I do not intend to say anything about what might happen in my right hon. Friend's Budget, but it is passing strange that the Government should be under attack for pursuing precisely the policy that they always said they would pursue—that within a constant tax burden they would shift the burden from income to expenditure. That is what we said we would do, and that is what we have done.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend, although enjoying purdah at the moment, note that although special representations are being made about VAT, he and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor should maintain maximum flexibility? Many of us believe that broader-based VAT is the right way forward, with special categories, especially for the poor, which could be targeted in other ways. We want the maximum flexibility and we must bear in mind that tightening the tax regime at present is the right policy, given our much looser monetary conditions.
    Mr. Dorrell: I will not put up a vigorous defence against my hon. Friend's suggestion that Front-Bench Members should retain room for flexibility.

    Public Expenditure Reviews
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria were used to select the four Government Departments to be included in the public expenditure reviews.
    Mr. Portillo: The Government will be reviewing the expenditure of every Department before the end of this
    448
    Parliament. The four Departments chosen to start the review process are among the largest and the fastest growing.
    Mr. Prentice: Is there not a case, notwithstanding "Options for Change", for including defence in the public expenditure reviews, especially since the Financial Times tells us that this economically battered nation spends 4 per cent. of its gross domestic product on defence, compared with 3·4 per cent. by France and 2·2 per cent. by Germany? Is there not a case for the Government paying heed to the injunctions of the Financial Times?
    Mr. Portillo: "Options for Change" was a very important review indeed, and I do not think that it is yet timely to go back over that. The hon. Gentleman would be making a reasonable point if he were to say that we should always keep our defence spending under review and in line with our world commitments. On the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman is a former leader of the Fulham and Hammersmith council, which doubled the rates overnight, I am loth to take lectures on public spending from him.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Jackson: Does the Prime Minister recall telling Parliament in 1989:
    "I take my own share of responsibility…It is not something I seek to heap upon my predecessor"?
    Is he today going to blame Baroness Thatcher for the disastrous damage done to manufacturing industry while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: As it happens, my right hon. and noble Friend did more to help British industry than the Labour party has ever done. If the hon. Lady would like an illustration of that, in the 1980s the number of manufacturing companies rose from 144,000 to 165,000. I will provide the hon. Lady with a long list of other improvements, should she wish to have it.
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rowe: In every year of this Conservative Government the Home Office has paid for and researched very carefully experiments using voluntary organisations and others to rehabilitate young offenders. That research has consistently demonstrated a very much better rate of recovery than any other method used. [Interruption.] Every time these experiments have shown—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman. I have heard statements, but no question. I now need a question.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every time these experiments are shown to be a success the Home Office funding is withdrawn? Will he make certain that, when such experiments are shown to be successful, Government expenditure is maintained to enable them to continue?
    The Prime Minister: The Home Office always monitors the performance of the projects that it funds to ensure the value for money and efficiency of those projects. Where the projects are efficient, there is a possibility of extending funding for longer than the three-year period.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the Prime Minister explain what he meant when he said that he was a minority in his predecessor's Administration? Is it not deeply revealing about the Prime Minister that, having run out of excuses for the abject failure of his Government's economic policies, he is now trying to pin the blame on his predecessor, in whose Government he was responsible for economic policy both as Chief Secretary and as Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very predictable. He is also misled yet again by newspaper reports, having not read the transcript of the interview. He really should give up reading newspapers; I recommend it to him. If he had read the source material, he would have read that the question put to me was that the idea got about in the 1980s that making things was not so important. It was not my view, not my right hon. and noble Friend's view, and not the view of the then Government.
    Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister surely cannot complain about being misrepresented in interviews that he himself gives. Is he aware that in that interview he complained about what he called an inheritance of 15 per cent. interest rates and 11 per cent. inflation? Who does he think was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the preceding years? If we are to make sense of the Prime Minister, does he not understand that he means that he inherited them from himself?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being very slow. I shall explain the whole matter to him again. I suggest that he reads the transcript of the interview. As I explained to him a moment ago, I disagreed with the view put to me by the interviewer, as would my right hon. and noble Friend have disagreed with it. So far as interest rates are concerned, I was referring to the legacy of the recession that we are curing and which has now hit every other nation in Europe.
    Mr. John Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why a Chancellor of the Exchequer has nothing to do with a recession that occurs in his period of office? Since he has been Prime Minister for more than two years, and since the right hon. and noble Lady is no longer here, why are we still losing 25,000 jobs every month in manufacturing industry and £136 billion in investment under his Administration? It has nothing to do with anyone else.
    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman utterly fails to realise—which is why he remains on the Opposition Benches—is that what needs to be done to put this country in the right position for growth is what we have done. The last time there was 1·7 per cent.
    450
    inflation was more than 25 years ago. Interest rates are now lower than anywhere else in the European Community.
    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were more aware of the position of manufacturing, he would know that exports are up on manufacturing. Capital spending on manufacturing is up. Compared with 10 years ago, there is exceptional growth in engineering, chemicals and other manufacturing. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman stop talking this country down and start talking it up?
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his sensible policies on the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war are amply confirmed by current events?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The important matter in the Bosnian war is to give every support one can to the peace talks in New York. They are crucial. They are the only realistic way of achieving real peace, and I very much welcome the Muslim agreement to a document on the cessation of hostilities. There still remains great difficulty in getting agreement on the map, but it is essential that all parties remain at those negotiations and negotiate seriously until we have a satisfactory agreement and the end of this bitter and nasty conflict.
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Leighton: No one has spoken more graphically and poignantly about the evils of unemployment than the Prime Minister. Does he recall talking about what he called his "dole hell", searching for work every day when he was unemployed for 12 months as a 19-year-old in Brixton? Is he aware that in 1962 there was one unemployed person for each vacancy but now there are hundreds? Does he agree that a full employment society is a good society, but that the mass unemployment society over which he is presiding is an evil society? Now that he is Prime Minister, what steps will he take to put the aim of full employment at the top of his agenda?
    The Prime Minister: The first essentials for making sure that we have a society that has full employment are low inflation, low interest rates and the right supply side policy for growth. The right way to make sure that we have skills is to put in place the training programmes that we have put in place, each one of which has been opposed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Lord Prior's comments yesterday that the conditions are now in place for British manufacturing exporters to perform better? Will he join me in congratulating the firms in north Hertfordshire that are doing just that, in particular Lucas CEL of Hitchin which is launching its new export product today?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am certainly happy to give my support to those particular projects. We have remarkable opportunities in front of us at the present time, as we find that we are hugely competitive in terms of the cuts in costs that we have seen in the past few years. We need to ensure that on

    451
    this occasion, even though we have captured export markets, we do not surrender those for the returning home market. We need to keep the domestic market and continue to press ahead with further export markets.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that the people and businesses of the south-west and especially Cornwall—the poorest county in the whole of the country—cannot be expected to pay the highest water and electricity prices? What hope can he offer those people of a fair deal, given that he has already told them that he will give them no special help?
    The Prime Minister: I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks he will find that the water prices to which he refers are similar in other counties to those in the west country. There is a substantial need to improve the water quality and supply in the west country and also, not least because of the importance of the tourist industry, to improve the bathing waters and other tourist facilities. That is a significant reason for the present level of water charges.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 300 Members of this House and of the other place recently attended an exhibition of obscene material that had been seized under the Obscene Publications Act 1959? Is he aware that Members were deeply shocked by what they saw and believe that the Obscene Publications Act needs urgent review? Will he accept the invitation that I have written to him to view the material privately so that he may reach his own informed conclusion about what action needs to be taken to clean up this free market in filth?
    The Prime Minister: I have had a report of the particular material to which my hon. Friend refers. I am aware of the nature of it and how offensive it will be to most Members of this House and most people in this country. I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to consider what options exist for taking action against it.
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Purchase: Does the Prime Minister realise that the people of the west midlands, once the workshop of the
    452
    world but where now more than a quarter of a million people have been made unemployed in the past 13 years, will take no comfort from the fact that he appears to have gone along with the loss of their jobs? Does he think that they will understand him a little less and condemn him a little more?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the historic importance of the west midlands to manufacturing. He has neglected to mention the assistance in the autumn statement on capital allowances, car tax —very important to the west midlands—and maintained capital expenditure. He has utterly overlooked the lead that this country has taken in seeking a solution to the general agreement on tariffs and trade round, which is vital to the west midlands. He has also overlooked the primary importance of the motor car industry, which was in disarray some years ago under his party's Government but is now a net exporter and increasingly profitable.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that new car registrations are up 16 per cent. compared with a year ago? Is that not good news? Does he not think it strange that every time the economic news is good, the faces opposite get longer? Is it not time the Opposition stopped talking this country down?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hen. Friend about that, and it is a point which I have made in recent days. The increase in car registration is welcome news. It is a continuing trend over recent months. The only people who benefit from talking Britain down are our competitors. I hope that that is understood by every right hon. and hon. Member.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Prime Minister is right to give priority to the manufacturing sector of business in Britain, particularly small businesses, but what does he have in mind? Is he prepared to reduce the burden of rates which apply particularly to small businesses? Is he prepared, for instance, to allow small businesses to add statutory interest to bills that are overdue for undue periods of time? There is a long list of tangible things that the Prime Minister could do to give real physical expression to the words that he uttered recently in his interview in the national press. What tangible, concrete things has he in mind?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening a few moments ago, I listed a number of them to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). As to other matters, he must wait and see.

Honours
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the honours system and to announce some changes, which have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen.
The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for centuries. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Would the Prime Minister allow me? Would those Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly? We want to continue with our business here.
The Prime Minister: Let me begin again for those hon. Members who may not have heard what I was saying in the hubbub.
With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the honours system and to announce some changes which have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen.
The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for centuries. It is the means by which we, as a nation, can show our respect and gratitude to those who have contributed most to our national life. Acts of courage, lives of sacrifice, inventiveness, generosity and commitment to others are formally recognised and acknowledged. It is rooted in our history, and given special value by the close personal attention which the sovereign has given to it. To retain its valued role in our national life, the honours system must, from time to time, be reviewed and renewed.
The present system has remained largely unchanged for 70 years, despite huge changes in national life. I have therefore been discussing with Her Majesty some changes that will, I believe, enjoy widespread support.
I wish to start by clarifying the circumstances in which honours awards should be made.
First, honours should be awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or exceptional service, over and above that which normally might be expected. Secondly, there should be different levels of award to reflect different levels of achievement. Thirdly, awards should not be automatic and follow simply as a result of doing a particular job. Fourthly, awards should place more emphasis on voluntary service.
I therefore propose to end the recommendation of honours where they are given solely by seniority or on appointment. In future, with one exception I shall turn to in a moment, there should be no assumption that honours will automatically be attached to particular posts in either the public or the private sector.
Public servants and office holders will, of course, still be eligible to receive honours, and many will qualify on merit, but the assumption that a particular post automatically carries an honour will end. Instead, awards will be open —on merit—to a wider range of individuals.
I intend that these principles should be applied throughout the civil service and the rest of the public sector, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence concur in respect of the foreign service and the armed forces.
I also intend the same principles to apply in the private sector. Many people give generously of their time, energy
454
and expertise to help their fellow citizens, and a more flexible system can take greater account of such contributions. While heads of particular organisations can no longer expect an honour just because their predecessor received one, they will, of course, continue to be eligible if their achievement and their service to the community merit it. I propose to continue making recommendations for political service, and I shall apply the same principles there, too.
I mentioned earlier one exception. The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to our legal system. Awards of honours should not be thought to depend upon approval of legal judgments. For that reason, I believe that High Court judges should continue to receive the traditional honour of a knighthood on appointment. This practice has preserved the independence of the Bench from the exercise of patronage for two centuries, and I believe it should continue.
I should now like to turn to specific awards where I have some changes to announce. The largest proportion by far of current awards are MBEs and BEMs, mainly for service to local communities. The distinction between service meriting the award of an MBE and that meriting a British Empire Medal has become increasingly tenuous. It can no longer be sustained. I therefore intend in future to increase the number of recommendations for MBEs and to discontinue recommending awards of BEMs. I should make it clear that this change will not affect existing holders of the BEM, who will of course retain their medals. These are, rightly, highly treasured personal possessions.
The change will also apply to the lists recommended by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Governments of those Commonwealth countries that recommend British Empire Medals in their own lists have been informed of these proposals.
To end a similar distinction in the Imperial Service Order, I shall no longer make recommendations for awards of the ISO. Those considered to merit the award will instead receive OBEs. The associated Imperial Service Medal is a long-service medal awarded on retirement and will continue.
At present, those receiving the BEM do not attend a royal investiture. For the future, the Queen has graciously agreed to increase the number of investitures both at Buckingham palace and elsewhere in the country. This will enable the increased numbers receiving MBEs to attend a royal investiture, though the Queen will not be able to conduct all investitures herself. I realise, however, that some may value a local presentation which gives greater opportunity for friends and family to mark the occasion. Her Majesty has, therefore, agreed that those awarded MBEs, OBEs or CBEs may receive their honour from their lord lieutenant if they prefer. The choice will rest entirely with the recipient.
I turn now to military gallantry awards. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is separately conducting a review, and will be announcing his conclusions shortly. But there is one change I can announce today. At present, except for the Victoria Cross, awards for gallantry are linked to the rank of the recipient. Officers are eligable to receive crosses or equivalent decorations, but non-commissioned ranks are eligible only for medals. The time has come to end this distinction. In

455
future, the level of award will be determined by the part played by the individuals concerned, and the courage they displayed, without regard to their rank.
At present, the numbers and distribution of honours are reviewed every five years. However, I have requested that the next examination of these numbers be brought forward to the summer of this year. I have asked the review, first, to take greater account of the desirability of recognising work in the voluntary sector and service to the community; secondly, to look at the proportion of awards to state servants to ensure that it appropriately reflects changes in the role and the size of the home civil service, the diplomatic service and the armed forces.
Finally, I believe that the means of nomination for honours should be more widely known and more open. It is, at present, too haphazard. Nomination forms, setting out the type of information needed, have therefore been prepared. I will make sure that the forms are readily available both to members of the public and particularly to voluntary bodies and charities. I hope that this change will help increase the recognition of merit of all kinds.
The honours system has been with us for centuries and has a continuing and valued role to play in British life. I strongly support it, but it is right that it should periodically be examined. The changes that I have announced today mean that exceptional service or achievement will be more widely recognised; that greater importance will be given to voluntary service; that automatic honours will end; that the distinction between ranks in military operational gallantry awards will cease; that the bulk of honours in the half-yearly lists will be of a single, undifferentiated award, the MBE; that all recipients of honours will be invited to a royal investiture.
I shall report to the House in due course on the review of the numbers and distribution of honours, and I shall consider at that time whether further changes are needed.
Mr. John Smith: There will be widespread acceptance of the abolition of the distinction of rank in certain civilian awards and in decorations for gallantry. I think that we would all agree that the criteria for the award of an honour should be exceptional achievement or service to the public benefit. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to demonstrate that principle in practice.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it has been decided to retain the notion of an Order of the British Empire? Might it not at least have been changed to Commonwealth? Why has he retained political honours —the part of the system on which he was least forthcoming in his statement? Why do Conservative Governments—and only Conservative Governments—wish to use the honours system as a form of patronage for their political supporters? I observe that there is nothing haphazard about the award of political honours to the Conservative party. Has he no shame about the way in which eight Conservative Members of Parliament regularly and automatically collect knighthoods each year, for no other reason than that they are supporters of the ruling political party? If he really means what he says about stopping automatic honours, could he not usefully start with Conservative Members of Parliament?
Does the Prime Minister not think that the connection between awards of honours and donations by companies to the Conservative party is shoddy misuse of a system set up to recognise public service? If he really wants to reform
456
the honours system properly, ought he not to start by distinguishing political and financial support for the Conservative party from genuine public service?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the honours system will be judged by our public for its capacity to recognise the many acts of service and sacrifice made by ordinary citizens, and the more that that can be done, the more it will be found to be acceptable?
The Prime Minister: I made that last point entirely clear in my statement a few moments go. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome for the principles of review and I am delighted that he was prepared to express them in the House. His specific questions included, first, why we should retain the title of the "British Empire". I accept that it is resonant of a previous era, but it has an historical pedigree, is respected and familiar, and I see no advantage or purpose in changing it. I believe that it is more important to review the criteria and eligibility for awards than to seek new names for them. There is also the practical point that the Order of the British Empire is still in use in a number of Commonwealth countries.
As for political honours, I see no reason why those who work in support of a political party should be excluded from recognition. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that view is also held privately by many people in his party, who would be only too grateful if he would recommend them. It means a great deal to people who work to sustain our democratic system and who might otherwise receive no recognition. I have no intention of abandoning the awarding of honours for political service.
As for donations by companies, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware of the activities of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. If he were, he would not have made the ill-judged remarks that he has just made.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Anyone with military experience knows that the heroism of the bravest and best usually goes unrecognised. In his examination of military honours, will my right hon. Friend urge the Defence Secretary to retain the Distinguished Service Order, which ensures recognition for officers who have demonstrated not only heroism under fire but an aptitude for command, thus combining both attributes effectively in Her Majesty's service?
The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is being taken into account by my right hon. and learned Friend in his review. He intends that awards for gallantry should no longer artificially distinguish between officers, who receive crosses, and other ranks, who receive medals.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement is welcome but disappointingly timid? Is that it, or does he have some other reforms in prospect? If this is the beginning and end of it, many people will regard him as having missed an opportunity and failed to live up to some of his own rhetoric about fundamentally reforming the system.
May I make two suggestions? Since the right hon. Gentleman has gone halfway towards simplifying the system, why not go the whole way and have a single honour with different grades and classifications to match

457
different merits? Secondly, and perhaps more important, why does not the Prime Minister choose this occasion to remove the honours system from the powers of patronage of the Prime Minister and the political system at large, and vest it instead in an independent commission, free of political influence and, from time to time, political abuse?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is stringent independent scrutiny of all honours before they are approved.
It has never been my view that we should fundamentally reform the system. It has been my view that we needed to bring it up to date so that it retains its credibility.
The right hon. Gentleman's concept of a single honour, no doubt with classes 1, 2, 3 and 4, is not one which would appeal to me.
As to whether there will be further changes, I said in my statement that at the end of the review in the summer I would consider, without commitment, whether further changes were necessary.
Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. These interruptions are just a waste of time.
Sir Peter Tapsell: As an example, perhaps, of the somewhat haphazard way in which routine political honours are conferred, may I ask my right hon. Friend to whom the nomination papers that he has mentioned are to be posted? May I suggest that they should be sent to the lords lieutenant and not to Members of Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend understates his own distinction. The nomination papers can be submitted either to the lords lieutenant or to the honours section of 10 Downing street.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the history of the honours system is, as he says, very old, established by William the Conqueror when he took us into the common market in 1066? Baronetcies were introduced by James I and sold for £1,095 to raise money to send troops to Ulster. Is he further aware that Lloyd-George sold honours absolutely ruthlessly to boost his own political funds; and that the system suffers from two serious defects, neither of which he has turned his mind to at all?
The first is that the honours system is based on what a person is when he does something, not on what he does. That is to say, a senior civil servant may still get a high honour, but a sub-postmistress who has fought off bandits and been seriously wounded will get the lowest order of all. That is a defect to which the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself because he still clings to the Order of the British Empire, one of the most recent honours, which was established in 1915 shortly before the British empire disappeared.
The second defect of the honours system is that the Crown lends to the Prime Minister and party leaders its authority to give political patronage. That patronage is ruthlessly used for political purposes. The most obvious
458
example is that the past 10 Prime Ministers put more than 800 people in another place, whereas it takes the entire British electorate to—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have to say that this is all very interesting but that it is time for questions. There are many hon. Members to be called on both sides of the House.
Mr. Benn: The patronage system is corrupt—everybody knows that—and it should be brought to an end. The system makes the country a laughing stock when people are bedecked in ribbons that have no meaning. In some instances, those who wear them are having old political debts repaid for reasons that are very disreputable.
The Prime Minister: I am surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. I doubt whether the first Lord Stansgate was corrupted by his honour in earlier days. William the Conqueror brought the common market here rather than the other way round. At least Lloyd-George did not use lavender paper—the right hon. Gentleman made no mention of that.
On the right hon. Gentleman's two substantial points, I have addressed myself directly to the first defect that he set out. I hope that, on re-reading my statement, he will see that. He removed himself from the other place to here, but there are many of us here who believe that the other place has an important role to play in our constitution—not least those on his Front Bench, who continue to nominate people to serve in it.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May I support my right hon. Friend in the general thrust of his proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I have not finished. Will he advise more senior colleagues than myself on the Government Benches whether they are more or less likely to get an honour, whatever the strong views that they may hold, if they support or oppose the Maastricht treaty? What honour does my right hon. Friend have in mind for the federalists of the Liberal party, who have gone into a coalition with him in an attempt to get that abhorrent treaty on the statute book? Would it be the Order of Delors Grand Cross?
The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity if, perhaps, on little else. I am always delighted to have his support, if for no other reason than its novelty.
Rev. Martin Smyth: My colleagues and I welcome the general thrust of the Prime Minister's statement, but we wish to know whether it will be an open system or an opaque one. Those of us who have been asked to support nominations have been amazed at those who happen to come up and those who are missed. The right hon. Gentleman talked about judges. If a Northern Ireland judge dissociates himself from patronage, will the right hon. Gentleman refuse him a knighthood? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with a view to restoring the Order of St. Patrick?
The Prime Minister: I have not consulted my right hon. and learned Friend on that matter. I have sought to make the system more open and nominations easier. I suspect that there are many who merit an award who are never nominated because of the present haphazard system. I

459
hope that the changes that I have announced today will improve the system and make it more likely that those who merit an award will be honoured in future.
Mr. Anthony Steen: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his splendid and long-overdue statement. I think that the House will agree that far too much evil and badness is portrayed in the newspapers and the media. The fact that my right hon. Friend is to pick out good works and voluntary work in the community as being worthy of honour should be supported by the House. But will my right hon. Friend look at the process, not just the awards? I think that the House would like a more open system so that we know how it works.
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of giving greater emphasis to the voluntary and the charitable sectors and, as I said in my statement, that is what I propose to do. As I said a moment ago, I am seeking to make the system more open and I believe that the changes that I have announced today will help do so.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Is not the best way to preserve the independence of the judiciary to give none of them knighthoods rather than all of them knighthoods? Does not the same apply to journalists? While we are on the subject, can the Prime Minister throw any light on the award of a damehood to a Miss Sue Tinson, an associate editor of Independent Television News and a former editor of "News at Ten", in the resignation honours of his predecessor?
The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman has to say is certainly an option. It is one which, no doubt, I and, in many years to come, my successors will consider.
Mr. Barry Field: One of my most prized possessions is the Territorial Decoration for service in Her Majesty's Reserve forces. My father holds the Territorial Medal because, despite distinguished service during the war, and commissioned at that, he missed the TD by one day because of the cessation of hostilities. There is great camaraderie in the Reserve forces and it would be widely welcomed if my right hon. Friend could tell the House today that there will be a universal award for the Reserve forces in the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister: That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to consider in his review. He has heard what my hon. Friend has had to say and I am sure that he will consider it.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Does the Prime Minister agree that the least legitimate and least supported feature of the honours system is the occasional award of hereditary peerages? Will that practice cease forthwith?
The Prime Minister: I have no plans to award hereditary peerages.
Mr. John Gorst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a general belief that people in their 70s and 80s are almost no longer eligible for recognition? Is he further aware that many of them are not recognised either because they have been overlooked or because they have done further work? Will he give an assurance that age is no bar to the recognition of merit?
The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend touches upon an important point and I can give him that assurance.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that I have been a member of the National Union of Mineworkers for 40-odd years, and that is all I need? I am proud of the fact that that union has served me well. I do not need any of these honours and badges that are talked about. I remind the Prime Minister that no honours system can work in practice. At this very moment there will be people out there doing sterling deeds who will go unnoticed, whose deeds will not get into the public domain and whose names will never reach the ears of politicians, Prime Ministers or Queens of the realm. That is why the wheat can never be sorted from the chaff.
The Prime Minister has admitted today, has he not, that Tory Members of Parliament will become knights, that people will enter the House of Lords, that those newspaper owners who help him out at the general election will finish up in the House of Lords or with knighthoods and that those companies that provide the Tory party with vast sums of money will also get their honours? The whole thing is a sham and it is time that it was ended.
The Prime Minister: I made the point some time ago about people who go unnoticed. We shall open up the nomination system so that, if he wishes, the hon. Gentleman will be able to nominate people in his constituency or elsewhere who may have served the community but who may otherwise not have been noticed. That is one of the purposes of the changes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not let his constituents down in that respect. He is right to be proud of his long membership of the National Union of Mineworkers, but there is no compulsion to accept honours. Many people deserve them. It gives great pleasure to them and their families to see society honour them for the work that they have done. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot be open-minded enough to see that other people may welcome and benefit from the system. He should open his closed mind.
Mr. Bill Walker: Those who are involved in voluntary service will be delighted by my right hon. Friend's statement today. The allocation of awards to the voluntary military services was based on past numbers available. Any adjustments that are made, therefore, should ensure that more people from the voluntary sector —I can send him names of individuals who have given more than 40 years' service in the voluntary military service—are rewarded properly with an honour than under the present system.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should be reassured that that is my intention.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Prime Minister confirm that since 1979 more than 100 Tory Members have been given knighthoods? One of the explanations for the way in which his predecessor was tipped over was that so many Tory Members had knighthoods that they felt they had nothing to lose. Will he further confirm that the chairmen and managing directors of the top 200 companies are twice as likely to receive honours if they donate money to the Tory party? Does he acknowledge that if the honours system had any justification, which many Labour Members doubt, it would be as a system to reward those who are not

461
rewarded by the normal means in this country? The current system gives to those who have it already, and it is time that we reversed the balance.
The Prime Minister: I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I thought that I detected in his early remarks the smell of sour grapes. On awards to business men, I refer again to the independent scrutiny of the Honours Scrutiny Committee and of the independent committees that recommend honours.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: My right hon. Friend's statement is very welcome, especially for its greater recognition of voluntary service. Will he closely consider the regional distribution of honours, particularly in medicine, because many achievements in the north have been insufficiently recognised?
The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to examine that. We need to bear in mind as we do so that we must not introduce a quota system. We must ensure that honours are distributed on merit.
Dr. Tony Wright: A Conservative Member took me to one side the other day to explain the process by which he had become a knight. As the story developed, it transpired that it was a consolation prize for not getting what he really wanted —[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] It is tempting, but I shall resist the temptation. Does the Prime Minister understand that the system of political honour corrupts and degrades the honours system, and that it is no good saying that he will continue to give honours to people who deserve them, because the currency of honour has been devalued by that system of political honour? It is a dishonourable system.
The Prime Minister: That is copper-plated nonsense. As for the discussion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, clearly he must have asked how to receive an honour.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. Friend's announcement on the abolition of the distinction between the MBE and the BEM is entirely welcome. Will he amplify a little on what he has in mind for gallantry awards? Would it not be true to say that the Military Cross awarded for gallantry and the Military Medal for gallantry may not be the same decoration but that they are an equivalent decoration? That is understood by the armed forces whose members receive them. Is my right hon. Friend entirely satisfied that the case has been made for abolishing the distinction between them?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the early part of his remarks. I examined the substantive part of his question very carefully with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and it is our view and that of the armed forces chiefs that it right to abolish the distinction.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does not the Prime Minister understand that the retention of the honours system maintains the division of a class-ridden society which he is supposed to be dedicated to ending? Is not the reality behind the retention of political honours—the most corrupt section—that he cannot afford to get rid of them because of the Tory party's cash crisis? Is it not outrageous that the one section of honours which is to operate
462
automatically is that of the judiciary, whose members are among the best paid of all public servants? Is it not enough that people should do a good job at work or in the community? Should not that be sufficient reward, without people crawling around the Prime Minister for some recognition?
The Prime Minister: For many people the answer is yes, it is sufficient reward. That is why the voluntary system in honours is so important—no one is required to accept an honour. Honours give great pleasure and satisfaction, and I believe that it is right for society generally to show its respect for people who have made a particular contribution. That is why we have the voluntary system; it is why the honours system has survived for so long and is so widely supported.
I understand what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's rejection of the honours system, but I suggest that he is wrong. There are millions of people in this country who perform voluntary or other services and who are delighted to see those among their number who have performed particular service receive recognition of that fact.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the amalgamation of the BEM and the MBE, there will still be more people worthy of an MBE than there are awards currently available? Does he accept that with the new emphasis on voluntary service it might perhaps be better to establish a new mark of recognition with that particular flavour?
The Prime Minister: I considered whether one should produce a new mark of recognition, especially for voluntary service, but I decided on balance that it was better not to introduce a new honour into the system, but, at an appropriate level, to use the honours system that already exists. I agree with my hon. Friend that many people in the voluntary sector, and beyond, merit an honour. What I hope will come about as a result of today's statement is that more of the best of those people will be nominated for and then receive such an honour.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: As the son of a man awarded the Military Medal for what I think was called bravery in the field, I welcome the sweeping away of the invidious distinction that has existed for far too long between officers and the men and women in the military ranks. To judge by the content of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may we assume that in respect of civil honours we shall never again see the award of a knighthood to an editor who, in his newspaper, slavishly follows this disreputable Government?
The Prime Minister: I am tempted to say, "Name them." On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am grateful for his remarks about the removal of the distinction in gallantry awards. I think that it will be very widely welcomed in the armed forces and far beyond them.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that today's announcement will go down very well in rural areas such as Norfolk where often the chairman of the parish council will receive an MBE but the clerk, who is equally hard-working, will receive a BEM? That is clearly archaic and a cause of confusion. Can the Prime Minister confirm that all those people who were awarded a BEM in the past will almost certainly get an MBE in the future?
The Prime Minister: Yes, it is the intention that people who in the past would have been recommended for a British Empire Medal will in future be recommended for an MBE.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister not agree that in the specific case of the House, the privilege of membership is in itself a great and sufficient reward? Can the Prime Minister explain why, if the system has not been corrupted, every hack, obedient, lickspittle Tory Member has received his knighthood—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Flynn, that is an unparliamentary word, which I cannot accept. [Interruption.] Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that word.
Mr. Flynn: I withdraw the word "lickspittle", Madam Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister to explain why all the obedient, mediocre, talentless Tory Members of Parliament who have gone obediently through the Lobbies for years have had their knighthoods, whereas other Tory Members who have served their time have not had the offer. Those who have not had knighthoods are people of talent, but they also happen to be people of independent mind.
The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether my honourable and independent minded Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) would agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Roger Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that long service deserves special recognition in the case of the Labour party? Will he recommend the creation of a new order, perhaps called the Pink Elephant, with several classes and an hereditary aspect, for persons recommended by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend gives me a further matter to consider after the review in the summer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. On that note, we shall move on. I have a short statement to make to the House.

Librarian (Retirement)
4.11 pm
Madame Speaker: I have received a letter from the Librarian, indicating his wish to retire later this year. I shall arrange for the text of his letter to be embodied in the Official Report. Mr. Dermot Englefield has worked in the Library for nearly 40 years. Before his appointment as Librarian in 1991, he held the post of Deputy Librarian for 15 years.
That whole period has been a period of major expansion and great technical change in the range of services provided by the Library and the demands made on the staff who work there. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in thanking Mr. Englefield for his long and distinguished service to the House, and at the same time express our appreciation of the assistance provided to us by the Library as a whole.
Mr. Englefield will retire on 30 September this year, and I have appointed Miss Jennifer Tanfield, the Deputy Librarian, to succeed him. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that statement, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I feel that the Leader of the House should speak first.
Mr. Skinner: I wanted to know whether you were going to make an announcement about the cleaners, too, Madam Speaker, in our classless society.
Madam Speaker: Order. Leader of the House.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no doubt, Madam Speaker, that you are right in your expectation that the whole House will want to join in the tribute that you have paid to Mr. Englefield and in your thanks to the staff of the Library under his leadership. As you have said, his long period as Deputy Librarian and then Librarian has spanned nearly 17 years of extensive developments in the Library, during which the range and quality of its services have come to be valued ever more highly year by year by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Englefield's own contribution has gained him the respect not only of his own staff and of colleagues throughout the Departments of the House but undoubtedly of hon. Members and their staff, who have been helped so much by his efforts. We are all grateful to him and wish him well for a long and happy retirement.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I associate myself with your remarks, Madam Speaker, and with those of the Leader of the House. Mr. Englefield has an immensely impressive record of service to the House and —perhaps more important to us and to him—through us, to our constituents. After all, it is on behalf of our constituents that his services and those of the Library are supplied. He has performed a crucial role in the expansion and development of the Library service. The more the Library staff are able to support and help us, the more we are able to assist our constituents. On behalf of my party, I extend thanks to Mr. Englefield and best wishes for his retirement.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On behalf of the members of my party and all the staff of the House who work for us, I express thanks not just to the Librarian on his forthcoming retirement but, through him, to the entire team that he so ably heads. We may complain about the food in this place, and we may complain from time to time about the accommodation, but the one place where we get phenomenally good service at all hours of the day and night, often at very short notice, is the Library of the House. In terms of value for money in the public service, we could find nothing better. We also welcome the appointment that you, Madam Speaker, have made. Perhaps it is a precursor, an indication, that, at last, women will have a chance of securing many more of the top jobs.
Mr. Gary Waller: As Chairman of the Information Select Committee, I should like to associate myself and the Committee with the warm tributes that have been paid to Dermot Englefield for his long service to the House—latterly as Deputy Librarian and, subsequently, Librarian. In my experience, if there is any issue on which all hon. Members agree it is that the expertise, patience and helpfulness of the Library staff are unparalleled. Dermot Englefield merits our appreciation for the quiet but effective way in which he has ensured that the Library copes so well with the ever-increasing demands that we make in seeking access to information, often at very short notice. In offering Mr. Englefield every good wish r his retirement, we also congratulate and look forward to working with his successor, Miss Jennifer Tanfield, who in September will become only the 12th Librarian of the House of Commons since 1818.
Mr. Peter Shore: I, too, pay tribute to Mr. Englefield, his successor and the entire Library staff. Members of Parliament, in their constituency and other work, are enormously assisted by the Library staff. But the Library contributes something more: to some extent it evens out the enormous imbalance between Treasury-Bench Members, with their command of information, advice and all the intellectual resources of the civil service, and other hon. Members. This is thanks in no small measure to the Library staff, to whom I am most grateful.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I shall not pass any judgment on the food. Nor can I pass any judgment on the strong drink, as I do not partake of it. I associate myself with your remarks, Madam Speaker, and with those of my House of Commons colleagues. Ruskin said that when one moves among books one can move among kings. In our Library we certainly move among kings. A kingly service is provided by the Librarian, and I wish him the best for his retirement.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On behalf of my party, I pay tribute to Mr. Englefield and express good wishes for his retirement. He has not only provided Members with a service but worked in the wider field of the emerging democracies whose representatives have come here to discover something of the way in which the House of Commons operates. Knowing your own perception, Madam Speaker, I welcome your appointment of Mr. Englefield's successor. I know that the appointment was made on merit, and not simply on the basis of sex.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of the three constitutional nationalist parties, I extend thanks to the retiring Librarian for all his work over the years and extend very good wishes to his successor, knowing full well that the objectivity, speed, efficiency and courtesy with which all our inquiries are dealt will continue. We are all very grateful.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: May I add to the tributes already paid to Mr. Englefield on his retirement? Having served with Mr. Englefield for nine of the 15 years during which he was Deputy Librarian and I was Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee, I came to admire enormously the loyalty and service that he dedicated to his predecessor, Dr. Menhennet, during the 15 years in which he was Librarian. It was a remarkable team.
In due course, the part that Dermot Englefield played in the development of the Derby Gate Research Library will come to be known. That Library is now the jewel in the crown of the Libraries in the Commonwealth Parliaments —if not in the world Parliaments. I express my thanks for what Mr. Englefield has achieved and I welcome his successor, Miss Tanfield, for whom I have formed the highest regard while Chairman of the Sub-Committee.
Mr. Skinner: Would you agree, Madam Speaker, that there is a certain irony about the situation? There are 2,000 workers in this building, the real workers being outside the Chamber. Many are paid small amounts. Some have worked for 20, 30 or 40 years in the Cafeteria, mopping up the floors when we come in at 6 or 7 am. Yet on the day that the Prime Minister has been talking about levelling out honours, a special tribute is paid to somebody in the Library, no doubt deservedly, whereas there are no commendations for all the people who have to keep the wheels going in here.
I should have thought that, on this day, the tribute should be coupled with tributes to the many others who have retired from this place after many years of service. In view of all the tributes paid to the Library, I make two points with which, I am sure, the retiring Librarian would agree. First, the Government must not privatise the Library and, secondly, they must not put VAT on reading matter.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: It was not long ago that a waitress in the Strangers Cafeteria was given not only a farewell party in the Speaker's apartments, but an honour. The staff of this place have not been forgotten.
I add my regards to Mr. Englefield for the wonderful Library service which he has built up over many years and which all Back-Bench Members use. The specialist staff in the Library spare no time or effort in ensuring they keep up to date with their various specialisms. We see them sitting during Question Times that involve them, listening, keeping ahead of us and keeping up to date. They are always there to give us information. I place on record on behalf of all Back-Bench Members my thanks to a man who can retire safe in the knowledge that he has built up a Library service second to none, with a Library staff second to none and with a successor who, I am sure, will be second to none.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is it not the case that if Members of the House of Commons were half as

467
efficient, half as competent and half as knowledgeable as the members of the Library staff, we should have better Governments and better Oppositions?
Following is the text of the letter:
Dear Madam Speaker
As agreed with your predecessor on my appointment as Librarian, I am, on retirement, placing my office at your disposal with effect from 1 July 1993. This will be nearly forty years after I joined the Library when some two dozen staff served 630 Members with neither a telephone in the Members' Library nor a photocopier in sight!
The changes, including technological changes, of the last four decades have greatly altered the job of being a Member of Parliament and hence the service they expect from their Library staff. It has been a stimulating lifework to be associated with these substantial developments—for the last 17 years as Deputy Librarian and Librarian.
The House of Commons remains essentially a small organisation for which to work and it is the friendships over the years, both with Members and with colleagues in the Library Department but also in other Departments of both Houses, which I have especially appreciated and which have given me such pleasure.
Yours sincerely
DERMOT ENGLEFIELD Librarian

Business of the House
4.22 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:
MONDAY 8 MARCH—European Communities (Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 15th day.
TUESDAY 9 MARCH—Opposition day, 10th allotted day: there will be a debate described as "The collapse of manufacturing industry and the rise of unemployment", on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order.
WEDNESDAY I0 MARCH—Until Seven o'clock, motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
Remaining stages of the Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
Motion to take note of the annual report of the European Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1991, together with the institutions' replies. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Plymouth Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order.
THURSDAY II MARCH—European Communities (Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 16th day.
FRIDAY I2 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY I5 MARCH—Second Reading of the Disability (Grants) Bill.
[Wednesday 10 March:
Relevant European Community documents—OJ C330 Vol. 35, Court of Auditors reports for 1991; Unnumbered, Budget for 1991: Council's discharge.
Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee —HC 79-ix 1992–93); HC 79-xxi (1992–93).]
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. I hope that he will find time for an early debate on the recently announced rise in prescription charges. It is, as I understand it, the biggest rise ever, at 13 per cent.—eight times the rate of inflation. It was outrageous that it was announced without a statement to the House. It would be even more outrageous if it passed without our having a chance to discuss it. So, as I say, I hope that he will find time for an early debate.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the defence estimates debate is still outstanding.
I hope—as I know do many hon. Members on both sides of the House—that he will look for an early statement on the issue of the coal industry. There are worrying rumours that a statement and the White Paper may not be available until after the Budget. That takes us very near the Easter recess, and I am sure that the Lord President will bear in mind that the present contracts run out on 1 April. That is a matter of great concern on all sides of the House, and I hope that he will look at it.
Can he also say when he expects primary legislation to be before the House with regard to the increase in the number of European constituencies? The Prime Minister announced this increase in December. We are well aware of the need for the Boundary Commission to ensure as wide consultation as possible on the review of the

469
boundaries, so clearly it is important for us to have early notice of how and when this legislation will be brought forward.
Finally, given that the right hon. Gentleman has announced an Opposition day for Tuesday, I very much hope, and indeed believe that the House will expect, that the Government will try to avoid scheduling statements on that day.
Mr. Newton: First, so far as prescription charges are concerned, I would simply make the point that it has been regular practice to make the annual announcement concerning prescription charges by way of a written answer, so I do not entirely accept the comments that the right hon. Lady made in that respect. She will, of course, have an appropriate opportunity to debate any necessary order in due course.
On the question of defence estimates, I cannot, I am afraid, add to what I told the right hon. Lady last week, when I said that I thought that the question of a debate was best left to discussion through the usual channels.
On coal, I note the right hon. Lady's request, but I am not in a position to add to what I have said on other occasions. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will want to make a statement as soon as he can do so, but I cannot at present predict precisely when that will be; nor, indeed, can I predict at this stage precisely when it will be appropriate to bring forward the legislation to which the right hon. Lady referred in respect of Euro-constituencies.
Lastly, I note the right hon. Lady's point about statements, but statements are sometimes appropriately made, and the House is often very anxious to hear them, at times which are not ideal for either the Government or the Opposition. We have to look at the whole range of considerations in determining when they should be made.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that it is now a year since the Jopling report was published? Can we expect a statement from the Government either this week or, certainly, before the Budget on the exact action that they will take on this? The Jopling Committee only sat for the last Parliament and it will rest with the Procedure Committee to take action if we do not find that the Government are willing to proceed as soon as possible.
Mr. Newton: I am obviously very conscious of the close interest that my right hon. Friend has taken in these matters over a long period, and indeed of the importance of the role that he plays as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I also very well understand the anxiety of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, I think, to see further progress made. As my right hon. Friend knows, and as the right hon. Lady the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) knows, discussions are proceeding through the usual channels and in various ways not a million miles removed from some with which my right hon. Friend is very familiar. It remains very much my hope to make progress at an early stage, but I cannot give my right hon. Friend the exact commitment that he seeks from me this afternoon.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to
470
make a statement next week on the future of an Army personnel centre at Glasgow designated for 1995? Is he aware that rumours are circulating in Scotland that the centre is now to be placed in Stockport? Those rumours have been published in one of the national newspapers in Scotland. Given the prominence of written questions on this subject, does he accept that it would be preferable to have an early statement next week, because it is in no one's interest that there should be continued speculation on the matter when 1,000 jobs are at stake?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend is giving the House further information about the matter this afternoon, to the effect that a number of representations have been received during the consultation period set out in his earlier statement. One of the representations has proposed an alternative building for the centre in Stockport at a purchase price to the Ministry of Defence of rather less than £4 million against a purchase price of about £20 million for the original proposal. My right hon. and learned Friend will be telling the House this afternoon that the representations are being considered but no decisions have been taken, and he will make a further statement on the Government's intentions as soon as possible.
Mr. John Ward: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to have a debate on the failure of the French Government to provide protection for British lorry drivers on cross-channel ferries, especially in view of the fact that, in the past 24 hours, a lorry carrying fish which was travelling from Poole to Cherbourg was badly damaged? The lorry driver could well go out of business as a result, and the contribution of the French police was to act as spectators, taking no action whatever.
Mr. Newton: Obviously, I am disturbed—as I think all hon. Members would be—by the account which my hon. Friend has just related. He will understand that I cannot promise a debate, but perhaps I can point to the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport is answering questions on Monday and the Foreign Secretary on Wednesday, so there may be opportunities for him to raise those matters at other times.
Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for the Secretary of State for Social Security to come to the House on Monday and explain why, during this very cold spell, not a single penny of cold weather payments has been paid during the week? It is a shabby state of affairs. I checked with the Library beforehand, and that is the position. Why are so many people who are retired or living on low incomes being penalised and punished day in and day out, especially after the Prime Minister's statement—
Madam Speaker: Order. I regret having to call the attention of the House once again at business questions to the fact that we are asking the Lord President about next week's business, not indulging in arguments across the Floor of the House. Next week's business statement deals with next week's business. Hon. Members are asking the Lord President to change the business or alter it in some way so that they may have their specific topics debated next week.
Mr. Winnick: I ask for a statement.
Mr. Newton: As it happens, I do not need to change the business for next week in order to provide the hon. Gentleman with the opportunity to make the point, which he clearly wants, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is answering questions on Monday week.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1452.
[That this House joins with all other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth in the observance of Commonwealth Day on Monday 8th March; recognises the Commonwealth theme for 1993 which concerns fundamental human values, protecting the rights of the individual and the promotion of good governance; and also notes that the United Kingdom Branch of the CPA continues to serve the interests of honourable Members by holding parliamentary conferences and seminars in London and by arranging parliamentary visits to and from Commonwealth countries.]
It relates to the commemoration of Commonwealth Day on Monday 8 March. I ask my right hon. Friend to make arrangements to have a debate specifically on the Commonwealth so that the remarkable contribution which it makes to the world in the development and sustenance of democracy in so many different countries can be discussed and properly appreciated therefrom.
Mr. Newton: I may have some difficulty in finding time for such a debate, especially with the Budget coming immediately after the period to which I have referred in my statement. Certainly I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend's sentiments; indeed, the Government fully support the statements in the motion.
Mr. David Trimble: Would it be possible for us to have an early debate on the Government's inconsistent attitude to small businesses, so that we could raise the problem of a firm in my constituency which created 15 jobs with Government assistance but has been forced out of business apparently because Customs and Excise was not prepared to wait a month for a small amount of VAT?
Mr. Newton: I am obviously unable to make a detailed comment on any particular case, but I dispute the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is some inconsistency in the Government's approach. The Government are consistently anxious to encourage small businesses, but obviously that has to be done within a framework of law about taxes and obligations.
Mr. Paul Channon: May I urge my right hon. Friend to go a little further than he did in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)? There has now been a long delay in implementing the Jopling report or, indeed, parts of it. Does my right hon. Friend intend at least to make a statement before Easter so that the matter can be debated afterwards and the House can decide what changes it wants to make?
Mr. Newton: Again, I well understand why my right hon. Friend presses me on the matter. I have said that discussions are proceeding in the ways in which they do in the House and my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is aware of that. I hope that the
472
right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is also noting the comments that are being made on this side of the House.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Can the Leader of the House arrange for an emergency debate on the way in which the internal market in the NHS is allowing patients to die? If not, will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Health comes to the Dispatch Box next week to comment on what Dr. Duncan Dymond, the cardiac consultant at St. Bartholomew's hospital, has told The Guardian readers today about how patients are dying as a result of the Government's policies?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that the Secretary of State for Health will make a statement in the terms that he requested. Nor, indeed, do I accept the charges that he made. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will find a way of making her own comments about what has been reported.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House undertake to provide a day's debate in the near future for us to discuss the government of the United Kingdom and demonstrate that the last thing that England needs is a new tier of regional government and that to set up a parliament in Scotland and an assembly in Wales would strike deeply at the integrity of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise that debate, but my hon. Friend's sentiments will be widely shared perhaps not only on this side of the House.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on the case of the British nuclear test veterans? Is he aware that three times between May and June last year the Prime Minister assured me that the National Radiological Protection Board study would be published before the end of 1992? Now we believe that it may not be published by the end of 1993—too late for many nuclear test veterans.
Mr. Newton: Both the Secretary of State for Defence and, as I have already said, the Secretary of State for Social Security will be answering questions during the business that my statement covered. In any event, I will draw their attention to the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has made. From my previous incarnation I am well aware how difficult and complex some of these matters are.
Mr. David Madel: The rate of unemployment in travel-to-work areas determines whether an area is given assisted area status, but the way in which the travel-to-work areas are drawn at present masks some serious unemployment in certain towns in the south of England, including in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether next week or before Easter the travel-to-work areas will be redefined?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking on that point, but he will know that the assisted area map is currently under review. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friends who are involved in that to his request.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How much longer do I have to keep on asking the same question?
Mr. Newton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how much longer he may be able to go on asking the same question. In addition to what I told him last week, I can tell him that I have had a further useful conversation with my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I am now considering how and when we might make the sort of progress that the hon. Gentleman would wish to see.
Mr. David Porter: In the light of the high winds, full moon and surge tides forecast for the east coast next week, will my hon. Friend arrange for a statement, if not a full debate, on sea defence, river defence and evacuation procedures? If he cannot find the time, may I suggest that he take Thursday because to my constituents sea and river defence is a far more important issue than the business that he has already announced?
Mr. Newton: As someone who, as a boy, was living in Harwich on the east coast at the time of the 1952 and 1953 floods, I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern. I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends concerned, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is it not a disgrace that the President of the Board of Trade has not brought the coal report to this House? Cannot the Leader of the House go and drag him to the Dispatch Box next week so that we can have a statement on the situation in the coal industry?
Mr. Newton: I do not think the actions specifically requested of me would be entirely appropriate. It is right that my right hon. Friend should consider these matters with the great thoroughness that they require and make a statement when he is in a position to do so, which is what he will do.
Sir Dudley Smith: In view of the acres of time devoted to the Maastricht Bill—I do not necessarily criticise that—could my right hon. Friend find a little time to debate the increasingly delicate and serious situation in the former Yugoslavia? We need an update, not only on Government policy, but on exactly where we stand.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand if I note his request on this important subject but perhaps make the point that I went to some trouble only the week before last to provide, in effect, a full day to debate those very matters.
Mr. John Evans: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tuesday, when the Home Secretary made a statement about juvenile crime, you, Madam Speaker, because of the severe constraints on you and on the time of the House, were able to allow only 40 minutes for the statement and the Front Benches took more than half of that 40 minutes? As juvenile crime and the solutions to it are matters of major importance to every Member, will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate so that those of us who have secure units in our constituencies can advise other hon. Members about the problems, difficulties and successes of secure units?
Mr. Newton: In this respect I appear to have managed to achieve unusual foresight in predicting demands because I had already arranged a debate on crime and crime prevention for tomorrow.
Sir James Kilfedder: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has seen my early-day motion 1511?
[That this House utterly condemns the North Down and Ards Unit of Management, which is shortly to acquire trust status for its despicable decision to replace vitally important cardiac ambulances at the Ulster Hospital, Dundonald with hired taxis for an allegedly trial period of six months from Monday 8 March; calls on the Eastern Health Board to reverse this squalid decision; and calls on the Government to intervene to safeguard the continued use of cardiac ambulances at the Ulster Hospital and its paramedic crew who have made the difference between life and death in a number of cases.]
It refers to the despicable decision by the North Down and Ards unit of management, confirmed by the Eastern health and social services board, to replace the crucially vital cardiac ambulances with hired taxis for the Ulster hospital, Dundonald, in my constituency. Could the Leader of the House provide time for an emergency debate next week so that the authorities can be forced to reverse this squalid decision and to establish an inquiry into the whole financing of the Eastern health and social services board, which apparently provides ambulances free for the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast?
Mr. Newton: I understand that my noble Friend the Minister responsible for health and social services in Northern Ireland is not only aware of the concern that has been expressed but has requested an urgent report from the Eastern health and social services board. I think that perhaps the first thing would be to see what that report says.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Last Friday the House approved the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) calling for specific provision to combat hurtful and unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people. May we have a statement next week about the Government's intentions as to implementing that resolution of the House?
Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly have been present and have participated in that debate and he will know that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made a considered statement of the Government's approach to these matters and indicated the way in which the Government would seek to carry them forward. I do not think that against that background it would be appropriate for me to make a commitment about a statement on the time scale that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Roger Knapman: While it is agreeable to have all these debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill on Mondays and Thursdays, can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any particular reason why we cannot have such debates on a Tuesday or a Wednesday?
Mr. Newton: It sometimes strikes me as curious how these questions come from those having a particular view on the Bill—not that I complain about that. I shall simply

475
say, cautiously, that there is a range of factors which determines the pattern of business which the Government suggests to the House.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Is the Leader of the House aware that 2,000 miners and their families in my constituency will be disappointed that we still have not come to a conclusion about their future, and their future work, which was to end at the end of this month. It is now patently clear that the Government cannot sort out the future of the coal industry. We have had a Select Committee report. Can the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate next week on that report? If the Government cannot do it, let this House decide the future of the British coal industry.
Mr. Newton: I have touched on that subject twice already in the course of responding to questions and I have indicated the hope of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he will be in a position to make a statement at the earliest possible moment, but I cannot add to what I have said.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Can I follow the point made by my right hon. Friends about the Jopling report? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that there is a recommendation that there should not be controversial business after 7 o'clock on a Thursday evening. He will also know that on 13 July he gave a certain amount of support to that principle. I understand that next week there is controversial business about terrorism until 7 o'clock on Wednesday, but that thereafter it is not particularly controversial. I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House and to my right hon. Friend if Wednesday's business were exchanged with Thursday's business. That would be very much in accordance with what the Jopling report suggested and my right hon. Friend supported.
Mr. Newton: We would all like to make progress, as I have said several times, on the recommendations of the Jopling report, but recommendations such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred were associated with proposals on the other side of the balance for much greater programming of the progress of Government Bills. I accept that those proposals would not have applied to Government Bills on the Floor of the House, but if my hon. Friend could see his way to agreeing to some programming of Government Bills on the Floor of the House, everything might be a little bit easier.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider having a debate as soon as possible on the procedures and practices in this House? I refer him paticularly to the way in which Ministers these days seem disdainful of hon. Members on the Back Benches. We are used to having oral questions dodged, but we are now seeing written questions being dodged and, more importantly, Ministers being unavailable for or unwilling to meet hon. Members on crucial issues.
I give just one example. The privatisation of Greater Manchester Buses is putting a great deal of difficulty on the work people in that enterprise who do not know from day to day what the future of their pensions is likely to be. Hon. Members from the Greater Manchester area have been refused a meeting with the Secretary of State over
476
that question and I have had questions, as I said earlier, blatantly dodged on that issue. That should not happen and we need a debate to iron out these problems.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has given me one example, but only one, and I do not complain about that, of the kind of concern that he has in mind. I would be prepared to look at any examples that he gives me and I will specifically take up with my right hon. Friend the point that he has mentioned.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on compensation orders? As he knows, the courts have power to award compensation to members of the public who have suffered a burglary, a theft or some other crime against their property, but more often than not the person against whom the order is made gets an instalment order for £1 or £2 a week which is very unsatisfactory. The House should debate whether we should adopt the same system as we have for the Child Support Agency, whereby the state gives the money to the person entitled and then chases, in the case of the Child Support Agency, the absent father, and in the case of victims of crime, the criminal against whom the order has been made.
Mr. Newton: Two things occur to me. First, I doubt that it would be stretching the rules of order to make such a point in the debate on crime and crime prevention tomorrow. Secondly, if that fails, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be here this day week to answer questions.
Ms. Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House take time to look at early-day motion 1436, which involves the victims of human growth hormone injections?
[That this House notes that 1,980 British children were treated with cadaver-derived human growth hormone between 1959 and 1985 as part of a medical research programme and drug trial conducted by the UKMRC; notes that the treatments were withdrawn after reports from the United States of America of the deaths from Creutzfeld-Jacob disease of United States recipients; notes further that six confirmed deaths amongst United Kingdom recipients have since occurred; notes with great concern that the cadaveric material consisting of approximately 900,000 pituitary glands was collected and paid for by UKMRC with no practical regard for meeting legal requirements on human tissue removal or the screening out of infected glands; notes that administration of human growth hormone continued without the product ever appearing to fall within the regulatory frameworks of the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956 or the Medicines Act 1968 and thus it escaped any regulation with respect to its strength, quality, purity, safety or efficacy; notes with great concern the plight of the remaining United Kingdom recipients and their families who are faced with the prospect of possibly incubating this disease in its pre-clinical state for up to 35 years, that there are no tests that will detect its presence prior to the onset of clinical symptoms, and that once symptoms occur death is inevitable, particularly horrific and usually follows within 12 months; and demands that the Government intervenes to establish a compensation scheme along the lines of the MacFarlane Trust ( Special Payments (2)) for the victims of this scandal and the families of those who have died.]
Will he consider finding time next week for a statement or a short debate on the plight of the 1,908 recipients of

477
those injections who are now at risk of contracting the human equivalent of mad cow disease? Eight people have already died, and there is no way of knowing how many more are at serious risk. Will he consider offering some support to the families of those victims who face a terrible, anguished plight?
Mr. Newton: I well understand why the hon. Lady has felt it right to raise those tragic cases. She will know that the unhappy background is that the treatment concerned was in international use for 25 years and conformed with the best known scientific and clinical practice of the time. In those circumstances, my right hon. Friends have not found it possible to accept that there are grounds for compensation over and above the services available under the national health service and social security Acts.
Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are a number of early-day motions on the Order Paper criticising the affairs of Monklands district council. Is he further aware that the Labour party in Scotland has today published a report saying that the selection and recruitment procedures of that council are open to criticism? Can we have a debate in which the two Monklands Members might voice their criticisms of the council?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion which I might ask the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to note and perhaps to pass on to her right hon. and hon. Friends. Were the Leader of the Opposition to join in the request for such a debate —it would be understandable if he did so—obviously I would have to give it close attention.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for an urgent debate on early-day motion 1462 and a further early-day motion that I tabled today on the return of 19th-century working conditions to private licensed mines in my constituency?
[That this House calls upon the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Wales to condemn the disgraceful behaviour of certain private coalmine owners in South Wales who are openly flouting employment law, contractual agreements with employees and cutting corners on health and safety provisions; and condemns moreover, the backdoor attempts by British Coal to privatise production at Tower Colliery in the Cynon Valley by contracting-out to commercial companies the surface operations at that colliery, a move which will result in job-losses and a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money in the form of recent investment in surface machinery and equipment, the benefit of which will be enjoyed not by the taxpayers but by the private companies contracted by British Coal, many of which have recently been created by former British Coal staff and managers eager to cash-in on the prospect of the privatisation of the industry.]
For example, Crugua colliery in the vale of Neath, owned by Rhys Jeffries, and Parc Level colliery in Rhiwfawr, owned by Rosemary Griffith, have been operating such practices as the denial of payslips in breach of employment contract law to the men working there, refusing to give sick pay or holiday pay and a number of other breaches of contract and employment law. In one case, again in defiance of their contracts, workers were
478
denied the right to opt out of working over Christmas, and were sacked because they refused to do so. Is this an ominous dress rehearsal for the privatisation of British coal which the Government are planning, and could we have an urgent statement?
Mr. Newton: It does not sound to me as if the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that what he describes is an ominous rehearsal for anything, and if he does, I can disabuse him. He is alleging various breaches of the law or of health and safety requirements. The proper thing for him to do is to bring those allegations, if he wishes to continue to make them, to the attention of the authorities responsible for enforcing the law.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Once again, my right hon. Friend has announced that no less than one third of the allocation of parliamentary time for six working days ahead is to go to the ratification process of the proposed treaty on European union. Could he please bear it in mind, particularly as the Budget debate will take up the week after next, that the debate on the defence estimates is long overdue, as the White Paper was published way back in June 1992? Many people in the armed forces and the defence industries will begin to think, as I and many people outside do, that the Government care more for European union than they do for the defence of the realm.
Mr. Newton: They would be quite wrong, as would my hon. Friend, were they to attempt to draw any such conclusion. Britain's position in Europe is of great importance, as are our defence forces. In the past two or three weeks, we have had at least two full-day debates on matters relating to defence.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1423 on London's health service, which has now been signed by 101 hon. Members?
[That this House is appalled by the Statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the future of London's Health Service and believes her methods are a cynical manipulation of procedure to allow valued and much loved institutions to wither on the vine; further believes that her strategy for the closure of hospitals and the loss of a large number of beds is a product of the internal market and will exacerbate the crisis for the 150,000 people already on the waiting lists and will lead to huge job losses amongst hospital workers; also believes that the Tomlinson Report is seriously flawed in its statistical base and fails to take account of the mobile population of commuters and tourists ; further fails to examine the causes of ill health linked to poor housing and unemployment and that its claims that London is over provided is erroneous; is concerned that the proposals for funding of improved primary care are inadequate to meet the needs that already exist and that the hospital closure programme will seriously damage the accident and emergency services and lose first rate research and teaching facilities; and accordingly calls for the establishment of a London Health Authority which should examine the health needs of Londoners, ensure the best use of existing resources and halt the hospital closure programme.]
Will he now make arrangements for a full debate on the state of London's health service? Can he comment on the fact that the Secretary of State for Health is employing people in her Department to implement the Tomlinson

479
report and to take part in the closure of hospitals and crucial facilities and the loss of a large number of hospital beds and jobs, with no authority whatsoever, from the House or anywhere else? Does he not think it is time that we had a full debate on the fate of London's health service?
Mr. Newton: In view of the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has spoken, I shall say simply that my right hon. Friend made a full statement, and exposed herself to considerable questioning, in the House earlier this month. I might pay even greater heed to his request, which I note, had he made at least some reference to the fact that the Government are proposing to invest £170 million to build up primary health care in London.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: During the next few weeks, can we have a debate on the high-speed rail link? It will not surprise my right hon. Friend to know that hon. Members representing Kent will put up a vigorous defence and call for environmental protection in what may be proposed. Those of us who represent north-west Kent will wish to discuss the prospects for jobs were an interchange station to be located there.
Mr. Newton: Although I come from the other side of the Thames, I well understand the concern felt in Kent. I cannot promise a debate in quite the way I was asked, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be responding to questions on Monday next.
Mr. George Foulkes: Can I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1504, which calls on the Secretary of State for Scotland to step in and cap the rent increases in Kyle and Carrick, in the same way as he is able to cap poll tax rises?
[That this House deplores the council house rent increases in Kyle and Carrick, which are the largest in Scotland, and on average £5 per week, rising to over £15 per week at the top end; notes that this is a direct consequence of the change in political control at the local elections in 1992, and is a warning to voters in other parts of the United Kingdom; recognised that it will be impossible for most people to pay the increases without enormous hardship, since wages are increasing less than the level of inflation, or are frozen or even reduced; and calls on the Secretary of State for Scotland to intervene to cap these rent rises at no more than the current level of inflation.]
Of course, Kyle and Carrick became Tory-controlled at the last local elections in Scotland. Can we have a debate on the subject next week, so that the record of Tory-controlled councils in Scotland, few though they are, can be exposed?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the increases to which he refers are entirely a matter for the local authority, and Ministers have no power to intervene.
Mr. Derek Enright: So far, the Leader of the House has been negative about having a debate on the mining industry next week. Can I put to him the urgency of a statement from the President of the Board of Trade next week on Grimethorpe pit, which supplies coal to industry? The industry that has been taking that coal is now suffering from lack of supplies. It is urgent that the pit be put back into production. Will the Leader of the House please help to do something about it?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Farther to the Leader of the House's previous answers on coal and the energy review, will he reflect on the fact that it would be completely illogical to have a Budget statement with tax-raising announcements without a White Paper on energy and a chance to debate the funding and taxation of sources of energy in Britain? It would be completely the wrong way round. We need the energy White Paper and a debate on that so that the Chancellor can make the right decisions on energy taxation in future.
Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the logic of the situation, but I have now said several times that my right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as he is able to do so. I cannot yet say when that will be.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House make an early statement resulting from his inquiries about marriages in the chapel of St. Mary Undercroft, which I suspect has been a voyage of discovery for both of us? Will he confirm that marriages according to the rites of the Church of England can take place in the chapel, under a licence issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury in an Act of 1533, and that future marriages depend on the registration of the chapel, which lies with the Lord Chief Chamberlain, the Lord Chancellor and Madam Speaker? If there is a fair wind for registration, what would be the parliamentary mechanism for achieving it?
Madam Speaker: Order. That is one example of what is not a business question. It was a question for the Lord President to answer when he comes to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on such matters. In this case, the Lord President is not in a position to answer such a question. I shall therefore pass on to Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Which one?
Madam Speaker: I am so sorry. I meant Robert Hughes; but now I know who the next questioner will be.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Leader of the House recollect that some weeks ago he said that he hoped that there would be an announcement soon on the transfer of the petroleum engineering division from London to Aberdeen? Bearing in mind that the Ernst and Young consultants' report has been in Government hands since 5 October, which is almost five months ago to the day, and that every written answer gets the same response—that a decision will be made soon—can he arrange for the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement next week? Let us get the decision over and done with, and stop dithering about.
Mr. Newton: I recollect the exchange some weeks ago, but I am not up to date with when a statement can be made. I shall certainly seek to ensure that I am better informed by the time that I answer questions next week.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Could I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1355, which was signed by 110 right hon. and hon. Members, on the decision of the Secretary of State for

481
Wales to authorise a waste disposal plant in my constituency, following the application by a dubious American firm with a long criminal record?
[That this House condemns the action of the Secretary of State for Wales in giving the go-ahead to the American concern Browning Ferris for the construction of a waste disposal plant in the Liswerry area of Newport, Gwent despite the unanimous opposition of the Newport Borough Council and the flagrant disregard of the wishes of the people of the town; and notes the questionable record of the company involved, the traffic hazard near to a heavily built-up area, the danger to cattle and agricultural products, the detrimental effect on property values and on health and the environment, which overall will have the effect of turning Newport, Gwent and South Wales into a dustbin for waste products from all over the world.]
Does the Leader of the House appreciate that that decision has caused great anger and dismay among my constituents? If the Government are going to make such controversial decisions in that questionable field, surely we should have a full debate on the matter in the House so that they can announce their policy.
Mr. Newton: Many decisions on planning matters are controversial, and I accept that that decision was. I understand that it was taken on the recommendation of an inspector following a full public inquiry, as is the case with most such decisions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

BILL PRESENTED
  DISABILITY (GRANTS)
  Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mr. Alistair Burt, presented (under Standing Order No. 48 (Procedure under bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to provide for the making of grants by the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland to the Independent Living (Extension) Fund, the Independent Living (1993) Fund and Motability: And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]
Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 25 February]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
      5.2 pm
      Several hon. Members: On a point of order—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before I take any points of order I have two announcements. First, I have concluded, after due reflection, that amendment No. 443 is not in order. Secondly, if Members have requested a separate Division on an amendment and I have decided to grant the request, I propose to announce my decision before the Committee begins the debate immediately preceding the separate Division. Thus, we are about to embark on a debate on amendment No. 18. When that debate is concluded I shall be prepared to permit a separate Division on amendment No. 28, before beginning the next debate, which is on amendment No. 29, on subsidiarity.
      Mr. Calum Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will understand my disappointment on your ruling, but, of course, I accept it, and I accept that your rulings on all such matters are final.
      I ask for your further guidance on a related matter: our ability to table amendments to clause 1(2), which would express approval for some parts of the Maastricht treaty, for the purposes of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, but not of other parts. You will be aware that I have been delving into the debates in Hansard covering the time when the Act was passed. In the debate on 2 February 1978 the then Minister of State, now Lord Judd, said in response to questions from the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench at the time and inquiring about the general point:
      "The other point, also properly raised by the hon. Gentleman, was whether Parliament could amend a Bill to authorise an increase in the Assembly's powers. Again, the answer is 'Yes.'"
      He added:
      "Parliament would not be able to alter the words of a treaty, but it could require the Government in some cases to ratify subject to a reservation."—[Official Report, 2 February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 834.]
      In the light of that statement and of the recent House of Lords decision, which indicates that Ministers' explanations and statements at the Dispatch Box are to be taken as evidence of the meaning and intention of legislation, will you consider the matter further? I am not asking you to give further consideration to my amendment. I ask whether section 6 of the 1978 Act allows this House to express its approval of some parts of a treaty but not others, which is the inference to be drawn from the statement by the Minister of State in 1978.
      The Chairman: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member has expressed his point of order. I shall consider the matters that he has raised, but he will understand that I will have to do so in the context of a written amendment.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I fully understand and accept that you do not give reasons for your judgments and decisions about whether an amendment is in order. If amendment No. 443 was technically defective—as I and some others think that it might well have been—may I assume that a decision on a similar amendment, which was not defective, would not be pre-empted by your decision today?
      The Chairman: I repeat what I told the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). I have to have something in writing before I can rule. Obviously, if it is a question of a minor technical matter, such as English, guidance will be given by the Clerks in the Public Bill Office.
      Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I appreciate your remarks in relation to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), which was similar to the starred amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. Clearly, we should all like to approach you to seek advice on how a similar ploy might be attempted again.
      On the question of the admissibility of amendments broadly concerned with the social protocol, we have already mentioned that our ability to table them again and have them selected, as distinct from their being found to be in order, relates directly to your decision to allow another debate on the issues surrounding amendment No. 27.
      I appreciate, Mr. Morris, that last Thursday you made it clear that you did not intend to take an early decision on the matter. May I ask your advice on where we stand in relation to further amendments that might relate to the part of the treaty that we have now passed, in terms of debating opportunity? That would help the Committee. I do not want to press you beyond the hint that you may have given in your statements last Thursday and on the previous Monday, but we should like to know whether amendments that might be deemed in order would have a reasonable chance of selection if you chose to allow further debate on the general subject.
      The Chairman: It is not the practice of the Chair to consider starred amendments until they cease to be starred, so those on the Order Paper that are starred will be considered on Monday.
      We are still some way off having to consider anything to do with amendment No. 27. As the hon. Gentleman will know, attempts are being made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to produce more amendments relating to this broad area. It would be wrong of me to make a judgment at this point on whether other amendments—or how many of them—may exist by that time. The nearer we get to it, the better my position will be to judge whether to accede to requests for a further debate.
      Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Following the ruling of the Attorney-General on amendment No. 27 and its consequences, I think that there was a general view that
      484
      hon. Members would like a vote on whether the United Kingdom should adhere to the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. Are you not against that in principle?
      The Chairman: I think that I need to study the amendments before I make any announcements.
      Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You did not mention in your statement my amendment No. 445, which is related to amendment No. 27, but which, it is proposed, should be included in the Bill as an exception from the provisions of the protocols. Am I to understand that you are still waiting to make a decision on that amendment, or do you agree that it is at order?
      Amendments Nos. 441 and 442 both exclude the French and Portuguese protocols. Amendment No. 400, tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, excludes the United Kingdom's protocol in respect of the European central bank—and, of course, our opt-out—so it is similar to amendment No. 27.
      Quite apart from the merits of my amendment, do you agree that it would be invidious to distinguish between it and others of a similar kind.
      The Chairman: Hon. Members normally speak to their own amendments and can look after themselves without the assistance of other hon. Members, but, as a general rule, if, after it is no longer starred, an amendment is not on the Order Paper, it is not selected.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Morris. You referred to the need to have a written amendment to consider before making a ruling. I invite you to consider amendment No. 448 in the context of an appeal for a renewed debate on the social chapter. With your indulgence, Mr. Morris, may I take the opportunity to put before you certain factors to do with the previous debate on the social chapter which in my submission are relevant to your decision on whether to allow another debate—
      The Chairman: Order. That is exactly what I will be considering. As I have already said, amendment No. 448 is starred.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will be aware that the Government are likely to be anxious to secure procedural motions later today. Through unusual channels I understand that the Government are in negotiation with some of the minor parties. Before any vote is taken today—
      The Chairman: Order. Negotiations between the parties in the House are nothing to do with the Chair.
      Mr. Marlow rose—
      The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to complain about the Government or the Opposition, he knows where to do so. It is not the responsibility of the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that.
      Dr. Norman A. GodmanOn a point of order, Mr. Morris. In what I can only describe as a characteristically courteous note from you that I received today, you informed me in response to my request that you do not intend to call new clause 26, which

      485
      I have tabled, for a separate vote. The new clause enjoys immense support in Scotland, but that is not my point of order.
      What criteria do you use, Mr. Morris, in determining whether to select or reject amendments and new clauses for votes?
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will understand that many factors come into that consideration.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Among the many considerations that you have to bear in mind when deciding whether to call an amendment, do you pay any attention—you will probably tell me that this is not true—to political alliances and shifts of opinion in the House? Is it conceivable, now that we are moving up towards Newbury, that the Liberal party is shifting its ground and pushing a bit harder against Maastricht? The party does not really mean that, but it might try it. Will you pay attention to that over the next three months?
      The Chairman: Certainly not.
      Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In view of the changed domestic arrangements that we would be required to make, I wonder whether you have had any communication from the Government to the effect that, after moving the 10 o'clock motion next Thursday, they will intend to take the debate through the weekend?
      The Chairman: I am concerned about today, not next week.
      Mr. Cash: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Morris. Do you agree that if amendment No. 27 were passed, it would be essential for the matters in question to be complemented by provisions in the Bill, so that it would be quite wrong not to consider selecting an amendment that translated the effects of amendment No. 27 into the Bill? Parliament would then have instructed the Government, by passing the amendment, that the social protocol should be excluded from the treaty and, hence, from the Bill.
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he is well aware of the Report stage.
      Without further ado, we may now begin discussing the amendments.
      Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 138d on page 42 of Cm 1934)'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following: Amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 9, after 'II' insert
      '(except Article 158 on page 44 of Cm 1934 relating to the appointment of the Commission).'.
      Amendment No. 34, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(with the proviso that the Government of the United Kingdom shall before the nomination of persons they intend to appoint as members of the Commission seek the approval of the House of Commons to the nomination of those persons).'.
      Amendment No. 99, in page 1, line 9, after 'II'. insert'
      486
      (except Article 146 on page 43 of Cm 1934 which relates to the composition of the Council of Ministers)'.
      Amendement No. 168, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 8d on page 12 of Cm 1934)'.
      Amendement No. 221, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 189c(a) on page 52 of Cm 1934'.
      Amendement No. 222, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 189c(e) on page 52 of Cm 1934'.
      Amendement No. 235, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 138b'.
      Amendement No. 236, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 138e'.
      Amendement No. 393, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 138(c) as referred to in Article G on page 42 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendement No. 394, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 147 as referred to in Article G on page 43 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendement No. 395, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 151 as referred to in Article G on page 43 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendement No. 396, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 159 as referred to in Article G on page 45 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendement No. 397, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 160 as referred to in Article G on page 45 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendement No. 398, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 175 as referred to in Article G on page 47 of Command Paper number 1934'.
      Amendement No. 430, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 157(2) on page 44 of Cm. 1934 relating to the independence of members of the Commission).'.
      Amendement No. 19, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 10, Clause 2 on pages 60 and 61 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 21, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 9 on page 60 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 22, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 10 on page 60 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 23, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 20a on page 62 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 24, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 20b on page 62 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 25, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 20d on page 62 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 26, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Chapter V on page 65 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 136, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      'except paragraph 3 of Article 21'.
      Amendement No. 137, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      'except Article 20d'.
      Amendement No. 410, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Articles 7 to 17 on pages 60 to 62 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 413, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Articles 20a to 24 on pages 62 to 63 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 141, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
      'except paragraph 3 of Article 108'.
      Amendement No. 142, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
      'except Article 107d'.
      Amendement No. 414, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
      '(except Articles 107 a-c on pages 69 and 70 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 417, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
      '(except Articles 160 a-c on pages 74 to 76 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendement No. 55, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article 137 in Title II thereof'
      Amendement No. 143, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not paragraph 3 of Article 21 in Title III thereof'.
      Amendement No. 144, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert

      487
      'but not of the second paragraph of Article 24 in Title III thereof'.
      Amendment No. 148, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article 107a in Title IV thereof.
      Amendment No. 219, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article 189a(2) on page 50 of Cm 1934'.
      Amendment No. 220, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article 189b on pages 51 and 52 of Cm 1934'.
      Amendment No. 285, in page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
      Amendment No. 426, in page 1, line 17, at end add
      'with the proviso that Article 138(3) is fully implemented in the United Kingdom before the fourth direct elections to the European Parliament.'.
      New clause 21—Rejection of common position—

      '(1) Where, in pursuance of Article 189b of the Treaty of Union, Paragraph 2 (c) or (d) of that Article, the European Parliament has given notice that it intends to reject the common position of the Council of Ministers of the Community, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament in a Command Paper an account of the Commission proposal and the view of Her Majesty's Government concerning that proposal the reasons for the Council common position, its reaction to any proposal of the European Parliament, and any subsequent proceedings of the Concilliation Committee and subsequent events provided for in the Article.

      (2) Any Report shall include reference to any United Kingdom parliamentary proceeding related to that proposal and may include matter relating to more than one proposal.'.

      Mr. Robertson: This amendment is designed only to allow a debate. It is of a probing nature, and it will not be pressed to a vote. The debate is about the institutions that drive and control the European Community, and it goes to the very heart of the Maastricht treaty and its ambition for an economic and monetary union in our continent, balanced by developed political institutions that will ensure that any such union will be responsible not to crude market forces or faceless bureaucrats and bankers but to the people of Europe.
      The debate also provides us with vivid evidence of the Government's real failure at Maastricht in December 1991—their abject failure on behalf of the British people to see that by downgrading democracy, accountability and European decentralisation, just as they dismiss and degrade such things at home, they leave it to others to set the agenda and to mould the future decision-making structures of the European Community.
      It was in that historic failure to see the central importance of democratic, responsive, open and accountable institutions that the Government sowed the seeds of the present corrosive conflict that lies at the heart of the Conservative party. It is a shambles. There is a rabble that is out of control. The members have not the slightest atom of knowledge of where they will go in Europe or anywhere else. The 1922 Committee will be having its weekly blood bath in just over half an hour's time. The committee was once seen widely in the political world as the praetorian guard of Tory internal discipline. Week by week, it resembles a badly scripted Marx Brothers comedy.
      Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Robertson: Talk about the starring role.
      Mr. Marlow: Was that my cue? The hon. Gentleman is having a spot of fun. Before he goes any further, will he
      488
      confirm that there is a total identity of views between himself and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on this issue?
      Mr. Robertson: It is necessary only to mention the Marx Brothers and up pops the hon. Gentleman. I was classically on cue. I believe that I have the total support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the basis of what I have said and what I shall say.
      Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way.
      Mr. Robertson: I shall give way in a moment. I shall build on the spirit of unity, not qualify it. In the past few weeks, my hon. Friend and I have probably agreed on more things than we have agreed on in the past few years.
      Mr. Skinner: Yes, we have been doing very well running the Tories ragged, and I am all for that. I have news for my hon. Friend: he has moved an amendment and I shall vote for it.
      Mr. Robertson: I had hoped that the shambles on the Government Benches would have concentrated my hon. Friend's mind. When I said that I was moving the amendment for debating purposes, I thought that my hon. Friend would join me. The Lobbies are, of course, open to anyone. If my hon. Friend feels like voting to remove from the treaty the provisions that allow citizens of Europe to petition the European Parliament, I am sure that he will find some good reason for doing so.
      The Government preach openness, but at Maastricht they resisted any move to open up the law-making process that goes on behind closed doors in the Council of Ministers. They were content to leave power in the hands of ambassadors, who meet every day as members of the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the European Community. They, the representatives, are the real rulers of Europe.
      The Government preach democracy over bureaucracy, but, at Maastricht, they resisted any new powers for the European Parliament to supervise the increasing lawmaking powers of the Commission and the Council. Long ago, such powers left national parliaments well behind those bodies. The Government preach flexibility and the taking of decisions at the level that is closest to the people, but at Maastricht they fought against any change to the influence and powers of the unelected Commission. It remained virtually unaffected and unreformed by the treaty, which was signed by Ministers at Maastricht December 1991.
      The Conservative party and Ministers preach about consolidating and entrenching the powers of member states, but their attitude to any vote on the social chapter in the House of Commons shows only too well that their contempt for democratic institutions at the European level is matched by their contempt for any dissent by Parliament.
      The right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State, is serving out his notice with patience and fortitude. He is wandering along the Corridors like some Flying Dutchman. It is ironic that he and others a re telling us that democracy is at the heart of the Government's crusade. They then tell us, in effect, that Parliament can say anything and do anything and that they will ignore us when Divisions take place. They may think that they can get away with that, but the British people will not let that happen.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: Even if one tenth of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is true, why is he not pushing the amendment to a Division?
      Mr. Robertson: The amendment would remove from the treaty the power of European citizens to petition the European Parliament on issues of concern. There is no reason why we would want to remove that power from the treaty. Perhaps the briefing room in Great College street will produce a brief for the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition's amendments next time round. I am sure that we shall welcome the hon. Gentleman when he has everything correct and proper.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Opposition's posturing is designed only to take the opportunitity to try to present an impression that the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench have a role in these proceedings. The whole thing is nonsense and a caricature of the parliamentary process, but that is the burden of the argument that lies behind all the Opposition's amendments. The Opposition are posturing so that they might have first gabble at the microphone to assure us that the Labour party is still in existence. The truth and reality is that a proper discussion continues, but it is a sham and nonsense for those on the Opposition Front Bench to come to an arrangement to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State.
      Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman would say that in any circumstance. He knows, perhaps more than most, that the only way in which we can have a debate of any sort —I am sure that he is not suggesting that we should avoid debate—is to table amendments that are in order. The only amendments that will be regarded as acceptable by the Chair are those that seek to delete parts of the treaty. That applies even to those parts of the treaty that we support. We are unable to debate the issues that are of concern to Parliament—the hon. Gentleman and I, as well as the wider world outside—without using the mechanism of amendments that seek to delete parts of the treaty. We are reflecting the reality of the procedures of the House of Commons, not posturing.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends will appreciate that it is rather too easy nowadays to make fun of the disarray that is to be seen on the Conservative Benches. It is manifest to anyone. We have only to nod to the occasional Conservative Back-Bench Member in the Corridors, or even beyond them, to learn how deep is the discontent with the right hon. Member for Watford—which is pretty well a permanent tradition in the Tory party—and a much wider group of people, including the Prime Minister, whom Conservative Members voted in only two years ago.
      Ministers are now coming out in the open; they are emerging from the closet; we are hearing confessions; there are admissions that the Maastricht strategy was wrong all the time. On Tuesday, in the Financial Times, the admirable Mr. Ivo Dawnay, who is soon to leave to become foreign editor of the Major-loving Sunday Telegraph, told a startled world that the Government have
      "set up a high-level committee to draw up a British blueprint for reforms to the European Community institutions."
      It "reflects", he says,
      "Mr. Hurd's growing conviction that the controversy over the Maastricht treaty is in part the consequence of 'reactive' as opposed to 'active' diplomacy."
      490
      Now that the Foreign Secretary has got rid of the right hon. Member for Watford, he can afford to be honest about how the Government got it wrong.
      If we continue to read the article, we come to the triumph of exaggerated delusion over bitter experience. It states:
      "Mr. Hurd concluded that by promoting a British vision of 'a more flexible and decentralised Community', the Conservative party would be able to reunite after the internal strife provoked by the treaty."
      The final concession, mea culpa or ultimate self-condemnation comes in the final paragraph of this short but devastating article. It reads:
      "A senior official said that Britain had failed to articulate its vision of the Community early enough in the policy-making process, fuelling the impression that 'we are constantly being shifted by foreigners'."
      I do not know whether that is a reference to the right hon. Member for Watford, whose foreign connections are well known and whose linguistic skills have been tested even in the European Parliament, but it suggests that there is a confession in writing that the Foreign Secretary admits that the entire strategy was wrong and that out of the closets of the Foreign Office will come the new solution, the new blueprint or the new vision that will unite the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) with those who sit on the Government Front Bench, who take the Euro-fanatical position. The problem facing the Government is that they are deeply centralising in Britain as they are in Europe.
      5.30 pm
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has referred, probably fairly, to discontent within the Foreign Office—I do not know whether it is true —and discontent within the Conservative party. For all we know, there may be discontent within the Labour party. Does he accept that the real discontent is among the people of Britain who find that the Government and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are opposed to giving them the opportunity to decide the future of their sovereignty? Would not it help to resolve all the long, tedious arguments and all the complaints that are made about different areas if the hon. Gentleman and his party, which has always fought valiantly for people's rights, said that the people should decide the issue, not Members of Parliament?
      Mr. Robertson: I have heard that speech from the hon. Gentleman so often that I could probably deliver it better than he can. It comes ill from somebody who is part of a party that supported the poll tax during a long period when the people were crying out for some sort of salvation from the pain of that. Championing the voice of the people is not something one hears with great authenticity from the Conservative party.
      We have been around these debates for a long time and Parliament is the right place in which to debate the matter. First, the British people would not have known of the Government's contempt for democracy and for democratic institutions had they not had the opportunity of witnessing the volte face occasioned by the competing legal judgments on amendment No. 27. Secondly, it will be in this Parliament—it would be inconceivable in a referendum—that the people and their representatives will have a voice on the social chapter and the social protocol

      491
      of the Maastricht treaty. There is no way that a yes/no question in a referendum would permit the opportunity for a separate view to be taken on the social chapter. That is only one of the many arguments that can be deployed against a referendum. However, the Committee will come to that issue later.
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: A large consensus in the Committee in support of the Bill and the treaty remains a permanent feature of these prolonged debates. Is not the answer to the assertion of discontent the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman noted, the so-called chief pro-referendum anti-federal candidate in Bath got 117 votes and the candidate for the same grouping in my constituency at the last election got 49 votes? The real discontent of the British public is that we are obliged, involuntarily, to spend longer on these debates than we would do otherwise because of the objections of a small minority of anti-Maastricht Members from both sides of the Committee who are deliberately prolonging the debates by unnecessary filibustering, so preventing us from discussing—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is for the Chair to judge those last matters, which relate to the conduct of the debate.
      Mr. Robertson: In European debates one must always watch when someone intervenes in order to help. I know that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) had that intention in mind. I go along with certain elements of what he said and I accept that the Labour party conference took the view that the Maastricht treaty as a whole was better than any of the available alternatives, but I do not go along with everything else that he says. I believe, and I have believed since the beginning of the process, that Parliament has the right and the duty to scrutinise in some detail the crucial issues concerned with that.
      Although there are other issues that should be being debated here—the economy is paramount among them —the reality is that Parliament must still take its time over something that will have a direct effect on our future and the future of many people in Europe. I do not denigrate those on either side of the House—I have no intention of falling out with them at this stage, certainly not at this stage in the evening—who have a different view. They are entitled to put it and at the end of the day the votes will dictate the pace.
      Dr. Godman: A moment ago my hon. Friend mentioned in passing the Government's highly centralised nature. Does he agree that, even though the concept of federalism is nowhere to be found in the English text of the treaty, the process of federalisation will be given a huge impetus by its ratification? That may be perfectly acceptable to elected representatives in the 16 German lander, or the regional governments in Spain, but, given this Government's distorted view of federalism, it gives us cause for considerable concern.
      Mr. Robertson: That depends on what is meant by federalism. That is one of the great problems with such an emotive word. In the past, the word has confused rather than illuminated debate. For many of our continental partners, federalism means precisely the decentralisation of which my hon. Friend speaks; it means a separation of the powers. If that is the context within which it is debated and discussed, we would all go along with that. We have
      492
      no interest in a unitary European state. We want no united states of Europe that is built on some sort of central power. I do not believe that the majority of people in Europe have any interest in anything like that either. Their cherishing of their individual national identities and institutions is as great as that of anybody in the House.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Robertson: I should like to make progress.
      Following on the point that my hon. Friend made, the problem for the Government is that they are a centralising Government. They are contemptuous of democracy and accountability. We have seen that in Britain with their attitude to local government. That is mirrored by their contempt for the European Parliament's need to act at a European level as well. The European Parliament needs to act in areas where law making has left national Parliaments and disappeared behind the closed doors of the Council of Ministers. We have decisions on laws which affect the British people in their intimate daily life. Laws which take supremacy over all national laws are increasingly made by qualified majority vote.
      Mr. Bryan Gould: My hon. Friend said correctly a moment ago that, in continental language, federalism means a derogation of power to the component parts of whatever entity we are considering. But does not that postulate the existence of a central entity in the first place—a European super-state, the very European union which is described as being established in the opening words of the Maastricht treaty? Is not the reason, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that we are so often at cross-purposes when we discuss the term federalism that we persist in thinking that it is a matter of passing limited powers upwards, whereas our continental partners have already reached the point in their minds and in practice of establishing a European union from which limited powers will be devolved downwards? Is not the real point that the Maastricht treaty establishes not a federation but a union, a super-state, which has not yet been revealed in its full concept to the British people?
      Mr. Robertson: I strongly disagree with my hon. Friend. I completely dissociate myself from that concept. If one were to believe some of the rhetoric— [Interruption.] The Minister of State should not be sitting there shouting about united parties, especially since he is about to disappear from the Front Bench of his own disunited party.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): As the hon. Gentleman sought to entertain the House for about 20 minutes pointing out what he perceived to be divisions inside the Conservative party, it is only fair to point out that a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends are also seeking to prevent the United Kingdom from ratifying the treaty. With regard to my own fate, I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I intend to support the Administration vigorously, whether it be from this Bench or other Benches.
      Mr. Robertson: That is what the right hon. Gentleman told Lady Thatcher when she was leader of the Conservative party.
      I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who, on an issue of principle,

      493
      resigned as a Front-Bench spokesman and returned to the Back Benches. There is disagreement about Maastricht in each of the political parties. But we are not the party of government; nor are we suffering from the same chasm as the party of government, which has led it to the paralysed condition in which it finds itself today.
      Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
      Mr. Robertson: I shall allow the Minister to intervene after I have dealt with the serious point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham made, although it is probably more relevant to the next debate on subsidiarity.
      I do not believe that the other 11 Community countries intend to create a European super-state, from which they will derogate a few minor powers. There is nothing to suggest that any of them have an interest or desire so to do. They believe that power should be taken to the centre only where it makes sense and is relevant, and that the majority of powers and influence should be retained at national level. That is why the creation of these institutions is so important and why the power of, for instance, the European Parliament is so relevant.
      The House believes in its own role. It believes in its own importance in scrutinising legislation, but we have reached a stage, from which even my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham cannot seek to go back, where decisions are increasingly taken by qualified majority vote in the Council of Ministers. Decisions about laws that will affect British people are taken behind the closed doors of the Council of Ministers and are never scrutinised again by elected representatives of the people. The Maastricht treaty's provisions on the European Parliament seek to correct that.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and am delighted—
      Mr. Cash rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) knows that we cannot have two hon. Members standing at the same time. I understood that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) had given way to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
      Mr. Taylor: I am grateful. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) dissociated himself from the views of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). Is not it revealing, even on the terms of intervention of the hon. Member for Dagenham, that the assumption is that the Maastricht treaty seeks to derogate European powers downwards? Hon. Members who voted for the Single European Act, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), do not recognise that the Maastricht treaty introduces decentralising powers into what could have become a more centralised structure. The treaty brings institutions closer to the people, which is what makes us so keen to get on and ratify it.
      Mr. Robertson: I am pleased to act as a vehicle for debate in the Conservative party. I do not dissociate myself from the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham, but I disagree with his interpretation of what is happening in Europe. From my experience of meeting people from various political parties, but mainly from the
      494
      socialist and social democratic parties, I can say that it is not their intention to move in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests that we are inexorably taking. It is important that we strengthen existing European institutions to prevent the possibility of such a thing happening.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Robertson: I will give way, first, to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), from whom I have never run away, because I have always considered him to be the best of fun.
      Mr. Gapes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the interpretation of federalism in the Federal Republic of Germany is not centralised union or a super-state? It is inaccurate, therefore, to suggest that the European concept was based on a centralised European super-state. The concept of Europe is clearly different in various countries, but the German federal model, which owes much to the democratic changes that were made by British and other occupation forces after the second world war, is one of decentralisation without a centralised super-state.
      Does my hon. Friend further agree that, unlike last year's Conservative party conference, the Labour party conference held a vote on whether to endorse the Maastricht treaty? It said that the treaty was the best obtainable measure, whereas the Conservative party uses a clapometer to gauge how many people applaud Norman Tebbit and how many—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions should be short. The hon. Gentleman's intervention sounded more like a speech.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Robertson: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. His words are extremely wise on both counts. He and I have attended many European meetings, at which we did not spot the federalising, centralising obsession about which some hon. Members speak. He rightly states that the Labour party agreed its policy on Maastricht in a democratic vote at its conference. That represents our policy, and we consulted the people, which I am sure would appeal to the hon. Member for Southend, East.
      Mr. Cash: At its last conference, the Labour party decided to oppose a referendum on the Maastricht treaty and that, apparently, is the position of its Front-Bench spokesmen, but we understand that the Leader of the Opposition has now said that Labour would like a referendum on proportional voting. Can he reconcile those two completely different positions?
      Mr. Robertson: I am not aware that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he wants a referendum. He has not said that—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a broad debate, but that seems to be stretching it far too wide. We shall debate referendums later, not now.
      Mr. Robertson: I appreciate and respond instantly to your interpretation, Dame Janet.
      I always welcome an intervention from the hon. Member for Stafford. I referred to him in the House Magazine this week, because the week before last I

      495
      attended a Scottish Statutory Instruments Committee considering the Lanarkshire enterprise zone, believing that I had escaped the dreadful world of Maastricht. I was horrified to see the hon. Members for Stafford and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) sitting on the other side of the Committee. I thought that they were being permanently mobilised around the House of Commons to scare me, but I realised that they had to attend as a punishment.
      I described them as the Hale and Pace of the Maastricht debates, not as a simple point of abuse but because I recall the famous Hale and Pace sketch, which I am sure hon. Members will remember vividly, in which they were acting the part of two cooks testing a microwave. At one point, to the horror of the watching audience, they took a cat and said, "The microwave is extremely useful for cooking cats: all you do is open the door, put the cat in, close the door and turn on the microwave. Here is one that we prepared earlier", and this frazzled object was put up to the audience of children and animal lovers, who were horrified by the low taste of the sketch.
      It seems that some Members on the other side of the argument continue to hold up the frazzled cat as an example of what would happen if Maastricht were ratified, just as they held up frazzled cats in the debate on the Single European Act—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have had enough of frazzled cats.
      Mr. Robertson: I now appreciate, Dame Janet, that to choose the day when the occupant of the Chair is a former president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Animals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cruelty".]—for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was perhaps not a master stroke of timing.
      The hon. Member for Stafford was in favour of the proposal and did not produce the frazzled cat on that occasion. However, horror stories are endlessly put about; it would he better to concentrate on reality rather than the powers of imagination.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing rose—
      Mr. Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend wants to intervene, but I must make progress. I am sure that he will find something to object to in the rest of my speech and I shall be glad to give way to him at that point.
      The European Parliament is not popular in the House. It still does not command wide popularity in the country or the same voting enthusiasm as domestic parliamentary elections, but few people who watch Europe would doubt that the calibre of its membership has improved considerably and that its role and influence have increased and will inevitably become greater.
      We dismiss, ignore or ridicule the European Parliament, its members and its powers at our peril. We must set about ensuring that the role of its Members is built into what we do here because the future of our country in Europe is not an issue on which we can afford to delude ourselves into thinking that our two institutions are separate, independent or distinct for the carrying out of the tasks before us.
      I wish to ask the Minister of State to answer one question. Following the Maastricht decision, it was decided at Edinburgh to increase the number of European Parliament seats by six. The Government have still not
      496
      said how the seats are to be created, although we have been told that a new Boundary Commission might have to be instituted for the purpose. That will require primary legislation. This afternoon, the Leader of the House was unable to answer my right hon. Friend the deputy leader of the Labour party, but I hope that the Minister of State, who is more intimately involved in these affairs, will be able to tell us when the urgent need—urgent for all political parties—will produce an answer as to when the primary legislation can be introduced.
      Sir Russell Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman were faced with a proposition that the six seats were to be treated as added member seats, similar to the German electoral system, in order to correct the lack of proportionality in elections to the European Parliament, how would he react?
      Mr. Robertson: The Government have already decided that the matter will be decided by a Boundary Commission and by an extension of the number of existing seats. The Labour party is currently engaged in a major study of electoral reform, and I do not want to pre-empt its findings. However, speaking personally, I believe that the worst way of introducing any type of electoral reform or proportional representation would be to say that the creation of six seats was to cause a major change to the British constitution merely because we did not have time to establish a Boundary Commission. There would be plenty of time if the Government would start now and then consider the future role for European Parliament seats when we are clear about what will happen.
      The European Parliament gains some new arid significant powers under the Maastricht treaty. Of course, that is despite animated opposition from the Government to any extension in European Parliament powers. In December 1991 the Foreign Secretary said:
      "We are not persuaded by the case … for adding again to the powers of the European Parliament".
      However, it has new powers. It gains a new power of veto. The negative assent procedure is the Euro-jargon method of dodging the difficult word "veto", but, in certain restricted, although important, aspects of law making, a veto is exactly what the European Parliament will have.
      That means that the European Parliament now has a total of five co-decision powers to influence policy in the Council of Ministers. All are complicated and dense and virtually all are incomprehensible, even to the Members of the European Parliament. The Maastricht treaty provides it with a new influence over the appointment of the European Commission, its President and its programme. There is a new right of citizens to petition the European Parliament, and the creation of an ombudsman to allow individuals to have Community maladministration investigated.
      However, these powers are in no way sufficient to fill what is fashionably called the "democratic deficit". They in no way properly reflect the fact that there is more qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers—and there is a big extension of qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers despite opposition from the Government.
      In Glasgow in 1991 the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Government were opposed to
      "significantly extended qualified majority voting".
      However, there have been 61 new extensions of qualified majority voting in the treaty signed at Maastricht. Decisions on laws are now taken and implemented without

      497
      any further reference to the elected representatives of the people who will be affected by them. That has to be unacceptable and, at the 1996 intergovernmental conferences, the accountability of the Council to elected representatives must be high on the agenda.
      The European Commission came out of the Maastricht process virtually unscathed. Despite the fact that it is unelected and has considerable power and influence, and despite the fact that there is growing concern at its monopoly on initiating legislation, its powers were scarcely trimmed and it was not made more accountable. In fact, having been given the new power to fix penalties for not complying with European Community laws and decisions, the Commission has been handed significant influence and control.
      It will remain one of the ironies of contemporary European history that it was largely Lady Thatcher's enthusiasm for penalties and fines against Governments for non-compliance with Community laws which will now give the European Commission, which she so hated and loathed, the most remarkable new power to enforce Euro-policy.
      Mr. Spearing: Is not that an example of the greater central powers which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) cited a moment ago? We already have a single market and a single Council determining what that market shall be. We have a prospective single currency, a prospective single bank and a commitment, if the Bill is passed, to a single foreign policy. How can my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) deny that that is the most extreme form of centralism?
      Mr. Robertson: It is centralism only if the other institutions do not have the proper balance to allow the will of the people to be heard. We are creating new institutions where we believe them to be appropriate at a European level. There is nothing wrong with that. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has a deep interest in environmental policies. I am sure that he will agree that national policies alone on airborne pollution make no sense in the modern world. Laws relating to pollution, and air pollution in particular, must be made at a European level. The decision has been taken—
      Mr. Peter Shore rose—
      Mr. Robertson: I shall answer my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and then I shall happily give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
      The decisions were taken, and we are now considering how Community institutions can be sufficiently strengthened to ensure that the will of the people is expressed in relation to what powers we, as a nation or group of nations, choose to concede at a European level. That is why so much of my speech, which has already gone on too long, has been devoted to the powers of the European Parliament. We cannot say that decisions have been ceded to the European level and, at the same time, say that we shall not give added power to the European Parliament —although the House has already given them away.
      Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is obviously ready to transfer to the upper tier of new authority being created in
      498
      Europe virtually all the major powers of self government, and he justifies that on the grounds that there they will be taken at a more appropriate level. He cites the environment. If we are serious about the environment, we should look for a solution not at the western European half-continental level, but at the global level. Does my hon. Friend advocate our becoming part of a world government, part of an expanded United Nations? What would he say, for example, to the proposition that we should be better defended by a huge European army or a combined European defence force? Would he be happy to hand over our powers of self defence to such a body? Would he not prefer such arrangements to come under NATO rather than being taken away from us to be decided by a supranational law-making body?
      6 pm
      Mr. Robertson: I have been through all that before with my right hon. Friend. In the days when we used to agree, when we stood side by side in the internal battles in the Labour party of those times, we stood on defence and on protecting the cause of NATO, to which this country long ago voluntarily ceded one of the most important elements of sovereignty. Now, as ever, if there were an attack on one of the nation states in NATO the armed forces of all the nation states would automatically and immediately be put under an integrated military command. That is the principle—a principle which my right hon. Friend stood by, and one which we safeguarded within the Labour party at that time.
      I believe, and I believe that my party believes, that we should cede sovereignty only where appropriate and relevant. That is what we have done in the past. Where sovereignty has been ceded, whether previously or now, we must ensure that we have created the democratic institutions in the Community that will give the people of Europe the right to say what the new laws will be.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
      Mr. Robertson: I intend to finish my speech shortly, so, however tempting it may be to have a generalised debate, I shall resist the temptation. I see that my speech has already outlasted three different occupants of the Chair, and that serves as a reminder for me.
      The debate on the institutions of the European Community is not simply about remote organisations loosely referred to as, and sometimes seen as, "Brussels". The institutions, their strengths, their representativeness, their openness and their closeness to the people of Europe will determine, by and large, whether the successful system of western European co-operation, from which this generation has benefited so much, will be sustained and will survive the new pressures facing Europe and the world.
      The Foreign Secretary was right when he told the Financial Times that we needed a British blueprint for European Community reform, and that this country has been too negative and reactive, and not nearly constructive and positive enough, in what we say and do. The right hon. Gentleman was also right to say that as a result
      "we are constantly being shifted by foreigners".
      He is correct, even if his awakening to that fact is belated. The drawing up of that blueprint, that vision—the definition of British interests in Europe—must not be the business simply of the committee combining Foreign Office and Cabinet personnel that the Financial Times tells

      499
      us has been set up. That task, which is so crucial to the future of this country, must include other political parties, and the House and its Committees.
      One of the clearest and most depressing failures of the British role in Europe—here, we are markedly different from other partner states—is the Government's unwillingness to reach a national consensus at least on the objectives of Britain in Europe. We must look positively not only at what can be achieved at the European level—the whole of the European level—but at what the price of failure would be.
      Today we face economic turmoil unprecedented in modern times, with soaring unemployment, deepening recession, destructive economic competition and beggar-my-neighbour attitudes all combining to leave the whip hand with the bankers and speculators. We also face a growing political crisis, which derives partly from the recessionary pressures, with political instability, vicious nationalism and pernicious forms of racism on the march. Those are formidable and immediate dangers for our continent. If we are ever tempted to ignore those perils and problems, we risk something quite horrible happening.
      We must not underestimate what is happening in our continent and to our people today. That is why it is crucial that the creation and reinforcement of robust, democratic, popular institutions for European unity should remain the collective objective of all who care about the future of our continent.
      Mr. Cash: The speech by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) showed a complete lack of observation and interest in what is really going on in the Committee. He made no serious attempt to tackle the real questions which lie at the heart of the provisions that we are supposed to be considering.
      The hon. Gentleman blithely and absurdly referred to European institutions as if they are just another piece of paper that does not matter much. He says that the amendments are only probing amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech to say that Labour Members were posturing, but the hon. Gentleman's speech was not so much posturing as imposturing—an attempt merely to probe a matter which goes to the heart of the democracy of the House and of the relationship between the people of this country and their Government. The hon. Member for Hamilton and many of his colleagues make no serious attempt to investigate the basis on which the charade of the Maastricht treaty and the Bill has been constructed, or the deception that lies at its heart.
      What is really taking place is a deliberate attempt to drain away the real powers of the House. Attempts—albeit fairly modest—have been made to sustain the overall thrust of a move towards a unitary state, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said earlier: towards the creation of a European union and the construction of all the framework necessary to achieve that objective.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend has postured pretty effectively throughout the Committee's proceedings on the reasons why he felt able to support the Single European Act. Can he posture a little further and explain to the Committee precisely in which respects the group of
      500
      amendments under consideration breaks new ground that was not broken by the Single European Act, which he supported?
      Mr. Cash: The simple answer is, because this is a gravitational pull, which is moving the whole process from the basis of the Single European Act, which was a perfectly reasonable basis to start from, into a relationship which has been materially changed by the provisions on economic and monetary union, especially those connected with stage 2. The Minister understands that perfectly well, as he has been a party to it throughout.
      The Minister appeared before the Select Committee on European Legislation the other day. As will be seen from the transcript of the Committee's proceedings, he went to considerable lengths to attempt to divert attention from the provisions of stage 2 on economic and monetary union. He did so because he knows that they are having a profound impact not only in their gravitational pull but in cutting the umbilical cord through the creation of a European Monetary Institute, which in turn will require the Governor of the Bank of England neither to seek nor to take instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House, and thereby from the people of this country —the people who put us all into our positions as Members of Parliament, and put the Government into power. If the Minister does not think that those provisions go beyond gravitational pull and actually create a completely new dimension, I should like to know what his answer would be.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I should like my hon. Friend to address himself to the question that I put to him. As he now seems to be alleging that the Maastricht treaty is the greatest constitutional outrage, theft and deception in his political lifetime and in mine, and as he voted for the Single European Act, in respect of which there was a timetable motion, may I ask at what point it became apparent to him that the gravitational force to which he refers was pulling him in the wrong direction? Was it just after he voted for the Single European Act, or when he fought the last electionߞ
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is all very well, but we really ought to get back to the powers of the European Communities.
      Mr. Cash: I am always very glad to observe a Minister receiving a rebuke from the Chair. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has retained his sense of humour, which was evidenced by his question.
      The Single European Act is quite different from these provisions. There is a huge difference between what is provided for in the Act that we passed in 1986 and the enormous changes resulting from this treaty's impact on our democratic rights—not only the rights of Parliament but the rights of the country as a whole.
      The provisions with which we are dealing commence primarily with the European Parliament. Following what my right hon. Friend the Minister said a moment ago, I should like to make a point about the way in which the powers being granted by this treaty to the European Parliament dovetail with the arrangements under article 138a, which says:
      "Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union."

      501
      Contrary to what the Minister of State has just said—as if this were a matter of no interest or consequence to anybody—what we have here represents a complete change from the Single European Act. The fact that we are dealing with political parties at European level—something to be regarded as a factor for integration—is a completely new dimension.
      Let us consider for a moment the status of the European People's party in the European Parliament. That party's constitution is unashamedly and avowedly federal. Its objective is a united states of Europe. It has no doubt that that is the direction in which it wants to go.
      Mr. Hoon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Cash: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he knows a good deal about the EPP.
      Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman was referring to the European People's party, it occurred to me that, since the Conservative party has joined the EPP, it is likely that he will be a member of that organisation.
      Mr. Cash: I am delighted to be able to respond to that point. Indeed, I was just about to give my reasons for wanting to have nothing to do with the EPP. In fact, I do not want my party to be directly associated with any such organisation. The avowed objective of the EPP is a federal and/or unitary Europe. Furthermore, it is tied to the Christian Democrats, which has many policies quite at variance with those upon which we, as Conservatives, expect to represent our constituents.
      It caused me considerable concern to note that the application for membership of the European People's party—the letter that was written about a year and a half ago by the then chairman of the Conservative party, Christopher Patten, with the full consent of the Prime Minister—was couched in terms making it quite clear that a marriage was taking place. These vestal virgins had been taken to the altar, and had consummated a marriage with the European People's party. Surprise, surprise—the EPP's press release came out in the middle of our general election, lest anyone should notice what was going on.
      Thus Conservative MEPs are in a rather difficult situation. They constitute a political party operating at European level. This is indeed important as a factor for integration into the union. They are pursuing a policy—apparently endorsed by the Government: something that I find it very difficult to understand and hope may yet be unravelled—that amounts to support not only for integration and European union, as described in article 138a, but for the whole concept of a united states of Europe. In fact, some of the documentation goes even further by saying that the European union would be a state with all the characteristics of sovereignty. I view these developments with considerable concern, and I regard the Minister's remarks of a few moments ago as quite extraordinary.
      Mr. Knapman: If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is right in suggesting that federalism is decentralising, would it be a good idea to substitute federal union for even closer union? I thought that we had spent a great deal of time trying to get rid of federalism and introduce even closer union. We seem to be in a muddle in this matter.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Cash: Indeed we are in a muddle—some less so than others. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Only a few weeks ago, Mr. Bangemann said that we ought to face up to the fact that we were moving into a federal system. In every European capital, one finds a perfectly straightforward and honest position. People in European capitals, like people in the institutions of the European Communities, say that they want and intend to achieve a united states of Europe, with a federal and/or unitary system. At least they have the honesty to admit that that is what is going on. I cannot understand why people in this country do not say the same thing. There are, of course, exceptions, like myself, who have every intention of resisting this all the way down the line.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is always courteous, and is normally very clear, even if one disagrees with what he says. He said a moment ago that he is against muddle. That being the case, will he please stop using the words "federal and/or unitary". He has now used them twice. A system could be federal or unitary, but not federal and unitary. The two concepts are fundamentally different.
      Mr. Cash: As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gentle rebuke. However, I chose my words carefully. It is almost impossible to give a precise definition of any one federal system. The division of the functions, powers and duties that are transferred upwards and downwards, particularly having regard to the concept of subsidiarity—which we shall discuss later—creates the very confusion and contradiction to which I am referring. The problem was not created by me; it is inherent in the way in which the whole package has been put together.
      Mr. David Winnick: It is interesting that the remarks of Martin Bangemann, a vice-president of the Commission, have not been the subject of any controversy outside Britain. None of his colleagues, and no one in Germany, has said that he is wrong. He is saying out loud what others, for obvious diplomatic reasons relating to Britain, are reluctant to say. We should therefore be grateful to Martin Bangemann for warning us about what is involved in this treaty, which is why many of us are quite determined to vote against it at every opportunity.
      Mr. Cash: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The resolution passed by the Bundestag uses the word "federal" as the basis on which it is intended that the Maastricht process should be construed. A similar position arises on the other aspects of the argument.
      Dr. Godman: We are discussing the powers of the European Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the powers of that Parliament should be enhanced, diminished or left as they are? Is it not the case that the Members of the European Parliament, when given additional powers under the treaty, will not remain satisfied with those enhanced powers? They will want more and more, which makes good sense from their point of view.
      Mr. Cash: I am sure that it makes good sense from their point of view. The real question is whether it makes good sense in terms of the European Community. I re-endorse my enthusiasm for the European Community as it stands.

      503
      My concern is that the entire treaty is about improving —or, as the treaty puts it, enhancing—federalism throughout the Community. The treaty seeks to turn what is basically a trading arrangement combined with political co-operation, which I can accept, into an arrangement that is based on a massive increase in the transfer of governmental power. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the European Community to pretend that we can increase the powers of the European Parliament in the ways that are intended. That is practising a deception on the people of Europe.
      We should be creating an enhanced power for the national Parliaments and improving the quality of scrutiny of European legislation in a way that truly reflects the relationship between the voters and the Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who, like me, was a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, knows that perfectly well. The Minister is accountable to the voters and to Members of Parliament as a whole, and thence to the Council of Ministers. To produce an increase in the powers of the European Parliament, which will not work, is practising a deception on the people of Europe. Indeed, such an increase will make even greater the problems that we shall face as Europe falls into greater turmoil, when economic and monetary union and all the other aspirations are seen to have collapsed.
      The treaty is perpetrating a fraud on the people of Europe. There is a pretence that the increased powers will fill the democratic deficit; they will not.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a pantomime, which seeks to give the illusion that there is a democratic element in the treaty. The very word "Parliament" creates that illusion. The European Parliament has no legislative or other powers of any substance. The deceit of the institutional arrangement is to pretend that there is a democratic input into the European Community. Maastricht does not fulfil that function.
      Mr. Cash: There is a role for Members of the European Parliament—I do not deny that—but that role has already been defined, in terms that keep it under some control. The problem is that, under the new arrangements in the treaty, the position will become significantly worse. The centralisation of the process of economic and monetary union is taking away from the voters the power to determine their monetary affairs. The decision-making on the raising of revenue and the dispensing of public expenditure, which will cascade all the way down from the decisions taken by the unelected, unaccountable bank, is directly contrary to the interests of the voters, who will not have the compensation of knowing that they will be properly represented in the European Parliament.
      The voters in this country will be properly represented in this Parliament only if we ensure that the centralising arrangements, and economic and monetary union, do not come about. Once we can see that economic and monetary union is to take place, we shall put a lance through the heart of the democracy of this country and deprive the voters of the opportunity to exercise a meaningful choice when they freely elect the people who decide these matters in the House, as Ministers, on behalf of the electorate.
      Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because, for the first time in these debates, I almost agree with him. If the solution in terms of the centralising
      504
      tendencies is to provide more democratic control over the institution, which is what the hon. Gentleman is saying, is it not right to enhance the powers of the European Parliament, working in conjunction with national parliamentarians? The solution is not to criticise the very modest changes proposed in the Maastricht treaty which would enhance the ability of the European Parliament to control the activities of the European Commission, but to work more closely with the democratic elements in the Community.
      Mr. Cash: I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure six years ago, when I said that I thought that there was a case for more contact between Members of the European Parliament and Members of this Parliament. That point was entirely without prejudice to what additional powers the European Parliament might get. Contact, yes; increased powers, no. The changes wrought by the treaty will create a completely new dimension.
      The creation of the unelected and unaccountable bank poses a serious problem for the effectiveness of the individual voters of this country and for their freedom to exercise their choice. The institutional problems are also tied up with the question of subsidiarity.
      Sir Richard Body: Does my hon. Friend agree that the essence of democracy is accountability? Each Member of the European Parliament is to represent 500,000 people. If we eventually have a far wider Europe of some 35 countries, as some of us wish, each Member will have to represent 1 million electors. Can we believe that those who seek to represent 500,000 people can do so in full justification? Will they make themselves accountable?
      I find it difficult to represent 70,000 people and to be accountable to that number. To be accountable to 500,000 people is a sheer impossibility. There is the added danger that, in seeking to represent that 500,000, one would tend to meet only those who had most influence and power in the constituency, and such people would be manifestly unrepresentative of the whole.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions are becoming longer, and are becoming not mini-speeches but minor speeches. All hon. Members should take note of the fact that interventions are meant to be brief.
      Mr. Cash: I very much agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). When people come to see us at our surgeries, there is direct contact which is immensely important to our constituents. With the best will in the world, it is impossible for Members of the European Parliament to perform a similar function.
      There is a further problem about scale, as my hon. Friend rightly said. The remoteness of people from Parliament will be a massive problem. It is utterly irresponsible of those who advocate the new arrangements to duck the question, not to take part in these debates and to attempt to obfuscate and to camouflage what is really going on. When the central banking arrangement for the whole of Europe comes into effect, it will affect the voters,, and there will have been no compensation, for good reasons, in terms of an increase in the powers of the European Parliament.
      These powers, important though they are, would not go anything like far enough for those who advocate a federal

      505
      system. Therefore, the democratic deficit would be increased, but the amount of power that would be centralised and the lack of decision making by the voter in general elections would be enhanced.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not the size argument really nonsense? As things stand, it is not possible in this country for one hon. Member to deal with a constituency of 70,000 people and the problems they have; it operates only if there is some devolved system and some other involvement. Similarly, on a wider level, it is possible to have a much larger constituency, because, again, there should be devolved organisation for representing them.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Cash: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says on that point. To go down the path of devolution would be straying outside the ambit of this debate.
      Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
      Mr. Cash: No, I think that I have given way enough for the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Well, under enormous pressure, I will give way.
      Mr. Anderson: That argument is relevant, in this sense. If the hon. Gentleman claims some consistency in seeking proper accountability at the European and the Westminster level, he must also seek appropriate accountability of the agglomerations of power at Edinburgh and Cardiff. If he says no to that because of his unionist credentials, that casts some doubt over the general argument that he is making.
      Mr. Cash: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am talking here, very simply, about the direct relationship, the contact, between the voter, the member of the public, who has the right in a general election to make a choice, and his elected representatives in this Parliament. My argument is that our system, with its imperfections, is as good as anybody could devise over a period.
      The reality, within the general framework of the European Community, is that in our Parliament, by comparison with the French, we debate and discuss these matters. I do not want to go into too much detail, but there are hon. Members who would not want us to debate these matters at all. But this has enormous impact on the people we represent and it would be gravely irresponsible of us —as I think it is of those hon. Members, if that is really the view that they take—to say that those people do not wish to discuss matters which go to the heart of the basis on which they choose their Members of Parliament.
      We owe it to them to look at these matters and try to unravel all this verbiage, to see exactly what impact it will have upon them, and then to vote accordingly in the Division Lobbies if we disagree with the arrangements that this treaty and this Bill propose.
      Mr. Knapman: I urge my hon. Friend not to move on too fast, but to come back to the word "federal" for a moment. I seem to remember that the dropping of the dreaded F-word was a considerable negotiating triumph, and I suspect that that is so. We now hear from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that federalism is a decentralising concept. If
      506
      there are those two opposing ideas, can my hon. Friend put his mind to why the Liberals should be voting in the same Lobby as some of our colleagues?
      Mr. Cash: There are many mysteries attached to the basis upon which the Liberal Democrats will go into various Lobbies. We will discover, perhaps today or on Monday, exactly what they decide to do about a very sensitive amendment which is about to be debated. I sincerely hope that they will do what they honestly believe to be the right thing for their constituents, which is what these provisions are ultimately all about.
      Mr. Marlow: I am sure that my hon. Friend has noted, as I have, that the coalition between the Government Front Bench Members and the Liberal party on a federal Europe has now gone so far that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is wearing a blue tie.
      Mr. Cash: Even at this distance, I can see the European stars gleaming forth at me from that tie. I must say that, very fine tie though it is, it is not one that-I shall be wearing in the immediate future.
      Mr. Michael Lord: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the relationship between a Member of this House and his constituents, is it not true that at the moment, in most areas of our responsibility, if we find a problem in our constituencies we can bring it to the attention of the appropriate Minister in the House and, if our case is just and urgent, we can get something done about it quickly? If we are sufficiently diligent, energetic and forceful, we can. Is there not a glaring case of one Ministry where that does not apply—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in connection with which most of the powers have been given away to the European Community?
      Mr. Cash: I must say that the sense of powerlessness which is reflected quite often in the behaviour of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food amply supports the point that my hon. Friend has made. One of the great defects of this treaty is the failure to reform the common agricultural policy and all that goes with it. There was an opportunity; had we really been negotiating effectively, I believe that we would have regarded that as one of the most important things to get right, because of the point that my hon. Friend has made and because of the effects that this has upon good and honest British farmers.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: Is not the fact that many of these issues, because of previous legislation, are partly decided in the European Community an extremely good reason for hon. Members who wish to assist their constituents to work very closely indeed with MEPs? That is the most effective way of putting pressure on the Executive and keeping an eye on what is going on in the Community. My hon. Friend is extremely lucky, because he is particularly powerful, having a very close relationship with the leader of the Conservative group in the European Parliament and also with the vice-president of the European People's party, Christopher Prout.
      Mr. Cash: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, because I have just been taking a few pot shots at the European People's party. I do not think that its aspirations to a united states of Europe fit terribly easily with the aspirations of the voters of the United Kingdom.

      507
      Furthermore, I do not believe for one minute that there is any reason for not having a reasonable, proper and mutual relationship between MEPs and hon. Members, provided that they can genuinely claim to be in the same party. Having said that, the relationship should be one of contact, not of an increase in the powers of the Members of the European Parliament along the lines set out in this treaty and this Bill, which are all movements towards, as the treaty says, a treaty on European union. I wish people would face the fact that what the treaty says is more important than some of the attempts to camouflage it.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. He knows full well that Sir Christopher Prout not only would welcome more regular contact with him, but is not a supporter of a federal Europe. It is quite wrong and disingenuous of him to put it on the record that he is when he is not.
      Mr. Cash: I will not ascribe views to individuals, but some difficulty is created by the marriage to which I referred, and which the European People's party and our own Members of the European Parliament have mentioned in a press release, in which they talk about a marriage between them being consummated during our general election, when the European People's party is quite clearly in favour of, and has the specific objective of, a united states of Europe. It is in its statutes.
      Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend really must come off it. He and I are members of the same party. Cannot Sir Christopher Prout be a member of a party in which people have rather different views from him?
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have not made any specific reference to the views of an individual. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) is pressing that point.
      I am talking about the relationship between the European People's party and the Conservative party. That institutional question goes to the heart of article 138a which says:
      "Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union."
      The European People's party is manifestly a political party at European level, which is important as a factor for integration within the union because it espouses a united states of Europe. Nothing could be clearer than that.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I wish, as always, to be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman in his dialogue with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). Surely there is a big difference between two members being members of the same long-established party and someone who makes a conscious decision to join another party which, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said, has federalism as a clear objective.
      Mr. Cash: I am bound to agree with the hon. Gentleman, because it is a deliberate change of direction. I cannot understand it. It causes me, and, indeed, many other people, considerable concern.
      In an article in The Daily Telegraph shortly after the consummation of this marriage, Lord Bethell, who is a member of the European Parliament, set out in an honest way the difficulties which were inherent in that significant shift of position.
      508
      Nevertheless, it is an important matter and it goes to the heart of article 138a, considering the importance of the Conservative party to the people in the United Kingdom and those of us who, in terms of this treaty, would regard our position as firmly based on the principles of Conservatism and of the Tory party. In standing up for our constitutional arrangements and for the voters, we do not want to see these powers shifted in the direction to which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber referred.
      Voters will continue to insist on their right, not out of any theoretical, theological or even constitutional approach but simply because the basis on which we are elected represents a practical footing on which we can serve our constituents. When our constituents make decisions, the decisions are truly theirs, as reflected through Members of Parliament in this House and Ministers who form the Government. That will be taken away under stage 2 of economic and monetary union.
      Stage 2 will come into effect on 1 January 1994. If the treaty is ratified, it is barely nine months until the provisions take effect. It is precisely for those reasons, and many others, that I object so strongly to the provisions of the treaty.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend believe that those on both Front Benches appreciate the full impact of the treaty's provisions? Having recently returned from Denmark, I know that the understanding of the Danish people of the impact of the Maastricht treaty is extremely different from our perception of its impact in the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend believe that those on the Front Benches realise the dramatic constitutional changes which will result from this amendment?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Cash: From the way in which the debate has been conducted, I have the gravest doubts whether that point is fully appreciated and understood. I would go further and say that the idea of our handing over those powers—the right of decision and the freedom of choice of our voters —to other arrangements would create a completely new dimension, which would break down the basis on which our democratic system operates.
      It is a snare and a delusion that the transfer of powers could, in the context of the European Parliament, be conducted by such remote-controlled methods as having people from the 12 member states—it is intended to increase the number of member states possibly to 20 or 35 —sitting in chambers, all with completely different languages and not being able to debate matters as we do in the House but by reading out almost set speeches, and thus provide the democratic cohesive force for the people of Europe.
      The whole system would collapse—not only would monetary union collapse, but the democratic system would not bear it. It would not be a proper democratic system. It would be a camouflage, it would be cosmetic and it would be an invitation to authoritarianism, partly because the powers would be conferred on unelected bankers, partly because the monetary union would collapse and partly because there would be no sufficient democratic system to sustain decisions. It would be an invitation to a form of fascism.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman's arguments would have much more validity and credibility if he did not belong to and support a Government who are in the process of privatising government in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) talked about accountability of this Parliament to the constituents outside and the possibility of constituents coming here with complaints, yet they entirely support the process of privatising government in the United Kingdom. For example, all hon. Members know that one cannot go directly to the Secretary of State for Social Security with problems: one must go to one of the agencies which have been set up. At least my hon. Friends are defending the powers of this Parliament from a non-hypocritical base.
      Mr. Cash: I have some difficulty in understanding the connection between privatisation and the powers of the European Parliament, the European Commission and so on. In passing, I would say that privatisation appears to be popular in other parts of the European Community and I hope it succeeds.
      Mr. Hoon: I shall take the hon. Gentleman back a little. Far be it from me to intervene in Staffordshire squabbles. Will not the hon. Gentleman have a little difficulty next year in the European elections because, having criticised the European People's party so forcibly, his party is in the process of agreeing to a joint manifesto with the European People's party, and because Conservative candidates will stand on that manifesto? How will the hon. Gentleman vote in support of those candidates?
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is raising a problem which is not of my making. I am merely pointing out the increasing contradictions of this continuing process, as I have done in the past two or three years in private meetings, party meetings upstairs and, indeed, on the Floor of the House. I have the greatest difficulty in understanding how the matter will be resolved, because at the bottom line there is a fundamental contradiction.
      At the party conference, the Prime Minister said that we would not have a federal Europe—over our dead bodies, as it were. At the same time, we have an arrangement under which Conservative Members of the European Parliament will join the European People's party. Politics is full of strange chemistries and I have no doubt that somebody will try to resolve them. I simply regard the matter as extremely unfortunate and regrettable. I sincerely hope that the process, which has gone too far already, will be reversed.
      Mr. Gapes: Could the hon. Gentleman perhaps explain why the Conservative party spent so much time trying to join the European People's party and why the former Member for Bath was so determined to sign up to an organisation which, in its policy statements, committed its member parties to work for the federal Europe which the hon. Member for Stafford so detests? Could the hon. Gentleman give us his views on that matter?
      Mr. Cash: I found it somewhat surprising that Mr. Volker Rühe canvassed on behalf of my erstwhile right hon. Friend in his constituency, but I hope that friendship betokened more than a complete symmetry of policy.
      Mr. Cormack: I canvassed in my hon. Friend's by-election.
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend says that he canvassed in my by-election, for which I shall remain eternally grateful, just as I am grateful to him for teaching me that I should refer to "Parlee-ament" rather than "Parliament".
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend correctly says that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the party conference that we would enter a federal Europe over his dead body. Is it possible that my right hon. Friend's speech writer was misinformed when he wrote the speech? I understand that the Prime Minister also said at the party conference:
      "Immigration? Immigration policy is specifically excluded under the Maastricht Treaty."
      Title VI says that immigration policy can be a European policy
      "on the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission".
      The treaty says under article K that the Commission should be associated with immigration policy. So my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was misled at least once or twice by the speech writer who wrote his speech for the party conference.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is obvious that my appeal a few moments ago for short interventions has fallen on deaf ears. I shall not fail to intervene from now on if interventions are too long.
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North reminds me of the constitutional adage, "The King can do no wrong," so we must assume that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been sadly misled by his advisers on this matter. But that also applies to the legal basis on which we have been proceeding with the treaty. The division of powers among the Parliament, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Court of Auditors, all of which are matters within this grouping of amendments, depends on the legal and constitutional nature of the attributes which will be given to the various treaty articles, not merely as a matter of opinion but as a matter of law.
      We are creating a legal framework. The European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction in the matters that we are discussing. There will be a new judocracy. Decisions will be taken by political judges. We shall undoubtedly deal with the European Court of Justice in a further group of amendments. On their own admission, the Government got their legal advice badly wrong in respect of the social chapter and the constitutional implications of amendment No. 27—whether it would wreck the treaty. As I have said repeatedly, and written on several occasions, the basis on which the treaty has been devised and sold to the British electorate is based on completely wrong legal advice.
      The Maastricht treaty is a centralising measure and nothing else. It is apparent to people throughout Europe that it is a centralising treaty. They want it to be a centralising treaty. Yet we continually hear from those who wish the treaty to be ratified that it is not. They will say so until the moment comes when the final page of the treaty and the debates are closed—if that ever happens —but then we shall be told that of course the treaty had the consequences which we predicted. There will be no way of preventing those consequences.
      Mr. Hoon indicated assent.
      Mr. Cash: I see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) nodding his head. He knows that what I say is true.

      511
      He has a distinctive contribution to make to our debates, because he knows and understands the current thinking in Europe probably better than anyone else in the House. I have listened to his interesting speeches with great care because he can tell us a great deal about what is really going on. He knows, as I do, that the treaty is a centralising measure to create a European union.
      Many people do not want us to say a word. They want us to keep quiet. They want us to say nothing to the people of Britain. Yet we shall say what we have to say, because we are telling the truth about the treaty.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend said a few moments ago that Volker Rühe had canvassed in the constituency of my former right hon. Friend who sadly lost his seat at the last election. He also said that the treaty had been sold to the British people under a particular prospectus. Does he believe that there is any connection between the sad loss of the Bath seat by the Conservative party and the fact that the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend referred canvassed for our former right hon. Friend?
      Mr. Cash: Far be it for me to imagine for a moment that that might have been the case. However, there appears to be some connection. I am sure that it was based on friendship and hope, rather than any comity of political interests.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend knows, as I know., that the anti-market candidate in Bath obtained about 140 votes. That answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
      Does my hon. Friend accept that his misleading claim that the treaty is a centralising measure is a fig leaf for the fact that he voted for the Single European Act, which was, in many senses, a centralising measure, and which introduced qualified majority voting? The Maastricht treaty restrains those powers. The treaty of European union underlines that the treaty of Rome is no longer simply a pillar around which European union is built: there are intergovernmental pillars too. My hon. Friend has got it all wrong.
      Mr. Cash: I am always delighted to take an intervention from my hon. Friend. He and I debate these matters in the House and in public meetings both within and outside the House. Clearly, we arrive at different conclusions. However, I wish that at least on one occasion my hon. Friend would be good enough to explain how the creation of a central bank for the whole of Europe, with all the powers set out, does not centralise. When he can answer that question—
      Mr. Ian Taylor: Wait for my speech.
      Mr. Cash: I hope that his speech will address that question. It is impossible to prove that a central bank for the whole of Europe such as that devised under the Maastricht treaty is not a centralising bank, and therefore that the treaty is not a centralising measure. I have the greatest difficulty in understanding my hon. Friend's point, but I am perfectly prepared to listen to his argument later.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: My hon. Friend's emphasis on the centralising nature of the treaty is sound. Under article 3b, once it is discovered that a matter is within the exclusive competence of the
      512
      Community, it will not be possible to consider subsidiarity. So subsidiarity as a means of destroying centralisation will operate in a minute sector.
      Mr. Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a double deception in the concept, first, that the treaty is not a centralising measure, and, secondly, that we can fall back on subsidiarity. As my hon. Friend will recall, one of the prime tenets of subsidiarity and one of its so-called attractions is that it will bring decisions closer to the citizen. Nothing could possibly take powers further from the citizen—his most important power is his right to vote —than to transfer the power to make decisions on monetary matters, which is accumulated in aggregate among the voters in a general election, and hand them over to unelected, unaccountable bankers. The whole thing is not only a contradiction but a fraud. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), for that and many other reasons.
      Mr. Marlow: May I say with all the sincerity that I can bring to bear that we forgive my hon. Friend for voting for the Single European Act. I remember the circumstances. We were told that the Act was all to do with the single market and nothing else. Now we are told that that was when we sold the pass and gave away the power. The Government told us one thing then and tell us another thing now. Now they tell us that Maastricht is not a centralising treaty. Do we believe them?
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend gets very exercised over this point. With respect to the Single European Act, there is a fundamental difference between that treaty and this. It lies in this point.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: I have caught my hon. Friend on a raw nerve.
      7 pm
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) says that he caught me on a raw nerve. If the day comes that people think they have caught me on a raw nerve on this subject, it will be a day to remember. It is not going to happen. I have no problem with the Single European Act. The Maastricht treaty is primarily about government; the Single European Act is primarily about trading relations.
      The qualified majority voting and trading arrangements which are within the Single European Act were necessary, in my judgment, for freeing trading relations within Europe. I have no difficulty with that, in principle, in law or in practice. Unfortunately, the Single European Act and the single market have been in need of considerable improvement. Unfortunately, the opportunity was not taken in the run-up to the Maastricht treaty to create a level playing field and get rid of the wrinkles that exist. I am glad that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is looking into this, and I hope that its report will be well worth reading.
      Mr. Lord: We know how difficult it is for people outside the Committee to understand what we are talking about. I am deeply concerned about some very simple things which are being missed or confused, deliberately or accidentally. My hon. Friend is touching on one now. The common market, the single European Act, is one issue, mostly to do with trade. What we are talking about now is European union and political union. It is an entirely

      513
      different matter. Sometimes Ministers at the Dispatch Box will say that Members of this House are in favour of the Maastricht treaty or that they want to come out of Europe altogether. The truth is that the views of most people in this country lie exactly between those two extremes. They want a common market, and they want nothing to do with the Maastricht treaty.
      Mr. Cash: I could not agree more. There has been a significant smear campaign on the basis that some of us who want this country to be taken out of the single market. I find that extraordinary, because we all know that the arrangements, the treaty obligations, between the 12 member states lock us and the other member states into an arrangement under the Single European Act, which amended the treaty of Rome, from which the other member states cannot legally withdraw.
      Therefore, without our agreement, we would continue to remain in the single market and it is a complete and utter disgrace that some people go around—I do not know who they are, but we hear about them—suggesting that those of us who do not want the Maastricht treaty to go through could in some way damage the prospects of British business by our being forced out of the single market. That is untrue and unsustainable. I see that the Minister of State is bobbing up and down, and I am more than delighted to give way, as ever.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: In order to help my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), just in case any misapprehension is allowed to take root that the Single European Act was simply about the common market, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) who supported it will confirm, will he not, among the many other political objectives and achievements of the Single European Act is that it was there that European political co-operation, the beginning of what we now call the common foreign security policy, was set up. That is an achievement which our right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher claimed as her own, in this very Chamber.
      Mr. Cash: Indeed. I am glad to be able to confirm that I entirely agree; while my right hon. Friend was out of the Chamber I referred to that point. The point he makes—that the Single Act provides for a degree of political co-operation—is a provision to which I did not object at the time. My concern is that this treaty takes the whole situation to a completely different dimension.
      Irrespective of this illusion that we are now going to create new pillars outside the treaty of Rome—which, as 1 have said in previous debates, do not touch the substance of the matter—that we would be locked into European guidelines and joint action plans and things like that which will deny us the control over our own affairs that we at present enjoy and which I think we should keep—I am happy to give way to the Minister again.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The general point I am trying to establish, as a help to my hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central, is that it is simply an illusion to pretend that the Single European Act was only about the single market. It was about a great deal more than that; I have simply cited European political co-operation as one area. My hon. Friend is right to point
      514
      out that it was inevitable, when such a huge amount of qualified majority voting was allowed under the Single European Act, that we should seek, and have successfully achieved in a number of areas such as transport and training, to claw back a simple majority and push it up to qualified majority voting. Admirable though the Single European Act was, we have discovered some defects in it, on which we have sought to improve in the Maastricht treaty.
      Mr. Cash: I do not think my right hon. Friend has managed to do anything of the kind. What we have experienced is concessions dressed up as negotiations. The reality is that, although the single market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk. Central (Mr. Lord) said, is at the heart of the Single European Act, there are a number of peripheral matters and some increased political co-operation which I was prepared to go along with. However, there was nothing of the kind in this treaty.
      The Minister will know that title II of the Single European Act, which deals—in brackets, I may add—with the words "economic and monetary union", is based on co-operation. These powers are carefully constrained. Were they not, and if the Minister were correct in his argument, there would be no need for this treaty and for this Bill. If they did everything that the Minister is now claiming for the Single European Act, we would have no need of this treaty. Then we would really be wasting our time.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Some of us in this Chamber did not vote for the Single European Act even at that time, but we were then promised that it would mean, 1 think the term was, thousands of jobs for the United Kingdom. We now hear from our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, if we do not sign the Maastricht treaty, we shall lose thousands of jobs. Can my hon. Friend or any other Member quote any jobs which will be lost if we do not ratify the treaty? I do not know of any.
      Mr. Cash: The one thing that would worry me, and does worry me, about signing this treaty is that the political union that is being created is a powerful motive force towards protectionism. If anybody, including the Minister for Industry who is about to pop up, imagines that the idea that we would be able to sustain the harm that would come from the protectionism of a fortress Europe, given the present state of mind in the United States and elsewhere—if those tariff barriers were put up against us and if we were to remember, as we should, that we are running a deficit of £15 billion a year with the European Community—and if, in addition to that loss, we were to find ourselves hemmed in by that Maastricht-type community, with all the protectionism that many of us fear, we would lose all that external and global trading which would decimate the very areas which are most prosperous in our manufacturing and other industries.
      The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) about jobs that might be lost. It is quite clear that the great success that Britain has had in attracting inward investment, particularly from Japan and the United States, is substantially attributable to companies from those countries wishing to locate in Britain because we are part of the single market and play a central role in the way that market operates and develops. I find it

      515
      strange that my hon. Friend seems willing to ignore the almost universal view of industry that signing the Maastricht treaty would be a major advantage to industry and employment.
      Mr. Cash: I find the Minister's intervention most interesting. Only recently, a senior diplomat from one of the largest Commonwealth countries told me that he was concerned about protectionism and the dangers to his country's investments in the United Kingdom, and vice versa, of our going down that route. However, perhaps I should return to the institutions and get away from the implications of the powers of the single market.
      Mr. Marlow: Was it not grossly insulting to our European partners for the Minister to make those remarks? We are and wish to remain part of the single market, and our European partners have treaty obligations with regard to the single market. If we do not sign the Maastricht treaty, how can the single market be taken from us? If I can move on to another point that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is testing my patience now. I hope that it is not necessary for me to intervene again. I ask Mr. Cash to continue his speech.
      Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Cash: Not this time. I think that you, Mr. Lofthouse, would appreciate it if, for a short time, we had fewer interventions.
      I wish to examine the nature of the Commission. The idea that the European Commission is simply a bureaucratic body stuffed with civil servants is a gross misrepresentation. It is grossly over-represented by bureaucratic officials, but the Commissioners are all politicians, not merely civil servants.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I apologise for intervening so frequently in his speech, but the Committee will be interested to pursue this point. He continues to believe that the Single European Act was a good treaty, we could stand by it and it would serve our interests. He owes it to the House and the country, as he is advocating non-ratification of this treaty, to tell us whether he has discussed the prospect of sitting on the Single European Act with other member states, with people he can name or with our right hon. and noble Friend Lord Tebbit? If he is putting forward an alternative strategy for our country, he has an obligation to the Committee to tell us what it is.
      Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Some of us are finding it rather tiresome to have the debate focused on the irrelevancies of the Single European Act when the subject of the debate is clearly the institutions and the effect of the Maastricht treaty upon them.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I note the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I agree with him.
      Mr. Cash: It is most important that we should concentrate upon the institutional powers, but the Minister has a total obsession with the Single European Act, and he continually refers back to it. However, we are patient, and we have a good sense of humour. As the
      516
      Minister is about to retire from his present post, he will soon have other things to occupy him, so we can put up with him, at any rate for the time being.
      The Commission is not simply a bureaucratic body, because the Commissioners are politicians. We have already seen the difficulties encountered by Mr. Ray MacSharry and Mr. Jacques Delors and other Commissioners when they put their national interests ahead of their commitment to the European Commission.
      7.15 pm
      I understand that we are now to increase considerably the powers of the European Commission. The Minister and others claim that we are cutting back on those powers, but that is not my impression. The Commission's right of initiative is in no way altered under the treaty. The idea that the Commission will somehow exercise less power under the new arrangements than under the Single European Act is a complete illusion.
      Dr. Godman: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman urged us to be patient. As one of his more patient listeners here tonight, may I ask when he will come to the heart of the matter, which is the distribution of political power among the institutions and parliaments of the European Community? Any enhancement of the power of the European Parliament must to some extent lead to a diminution in the power exercised by other institutions, and perhaps national parliaments.
      Mr. Cash: I have already dealt with that point, but I am happy to remind the hon. Gentleman of it. He must have been out of the Chamber at the time.
      Dr. Godman: I have not left the Chamber.
      Mr. Cash: In that case, he has not been listening carefully.
      The powers of the national parliament should not simply have been relegated to a protocol, an annex or an agreement at the back of the treaty. They should have been at its centre if the treaty were to have any self-respect whatsoever. The powers of national parliaments in relation to the European Community needed to be increased, not reduced. The encouragement that our Government were supposed to give other member states to increase the scrutiny and quality of European legislation by means of proper investigation by elected representatives of the people should have been a prime objective in filling the democratic deficit contained in the treaty.
      The treaty is authoritarian, undemocratic and socialist in most of its characteristics. There is something fundamentally wrong with the basis on which the treaty was negotiated and the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is entirely valid. The object of the treaty is not to increase democracy in Europe. Far from it: it is to create an impression that democracy will be increased. But there is not real determination to increase the powers of national parliaments within the European Community.
      If there had been a real commitment to it, all member states would have been required to scrutinise the legislation properly in the way in which we do in Britain, even if we do so somewhat imperfectly. In France, it is done by decree, and in many member states there is no serious attempt to investigate it. That system is a travesty for Europe, let alone for the United Kingdom.

      517
      I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. For many years we have both been members of the Select Committee on European Legislation and know that other member states are somewhat less effective in their scrutiny of such legislation, even allowing for the fact that we could doubtless improve our efforts.
      Dr. Derek Enright: In what way is Danish scrutiny less effective than ours? I should have thought that it was infinitely more effective.
      Mr. Cash: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who is also a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, has mentioned the Danish Parliament, and I agree that the Folketing is a first-class Parliament. The Westminster and Danish Parliaments are at the end of the queue for ratification because we are both determined to scrutinise the legislation properly, even though hon. Members on both sides of the House wish that we would not do so. They are trying to deny the people of this country the opportunity of a debate, because they are not participating in it.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House in 1972 when the original European Communities Bill was enacted. Those who were will recollect that many of us tried to amend that Bill to provide the sort of safeguards that have not been provided. The amendment was defeated by the then Conservative Government.
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman merely reaffirms the disgraceful way in which the Danish people have been treated. Their constitution allowed a referendum, which clearly should have dispatched the matter, but certain people were not prepared to accept the result, so they will have to have another. Dubious and questionable opt-outs are being scrutinised by lawyers throughout Europe, not least in Denmark.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is a bit thick for the hon. Gentleman to say that it was disgraceful that the referendum result was not accepted, as his stand is a rejection of the referendum result in this country.
      Mr. Cash: I am having great difficulty in understanding what the hon. Gentleman is saying—perhaps I had better pass on to another subject. He seems to think that we have had a referendum on the treaty. I would advocate such a referendum. Perhaps he was giving me an inkling of what he would really like. If we had a referendum on mere trading arrangements in 1975, I am sure that he would agree that we should have one on the Maastricht arrangements. I am indebted to him for his remarks.
      Mr. Rowe: The oft-repeated assertion that the referendum was held on trading arrangements simply does not stand examination. One only has to consider the publicity posted through letterboxes during the referendum, the White Paper and all the debates to realise that that suggestion does not stand examination.
      Mr. Cash: The 1970 White Paper is the strangest joke to have been perpetrated on the people of this country. It is extraordinary to suggest that that White Paper was not riddled with deception. At the time, we were assured that
      518
      there would be no erosion of national sovereignty, no federation and no loss of a veto. Even the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) must understand, from studying the provisions in the White Paper, that what we face now is diametrically opposed to what was contained in it. If I were him, I would not call on the White Paper to aid my arguments.
      Mr. Lord: Is not that the issue that is causing all the confusion? My hon. Friend was making a point about the referendum, but that was held on the European Economic Community—the common market. The people of this country voted for a common market, and that is what they understand. They did not vote for anything else, which is Why—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It might be a good idea for the Committee to return to the subject of institutions.
      Mr. Cash: Although my hon. Friend's argument is important and reasonable, because of the difference between the arrangements that we entered into between 1970 and 1975 and those in the treaty, the key point about this part of the Bill is that European institutions would be granted increased powers which would cover all aspects of government, whereas in the 1975 referendum we voted primarily on trading arrangements.
      Another aspect of the question of institutional powers is the degree of independence of the Commission. Throughout Europe, institutional arrangements are moving towards more power for unelected and unaccountable officials, who will determine questions that should be determined by the people of the respective countries. That is one reason why there is so much anxiety about the Maastricht treaty and the way in which those powers have been growing. Unelected and unaccountable bankers, Commission officials and members of the Court of Justice are included in the provisions. Some Members wish to ignore that but the treaty significantly increases the powers of the Court of Justice, the Commission and the other bureaucratic institutions.
      There is no question of the powers of the European Parliament filling the democratic deficit that is being created, and there is no doubt that the powers of bankers and the Court of Justice are increasing. Some hon. Members are dealing with such issues, but there is no evidence that Ministers and many other hon. Members appreciate the extent to which they are handing over the running of this country to people who have not been elected and will not be accountable—people who do not necessarily have any interest in the way in which we are governed.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: The hon. Gentleman is trying to create the illusion that there will be no constraints on the shift in power from member states to the Community. He has not mentioned article 3b and the way in which powers will be constrained. I refer him to the words:
      "The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred".
      The text also makes it clear that the onus of proof that powers should be removed from member states is on those who would remove them—not the other way around. That represents an important restriction on the ability to shift powers, and the hon. Gentleman has not referred to it at all.
      Mr. Cash: The results that the hon. Gentleman hopes for from subsidiarity will not be forthcoming. By definition, subsidiarity assumes centralisation; otherwise, there would be nothing to which it could apply. It is a cosmetic exercise: it is a con trick. It is an attempt to give the impression that there will be a greater diffusion of powers to lower levels, whereas in practice the real concession is to the centralising tendencies of the unelected Commission, Court of Justice and bankers. There will be far less opportunity for subsidiarity to take effect than the hon. Gentleman would like. From all the areas in which exclusive competence has been granted under the treaty to these institutions and bodies, subsidiarity is automatically excluded, so there is little to which it can be meaningfully attached.
      People are running around trying to tear up, for the time being, several European directives, but they are not changing the powers being granted under this treaty—a treaty which will greatly increase the powers both of the institutions and of the Community itself.
      I regard this group of amendments as yet another reason for my decision, already taken, that I do not want us to ratify this treaty, which is centralising, undemocratic, authoritarian and socialist in all its main characteristics.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Shore: 1 have wondered at times during this two and a half hour debate whether we have focused clearly enough on the question of the institutions. I shall try to be brief and to the point.
      Against the background of a treaty of a federal character, which is what this treaty is, it is inevitable that the institutions set up under the Rome treaty and subsequent treaties and under the treaty of union should be strengthened. The powers of the union, the powers of the quasi-state, are expressed, after all, in its institutions. The institutions which most clearly reflect the federal character of the treaty are the European Parliament and the Commission.
      I turn first, however, to the Council of Ministers. Both it and its powers are certainly affected by what is contained in the Maastricht treaty. Virtually the only safeguard that the nation state has against encroachment by Community powers under the Rome treaty is the unanimity rule—that is to say, the rule under which the agreement of all Ministers representing member states has to be obtained before a directive becomes law and before policy is implemented.
      The trouble is that the unanimity rule is being weakened all the time—first, and unfortunately, under the Single European Act. I shall not go into a great debate about that, but under it the rule was removed from a whole range of areas, especially those affecting the creation of a single market.
      The Maastricht treaty removes the unanimity rule from areas of policy to which it used to apply—and from all the areas listed under article 3, for which new competence is handed over to the European Community.
      Mr. Hoon: The treaty as originally drafted provided for qualified majority voting. The unanimity rule to which my right hon. Friend refers was developed in a form known as the Luxembourg compromise by member states; it was a practice, not a rule in the way that he implies.
      Mr. Shore: I respect my hon. Friend's knowledge of the treaties, but I think that he will find that, apart from the famous Gaullist Luxembourg compromise, the treaty of Rome contains far more articles requiring the unanimity rule than articles requiring qualified majority voting. We need not argue too long about that, however. The important thing is to note the new areas of Community competence.
      First there are the old ones: agriculture, fisheries, transport, common commercial policy, free movement of goods, persons and services. Then there are the new areas: economic and social cohesion, environment policy, research and technology development, development of trans-European networks, health protection, contribution to education and training, policy in the sphere of development co-operation, contribution to the strengthening of consumer protection, and energy, civil protection and tourism measures. Nearly all these are new policy areas brought under the qualified majority voting procedures as developed under articles 189b and 189c of the Maastricht treaty.
      It follows that the ability of a Minister on the Council of Ministers to veto developments, given the new arid wider areas of treaty competence, has been removed. Ministers can no longer veto or demand unanimity. Wherever qualified majority voting is agreed, the powers of national Parliaments to hold Ministers to account are virtually abandoned, because Ministers can always turn up and say, "I did my best but I was outvoted by a qualified majority vote; I could not stick to the position which I know my own Parliament wanted me to retain."
      As we are to deal separately in another debate with economic and monetary union and with all three stages thereof, I need not do more than mention the qualified majority voting in economic and monetary union, which is also enshrined in the treaty. That union covers matters of great importance.
      I want to mention the powers of the Commission and also to focus mainly on the European Parliament. The powers of the Commission are also extended to all the new competences established under the Maastricht amendments to the Rome treaty. The Commission retains its powers as sole initiator of policy and its responsibility for enforcement. In one area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned, under stage 3 of economic and monetary union the Commission is given powers of a formidable kind. They are powers to propose fines and penalties for member states when it is held that they are in breach of treaty obligations. That will lead to an interesting shift in the power relations between the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
      The most important changes, however, are in the powers and procedures of the European Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton began referring to the right of petition and the establishment of the office of ombudsman. Those are trivial powers, and I do not believe the European Parliament needs the Maastricht treaty to establish such rights and offices. Indeed, petition rights are already in force, so I thought it rather odd to concentrate on the most trivial of all the increased powers given to the European Parliament.
      The more important aspects of the European Parliament's powers are the procedures under articles 189b and 189c of the treaty. Under article 189b, the so-called co-decision procedure greatly elevates the powers of the European Parliament in relation to the Council of

      521
      Ministers and to the Commission. Henceforth, under article 189b—this includes those matters which are to be resolved by the procedures set out in the article—the European Parliament will have the right to reject a Council proposal, whether it is a majority, a qualified majority or a unanimous decision. The Parliament will have the right to reject the proposal outright by means of a majority vote of its Members. After all procedures have been exhausted, the European Parliament still possesses the right—on Third Reading, as it were—to vote down a Council proposal.
      As the Committee will know, a conciliation committee is to be established, with equal numbers from the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, to negotiate differences between the two bodies when amendments have been proposed and not accepted. This represents a substantial shift of power in favour of the European Parliament.
      Extension of powers will not stop there. It is interesting and significant to read paragraph 8 of article 189b, which states:
      "The scope of the procedure under this Article may be widened, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article N(2) of the Treaty on European Union, on the basis of a report to be submitted to the Council by the Commission by 1996 at the latest."
      There we have it. By "1996 at the latest" there will be brought forward to the Council a proposal for changing or developing further the procedure of co-decision. Undoubtedly, the Council will be in favour of enhancing the powers of the Parliament.
      Mr. Hoon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in practice the powers of the European Parliament to which he refers, because they are negative, are extremely difficult to exercise? If the European Parliament rejects a legislative proposal, that is the abandonment of, probably, many years of legislative effort. The existing powers to reject legislation have seldom been exercised.
      Mr. Shore: The European Parliament has the power to stymie the Council of Ministers. I think that I agree with my hon. Friend because I believe that this will be an unsatisfactory procedure. I am not in the least surprised, therefore, that provisions are already in place to allow for further amendment and development, which I think will be along the way that I have suggested—increased power for the European Parliament.
      Given the importance of the new procedure for co-decision under article 189b, and taking account of the long periods—three months and an additional six weeks—allowed for reaching agreement between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, I and others have tabled new clause 21, to which I draw the attention of the Committee. It requires that a report shall be made to the United Kingdom Parliament whenever a common position agreed by the Council of Ministers has been rejected by the European Parliament but is still within the negotiating frame. The new clause will give the House of Commons a decent opportunity to question and challenge Ministers on their policy and on the new policy that they intend to adopt in the light of a veto, or the threat of a veto, by the European Parliament.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I ask my right hon. Friend a question from the pro-European position. Given
      522
      his experience as a distinguished Secretary of State for the Environment—one of the successful ones of the past two decades—does he accept that there is an argument for having a European-based policy on pollution which can be enforced? We know from the east German experience that pollution knows no frontiers.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Shore: The strongest case is the environmental one, but I put it to my hon. Friend that there is an entirely unthought-through division, as it were, of responsibilities for environmental matters now in the hands of the Community which should reside in the United Kingdom. We must decide whether we are to have more roads running through the United Kingdom. Similarly, we must determine our policy towards flora and fauna and the protection of them. That is our responsibility, and we should exercise it. Unfortunately, we sometimes fail to do so. We should not hand over such powers to a European body.
      On the other hand, there must be some shared responsibilities—for example, the regulation of shipping in the channel. I suspect, however, that most of the environmental matters that my hon. Friend and I are concerned about are not for determination by the Community. That is because they are international matters. We must reach out and make major decisions and agreements on the ozone layer and other issues that concern us as citizens of the United Kingdom, of western Europe and of the world. We have a responsibility, and that should influence us. The idea that all these matters should be crammed into or transferred to a European body is nonsensical.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, who is touching on something that is of importance to the Committee and, indeed, to the House of Commons. He is talking about how the House of Commons will scrutinise and undertake its level of responsibility in all matters European. The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is rare for an element of procedure to be included in an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman's argument surprises me because he knows that appropriate Standing Committees have been established, which are doing their work. The House of Commons may wish to improve on those Committees as it gains experience. I would be surprised to see a piece of legislation—an Act of Parliament which is essentially a European Act of Parliament to do with Europe—dictating the procedures of the House of Commons. That which the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting may be sensible—indeed, it is the proper route for the House of Commons to take—but it does not need to be told to follow it in an Act of Parliament. I would contend that such a measure would slightly inhibit the House of Commons.
      Mr. Shore: The Minister is advancing an argument similar to the one that he adduced earlier when he said that he did not understand why any Act or any intervention should be introduced or made to take place which bore on our procedures, even if it meant the simple requirements of an annual report and a debate. I do not agree. The accountability of Ministers when operating in a European context should be made plain at an early stage. I agree that

      523
      much can be done by implementing the procedures of the House of Commons, and those procedures should be clear in our minds at that early stage.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Shore: No, I will not. It is a relatively small point. It is not the substance or essence of the matter, which rests with the powers of the European institutions.
      Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Shore: No, I shall be rigorous.
      I have quoted from articles 189b and c, which are important, but I want to look further ahead. Anyone who has followed the debates and resolutions of the European Parliament can have no doubt about its ambitions for the structure of the European union which it so tirelessly advocates.
      In a resolution passed on 7 April 1992—after the Maastricht treaty had been signed in Maastricht—the European Parliament gave its verdict on the treaty in one of the enormously lengthy resolutions that it passes and clearly foreshadowed its future course of action. The task, as it put it, was to
      "transform the network of relations between the peoples and member countries into a European Union on a Federal basis, based on a draft constitution drawn up by the European Parliament in co-operation with the National Parliaments."
      The resolution was approved by a clear majority of the European Parliament, to which the Institutional Affairs Committee, as it is called, reported.
      Mr. Rogers: My right hon. Friend draws attention to the recent resolution on the intentions of the European Parliament. However, since 1979 when the directly-elected Parliament came into existence, there have been similar resolutions on a number of occasions, the most famous of which resulted in the adoption of the Spinelli report in the early 1980s, which set out a blueprint for European federalism and is the basis of the Single European Act and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. There is no doubt at all about the intentions. Whether one agrees with them is another matter.
      Mr. Shore: It is important that we do know what the intentions are. Federalism is not the recessive part of the European movement, but the dominant part. Federalism is openly espoused on the continent of Europe in virtually every country and it has the backing and blessing of most governmental leaders of the member countries of the EC.
      The resolution continued—I quote again because it is important—as follows:
      "to begin already preparations for a new revision of the Treaties which would aim to eliminate the shortcomings of the Treaty of Maastricht."
      No time is to be wasted. Maastricht has not yet been ratified. Finally, it instructs its Institutions Committee
      "to complete its preparation of a draft constitution for the European Union."
      That was in April 1992 and the European Parliament has moved on since then. The main work has been done by its so-called Institutions Committee and its report on "Structure and Strategy" for European union was agreed by the European Parliament as recently as 20 January this year. Once again, I think that the House should be given some information on the content of that document.
      Mr. Gapes: My right hon. Friend will know, because we were at the same meeting a few weeks ago with members of the institutions committee of the European Parliament, that that was the aspiration. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, that had clearly been the aspiration for many years. Nevertheless, it is clear that a change in the treaty will require an inter-governmental conference and a process in 1996 or 1997.
      Mr. Shore: Yes, we know that. I am simply making the intention plain to the House—the fact that it has the support of the majority of the European Parliament, the fact that the same federal thrust is backed by the Heads of Government of most of the countries of the EC, and that it is perfectly plain to everyone except the Government and their supporters that that is the real intention. All the people who are serious about federalism in Europe and want it do not deny that for a moment. That is true of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). He is a federalist, recognises federalism when he sees it and does not try to hide the consequences of what we are doing. I much respect his position, but I have no respect at all for those who pretend and dare not face the British people and the House with the real purposes that they have in mind.
      Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Shore: No.
      Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would be rigorous and not give way. He has now given way to two colleagues but will not give way to a Conservative Member who has a legitimate question.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for me. It is a matter for the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) whether he gives way.
      Mr. Shore: I want to develop some of the main points contained in the document on "Structure and Strategy" for European union. It is of interest to the House to know the following. With regard to the Council of Ministers, the document says:
      "its development into a second legislative chamber in the sense of a genuine chamber of states and alongside the European Parliament must be accelerated, with it becoming a standing body of the Union, its meetings on legislative matters held in public and taking majority decisions and co-decisions and on an equal footing with the European Parliament."
      Those words are particularly important. So the Council becomes a second legislative chamber.
      With regard to the Commission, the document says:
      "it must hold Executive power in the European Union and as such must manage the Union's affairs on the basis of the European Union's Laws"—
      and so on. There is no question about the Commission. Its powers are there. It is to be the executive and the authority.
      With regard to the European Parliament itself, the document says:
      "it must collaborate with the Council on the basis of equal rights and powers in all spheres in which the European Union has legislative competence and with respect to all decisions concerning revenue and expenditure."
      Further, and most significantly, it must have
      "considerably enhanced control over Foreign and Security policy …it should be given the right of assent with respect to all fundamental common foreign and security policy

      525
      decisions, in conclusion of international treaties and all decisions adopted unanimously by the Council in the framework of the European union."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) reminded me that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recently took evidence from five members of the European Parliament representing the institutions committee of the European Parliament. It became clear from our exchanges that they were envisaging a federal constitution for the European union, modelled closely on the federal German state with the nation state occupying the role of the German Lander, with the European Parliament fulfilling the role of the Bundestag and representatives of the nation state serving in an upper chamber similar to the Bundesrat. That is the very shape and outline not merely of a constitution but of a familiar federal structure. That is quite interesting. As I say, that was the MEPs' strongly supported view.
      We had some exchanges earlier—I shall not go far into the subject—on subsidiarity and people misunderstanding what is meant by federalism. There is no misunderstanding of what is meant here. It is similar to the German or American systems which we know all about. There is a national assembly, in the case of the Americans, and there is the Bundestag in the case of Germany. Those are the sovereign parliamentary bodies. In both cases, in the Senate and the Bundesrat, there are representatives of the 51 or so states and the different Lander. It is a familiar picture.
      Mr. Dykes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that comparison falls short of the essential components? He has mentioned the Bundestag, the Bundesrat and the Lander, but there is no Bundesregierung—no central government entity. The sovereign member states represented in the right hon. Gentleman's equivalent of the Bundesrat or the upper house, a legislative and policy-forming body, are the sovereign member Governments working freely and voluntarily together in agreed treaty structures, but they remain essentially sovereign member Governments.
      Mr. Shore: The only thing missing from the picture is the government. That is the thing that we have not located. We have the two houses. We have the federal distribution of power, and there is no misunderstanding about what federalism is—the transfer of major strategic powers to the new level of government and central institutions such as banks. The missing link is the government. It is clear that the European Parliament and its members who are considering the matter are still uncertain whether the Commission will remain the executive of the new state and whether the President of the Commission is to be drawn, like the German Federal Chancellor, from the European Parliament—that is certainly one road which some members of the institutions committee strongly advocate —or whether he should be elected directly like an American president. The missing component in the federal structure is the government itself and the authority that the presidency derives either from direct election or from the merging, being one of the members of the majority party in the European Parliament.
      That is how the majority of MEPs see the future. They have at least one coercive weapon, the use of which is actively being discussed now: they have the right of
      526
      approval or veto on new member states seeking to join the EC. The European Parliament is saying that enlargement, which it knows certain countries, including the United Kingdom, are keen on, even of the EFTA applicant countries, will not be allowed unless the federal constitution of the union that it is drawing up, or something close to it, is adopted.
      Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Shore: No, not for the moment.
      All that is made clear in the report of the Institutional Affairs Committee, to which I previously referred, in which it called for
      "an inter-governmental conference to be convened before 1996 and before any decisions are taken on enlargement and to be given a brief to start this process with the involvement of the European Parliament, on the basis of the draft Constitution of the Union in such a way as to ensure that the Union can absorb other European States while strengthening its cohesion, its ability to take decisions and its democratic legitimacy."
      8 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his pursuit of ghosts and phantoms he is reading the equivalent of an early-day motion?
      Mr. Shore: I am not pursuing ghosts or phantoms. I have a little more respect for the European Parliament than the right hon. Gentleman. I occasionally listen to what it says and read the resolutions that it passes. I reject many out of hand, but this report was prepared by the Institutional Affairs Committee and approved recently by a majority in the European Parliament. In addition, we know that the treaty allows for a new intergovernmental conference by 1996. Under article 189b it has already taken on board the fact that the arrangements agreed at that conference will not be sufficient and will have to be developed further. The Minister cannot say that these are ghosts. That will not do. It is time that he spent a little more time thinking about what is going on in Europe instead of telling us a lot of rubbish about how he saved the day for Britain with his clauses on subsidiarity and his two pillars to the treaty.
      Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
      Mr. Shore: I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman again.
      Mr. Marlow: Does not the European Parliament have one overriding objective—to acquire more power? Whatever powers it has it will use to acquire more power, and if we give it more power under the treaty it will be in a stronger position to gain even more power.
      Mr. Shore: It works slightly differently. We are persuaded to agree to an increase in the competence of the Community by which we lose control over our policies, especially those decided by qualified majority voting. We then say that our Ministers are no longer responsible to our Parliament, at which point the European Parliament says: "There is a democratic deficit, which we should be looking after." That is part of the process of transferring power and the ambitions of the European Parliament. I do not blame it for having such ambitions, which are understandable. Indeed, it would be soul-destroying to be

      527
      a member of the European Parliament unless one wished to see the emergence of a federal state in western Europe controlled largely by the European Parliament.
      Mr. Hoon: I am a little concerned that, in describing the Institutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, my right hon. Friend is unintentionally misleading hon. Members. For many years, the Institutional Affairs Committee has proposed a series of blueprints—the Spinelli report, which has been mentioned already, was an example—but what resulted in practice was far short of the blueprint that my right hon. Friend describes. Perhaps, to some extent, he needs to put in context what has happened.
      Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but he must see the Maastricht process in the context of the profound historical developments which have made the thrust to federalism the dominant factor in the Community. The two Germanys have joined together, and the united Germany wishes to enmesh itself in the rest of western Europe. The French, out of fear of a united Germany, are all too anxious to place cords and restraints on Germany, and therefore are prepared to abandon their "Europe des patries" position and advocate federalism in a way which seemed inconceivable three years ago. Against that background, we must judge the movements and initiatives of the European Parliament.
      The European Parliament plans to prevent enlargement of the Community by refusing to sanction a further treaty which admits new members. The Institutional Affairs Committee specifically says that it
      "disagrees with the view expressed in the conclusions of the Lisbon European Councils of 27 June 1992 that enlargement of the Union to include those EFTA states wishing to accede should be completed without further institutional reforms."
      The European Parliament has rejected that. The Lisbon conference recommendation or assertion that it would proceed with enlargement before institutional reform is now explicitly rejected by the Institutional Affairs Committee.
      Mr. Barnes: If Maastricht extends qualified majority voting, and thereby the authority of the Council of Ministers, is the federalist dream of some MEPs really on the cards? This is very important to someone such as me who is opposed to Maastricht but who supports a federal Europe. I might be backing the wrong side. Perhaps I should support Maastricht to realise that federalist dream.
      Mr. Shore: I do not know how best to advise my hon. Friend. I think that he has more reason to be pleased with the Maastricht treaty than I have. The thrust towards a federal union certainly is in the Maastricht treaty.
      I have asked myself the question, as others must: why not have a federal western Europe? If matters currently in the control of our Parliament are being transferred to European institutions, why not give additional power to the European Parliament? I am aware that it has many institutional problems, but does it have the same capacity to develop, change and exercise control and democratic accountability as hon. Members? I rather think not, but —this is the important point—hon. Members are prepared to abide by majority decisions because we all represent the same political community. The community of the United Kingdom gives legitimacy and authority to the laws that are made and passed in Parliament. We accept that that is
      528
      part of the implicit contract. We are British citizens, and we accept the legitimacy of the laws that are democratically made under due process in our Parliament.
      The lie at the heart of the European community is that it is a political community of the same kind when it is riot: we are close, we are allies, we are friends, but we are not part of the same citizenship and involvement that we have and believe in. Because that is the lie at the heart of the Community, Britain should never give up to a majority in the European Parliament the powers that we now exercise in our own Parliament.
      Mr. Bowen Wells: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has made some important points. He has argued that there is a major tendency towards a federal Europe. That tendency is undoubtedly present in Europe. There should be no doubt or difference between us about that thrust, especially in the European Parliament.
      However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that the Maastricht treaty undoubtedly cuts back some of the excessive majority powers given under the Single European Act. That fact is illustrated in many of the clusters of amendments that we have considered and in the clauses themselves.
      The treaty establishes two separate arms of the union —that on foreign affairs and defence policy and that on home affairs, justice and immigration matters. Those arms are not subject to the Commission. They are separate and they are the instruments of national parliaments and the Councils of Ministers. What is so remarkable about the Maastricht treaty is that, in spite of the federal tendencies, whose existence cannot be doubted, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues fought back. The Government have begun to push the European Community in the opposite direction, a direction of which I think the right hon. Gentleman would approve. They have enabled parliaments to reassert and reinforce their power over the Community and the Council of Ministers and, indeed, to join together in understanding the European union.
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend made a fairly bold statement. He said that the Maastricht treaty cut back on the existing powers of European institutions. Perhaps he could give some examples. He then said that the great success of the pillars was that the Commission was not involved in foreign and defence policies or in home affairs policies. However, if he reads the treaty again, he will see that the Commission has the rights of proposal in all areas of policy and that it should be fully associated with all areas of policy. It is stated that the European Parliament shall be fully associated with the pillars, not only with the existing treaty. I get down on my knees and beg my hon. Friend to read the treaty again, because I am sure that he has not fully understood its implications.
      Mr. Wells: I shall not be tempted down that path, because it would distract me from the speech that I wish to make. However, I shall respond to my hon. Friend's comments about the pillars. The pillars are established separately from the treaty of Rome. They are separate from agricultural matters and other sectors in the treaty. The Commission does not have the sole right to institute legislation or make proposals. I acknowledge that there is a separate secretariat to it in the Council of Ministers, so

      529
      the Commission does not provide the civil service for those pillars, but my hon. Friend must accept that the pillars are established separately.
      The point at which I am driving is that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney says, the establishment of the pillars shows a move away from the federal Europe that he so fears.
      Mr. Dykes: I did not want to interrupt my hon. Friend when he was rightly admonishing the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for making such a negative and old-fashioned speech. However, my hon. Friend said that the Maastricht treaty would rein in the majority voting syndrome in the Single European Act. Is that correct? The majority voting proposals in the Single European Act applied only to the first segment of the legislative component, the single market. In that context, during the negotiations between Governments, the British Government were arguing enthusiastically for the acceptance of majority voting. Indeed, they were persuading other Governments to accept it. In that sense, Maastricht builds on the majority voting in other aspects, rather than reducing it from that one component in the Single European Act.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Before my hon. Friend rises—
      Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. May I ask for your ruling? Do I not have to answer one intervention at a time?
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is correct.
      Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is right to say that majority voting was introduced to get the single market established, and it succeeded. He and I are both members of the Select Committee on European Legislation, so we know that majority voting has been extended by various means to cover matters that we had not anticipated. It is apparent from the treaty of Maastricht that the Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), have reined it in and redefined it in several places. I have not rehearsed the exact instances and I shall not consider them in detail now, but the Minister of State has outlined them for the Committee many times during our debates on several clusters of amendments.
      I want to deal with political parties.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: With reference to foreign policy, article J.5(3) states:
      "The Commission shall be fully associated in these tasks."
      With reference to justice and human affairs, article K.4(2) states:
      "The Commission shall be fully associated with the work of the areas referred to in this Title."
      It seems that the Commission has not been squeezed out because it has exhaustive powers.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Wells: The Commission is in a very different position vis-a-vis the two pillars of foreign affairs and security and home affairs and justice. The pillars, as we have called them, are closely associated, but they do not have the sole power of initiation.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend has just said that the Commission is fully associated with the European political co-operation established in the Single European Act. It is useful to member states, but, as has been said, the Commission does not enjoy the sole right of initiative in intergovernmental activities, which it does enjoy in areas of its own exclusive competence.
      Mr. Wells: My main point relates to the inter-development of Community institutions through political parties—
      Mr. Marlow rose—
      Mr. Wells: I shall give way for the last time.
      Mr. Marlow: On reflection, does my hon. Friend not agree that in the areas where the Commission or the institutions have competence, they still have as much competence as they had before? In some areas of existing policy there is more majority voting, so the European institutions have greater competence than before, and in the so-called pillars—areas in which the European institutions had no competence in the past—those institutions now have some degree of competence. Therefore, Community institutions have increased their competence in every area.
      Mr. Wells: The association with such matters—especially foreign affairs—merely reflects what the Commission has been doing for some time. The Commission was present at European Council meetings. It had something to say and its opinion was requested. Indeed, the President of the Commission was often invited to submit papers on those issues to the Council.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: It is correct to say that the Commission is fully associated with European political co-operation. As the Committee will be aware, it is not infrequent in European political co-operation—it will no doubt be frequent in the common foreign and security policy—for decisions to be taken, for example, on association agreements which have a trading element, where there is Commission competence.
      Many hon. Members take a great interest in the issue of interior justice. Community states already meet under something loosely called the Trevi process, which the Commission attends. One of the reasons we believe that it is a step forward in European co-operation on matters of interior justice to put it into the union treaty and make it an intergovernmental activity is that it now defines the Commission's role. If my hon. Friend considers these matters carefully he may be a little disturbed at the way in which the Trevi process has been developing and may be relieved, as I am, that we now have it within the union treaty and properly defined as an intergovernmental activity.
      Mr. Wells: I shall now move on and begin what I would like to say on the issue that arises on the group of amendments and the development of Europe-wide parties. I want to draw the Committee's attention to the declarations at the back of the Maastricht treaty. They may be at the back, but, as we who have sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee and considered the Single European Act have long recognised, they are important, because the preambles and the declarations set out objectives and inform the Court of Justice how to interpret the treaty.

      531
      I want to draw the attention of the Committee, and especially that of those who are worried about the federal tendency of the Community, to the declarations dealing with the conference of parliaments. The Foreign Office's booklet, "Europe after Maastricht", points out on page 18, paragraph 128:
      "Thirty-three declarations are appended to the Treaty on European Union. These are not part of the Treaty but constitute a political commitment and form part of the context of the Treaty for the purposes of its interpretation including the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance as agreements between member states on the interpretation of the Treaty article concerned. These include"
      the declaration on the conference of parliaments. I remind the House that the declaration on the conference of parliaments
      "invites the European Parliament and national parliaments to meet as necessary as a Conference of the Parliaments"
      or assize.
      "The Conference will be consulted on the main features of the European Union, without prejudice to the powers of the European Parliament or the rights of national parliaments."
      The President of the European Council and the President of the Commission will report to each session of the conference of parliaments on the state of the union. The immediately preceding declaration on the role of national parliaments in the European union invites the parliaments to become more involved with the activities of the European union. It says that, to that end, the exchange of information between national parliaments and the European Parliament should be stepped up—and the document continues in that vein.
      As Europe evolves, we should control it, direct it and play our part in it. I suggest that we did that for the first time in the negotiation of the Maastricht treaty, in which we played a central role. Thus, we got much of what we wanted to see into the treaty, including a move away from the federal tendency of many of the other parts of Europe. We did that by negotiating right there at the centre.
      Mr. Rogers rose—
      Mr. Wells: That brings up many important issues, which I shall examine when I have given way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
      Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman puts his case well, but he cannot get away from the fundamental dilemma. The whole Maastricht treaty, the resolutions passed recently by the European Parliament—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) mentioned them—the Spinelli report and other previous resolutions all embody a tendency towards a federal Europe. There is no doubt about that. The Prime Minister negotiated in Maastricht on the basis of gatecrashing a party by going in backwards to give the impression that he was coming out—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) once described it. The Prime Minister did that because he had to satisfy certain elements in his party. Now he has the dilemma of having to argue that the proposals are non-federal, although in fact they are federal. That is the dilemma which faces the Conservative party. At least my hon. Friends' position is honest. They have always been honest about their attitude to the European Community, which is more than the Government are at the moment.
      Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman is making excuses. There are differences on his side of the Committee, too.
      Mr. Rogers: We did not negotiate Maastricht.
      Mr. Wells: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has always been a consistent opponent of the European Community. He has consistently argued against it, and still does, not dispassionately but passionately. We must respect him for his views, and I know that he will respect the views of others both on his side of the Committee, and on ours who have the opposite opinion.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my hon. Friend not amused by the inference to be drawn from what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said—that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney represents the views of the Labour party? He does not.
      Mr. Rogers: I never said that.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: It might have been inferred from what the hon. Gentleman said. So far as I am aware—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—the Labour party's view on the broad issue is that their Front-Bench spokesmen, like the Government, are against what we in Britain would call a federal Europe.
      Mr. Wells: Many of us—including Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, the Government, and the vast majority of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and even, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—have in common the desire to stay in Europe. That has been said on several occasions. If that is the case, we must develop Europe in a way that we believe is democratic and accountable, and which reflects the ideas and views of our constituents, and enables them to inform the decisions taken in Europe. We must build on the idea of the European Parliament and the national parliaments meeting together.
      I suggest that that should not happen in the same way as when we first met in Rome. That brings me back to the question of Europe-wide parties. At the assize in Rome the representatives of national parliaments were broken up. The European Parliament took over the running of things, putting a motion to the assize, which was passed, that made us all sit in so-called Europe-wide parties, thus completely undermining the power of national parties.
      Mr. Dykes: I was also a member of that historic assize of the national parliaments and the European Parliament, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to mislead the House. Contrary to the false assertions, the assize was well organised by the Italian authorities, arid I remember that a solid majority of the members of the British delegation voted for the resolution whereby everybody sat in party groups.
      Mr. Wells: Yes, that is—
      Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. In Yorkshire do they talk about assize or assizes?
      Mr. Wells: They talk about assize in Rome, and that is where we were. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East was a member of that assize and he is right to say that a majority of the British delegation voted for the resolution, led by the Labour party but opposed by several people, including myself and, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. Yes, we were a minority, but we believed that national parliaments should stick together, because that is what they were there for—to represent their

      533
      parliaments and the national ideas, thoughts, culture and traditions of their countries. In my view, it was wrong to break us up in that fashion.
      It is important that we should begin to develop the way in which national parliaments work together. We should first look after the majority voting system enshrined in the Single European Act and in the Maastricht treaty, because under majority voting it is possible for decisions to be made which Britain—including, possibly, both parties representing Britain—totally opposes. Yet those decisions would be imposed upon us by a majority vote. In those circumstances it seems necessary—
      Sir Russell Johnston rose—
      Mr. Wells: I shall give way in a moment, but I shall make my point first.
      It is necessary for the national parliaments to meet together to find out what the others are thinking, and why they think in that way. They can then inform the Council of Ministers—their Ministers—and insist that their Ministers vote to reflect the way in which the parliaments and people are thinking. We should then have a direct link into the considerations in the Council of Ministers, under the new pillars and, I venture to suggest, in the European Council.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I, too, was at the assize in Rome, and I profoundly and basically disagree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has just said. I should point out modestly that the United Kingdom was represented not by two parties but by three. In this country there is a pluralism which is matched abroad and which the hon. Gentleman should recognise. It was easy—certainly for me—to sit with other people of similar political persuasion, even if they were of different nationalities.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Wells: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's ease of assocation with others in the European Communities who feel and think as he does. There are many more such people in Europe than there are in Britain. The hon. Gentleman felt so comfortable because he is a federalist. My argument is that we can move away from what I regard as thoroughly destructive federal practices—destructive of national parliaments, destructive of national pride and destructive of cultures. We must let the European Communities breathe. Each country must be able to develop and to take a pride in its own history. Some federalist melange is opposed by me and most of my colleagues, including members of the Government.
      We must develop the idea that national parliaments should meet together, say, twice a year separately from the European Parliament and then, for a third time, with the European Parliament to exchange ideas. It is essential that we begin to develop this sort of institutional practice if we are truly to have a Europe with some control over the executive bodies—the Commission and now, crucially, the Council. The Maastricht treaty does not say how the Council is to be made accountable. In our case, the Head of Government reports to the House of Commons and is subject to questioning. But that is not universal practice in Europe. Policy decisions that have not been debated by
      534
      national parliaments or between national parliamentarians are not understood by the peoples of the various countries. Those concerned race ahead with ideas that are simply not understood by the people of Britain.
      However, that does not apply only to the people of Britain. To realise that, one has only to look at the result of the referendum in France, where roughly 50 per cent. of people said that they did not want the Maastricht treaty. Why do they not want it? Because they have not been consulted about it, and they are not familiar with the issues involved. It is therefore essential that we develop Europe-wide parties so that there may be political discussions. National parliaments must meet together regularly. The lessons that the privileged members of the Select Committee on European Legislation have learnt must be extended.
      In that way we should begin to make up for the undoubted democratic deficit in the Community. We should be able to bring Europe together and achieve deeper understanding. We should achieve more democracy and accountability. By achieving acceptability, we should enshrine the principle of consent to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred. The right hon. Gentleman said that the British community is to some extent homogeneous. People in this country lean towards different parties, but they remain one people. We discuss things and then accept majority decisions. That is not a universal practice. It takes place only if the consent of the people to be governed has been obtained through discussion in pubs, lounges and sitting-rooms and through debate in the press. That is what we must reproduce in Europe.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Wells: No. I am just completing my remarks. We must get on and proceed to a vote so that this treaty may be ratified.
      We must look forward to a situation in which we can build on the Maastricht treaty, which marks the beginning of the path away from federalism and towards a Europe of nations co-operating for their common benefit, not trying to rule or suppress each other.
      Mr. Alan Simpson: I hope that you, Mr. Morris, and the Committee will bear with me, as I am losing my voice following a visit to Brussels. I might criticise a number of things about that visit, but I cannot claim that it is responsible for my loss of voice. I understand that several other hon. Members are similarly afflicted.
      I am particularly keen to speak about this aspect of the treaty. To me, one of the most amazing things to emerge from the visit to Brussels and its institutions was the openness and clarity with which people there see the treaty and understand what they are entering into.
      I was struck by a couple of comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who talked about decisions that we would still be able to make after signing the Maastricht treaty. He said that we would be able to choose what powers to transfer to a European level. He said that we ought to have the right to decide what degree of sovereignty to cede, and that we should cede only where necessary and desirable. But that is not how the European Commission and the European Parliament see the situation. The question of ceding will be

      535
      determined the other way round. Issues of subsidiarity will come from the centre—from Brussels and the European Parliament.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to tell us what are the opinions of European parliamentarians and of Commission officials,. and no doubt he intends to do so. I am sure that he will wish to remind the Committee that neither the European Parliament nor the Commission is a signatory to the Maastricht treaty. Signing the treaty is a matter for member states. The two institutions that the hon. Gentleman is about to quote extensively are perfectly entitled to their opinions, but decisions are taken by member states and by the Council of Ministers. I think that I see the way in which the hon. Gentleman's speech is developing, which is why I am reminding the Committee of the situation.
      Mr. Simpson: The decision will be made by the House of Commons as a potential signatory to the treaty, but it may well be the last useful decision that the House is invited to make, as unmaking it will be impossible. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I want hon. Members to understand the importance of our role in making that decision.
      Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend is being a little naive if he thinks that institutions of the Community—the Commission and the Court of Justice—will not have power to use this treaty, or that they do not have their own agenda. If my right hon. Friend is not persuaded by that fact, will the hon. Gentleman remind him that Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand both have an interpretation of the treaty totally different from that of Her Majesty's Government? They believe that it is a federal treaty, for a federal Europe.
      Mr. Simpson: These are points that I hope to develop. They accord with my interpretation of what we are entering into, and of the agenda on which other people are already working, on a European scale.
      The two-day, all-party delegation in Brussels met a number of people, ranging from the Director General of the Commission to the Commission's legal and economic advisers, and to senior Commissioners. Let me mention some things that were put to us candidly and openly.
      The presumption in Europe is that economic sovereignty will already have been ceded to the European central bank. There is no question of national Governments' retaining powers and responsibilities other than those dictated by the European central bank.
      One of the most telling points that came out of our session with the economic advisers was that they conceded that the only lever on the economy that would remain in the hands of national Governments would be the choice of using either mass unemployment or taxation as regulators of the economy. All other levers would have been taken centrally into the unaccountable and unelected European central bank. Anyone who does not understand that point occupies a different world from the one that I occupy, and is taking part in a different debate.
      The question of subsidiarity also arose. It is an interesting notion, on which many hon. Members have spent a considerable time.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The amendments that we are debating
      536
      deal with the institutions—the Council, the Commission and the Parliament. The hon. Gentleman cannot run through the other matters, such as subsidiarity, that he may have discussed in Brussels. Please will he return to the subject of the institutions?
      Mr. Simpson: I was trying to make a point about the European Court of Justice and about whether the question of subsidiarity was justiciable. The assumption by the advisers was that the court would be unlikely to make a judgment which was in conflict with the consensus among the rest of the European states.
      There were mixed messages for the House on the Commission's ability to apply the social chapter. The first message was that the Commission said clearly that it heard the debate going on in the House, but did not believe that the Commission's ability to apply the social chapter depended on whether Britain accepted it. The Commission's officers believed that it had, in article 118, all the powers necessary to develop a unified European social policy.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I have followed up the hon. Gentleman's discussions with that Commission official, and I suspect that there may have been a misunderstanding. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misinterpret what that official said. The official was saying that the Community, through the Single European Act, already has a social dimension. The United Kingdom supports that social dimension and has a better record of implementing the directives that flow from it than any other country in the Community has.
      The official may have been misunderstood in this sense. He was saying not that other actions that the other 11 may wish to take outside the social dimension could not take place, but that the United Kingdom would not be affected by them. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to misinterpret the senior official with whom he spoke.
      Mr. Simpson: It is only fair to say that, if there was a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation, the senior official was pretty consistent about ensuring that we misinterpeted the point. He was pressed on the point several times, and he repeated his comments—much to the consternation of a number of Conservative Members who were part of the delegation. I simply make that point.
      My next point is a cautionary one for Opposition Members who are enthusiasts for the treaty. The official's qualification was that, if the financial resources were not there, within the remit defined by the central bank, it did not matter what social policy framework there was, because money would not be produced out of thin air by Governments who had no legal right to direct the bank to release the necessary resources. I suspect that there is not much comfort for any hon. Member in that point.
      The officials then took us through the role of the Commission in terms of the regulatory framework. This is precisely the point that was made earlier. The Commission clearly has its own agenda for a rolling regulatory framework. It was described in positive terms in many ways, and I could understand that. We were told that the Commission had a bureaucracy that was very different from the bureaucracy that we encounter in the House of Commons. It is: it is more open and more accessible. The whole delegation was able to get answers far more forthright than those that we get in the House.

      537
      The officials also said that they employed bright people to come up with bright ideas, and that those bright people then drafted bright regulations to implement them. We were told that those people's zeal sometimes made them act in ways about which more senior officials might not feel entirely happy.
      They cited the example of a set of proposals for European regulations on zoos. The zeal was such that the proposals had come to the point of requiring the owners of zoos to specify which routes out of the zoo they thought the animals would take in the event of a break-out. The proposal was described in the Commission as being about whether the animals would shop at Sainsbury or Tesco.
      The real question is not whether the Commission should stop employing bright and zealous people, but the extent to which they are held accountable to a democratic process.
      Mr. Hoon: Is not the logic of my hon. Friend's argument that we should give real power to the European Parliament, and that we should make the European Commission subject to the European Parliament?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Simpson: That is one line of argument. My difficulty—I have a number of close friends in the European Parliament—is that I regard that Parliament, as it is structured, as a Mickey Mouse institution. I need to be convinced that the European Parliament could function democratically so that it could hold the Commission to account and be accountable to its domestic electorates. I raise that point as a legitimate reservation.
      Mr. Dykes: I am disturbed by what the hon. Gentleman says, but not because I am worried about his phantasmagorical description of the so-called "excessive" ambitions of the Commission. That is what the Commission is there for. It is for the member Governments to vote on the legislation that the Commission proposes.
      In what form is the hon. Gentleman reporting to the Committee on these matters? Does he propose just to leave his own words on the record today? Will there be a report of the meeting? Will the Commission issue its own report? Will the hon. Gentleman place a copy of the official proceedings of the meeting in the Library? If he does not, we are relying solely on his hearsay and rather hyperbolic description of a meeting, with which others might not agree.
      Mr. Simpson: I invite the hon. Gentleman to check my comments against the experiences of Conservative Members who were also part of that delegation. I shall be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman's judgment about the accuracy of my comments, based on their comments. He will have to live with my interpretation of how that tour went for the time being.
      Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Simpson: I will not.
      The Commission came over clearly as saying that there was a crisis of confidence in the Commission. The crisis of confidence had been caused precisely because institutions such as the House of Commons were not simply rubber-stamping the treaty. The crisis of confidence was
      538
      not caused by feeling the need fundamentally to review the Commission's role and its lack of political accountability, but by the feeling that it was treading water until the treaty was signed. I again caution the Committee against failure to understand that what we face is not a crisis of confidence, but a pause in the regulatory momentum. That cautionary message should not be lost on the Committee.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not the proof of the excellent points that the hon. Gentleman makes so fairly and accurately in the treaty itself? There may be a genuine desire to give powers to the European Parliament, but all that can be given are cosmetic powers. That is abundantly clear, because the structure of the EC is such that there is no way in which real powers could be given to the European Parliament unless we started all over again and had a European Government. Is not the proof of what the hon. Gentleman says simply in the wording of the treaty, of which article 107a is a perfect example? It gives Parliament simply the power to suggest legislation to the Commission.
      Mr. Simpson: Nothing that came out of my visit to the Parliament and the Commission surprised me: it is there in the treaty, writ large for those who wish to read and understand it.
      We need to understand how far into the agenda of forward thinking in a centralised planning context the rest of Europe and certainly the Commission already are. I picked up one of the documents produced in the European Parliament by the research directorate. I was not charged, it was gratis; it may be the last free thing we get. The document has to do with the prospects for a foreign and security policy for the European union after Maastricht.
      The Chairman: Order. I do not know about that, but it is out of order on this amendment.
      Mr. Simpson: Can I cite it as a comment on the perspectives of the Parliament, then?
      The Chairman: All right.
      Mr. Simpson: The preface says:
      "The treaty of European union, however imperfect it may be, lays the cornerstone for the development of a European federal state and of a European Constitution."
      Below that, it says:
      "credit is due to the Heads of State and Government of the Member States …for having succeeded in Maastricht in reconciling clearly divergent interests and constitutional traditions in the field of foreign and security policy and hammering out a compromise package which opens up new prospects for a common foreign and security policy."
      So the presumptions of the Parliament are very clear that there is a role that will fall into its lap and into the lap either of the Commission, or of the Council of Ministers, which will carry this through.
      Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is seriously misleading the Committee. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is accidentally and forgiveably misleading the Committee by mistake.
      Will he not agree that he has just cited an obscure document giving the opinions of some of the members of the research department of the European Parliament? It is not even a policy document, and it may never make any progress. The European Parliament is full of documents like that. Indeed, we have documents in the House which are not policy documents or governmental decisions. That

      539
      will not be the sacred text of the future. What about the plurality of ideas and different views on the development of Europe that come from all sources in the Community, including Britain?
      Mr. Simpson: I am not suggesting that this is already the agenda that we shall be writing our name to; I am saying that, if this is not the direction in which we are heading, there has to be written into the treaty a whole series of democratic checks and constraints which are not there at the moment, and which have to address the fact that this is the direction in which contemporary thinking is going. I say this to inform the Committee, rather than to mislead. I do not believe that I am misleading the Committee. If I am doing so inadvertently, I am sure that I am not the first to have done so.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate why it was that, at the last meeting in the negotiations before agreement at Maastricht, the President of the European Parliament told the member states that the Parliament was so unhappy with the shape of the treaty that had emerged that he seriously doubted whether it would be prepared to support it? So when the hon. Gentleman reads out the perfectly legitimate wishes of the European Parliament, he must not imply to the Committee that the member states have met, or will meet, those wishes.
      Mr. Simpson: There is a gap between what people's wishes are and what mechanisms the House would have for addressing those policy proposals and changes if that is the direction in which they go. I am simply saying that, before we sign our names to this treaty, we must ask ourselves what checks and controls we would have, so that we could say no to this sort of development once we had signed the Maastricht treaty.
      I believe that the presumptions of the Commission and of the European Parliament—and perhaps of the Council of Ministers too, although I have not visited its members —are that we would be moving towards a much more centralised bureaucracy, which will determine the shape of Europe.
      The other point that came out of each of the sessions during this visit was in connection with European monetary union. The Commission's assumptions about the role of the bank were all to the effect that European monetary union was a deferred inevitability. The notion of the opt-out was described as the legitimate choice of a passenger choosing to bail out of an aircraft at 10,000 feet without a parachute. Of course we would have that choice, but the question is whether at the time we would believe that only a fool would squander the existing position and take the risk of not taking the next step. That is very similar to the message that we are being given now.
      I simply convey to the Committee that these were the messages that were coming back to me as part of that argument.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman asked what checks the House would have if moves take place in the direction that he is concerned about. What will happen is that there will be another intergovernmental conference and another treaty, which will be brought to the House, and the House will be told that, as with the Maastricht treaty, we have to take the whole treaty and nothing but the treaty.
      Mr. Simpson: Th at is a very fair point. It raises for me a huge set of questions about what we are signing up to. Nothing dented my perception that the nature of the beast was that the institutions are unelected, unaccountable and undeterred in their forward planning by the debate taking place in the Committee and in the House. The presumption is that this is a minor distraction which has to be entertained before the real business of centralised planning can take place in a European context.
      I am not wholeheartedly opposed to that. If I believed that this was planning for a socialist Europe, I would be in favour of it. But it is not a socialist Europe. In that sense, I differ from my colleagues on the other side of the Committee. I see the terms of this treaty as signing us up to a set of arrangements in which the primary function of the institutions in Europe will be to respond to the interests of European capital. The terms of reference of the European bank make the subservient role of nation states very clear.
      It would be a huge millstone around the neck of an incoming Labour Government to attempt to buck the rulings of the central bank about borrowing limits, interest rates and debt ratios. If we were faced with the institutional rules and framework to which we are signing up, how would we adjust the economy to deliver a socialist programme? The question which must be addressed, by those on the Opposition Front Bench as much as by those on the Government Front Bench, relates to how they wish to run the economy. We are signing up to a millstone for a socialist Government, rather than some back entrance to a socialist utopia.
      In terms of the enhanced role proposed for the European Parliament, hon. Members who doubt the extent to which powers will be given to the European Parliament are absolutely right. A facade democracy would be constructed. The democracy would have no power. It would struggle itself to be accountable, or to have any significant influence in the key decisions which would be made behind closed doors in European institutions. What would be the role of hon. Members with regard to the institutions and the framework which we are setting up?
      9 pm
      One of the saddest things I must say to the Committee is that we have sold the pass in terms of our responsibilities to the electorate, and in terms of the institutions of Europe. A couple of years ago, I wrote a book forewarning people about the consequences of signing up to the Single European Act and its implications for industry and race relations in Britain and Europe. One of the most frustrating things is that, when I tried to find out what was going on, in terms of international negotiations in which the United Kingdom was involved at a European or intergovernmental level, I was not able to find out anything.
      The House of Commons has ceded large tranches of democratic decision-making powers to Ministers, and Ministers have trotted off to take their decisions behind closed doors in Europe. The House has betrayed its democratic responsibilities and the British people. It is no good bleating that we see European institutions looming even larger and saying, "But we never knew." It was written large in the Single European Act for everyone to see. We did not have to wait for Maastricht to know what sort of writing was on the wall.

      541
      I went to Brussels with a specific local agenda. I wanted to know from Sir Leon Brittan what action the Commission would take to halt the dumping of Chinese bicycles in Britain. The issue has been raised on the Floor of the House, and I have tried to raise it with the Department of Trade and Industry. Sir Leon Brittan told me—the answer was clear—that it has been handed to Europe. The decision will be made in Europe. Britain is powerless. The Department of Trade and Industry has, it seems, already opted out—and handed its responsibility over to Europe. All I was able to get from the Commissioner were comments similar to those made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, which was basically: "It wasn't me," and, "I wasn't there."
      When I saw Sir Leon Brittan, I hoped that the Commissioner responsible for foreign relations and trade would be able to say, "This is the line that we are taking in Europe on anti-dumping policies." What did we get? We got a "maybe". It was clear that hon. Members from both sides of the House, who were pressing the Commissioner hard on this issue, had no leverage at all. The decision may or may not be made, but it will be whimsical, unaccountable and unchallengeable.
      I came away saying to colleagues on both sides of the House what I now say to the Committee: how would a British Parliament defend its industry in such circumstances? How would the House defend jobs in Raleigh in my constituency or the cycle industry in Britain as a whole? If it wanted to halt the dumping of bikes in the United Kingdom but found that the decisions had been handed over to a European level, what would it do? The powers to intervene, economically, in our national self-interest will career away at a rate which we will only ever live to regret.
      My hostility to the treaty is that the framework given to political and administrative institutions does not say that the remit is to re-create full employment in Europe. It says that everything will be subject to the interests of price stability. At best, we will see only jobless growth in Europe; a growth focused entirely on money interests. That is what institutions such as the European Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice and the European bank will be required to deliver.
      It is sad that it has taken until now for the Committee to realise how much we have sold out the interests of British people. We will not be forgiven for surrendering ourselves to such a shabby deal from which the people of Britain and people in Europe will gain nothing.
      Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made an interesting speech and the Committee listened with great care. I hope that he will not think that I address him in any spirit of condescension when I say that many speeches with a similar context have been made over many years, and many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would disagree with his conclusions.
      I share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism about the awful and depressing era of high unemployment which all member states, including Britain, are experiencing. [Interruption.] As I am referring to the hon. Gentleman's speech, perhaps he will listen. Unemployment is a depressing reality and many policy measures must be taken to overcome it. One means or another must be used both by member states and by the institutions of the European Community, but we cannot reach that
      542
      conclusion for ever and say that unemployment is a result of our membership of the Community and the way in which its institutions work.
      The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the way in which the Community functions. He grossly exaggerated the powers, of the Commission. The Commission's delegated powers, for example, in international trade negotiations have given increased strength to the individual member states and to the collectivity. The examples of that are so numerous that I shall not weary the House by going through them. It is much better for the Commission to represent the whole Community. It has initiated remarkably successful anti-dumping actions against imports which enter member states, including Britain, at an undervalued price. The hon. Gentleman was worried about the single example of dumping of bicycles. That is his local interest and I deeply respect him for raising it.
      It is absurd to say that the system under which the European Community works is deficient or that we have surrendered our powers to it, except by the normal process of delegated legislation. We support the majority of decisions reached by the United Nations Security Council or the other mechanisms of the United Nations. Action is taken as a result of those decisions. For example, peacekeeping forces are sent out. We do not say that we have lost powers as a result of that. We signed a treaty which gave us additional strength with our countries. As a result of that action, treaty-based decision making takes place and is reported back to Parliament. That is the process.
      You might say that Parliament should have another bite of the cherry and force the Government to change their mind on the treaty. You might say that the institutions of the EC are not working as we expected. But that would be manifestly absurd. When I said "you", Mr. Morris, I was speaking in the general, broad sense. I apologise.
      The European enthusiasts in this place regard the Maastricht treaty as an extremely mild document which creates a well-balanced relationship between the institutions of the EC. It is much less profound—the hon. Member for Nottingham, South was right about this—than the Single European Act with its implications for the future. That is probably so, but we did not have the perturbations and hysteria from the "antis" on the Single European Act that we have had on the Maastricht treaty. That in itself leads one to some interesting political conclusions.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: It is an interesting contrast.
      Mr. Dykes: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State reminds us, there is an interesting and sharp contrast between the reaction to the Single European Act and these prolonged debates.
      The relationship between all the EC institutions as they are established to work in the future will be extremely satisfactory. The Commission will have the enhanced powers which come from those parts of the Maastricht treaty in which integration has been increased. Majority voting decisions of the Council of Ministers will presumably tend to accept principal Commission regulations and directives—mainly directives. Sometimes the United Kingdom will be in a minority. Sometimes it

      543
      will be in a majority. Sometimes there will be no vote. The Council of Ministers will think that something is such a good idea that it will allow it to go ahead.
      The role and power of all the institutions is enhanced by the treaty. That is perhaps an unusual achievement. There will be a much greater degree of co-operation, but most Community activity will remain intergovernmental. I cannot understand why the anti-Maastricht—I must not say anti-European because I know that it produces a protest—colleagues on this side of the House and on the Opposition Benches are so worried. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a terribly old-fashioned speech. We have heard all that before.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is old fashioned.
      Mr. Dykes: I do not believe that I am. The first part of my speech may have sounded old fashioned, but I am coming to the new bits. We have all repeated ourselves in these debates over the years but so much of the weight, incidence and proportionality of operating in the Maastricht treaty is so intergovernmental that, as has been said already, enthusiastic and active members of the European Parliament and some senior Commission officials have complained bitterly that they feel let down that the original intention of the solemn declaration on European union in June 1983 has been massively diluted as a result of these prolonged intergovernmental negotiations.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has very strong views, but if he takes that view, will he please look at page 91 of the treaty as one of 17 examples I could give him? He will see the economic powers of the central bank. Far from being intergovernmental, no government, no Member of Parliament, no person is allowed to make representations. They are in charge, these civil servants appointed for eight years at a time. If my hon. Friend believes that there is some kind of intergovernmental or democratic control, will he read the treaty and accept that in running economic policy, despite the view of the Foreign Office which has a lot of nonsense in its documents, it says specifically that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the French Government, the German Government, none of them is even allowed to make representations to the central bank. How is that intergovernmental?
      Mr. Dykes: We can all pick out, in an exaggerated way, the most emotional bits of the treaty and misquote the implication.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Have you read it?
      Mr. Dykes: Yes, I have; unlike some Members, I have read everything in the treaty. I do not agree with my hon. Friend about that, but I do agree with what he was saying earlier—that the increase in the powers and functions of the European Parliament was very slight and that that was also the mirror image of the reality that no European Government has proposed. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said that. It is true. All hon. Members must fairly and objectively agree that not one entity in the Community, not one power source, nor any politician of any seniority or moment in
      544
      any member state has suggested the creation of a single physical intergovernmental entity located in Brussels or any other important city of the Community.
      Before anyone tries to intervene and say that Herr Bangemann said that, I think I am right in saying that —I had been hoping to get the text, but it has not arrived; if I find later that I am incorrect, I will apologise, of course —Herr Bangemann did not use the British translation when he used phrases about a federal state but referred once again to "the federation". The misunderstanding there was again deliberate and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was correct when he did not accede to that and did not join in that classic, continuous conspiracy of misunderstanding but said that the federal German model had one gap in this particular structure, which was the federal government based in Bonn and perhaps in Berlin in the future. That does not exist in this structure as proposed nor in the Community structure which has already existed for many years. If anybody here can produce the name of a senior important member of any Government or of the European Parliament, apart from an expression of opinion, who has suggested the creation of a single governmental entity structure based presumably in Brussels, then I will happily correct myself.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course we can all trade quotations backwards and forwards with each other, but since Herr Bangemann has been mentioned it might be helpful to the Committee to recall the speech made by Chancellor Kohl, who is, after all, the federal Chancellor, who said in Oxford on 11 November:
      "We have not laid the foundation stone with Maastricht for a European superstate which will reduce everything to the same level and blur the differences. Rather we have committed ourselves to a Europe constructed on the principle of unity and diversity".
      Mr. Dykes: I agree with my right hon. Friend about that important utterance. That is the great attraction, charm and beauty—if I am not getting too carried away —of the whole process. It is a unique new creation. The treaty reinforces the intergovernmental and national aspects. I agreed with my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] It is difficult trying to continue against this Caledonian barrage from Scotland, Mr. Morris. I apologise for using the term Caledonian in a totally wrong way, but I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) referred to the need to involve national parliaments more. That is an important point on which to build, in the sense not of national parliaments representing national interests, but of party groups meeting the European Parliament more often. The process remains pluralistic and diverse with a multiplicity of voices from everywhere. The idea that there is a concentration of power anywhere is manifestly and patently absurd.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman referred to Martin Bangemann, the vice-president of the European Commission, who has made perfectly clear exactly what he wants. Whatever the semantics may be about federalism, he has not been repudiated by any of his colleagues, including Chancellor Kohl. When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr.

      545
      Spearing) whether a single currency meant a single Government—and no one, not even the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) could be more enthusiastic about Maastricht than the right hon. Gentleman the Father of the House—he said that it did and he was quite happy about it. That is what he wants and presumably what the hon. Member for Harrow, East wants.
      Mr. Dykes: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was expressing an opinion. I did not notice that he was a signatory to the treaty. Who signed the treaty? Sovereign member states, increasing their intrinsic sovereignty as a result. As a keen exponent of the development of the Community, I am delighted to see that the integration between those sovereign states has also been enhanced.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I am saddened by the thrust of my hon. Friend's speech. I have always felt that my hon. Friend was one of the more honest hon. Members. He believes in federalism and has always defended it, but he now seems to be backing off and joining Ministers by saying that the great thing about the treaty is that it does not embrace federalism. My hon. Friend should not be seduced by what was said by Chancellor Kohl because on 3 April 1992 at Bertelsmann, Chancellor Kohl said quite specifically:
      "In Maastricht we laid the foundation stone for the completion of the European union; the united states of Europe."
      Which speech are we to take? I hope that my hon. Friend will stick to his guns and defend his genuinely federalist position so that we know where we stand.
      Mr. Dykes: Armed with that exhortation, how could I refuse to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion? I did not say that I approved or disapproved of it because it was not a federal issue. Of course it is a federal Europe. Lest my hon. Friend gets excited about it, it is not in the sense that he expects. He thinks mistakenly that federalism means a single Government structure emerging from Brussels, but he is wrong. The united states of Europe means what it says—without capital letters, necessarily—a federation in the European Community sense of sovereign member countries. Perhaps more use will be made of majority voting. Each member state will take part in decision making and sometimes will be part of the majority and sometimes part of the minority.
      Perhaps it was because the hon. Member for Nottingham, South is an inexperienced Member—I do not say that with any condescension—but it is risky, to say the least, to report what was presumably a private meeting on the basis of his interpretation of what was said by quite justifiably enthusiastic Commission officials. It is their job, and they would be attacked and condemned if they were not constantly making proposals that the treaty arrangement required of them, but it does not mean that those proposals are taken up.
      The Commission complains constantly that the Council of Ministers, and member Governments, individually or collectively, are turning down ideas when they may have made the original suggestion and asked the Commission to look into something and then they turn it down, as the European Council does.
      546
      I would love to know some more details, such as the names of that fascinating delegation. I assume that it was made up of eight plus eight members. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats were not involved and it was eight plus eight because, given the small Government majority, everyone is so fanatical about pairing. Whatever the number, I think that I am right in saying that all the Conservative Members who went were extremely sceptical about the Maastricht treaty. On their first visit, I expect that they went into those meetings with European Community officials ready to pounce on the slightest sign of collective enthusiasm for developing the European Community under the Maastricht treaty.
      No, I am sure that, to the contentment of everyone in this sovereign Parliament, those arrangements remain very much the decisions and objectives of member Governments, and that that will remain the case. It has been a slow process, but I am glad that at long last the member Governments are slowly and hesitantly getting together in the agreed integrated structures, which has been the intention ever since the treaty of Rome was signed and since the solemn declaration on European union in June 1983.
      Mr. Simpson: I am more than happy to give the hon. Gentleman a detailed breakdown of members of the delegation and of the senior officials and Commissioners we met. I am only too happy for him and other hon. Members to check out their comments to us. To be fair to Conservative Members, I think that their scepticism grew with the honesty and clarity of the answers. Perhaps that is one of the features that has been missing from some of the information given to the Committee.
      Mr. Dykes: That makes the position a little better. It is easy for us to reproduce conversations or so-called conversations when we come back here, but sometimes the human ear does not hear correctly. I would be much happier, however, if the hon. Gentleman would arrange for the Commission's report and minutes of the meeting to be deposited in the Library. Presumably someone took notes. That would be the only way to satisfy us that the record is correct and available for all to see.
      In conclusion—
      Mr. Jenkin rose—
      Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way again as it would not be fair to other hon. Members.
      The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber. If he had allowed more interventions from Members who he thought would be unhelpful, he would have found that in many cases they would have supported the spirit of his new clause 21. Happily, for various reasons, it has no chance of making progress, but I agree with some of the spirit behind the new clause. The mistake was that it should have been constructed differently. As the Minister of State said in his intervention, one could not insert such a procedural complexity into our statute or reproduce it in the treaty —it would be impossible.
      Returning to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, I hope that the Scrutiny Committee will not only scrutinise existing directives, regulations, decisions, reports and communications emanating from the European Commission, but will also be able to do the same with official declarations and

      547
      decisions taken by the Council of Ministers and decisions taken by the European Commission on behalf of the other institutions. It is important to achieve that, but the Committee would have to be larger and would probably involve sub-committees, which is a nightmarish scenario.
      It is important to reassure the public in all member states that their Parliaments are involved through the natural human liaison of the party groups, right across the spectrum, in the European Parliament and elsewhere. That Parliament should be armed with even more powers to ensure that the man and woman in the street are directly related to the whole process and do not regard it as a remote phenomenon. They would find that particularly offensive at a time when they are so concerned about unemployment, redundancy, economic and social problems and all the rest, and regard the treaty as a remote and strange exercise in the House of Commons and elsewhere.
      Sir Russell Johnston: Institutional questions are fundamental and important, but, sad to say, for many people they are very boring. I do not mean boring in the sense of the boring speech made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who held us enthralled by the incandescence of his oratory for 87 minutes or thereabouts. Rather, I am referring to the fact that, although the frameworks within which we operate our democracy are exceedingly important, they are strangely difficult to make politically sexy.
      Before deploying my argument, which will be exceedingly sexy, I should like to refer briefly to the speech by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who has unfortunately left the Chamber. He is always extremely courteous and thoughtful. I was interested by the way in which he ended his speech, which comprised the philosophy of the anti-marketeer. He said that the lie at the heart of the European Community is the idea that it is the same kind of community as the real community of the United Kingdom.
      Interesting, but is it true? It is difficult to argue about it because at the core of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was not an argument but an emotion—a nationalist emotion, actually. I do not say that pejoratively: I say it descriptively. Emotions are notoriously impervious to reason, as we all know—but let me have a little try with the argument.
      The hon. Gentleman's first assumption is that the real community of the United Kingdom, the community of Scots, Welsh, Irish and English, is more coherent or homogeneous than the Community of French, Germans, Dutch and so on. Is it? I contend that it is neither more nor less homogeneous in terms of attitude, history, behaviour patterns, likes and dislikes. There are of course language problems—
      Sir Trevor Skeet rose—
      Sir Russell Johnston: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly. There are certain problems, but I contend that there is more homogeneity in Europe, including us, than there is between us and the United States, despite the fact that we speak the same language. We have more in common.
      The right hon. Gentleman's second assumption—
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman must not get excited; it is bad for the heart.
      548
      The right hon. Gentleman's second assumption was that the real community of the United Kingdom produces some sort of mystical mix that is unique and intrinsically productive of better ways of looking at things—institutions, law, democracy and attitudes—than the mix across the channel. I would say that our mix is certainly more familiar to us, but that does not necessarily make it superior. In Europe we are more alike than we are different, and I am not afraid of that.
      The basic problem facing the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is that he is afraid. I think that he is wrong to be afraid.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are at least 32 ethnic groups in Europe, and even more languages? Although there may be a number of nations embodied in the United States of America, they have a single language, English. Is he further aware that Europe has been splitting up recently? The former Yugoslavia has broken down into three or four different states, for instance. How then can he suggest unification in 1993?
      Sir Russell Johnston: I am well aware of all those things. I read the newspapers just like everyone else. As I said a moment ago, I simply reach a different conclusion. We must agree to differ.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman care to recall that in the origins of the United States of America just three votes made the difference between Americans' language being English as opposed to German; and that most forecasters accept that the predominant language of the United States of America by the turn of the century will be Spanish?
      9.30 pm
      Sir Russell Johnston: I have no doubt that that is of pleasure to the Minister of State, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench looking pleased with himself.
      At the time of the various intergovernmental conferences that ran up to Maastricht, there was great hope that the new treaty would do far more than, in the opinion of me and my colleagues, it does. There was great feeling that it would sweep away the democratic deficit, but it has not. It was felt that it would give real legislative power to the European Parliament, but it does not. The changes that it will make are relatively modest.
      A great opportunity was missed at Maastricht. The Germans—we often talk about them in the context of Europe—were arguing strongly in favour of giving increased power to a democratically and directly elected European Parliament, and were willing to relinquish full control over their most prized asset, the deutschmark, through bringing about economic and monetary union. It is difficult to know in these recessionary times, with nationalism once again on the rise, when such an offer will again be laid before us.
      Far from regarding Germany as a threat, I look upon it as a country which is exemplary in its behaviour. I am frequently astonished by the contradictory attitude of those xenophobes who fear Germany and at the same time argue that an integrated Europe is something to oppose. If Germany is to assert itself, it will do so much more forcefully within a loose arrangement in Europe rather than in the integration that it has wanted. That is what was

      549
      wanted by the politicians of the Kohl generation, but it is something which the next generation of Germans may not want quite so much.
      The Maastricht treaty takes one or two steps in the right direction in terms of increasing the power of the European Parliament, but I do not think that it is an enormous step to give what I think the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) described as negative legislative power in the form of being able to reject proposals.
      The changes to the Commission are welcome. It will be sensible to extend the term of office to five years to run concurrently with the European Parliament. It is to be welcomed that the European Parliament will have an increased role in the appointment of Commissioners, and especially in the appointment of the President. That enables me to make a brief reference to the amendment tabled by the official Opposition that proposes that the appointment of Commissioners should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons. I do not agree with that. It is a proposal which misses the basic point that Commissioners, once appointed, do not take on national responsibilities. Instead, they pledge themselves to look at the Community through the eyes of a Community citizen rather than as a German, a Brit or whatever. I think that that is right.
      Article 146, which allows representatives at ministerial level to be on the Council of Ministers, is welcome. It is certainly welcomed by those of us who have long argued that Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh Offices should be present, as a matter of course, when relevant issues are being discussed by the Council. I suppose that Liberal Democrats favour the "Europe des Regions" concept as a goal, and we see a small and hesitant step in the right direction.
      A further change to the power of the Parliament is that the uniform electoral procedure requires Parliament's assent. That is article 138, and it brings me to amendment No. 426, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party. The article states:
      "The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States. 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."
      Apart from one failed attempt in 1982, the European Parliament has failed to fulfil that obligation. The result has been that the British Liberal Democrats who, in terms of popular support, are the largest Liberal party in the EC, have remained unrepresented in the European Parliament since 1979. In 1984 the SDP-Liberal alliance got 20·1 per cent. of the vote and yet did not win a single MEP.
      That has an effect not just on us, but on the Community. For example, at the 1979 election the Conservative group, which then, somewhat euphemistically, called itself the European Democrats and was not at that time involved in the passionate marriage to which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred at some length—
      Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Conservative party's marriage with the Christian Democrats. In 1979, the Conservative party tried to ally itself with the Christian Democrats, but the Christian Democrats thought that the Tories were far too right wing. The only people who would ally themselves with the Conservative party in the 1979–84 European Parliament were the right-wing Danish neo-fascists. They were the only ones who would keep the Conservative party company.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is partly correct. To be fair, there were three Danish Conservative MEPs in the Conservative group but they were not exceptionally right wing. The extreme right-wing party of which the hon. Gentleman is thinking is the party of a certain Mr. Glistrop, which was never a member of the Conservative group. It had enough right-wing members from Britain already.
      My point is that the group had 63 MEPs. Across Europe, they represented 6·2 per cent. of the vote. The Liberal group got 10·6 per cent. of the vote across Europe, but had only 40 MEPs. That is a gross discrepancy which was directly due to the lack of a proportional system in the United Kingdom. We are the only country in the Community which does not currently use a proportional system for European elections.
      There is even an example of proportional representation in the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland which uses the single transferable vote system. That was introduced by a Conservative Government to ensure that the minority did not dominate the majority.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: It may have been a slip of the tongue, but that is not what happened. It allowed the minority to dominate the majority and it meant an extra seat given by Garret FitzGerald from the Republic of Ireland's contribution, which would be by proportional representation, and as a result an extra seat went to Germany, France and Italy at that time.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I shall not get into the Northern Ireland argument.
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: It was a Labour Government who legislated for those elections and the electoral system was chosen on a free vote of the House. It was not in the gift of the Government. This Government, who seek to dominate the House in the present unfair electoral system, understand only the terminology of an electoral coup d'etat.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I stand corrected. The hon. Gentleman is right. I made a mistake. The system was introduced by a Labour Government. My point is that proportional representation is operating in a part of the United Kingdom. No one has tried to take it away. This Government have not tried to do so.
      Even if one were to accept many of the frequently used criticisms of proportional representation—that it produces unstable government, that small parties have a disproportionate amount of power, that it can ruin the close ties between elected members and their constituents, none of which I accept—none of them applies to elections to the European Parliament.
      As is so often the case, the Government and, tragically, still the majority of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are extending their arguments of national self-interest to

      551
      the European debate. The real reason why the Government fail to fulfil their duty under article 138 is that they fear that once they have given in to PR for the European elections their arguments against a similar system for the United Kingdom would become untenable and that it would be the thin end of the wedge.
      It was extremely disappointing that on 20 January British Labour MEPs were largely responsible for taking the debate in the European Parliament on the DeGucht proposals off the agenda. Their excuse was that they were awaiting the outcome of the Plant commission. When I asked the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the matter earlier, he, too, said that he was awaiting the outcome of the Plant commission.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Lady is very beguiling.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Having sat alongside the hon. Member in the European Parliament, I really should get a word in edgeways. He talks about a common system of election throughout the EC. No two European countries operate a similar system; they all have different systems of proportional representation, and all of them hang on to them tenaciously.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The common aspect is that they are all proportional, and ours is not.
      Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that the United Kingdom must be the only nation in the Common Market that employs two very different electoral systems?
      Sir Russell Johnston: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to draw that to the hon. Lady's attention himself.
      Mr. George Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Russell Johnston: May I finish the point?
      I understand that Labour MEPs will now have to debate the DeGucht proposals on 10 March—a month and a half before the Plant commission's findings are due to be debated by Labour's national executive committee on 28 April—and it will be interesting to see how they come off the fence. I now offer the hon. Member for Hamilton the opportunity to come off the fence.
      Mr. Robertson: The decision is taken here, not in the European Parliament. None of the proposals in the Maastricht treaty, and not even those made by the Liberal Democrats, would pass the right to make decisions about elections to the European Parliament. A decision will be taken here. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, should watch more carefully what is said and done here rather than looking to Strasbourg. He makes a perfectly good debating point, given the Liberal party's view on a common electoral system, but, leaving aside the fact that there are no real common electoral systems across the Community, all other Community countries vote on a Sunday. Is it Liberal policy that we should hold elections on a Sunday?
      Sir Russell Johnston: The short answer is no, but I do not see what that has to do with it.
      552
      It is not true that a decision will be made here, as the hon. Gentleman just said, banging the Dispatch Box; the decision will be taken in the Council of Ministers, acting with unanimity. That is the problem. It would be pretty shameful if the United Kingdom blocked or vetoed a proposal of the European Parliament, and I hope that the Government do not do so.
      We have consistently said that Maastricht is no ideal treaty. The majority of its faults are the direct product of the intergovernmentalism that the Government so often state that they favour. Nevertheless, the treaty is a step very much in the right direction, which, if missed now, would have disastrous consequences for the stability of the continent.
      We believe that far too much power continues to be vested in the Council of Ministers. The creation of the two intergovernmental pillars—on foreign and security policy and on home affairs and justice, both of which we should have liked to be integrated into the Community—puts more power into the hands of the Council whose members, although nominally responsible to their national parliaments, still meet behind closed doors and can rarely be successfully or forcefully challenged by Back Benchers who scarcely have the time and expertise to follow every detail of Community legislation. The treaty does not do nearly as much as we had hoped to remove the democratic deficit.
      9.45 pm
      The irony of the Government's approach is that they consistently claim to be taking Europe out of the hands of the bureaucrats, but, at the same time, they give more power to the unaccountable Council of Ministers. The Government are, therefore, putting European Community legislation into the hands of often unelected officials and civil servants who, as we know, draw up negotiations for intergovernmental conferences—IGCs. It is small wonder that the process is increasingly regarded as cynical, complex and remote by ordinary people.
      When talking about European Community institutional changes, we should think about not only Maastricht and the advance that it represents but the 1996 IGC set down in article N(2) of the treaty. Further institutional reform will certainly be required by 1996, if not before. An increase in the size of the Community will clearly create a variety of problems. Therefore, it is clear that we need a European Community constitution, which is what the Liberal Democrats called for at our conference last summer. The assize in Rome, referred to by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), was the forerunner. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, I thought that it was a remarkable and inspiring occasion.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I very much agree with what the hon. Member said about the dangers of more power going to officials and about the need for a constitution Will he tell the House, and especially the Minister of State, that we were all surprised by the conclusions published following the Edinburgh Council only a short time ago. It stated that the Commission is intending to use its monopoly of the right of initiative by declining to accept requests made by the Council at informal meetings that it makes proposals for directives. When the European Commission is telling the Council that it will not allow it to make proposals for directives, even on an informal basis, there is a danger that officialdom is taking over and that the small amount of

      553
      democratic control is being undermined. Will the hon. Gentleman pursue his idea for a constitution, which will prevent the Commission not only going from strength to strength but claiming powers to reject proposals from the Council?
      Sir Russell Johnston: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's fears are well founded. He will probably have noted that the Maastricht treaty enables the European Parliament for the first time to have powers of initiative like the Council, which is a positive development.
      In conclusion, I make a passing reference to the strange, almost surreal, interchange between the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about federalism. They argued about what Martin Bangemann and Chancellor Kohl did or did not say. I know Martin Bangemann exceedingly well, as I sat with him when he was chairman of the Liberal group in the European Parliament. He is an absolute federalist. When he said what he said, he was merely repeating what he has been saying for many years. With great respect to the Minister of State, I must say that Helmut Kohl is also a convinced federalist. It is no use the Minister wobbling his hand. Mr. Kohl regards federalism as a decentralised form of government. He has said so umpteen times, and I am pretty sure that if one were to read the whole speech from which the Minister picked one wee bit, one would realise that he said so in Edinburgh, too.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If Chancellor Kohl is a federalist, in the sense that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and his party quite honourably and clearly are, why did the Federal Republic of Germany join the United Kingdom and others in blocking the single structure proposal of the Dutch Government, which the hon. Gentleman and his party would have welcomed?
      Sir Russell Johnston: I do not think that that means that the Federal Republic is against federalism, or that Helmut Kohl is against federalism. There was a feeling that the Dutch proposals went too far at that time. The Minister is right that that feeling was shared by the British and the Germans, but that does not in any way affect what I have just said—that Helmut Kohl is a convinced federalist. He is. The problem is that the United Kingdom has such a tradition of centralised and unitary government, and of the supposed value of decisive government, which is seen as superior to representative government, that many find it difficult to adjust to, or even properly to understand, the idea of participating in different levels of decision making, each democratically controlled. Yet that has to be the way forward.
      Tomorrow's Europe will be a political Europe. In the future it will be more important whether someone is a Christian Democrat, a Conservative, a Liberal or a Socialist than whether he is a Belgian, a Dutchman or a German. Our national identities, language and culture will not be submerged—to say that they will is a complete misreading of reality—any more than the United Kingdom has repressed Scottishness or Welshness, or done away with the assertive regionalism that distinguishes a Yorkshireman or a Devonian. A federal Europe will be open, democratic and pluralist. Maastricht is a step on that road.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) made an interesting speech in which he talked about curing the democratic deficit. It is interesting to learn that, although a structure was laid down many years ago, we shall not be able to change it from scratch. When we examine the Commission we discover that it is totally undemocratic—it is appointed by Governments. The European Parliament does its best, but it has little power; it does not initiate legislation.
      I shall describe some of the increasing bureaucracy of Europe. I tabulate among the increasing layers of bureaucracy some of the planks that have come into existence, such as the European central bank system and the central bank itself. Those have unlimited power and, as has been said, the individual—and, indeed, people in Governments—will have no right to a say, or to interfere with their verdicts. Those institutions will settle what the exchange rate will be and what monetary policy will be over the course of years—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be anticipating a debate that will take place in about four days' time. We are dealing specifically with the Council, the Commission and the Parliament. The hon. Gentleman may choose any of those, or all of them, but not the central bank.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I was just making a passing reference, Mr. Morris. I thought that it was essential to bring in one or two cardinal points.
      Among the other institutions is the Committee of Permanent Representatives, comprising member states and ambassadors to the Community. I appreciate that that may have some connection with article J, so perhaps I should say no more about it. Perhaps I could go on to say that there is also the Political Committee, consisting of political directors advising on common defence and security. That is also covered by article J, and as we have already dealt with that perhaps I should not say any more about it.
      Then there is the Co-ordinating Committee on Justice and Home Affairs. There is also the Economic and Social Committee, which, I must emphasise, is totally unelected. Another unelected body is the Committee of the Regions, which has no power but simply makes representations.
      The decision-making process in Europe is entrusted to a number of intergovernmental conferences, committees of ambassadors, central banks, Council working parties and other non-elected bodies. Then there will be parallel structures under all national Governments. Looking over the years, one can find no comparison except the regime of the Emperor Diocletian. It is extraordinary that we should have to go back so far to find a parallel.
      I listened very carefully to the speeches of hon. Members. I was very impressed by the remarks of an hon. Gentleman who had gone to Brussels and spoken to one or two Commissioners. He was influenced very much by what he heard. Another hon. Member enunciated—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. I shall be most grateful if hon. Members pay attention to the hon. Gentleman.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I understand the enthusiasm of hon. Members, as we are approaching 10 o'clock. They want to

      555
      know whether they are to be kept here for the rest of the evening. If need be, I shall continue after 10 o'clock. Otherwise I can resume on Monday.
      Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the possibility of our having to stay late into the night. Sitting behind him is the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who has the Adjournment debate and is clutching a large wad of speaking notes. Does the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) imagine that his hon. Friend is preparing to make a speech at half-past midnight?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am not responsible for what my colleagues do or say.
      Mr. Phil Gallie: I came into the Chamber to listen with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend. I certainly did not come in for the purpose of delivering my Adjournment speech at this stage, though I am prepared to do so when the opportunity arises.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I have been enlightened.
      I was referring to the contention that the European Parliament should be given additional powers, and the Commission made subsidiary to that body. [Interruption.] I hear someone say yes. Do hon. Members realise that the more power we give to the European Parliament, the less power the House of Commons will have? Over a period of about 20 years we shall have seen the demise of something that has been going for more than 630 years.
      We must be careful about the course that we set. I am persuaded by hon. Members who have said that one of the great hazards is the possibility of the introduction of a federal system with centralised powers. Although the treaty contains few indications that there will be centralisation to any great extent, we are facing very grave dangers.
      I have been given one illustration of that point, but I shall not go further on that other than to say article 3b. I said in an earlier intervention that one of the difficulties experienced is that the provision applies only to a small part of the delegated powers that may be granted. In this case, it would be unwise to say that we shall have anything other than a centralised form of Europe.
      In 1996, under article N, we shall have renegotiation. In 1993, we have the Maastricht treaty.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress.
      To sit again tomorow.

Scotprime Sea Foods Ltd.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
10 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I shall take the point of order, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the time that he takes will be taken out of the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Marlow: I understand that many hon. Members are here on a three-line Whip. It is Maastricht business on a Thursday, and we had expected a vote. Have the Government told you why there has not been a vote this evening?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's expectations are clearly not always fulfilled.
10.1 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: I first thank Madam Speaker. I am extremely grateful that she called this debate tonight. I also compliment her on assisting me last week to raise the issue of 23 February and for giving me the chance to highlight the matter with the Prime Minister. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to reply tonight. We are talking not only about fishing or agriculture, both of which are involved, but about a serious disruption to trade with France and with the rest of Europe.
There has been serious interference with our road hauliers. They have tight schedules, and they depend on high rates of vehicle utilisation. That has been disrupted. Our electronic, pharmaceutical and mechanical engineering industries have made late deliveries, and there has been serious disruption. Orders have been lost. That is why it is fitting that the Minister responsible for Scottish industry is here to respond to the debate. He has a good reputation as a great champion of talking up Scottish causes. I hope that he will enhance that reputation tonight.
We are not talking only about Scottish interests. Every producer and every distributor in the United Kingdom who exports and who wishes to take up the European challenge is affected by what has been happening in France in recent years.
The specific incident that brings about the debate is one in which £10,000-worth of Clyde-caught fish was destroyed in a French market. The fish was not for sale in France, but was in transit to German markets. Diesel was spread over it, and it was thrown around the French marketplace. That is disgraceful.
For the company in my constituency, Scotprime Sea Foods, it meant a considerable loss of cash. It also meant that the company failed to meet a customer's order. Perhaps in cash terms that will be made up by their insurers, but the company's reputation will be damaged if it fails to fulfil the customer's requirements.
There is now a fear of repetition, and that leads to another problem. The insurers now refuse to insure that company's produce in transit. That is shameful. How can a small company such as this self-insure? It is enough to wipe it out if there is no cash compensation and no protection from the insurer.

557
What does it mean to that company? Can it stop trading? It cannot really do so, because the produce keeps coming in. Its suppliers, the Ayrshire fishermen and others, still bring in their catches. That story is common, from the salmon and scallop exporters in the Orkneys to the lobster fishermen and exporters in Cornwall, right through the United Kingdom.
What are the other consequences? Scotprime lost three clients in particular in short order. On 26 February, it was informed by a customer in south-west France that its daily requirement was cancelled for six days. The cost of the loss of exports was £1,500 to £2,000 per day on that contract. That is not a lot perhaps in national terms, but it is a lot to a small firm such as Scotprime.
A southern German client, too, cancelled the weekly delivery; some £10,000 a week was lost. Client No. 3, a Boulogne customer, cancelled an £8,000 order for Saturday 27 February. That was very serious indeed for a small company. This cannot be allowed to be ignored.
Spanish orders were under threat, but, to its credit, the company rescheduled and re-routed. It cost more, but it fulfilled the order.
This is not the first time that Scotprime has suffered in this way. At the end of June or the beginning of July last year, during the lorry drivers' dispute, the company had a lorry trapped for over a week. The cost to it was £30,000. It sought compensation with Euro-Commission assistance. It was informed that it was the responsibility of the Government of France. I wrote to the Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend replied:
"The French Government does not intend to pay compensation";
no violence was done to lorries or loads. That is absolutely shameful. There was further advice for hauliers to claim through the French courts. That would have taken years to accomplish, and was totally impracticable.
Last week in the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, when I raised the problems, that officials had already protested. He expected the French Government to pay compensation and safeguard free trade and bring the perpetrators to justice.
I welcomed that statement, but what happened thereafter? Five fishermen were arrested; 500 protested. The five were released and, to my knowledge, they remain uncharged. There was £2·5 million-worth of damage at Rungis market, and no charges have been laid. The Euro-Commissioner has been approached. I have letters from the MEP for the south of Scotland, Alex Smith, demanding redress. What has been the response to date?
There have been promises from the Euro-Commission that minimum price support will be increased and paid to the French fishermen. Vandalism and violence are rewarded, not penalised, in France, it would appear—and with the European Commission's approval. That, once again, is shameful.
There have been other instances. Last week, a ferry was diverted and Brittany Ferries' Roscoff service was cancelled for two days for fear of attack by French fishermen.
Mr. John Ward: The disasters which my hon. Friend is describing are still happening. Is he aware that a British lorry which was travelling by ferry from Poole last night suffered £35,000-worth of damage by French
558
fishermen in the port of Cherbourg, while the French police stood by and watched? Does he agree that that disgraceful state of affairs is simply continuing?
Mr. Gallie: I suggest that that sort of thing has been going on for many weeks and, indeed, years. It is disgraceful.
Mr. David Harris: My hon. Friend mentioned the disruption to the ferries to Roscoff and other ports. Does he appreciate that that disrupts the sale of fish from the south-west of England and Scotland? Only this week, one of the Newlyn fish merchants warned me that he will have to lay off all his staff if the disruption continues for any length of time.
Mr. Gallie: I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend makes. I sympathise with him and recognise the issues which he has identified.
I shall raise another case in which I think fishermen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) were involved. Last year, British fishermen had their nets cut by French fishermen. To be honest, that equates with acts of piracy.
I recognise the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). We are battling for Rosyth at present. If Rosyth had a maintenance contract for servicing fleet vessels to a greater extent, perhaps we could have sent a gunboat to sort out the problem. Instead, we send letters to the European Commissioners, which does a fat lot of good.
Mr. Elliot Morley: I simply want to record the Labour party's support for the argument which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is making so clearly on behalf of his constituents and the way in which they have been affected. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press the Minister on the matter.
How much longer must we tolerate such intolerable behaviour towards United Kingdom produce being exported legally within the single European market? How much longer will the French Government allow this sort of anarchy to continue?
Mr. Gallie: I identify totally with the helpful point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Instead of examining the affairs of a good, honest computer company located near the boundaries of my constituency, it would be much more appropriate and better for the Commissioner to examine the actions in France and the objectives of the European ideal.
The problem relates not simply to French fishermen. French farmers have also been at it. Since 1986, they have been attacking and hijacking British agricultural exports. Between June 1990 and February 1992, 16 cases were reported of British lamb—some of it was prime Scottish lamb—being hijacked.
Mrs. Angela Browning: In the south-west, in my constituency of Tiverton, one of my main producers of sheep has suffered the same fate, with animals being burned in the streets of France. It is an absolute disgrace.
Mr. Gallie: I sympathise and agree with my hon. Friend. It is not simply farmers, fishermen and industrialists in the United Kingdom. The problem has grown because people in Spain, Italy, Holland and Belgium have suffered in the same way as in France. Something must be done.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to overlook the fact that Northern Ireland greatly depends on exporting its agricultural produce. The same thing has happened to lorryloads of Northern Ireland lamb being transported into France. It is time that this entire catalogue of assault on British produce and producers was presented to the European Court for action if necessary.
Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I said that all parts of the United Kingdom had suffered. Northern Ireland is every bit as much a part of the United Kingdom as Wales, Scotland or England. I take the hon. Gentleman's comments as they were given, and accept the points he made. If I reach the end of my speech in the not too distant future, I will address the hon. Gentleman's point about what should happen.
Once again, the French farmers have caused much disruption. Instead of being punished, they have been rewarded. In a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
"On 31 August the French Government announced a package of national aid, costing some £120 million, giving immediate help to livestock farmers".—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 760.]
That followed a period of disruption. Once again, that was shameful.
At the end of November 1992, further action was threatened by French farmers. It was cancelled. On that occasion, the French Government promised to veto the general agreement on tariffs and trade oilseed agreement. The threat of violence seemed to work again. Surely that is not what the treaty of Rome or the Single European Act is about.
Last July, a haulier in my constituency, W. and J. Wallace, was trapped for two days in France. He lost a further four days getting out of France on a routine trip. The problem that time was the French lorry drivers. They saw the advantages to the farmers and fishermen and they rolled it over. They decided to follow their example. The French Government recognised the protest and that violence could pay off. They withdrew their proposals to impose regulations on those lorry drivers. Again, that is shameful.
The Road Hauliers Association in the United Kingdom currently has outstanding claims amounting to £325,000 against the French Government for the disruption during June and July last year. The largest claim is for some £27,000, but the figure does not include claims of less than £2,500. The members of that association are small business men. Their assets are their lorries. They need to achieve a high rate of utilisation of their vehicles. They lost two weeks of that utilisation, representing 4 per cent. of their operating time. They cannot afford that. I remind the House that the compensation still has not been paid or acknowledged by the French Government.
What actions are required now? France should be made to comply with articles 30 and 34 of the treaty of Rome to allow freedom of movement of goods within the Community. France must guarantee the safety of our lorry drivers, their vehicles and their cargo. France must compensate those who have lost so much in the past 12 months. It must bring to justice those who have created such mayhem. If it does not, the European Commission must act to ensure that it does. If it lacks the stomach to
560
do so, the British Government must uphold the spirit of the Common Market. They, not the victims, must take the matter to the European Court or the International Court of Justice. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Tor Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), first, on obtaining this Adjournment debate and, secondly, on what the House will agree was an excellent speech. He has raised an issue of particular importance in his constituency, but, as the attendance of hon. Members on both sides attests, it is a matter of great concern to other areas, including the south coast of England. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), in relation to Northern Ireland, have emphasised that, and I see that my hon. Friend is supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). I shall not waste the time of the House by remarking on the absence of the Scottish National party—indeed, I am reminded of the Liberal Democrats—from this debate.
This is a matter of great concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr is right when he says that it is not limited to the fishing industry but is a matter of grave concern on more general grounds.
My hon. Friend first raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 February. My right hon. Friend confirmed that we were leaving the French Government in absolutely no doubt that we expect them to act to safeguard free trade, to pay compensation when losses have occurred and to bring the perpetrators to book.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the vandalism that has taken place, first in Roscoff and then in Paris, is totally unacceptable. We have made this plain to the French Government, who have recognised their duty to ensure freedom to trade within the single market. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, that is the fundamental factor which underlines the purpose of having a single market.
I give my hon. Friend the assurance that the United Kingdom Government have been in touch with the French authorities since these difficulties started. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs spoke to the French Foreign Minister on 24 February to impress upon him the seriousness of the situation and to ask the French authorities to restore public order and allow the resumption of free trade in fish and fish products. My hon. Friend the Fisheries Minister has similarly been in touch with his ministerial counterpart.
Our Paris embassy has been in regular touch with the appropriate authorities in France. Our own Fisheries Department officials, including the Scottish Office's fisheries secretary, met their French opposite numbers today in London, and again made very clear to the French Government how seriously we view recent developments
Our officials made it clear, in particular, that they were carefully monitoring continuing incidents perpetrated by French fishermen and, as my hon. Friend has told the House, that these are quite unacceptable. They made the point that the cost to the British fishing industry is not restricted to particular cargoes of fish which have been

561
damaged or denied access to the French market, but extends also to all those other fishermen and fish merchants who are unable to send fish to France because they are afraid of the consequences, or because their insurers will not cover them, or for other reasons related to the present disorder among French fishermen.
The French Fisheries Ministry has taken on board these complaints, and noted in particular that further instability in the British fish market—which is a clear and likely consequence of the French actions—is itself likely further to damage the market and prices in France.
In particular, we have asked the French Government to establish, without delay, arrangements to assure the safety of lorries and cargoes from the United Kingdom, where notice of their arrival is given. I can tell the House that the initial response of the French Government to this request has been encouraging, and I very much hope that such arrangements can be put in place quickly.
Mr. Morley: I appreciate the action which the Minister has been outlining about what the Government has done about this problem, but, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), this has been going on for some time, and there have been many such incidents. I wonder whether he would comment on that. If the French Government take no action to protect our exports, our Government should refer the matter to the European Court and seek appropriate redress, because the French are in breach of the Single European Act.
Mr. Stewart: We need quick redress, and that is what we intend to get from the French Government. I am sure that hon. Members will agree with that. If that were not to happen, we might need to have recourse to the European institutions, but I hope that the French Government will ensure the safe passage of our exports.
My hon. Friend mentioned compensation. Companies affected by the disturbance in Paris who wish to seek compensation should write initially to the local police at Rungis to seek a police statement of the incident. This can then be followed up with claims to the local prefecture. My officials of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department at Pentland house in Edinburgh would be happy to provide details and advice to Scottish businesses which believe they have a claim to compensation. Similar arrangements apply regarding the trouble at Roscoff.
I know that many companies have been disappointed that they have not received compensation for losses incurred during the strike by French lorry drivers last year to which my hon. Friend referred, but initial soundings with the French Government suggest that it may be easier to obtain compensation over the recent incidents.
562
My hon. Friend expressed particular concern about the destruction of a consignment of fish from Scotprime Sea Foods at the Rungis market in Paris. I know that Scotprime has an excellent record in exporting Scottish produce. This was recognised last year by its receiving the Queen's award for export achievement. That was a fine performance by a company in Ayrshire which was established only a few years ago.
I appreciate that exports to France, and through France, are of particular importance to Scotprime. The recent actions of French fishermen are a problem that the company should not have to face, and must be particularly unwelcome after last year's difficulties during the French lorry drivers' strike. Although I know that efforts are still being made by various organisations to secure compensation for losses incurred during that strike, regrettably such efforts have been unsuccessful so far.
In the few minutes that remain, may I bring the House up to date? Unquestionably, the situation in France continues to cause grave concern. As was mentioned earlier in the debate, there was a further incident last night at Cherbourg. Early reports suggest that the fish involved had been landed into Scotland by French fishermen and were being transported to France by an English company. French fishermen were therefore destroying fish which had been caught against their own quota. The value of the fish has been estimated at £55,000. Some French fishermen seem to be totally out of control, and the French Government must act to restore order.
Scottish industry has an enviable record in exporting to Europe. Fishing is no exception. Indeed, fishing and fish farming are not only in a dominant position within the United Kingdom but are recognised as major players in the European scene. I hope that Scottish businesses will continue to take the initiative in exporting fish to the French market. I congratulate my hon. Friend and give him the assurance that the Government will do everything possible to protect their right to do so.
Mr. Harris: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he take a point that was brought out by the Cherbourg incident? British exporters are afraid to use British transport because it is immediately set upon by the thugs in France.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the assurance that we have from the French Government about convoying will be of assistance in meeting the legitimate concerns to which my hon. Friend refers.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Somalia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of whether the Serbian Government breached United Nations Security Council resolutions by secretly selling arms to Somalia via the federal directorate of supply and procurement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any sale of arms by Serbia to Somalia would breach United Nations Security Council resolutions 757 and 733. We are aware of press reports of such deals, but we have no evidence to substantiate these.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the position reached in discussions with the Chinese Government on Hong Kong electoral issues.

  Whole-time equivalent staff in each district health authority of Oxford regional health authority September 1983

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  Oxford HQ and units

  70

  0

  —

  570

  East Berkshire

  1,970

  160

  —

  470

  West Berkshire

  2,760

  210

  —

  560

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,600

  50

  —

  420

  Wycombe

  1,110

  140

  —

  290

  Milton Keynes

  300

  40

  —

  170

  Kettering

  1,330

  120

  —

  290

  Northampton

  2,410

  170

  —

  640

  Oxfordshire

  3,910

  230

  —

  1,120

  Ex-AHA staff

  20

  0

  —

  160

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  15,480

  1,110

  —

  4,700

  September 1984

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  Oxford HQ and units

  70

  0

  —

  580

  East Berkshire

  2,000

  160

  —

  500

  West Berkshire

  2,710

  210

  —

  650

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,670

  40

  —

  420

  Wycombe

  1,140

  140

  —

  310

  Milton Keynes

  570

  70

  —

  260

  Kettering

  1,390

  130

  —

  320

  Northampton

  2,390

  170

  —

  640

  Oxfordshire

  3,880

  230

  —

  1,140

  Ex-AHA staff

  20

  0

  —

  70

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  15,830

  1,150

  —

  4,890

  212
  Mr. Goodlad
  The Governor of Hong Kong plans to make a full statement to the Legislative Council in Hong Kong on 5 March of the position reached with the Chinese side over electoral arrangements in Hong Kong. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

HEALTH

  NHS Staff
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time equivalent(a) nursing, (b) midwifery, (c) management and (d) clerical and administrative staff were employed by the national health service in each district health authority of the Oxford regional health authority in each year since 1983.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The figures are shown in the table. Many of the functions undertaken by senior nursing and professional staff are now reflected in the national health service management figures. This means it is unreliable to compare numbers within groups between the years shown in the table. Management still accounts for less than 1·8 per cent. of the NHS work force and the ratio of clinical to support staff has never been higher.
  213

  September 1985

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  Oxford HQ and units

  70

  0

  0

  570

  East Berkshire

  2,000

  190

  0

  490

  West Berkshire

  2,700

  210

  0

  670

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,620

  50

  0

  360

  Wycombe

  1,140

  140

  0

  310

  Milton Keynes

  610

  80

  0

  280

  Kettering

  1,350

  120

  —

  330

  Northampton

  2,350

  170

  0

  580

  Oxfordshire

  3,790

  240

  0

  1,090

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  15,630

  1,200

  —

  4,690

  September 1986

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  Oxford HQ and units

  70

  0

  —

  530

  East Berkshire

  1,970

  190

  10

  500

  West Berkshire

  2,720

  210

  10

  680

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,630

  60

  —

  370

  Wycombe

  1,180

  140

  —

  310

  Milton Keynes

  630

  80

  —

  240

  Kettering

  1,350

  120

  —

  330

  Northampton

  2,250

  160

  —

  560

  Oxfordshire

  3,840

  250

  10

  1,120

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  15,640

  1,220

  20

  4,640

  September 1987

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  Oxford HQ and units

  70

  0

  —

  550

  East Berkshire

  1,980

  190

  10

  500

  West Berkshire

  2,730

  210

  10

  710

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,630

  60

  —

  360

  Wycombe

  1,150

  150

  —

  310

  Milton Keynes

  670

  90

  —

  270

  Kettering

  1,370

  110

  —

  340

  Northampton

  2,270

  160

  —

  570

  Oxfordshire

  3,980

  250

  10

  1,130

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  15,860

  1,230

  30

  4,730

  September 1988

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  Oxford HQ and units

  70

  0

  —

  530

  East Berkshire

  2,100

  180

  10

  480

  West Berkshire

  2,640

  200

  10

  710

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,620

  60

  —

  350

  Wycombe

  1,130

  120

  —

  340

  Milton Keynes

  640

  90

  —

  290

  Kettering

  1,380

  120

  —

  360

  Northampton

  2,250

  160

  10

  570

  Oxfordshire

  3,900

  250

  10

  1,140

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  15,740

  1,190

  40

  4,760

  September 1989

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  Oxford HQ and units

  70

  0

  10

  550

  East Berkshire

  2,020

  180

  30

  470

  West Berkshire

  2,740

  210

  10

  710

  214 215

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,520

  60

  20

  340

  Wycombe

  1,190

  120

  10

  360

  Milton Keynes

  730

  90

  20

  300

  Kettering

  1,430

  120

  20

  360

  Northampton

  2,210

  160

  30

  570

  Oxfordshire

  3,850

  240

  50

  1,200

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  15,760

  1,200

  200

  4,860

  September 1990

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  Oxford HQ and units

  70

  0

  50

  570

  East Berkshire

  2,040

  190

  40

  560

  West Berkshire

  2,670

  220

  30

  770

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,600

  60

  30

  370

  Wycombe

  1,180

  130

  30

  380

  Milton Keynes

  730

  100

  30

  320

  Kettering

  1,450

  140

  50

  350

  Northampton

  2,110

  150

  60

  580

  Oxfordshire

  3,990

  240

  110

  1,240

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  15,850

  1,230

  420

  6,150

  September 1991

  Nursing

  Midwifery

  Management

  Administration and clerical

  Oxford HQ and units

  70

  0

  —

  —

  East Berkshire

  2,290

  220

  —

  —

  West Berkshire

  2,310

  170

  —

  —

  Aylesbury Vale

  1,480

  70

  —

  —

  Wycombe

  1,270

  130

  —

  —

  Milton Keynes

  800

  90

  —

  —

  Kettering

  1,460

  140

  —

  —

  Northampton

  2,000

  130

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  3,950

  260

  —

  —

  REGIONAL TOTAL

  15,620

  1,200

  520

  4,930

  Note: In 1991 there has been a shift of Nursing and Midwifery staff from West Berkshire district health authority to East Berkshire district health authority due to the reallocation of Berkshire College of Nursing and Midwifery, Wexham park hospital from West to East Berkshire.

  Environmental Health Prosecutions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions were brought by environmental health officers in each of the last five years; and what percentage of(a) cases and (b) contested cases resulted in convictions.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information prior to 1991 is not held centrally.

  During 1991, environmental health officers brought 1,143 prosecutions in connection with hygiene and microbiological contamination. In addition, there were 691 prosecutions relating to chemical contamination and extraneous matter, some of which related to food safety and some to quality. The available information does not show whether cases were successful or contested.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received on the subject of continued tobacco advertising; and if she will make a statement.
  216
  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have received a number of representations. The Government will consider all representations received in keeping under review the need for further action to achieve the ambitious targets for reducing smoking set out in the "Health of the Nation".

  HIV (Therapy)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring her Department is undertaking on the use of combination therapy of AXT, DDI and Pyridinone for the treatment of HIV infection, as currently being tested in the United States; whether she envisages any trial use being made available in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We do not ourselves carry out clinical trials for HIV infection. This is the responsibility of the Medical Research Council. The Department does have an influence on the research programme through a concordat with the MRC.

  Recently, there have been reports from the United States that resistance developed to the drugs AZT, DDI and pyridinones renders HIV non-viable. It has been suggested that combination therapy with these three drugs

  217
  may be an effective treatment for HIV disease. The M RC AIDS therapeutic trials committee, on which the Department of Health is represented, has identified combination therapy as one of a number of priority areas for further research.

  So far all the evidence supporting use of this combination of drugs comes from laboratory studies. We do not know what the clinical significance will be. Unfortunately many therapies which are promising in the test tube do not give the hoped-for benefits to patients.

  Surgery (Waiting Times)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current average waiting period for(a) all operations, (b) cataract surgery, or the specialty within which such surgery falls and (c) hip replacement surgery, or the specialty within which such surgery falls; and what information is available as to the proportion of all people waiting for operations who are aged over 65 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Waiting time information by specialty is published in "Hospital Waiting Lists, In-Patients and Day cases", a copy of which is in the Library. Waiting time information on individual conditions and by age of patients is not held centrally.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce a system to limit waiting times for out-patient appointments.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under the patients charter, health authorities already set and publish local charter standards for first out-patient appointments, and from 1993–94 regional health authorities will set targets in their corporate contracts for local improvements.

  Children (State Care)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will calculate the cost to the Exchequer of a child placed in the care of the state, from birth to the age of majority, at current prices.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information available represents the average weekly unit costs to local authorities for children of all ages for various placements. The latest average figures for English authorities, published in "Children in Care; England and Wales; year ending 31 March 1991", are £102 per week for a foster placement, £536 per week for a community home placement and £943 for a registered voluntary homes placement. These averages represent the gross "direct costs". The costs of field social work support are excluded as are the charges which local authorities may recover for children accommodated by them. Information is not currently available about the placement histories of children looked after since birth.

  Salmonellosis
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of death certificates on which salmonellosis is shown(a) as the main cause of death and (b) as a subsidiary cause of death, for the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of deaths, main cause and subsidiary, from salmonella infections, other than typhoid 218
  and paratyphoid fevers, ICD 003 in England and Wales, for the last five years for which figures are available are shown in the table.1

  Main cause

  Subsidiary

  1987

  52

  23

  1988

  58

  36

  1989

  61

  23

  1990

  68

  28

  1991

  62

  26

  1 Excluding neonatal deaths (0 to 27 days).

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of the annual cost of treatment for coronary heart disease; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not routinely collected centrally. The latest year for which figures are held is 1989–90. We estimate that in that year £540 million was spent on all forms of treatment of coronary heart disease in the national health service.

  Homoeopathic Hospitals
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on each of the five homoeopathic hospitals in each year since 1990–91; and what changes in funding are planned following EC directive 92/73/EEC of 22 September 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Northwick Park Hospital
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 February,Official Report, columns 204–5, what instructions she has given to doctors at Northwick Park Hospital Trust about involving patients or their general practitioners in discussions about contractual issues.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service executive has issued further guidance to the NHS about involving general practitioners and other clinicians in the contracting process under cover of EL(93)10 "Managing activity and change through contracting", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Green Agenda
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the guidelines and targets set for the implementation of the May 1991 DOH green agenda in respect of(a) exploiting the NHS's purchasing power by specifying environmentally friendly products, (b) using contracting to create healthier environments, (c) producing a smoking policy manual, (d) saving 15 per cent. on energy over five years and (e) changing to unleaded fuel throughout the national health service by 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Supplies Authority—NHSSA—is responsible for procurement matters for the NHS. It is a customer-driven organisation and responds to its customers' requirements, which are
  219
  increasingly for environmentally friendly products. This is taken into account when procuring products and NHSSA is in the process of developing a policy, in partnership with customers and suppliers, to encourage wider usage of "green" products throughout the NHS.

  In October 1992, guidance was issued to ensure that all sales of tobacco on NHS premises were stopped by the end of 1992, except to long-stay patients who are smokers, and to ensure that, by 31 May 1993, the NHS is smoke-free except for limited necessary provision of separate smoking rooms. A booklet of good practice in implementing smoking policies was issued jointly by the Department and the Health Education Authority. A copy is available in the Library.

  In line with the Government-wide target, health authorities are set an overall target for reducing energy consumption by 15 per cent. over the five years from 1991–92. Guidance and advice has been issued to the NHS on options for attaining this reduction. The NHS management executive is monitoring progress towards its achievement.

  Ambulance services, the main users of petrol within the NHS, are phasing out the use of leaded petrol in their fleets as part of their vehicle replacement programmes. This allows resources to be managed effectively and provides for the further option of diesel-powered vehicles.

  Regional Health Authority Staff
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of staff employed in each of the regional health authority offices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers of staff employed by regional health authorities—RHAs—are not directly comparable as some centrally manage NHS Supplies, blood transfusion, and ambulance services, as well as directly employing consultants and registrars for the health service in their region. Excluding these centrally maintained functions, we estimate a total of some 7,850 whole-time equivalent staff were employed by RHAs on 1 July 1992 or an average of 560 staff each. The number of each RHA is in the table:

  Number

  Northern

  656

  Yorkshire

  518

  Trent

  509

  East Anglian

  292

  North West Thames

  361

  North East Thames

  580

  South East Thames

  604

  South West Thames

  611

  Wessex

  331

  Oxford

  567

  South Western

  559

  West Midlands

  1,168

  Mersey

  313

  North Western

  785

  TOTAL

  7,854

  Home Helps
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the costs per hour of the home help or home care service in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1984, expressed both in actual prices and 1987 prices;

  (2) what were the total numbers of home help or home care hours provided in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1984; and, for each year and what were the average numbers of hours per user and per pensioner resident in the county for each year.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information is not held centrally. The numbers of clients, hours of service received by them and costs per hour of service are included in "Personal Social Services Statistics—Actuals" published annually by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Several items of the CIPFA data, including hourly costs, are reproduced in "Key Indicators of Local Authority Services" published by the Department of Health. Copies of these publications covering the years up to 1990–91 are in the Library.

  Fluoridation
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from local authorities about the proposed addition of fluoride to the North Yorkshire drinking water supply; and whether she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Human Tissue Tests
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requirements there are for pharmaceutical companics to carry out human tissue tests in vitro prior to marketing their products.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. The requirement is for adequate and appropriate pharmacological and toxicological testing of proposed medicinal products before trials of such products in human subjects and before eventual marketing.

  Certain accepted safety tests that are performed routinely on potential new medicines do use human cells in vitro to achieve their results. Other tests necessitate the use of animal models to reassure on safety issues, but research continues in order to ascertain whether in vitro tests could become valid substitutes.

  Care Homes
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers of places in local authority residential homes for the elderly in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Yeo
  The table shows the total number of places in local authority staffed homes in Cambridgeshire reported as being primarily for elderly people form 1987 onwards. Similar information is not available for earlier years or unstaffed homes.
  221

  Number of places in local authority staffed homes for elderly people Cambridgeshire 1987–92

  As at 31 March

  Number of places

  1987

  1,358

  1988

  1,344

  1989

  1,297

  1990

  1,249

  1991

  1,259

  1992

  1,150

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average age of people admitted to local authority residential homes for the elderly in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information is collected centrally in age bands. The table shows the number of admissions, by age band, to local authority staffed homes in Cambridgeshire reported as being primarily for elderly people, from 1987 onwards. Similar information is not available for earlier years or unstaffed homes.

  Unnatural deaths of two year olds in England and Wales from 1981 to 1990

  ICD number

  Year

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  001–E999

  All causes

  299

  289

  284

  243

  278

  259

  274

  272

  268

  239

  E800–E999

  External causes of injury and poisoning

  81

  81

  75

  75

  69

  56

  70

  64

  73

  64

  E800–E807

  Railway accidents

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  E810–E819

  Motor vehicle traffic accidents

  10

  29

  21

  20

  11

  14

  26

  20

  20

  19

  E820–E829

  Other vehicle accidents

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  E830–E848

  Water, air and space transport accidents and vehicle accidents not elsewhere classifiable

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  E850–E869

  Accidental poisoning by drugs, medicaments, biologicals, other solid and liquid substances, gases and vapours

  3

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  1

  0

  E870–E879

  Misadventure during medical care, abnormal reactions, late complications

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  E880–E888

  Accidental falls

  10

  4

  6

  8

  1

  4

  4

  1

  0

  2

  E890–E899

  Accidents caused by fire and flames

  18

  8

  17

  19

  17

  20

  9

  15

  20

  15

  E900–E929

  Other accidents including late effects

  30

  27

  13

  13

  28

  13

  18

  14

  17

  16

  E960–E969

  Homicide and injury purposely inflicted by other person

  1

  6

  7

  7

  5

  3

  7

  4

  2

  6

  E980–E989

  Injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  7

  5

  6

  6

  4

  1

  3

  9

  10

  4

  Myelograms
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue new guidelines about myelograms.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have no plans to issue guidelines.
  222

  Number of admissions to local authority staffed homes for elderly people by age-band Cambridgeshire 1987–92

  Age-band on admission

  Year to 31 March

  Under 65

  65–74

  75–84

  85 and over

  Total

  1987

  23

  160

  517

  576

  1,276

  1988

  45

  255

  992

  797

  2,089

  1989

  55

  257

  808

  814

  1,934

  1990

  32

  221

  1,021

  875

  2,149

  1991

  43

  311

  929

  1,176

  2,459

  1992

  51

  284

  1,027

  1,077

  2,439

  Children (Unnatural Deaths)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the number and main causes of unnatural deaths of two-year-olds each year since 1981.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Hospital Shops (Cigarettes)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surveys have been conducted as to the number or estimated percentage of hospital shops that sell cigarettes.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance was issued to all national health service authorities and provider units in October
  223
  1992 requiring them to stop the sale of all tobacco on NHS premises, except to long-stay patients who are smokers, by 31 December 1992. No surveys have been conducted and implementation is being monitored through normal management arrangements.

  Primary Health Care Forum
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral statement on 16 February,Official Report, columns 133–37, on the national health service in London, if she will list the membership of the Primary Health Care Forum; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Primary Health Care Forum will be the engine for change and improvement for primary care in London. Its members come from a variety of backgrounds, but common to all is their work in helping to stimulate and develop high quality primary and community services. This blend of experience will provide a sharp focus on the problems in the capital. Their task is crucial if the health care of Londoners is to improve as they and we would wish.

  The Primary Health Care Forum members are:

  Mr. Tim Chessells (Chairman), Chairman of the London Implementation Group.

  Mr. Gerry Green, Regional General Manager, South East
  Thames and regional general manager lead on primary care.

  Mrs. Ainna Fawcett-Henesy, Regional Nursing Oficer, South East Thames on secondment to LIG.

  Professor Lesley Southgate, Professor of General Practice and Primary Care, St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

  Ms. Hilary Scott, General Manager, Enfield and Haringey FHSA.

  Dr. Peter Skolar, an inner London GP and Chairman of Camden and Islington Local Medical Committee.

  Ms. Jean Rowe, Nurse Manager, Hillingdon Community Health Trust.

  Mr. Geoff Shepherd, Chief Executive, Redbridge and Waltham Forrest DHA.

  Dr. Rod Smith, GP fundholder, Caversham, Berkshire.

  Dr. Sian Griffiths, Regional Director of Public Health, South West Thames RHA.

  Mr. Terry Bamford, Director of Social Services, Kensington and Chelsea.

  Dr. Jo Ivey Boufford, Director, King's Fund College.

  Ms. Rosemary Glanville, Director of Medical Architecture Research Unit, University of North London and Non-Executive Director, West Lambeth Community Health Care Trust.

  Mr. Jack Barnes, Health Care Directorate, NHS Management Executive.

  Drug and Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statutory directions have been issued to local authorities to ensure that the needs of those with drug and alcohol problems are fairly considered under care in the community.

  Mr. Yeo
  The whole of the community care special transitional grant, which will be made available to local authorities, has been ring fenced to protect the funding of the entire range of community care services, including those for drug and alcohol misusers. The grant will reflect existing levels of provision in the alcohol and drug field. We have not, therefore, issued separate statutory directions on the distribution of these funds in respect of alcohol and drug misuse services. Statutory directions have, however, been issued to support payment or £3·3 million to enable local authorities to further develop 224
  voluntary sector services for those with alcohol and drug problems. We have also issued special guidance to local authorities in recognition of the particular challenge they face in meeting the needs of alcohol and drug misusers from 1 April 1993.

  Teleconference Costs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the primary care charter teleconference she held on Monday 22 February.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of £53,217·92 including VAT.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has commissioned into the effectiveness of residential care and secure residential care for juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The following research projects commissioned by the Department include examination of the effectiveness of residential care for all children including juvenile offenders.

  1. Dartington Social Research Unit—Locking up children: secure provision within the child care system 1978

  2. Professor Timms/Professor Harris, University of Leicester—Between hospital and prison or thereabouts: a study of the implementation of the secure accommodation regulations

  1987

  3. Dartington Social Research Unit—The experiences and careers of young people leaving youth treatment centres 1989

  4. Dartington Social Research Unit—Alternative care careers: the experience of very difficult adolescents outside youth treatment centre provision

  1989

  5. Dartington Social Research Unit—Follow-up of young people from youth treatment centres

  1993

  6. Professor Bottoms/Professor Knapp, University of Cambridge and University of Kent—Evaluation of the effectiveness of intermediate treatment

  1993

  7. Professor Whitaker, University of York—culture and staff dynamics in children's homes
  Commissioned: 1992

  8. Professor Sinclair—The role and quality of residential care
  Commissioned: 1993

  9. Dartington Social Research Unit—Factors and processes associated with positive outcomes for troubled adolescents
  Commissioned: 1993

  Copies of projects 1 to 4 are available in the Library. Copies of projects 5 to 9 are not yet available. Copies will be placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on what progress has been made in solving the commissioning problems of the A91 building at Aldermaston; and when he now expects the building to become fully operational.

  Mr. Aitken
  The project definition study to evaluate the scope of work necessary to overcome the corrosion
  225
  problems of building A91 is due to report at the end of March 1993. This study will identify the most cost-effective repair option and confirm the date on which the building will become operational.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on each of the(a) major injuries, (b) other injuries, (c) dangerous occurences and (d) cases of disease, as defined in the reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 —SI, 1985, No. 2023—reported to the Health and Safety Executive by AWE Aldermaston during 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  A total of 38 such incidents occurred in 1991. Further details are as follows:

  (a) major injuries (Total four)—two fractures of the wrist; one severed fingertip; one fall from a bicycle;

  (b) other injuries (Total 28)—three fractures of the hands and feet; seven minor accidents/illnesses; two sports injuries; eight strains various; one dog bite; one concussion; four injuries from falls; two eye injuries;

  (c) dangerous occurrences (Total five)—pipe flange steam leak in the main boilerhouse; lightning induced cable fault and fire on inductance; ignition of striker assembly; two releases of chromate dust; and

  (d) cases of disease (Total one)—suspected contamination by chromate dust (no residual effects found).

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when AWE Aldermaston plans to start the red commissioning stage of the A90 building.

  Mr. Aitken
  White commissioning is progressing well, but red commissioning will not commence until we are fully satisfied that the facility is ready to receive radio active material.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role and powers of the Health and Safety Executive concerning the atomic weapons establishments.

  Mr. Aitken
  The role and powers of the Health and Safety Executive in this respect were outlined on page 41 of the 12th report of the Select Committee on Defence in 1990.

  Vulcan XH558
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to allow the Vulcan XH558 to fly at any of the events commemorating the 75th anniversary of the RAF; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  There are no plans to include the Vulcan in the RAF flypast for the royal review at RAF Marham on 1 April 1993, which will consist of current operational RAF aircraft, with Battle of Britain memorial flight aircraft providing a historical perspective for the service.

  However, once the future of the Vulcan has been determined, it will be possible to consider the form of a farewell flypast.

  Bandsmen
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 779, if he will set out the approximate number of bandsmen employed on (a) Operation Corporate and (b) Operation Granby.
  226
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No Army bandsmen were deployed on Operation Corporate. On Operation Granby approximately 940 individual Army bandsmen were deployed.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why his Department's property, Queen Mary buildings in Stillington street, has been rendered uninhabitable; what was the cost of doing this; what is the intended future use of the buildings; and what consideration was given to using them to house the homeless in the interim period.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Queen Mary buildings consists of four blocks of six-storey flats. Two of the blocks are fully occupied; the other two have been vacated because repairs are necessary in order to rectify corrosion in steel reinforcement bars. Structural investigations have been carried out at a cost of £75,000 to establish the extent of the corrosion and remedial work is now in hand.

  The flats are used by military personnel who need to live within close proximity of their place of work. When repairs have been completed all the flats will be required by my Department. The empty blocks are not suitable for occupation due to their structural condition.

  Vehicle Leasing
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the numbers and makes of the vehicles currently being leased by(a) the Royal Air Force, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Army.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force do not have vehicles on long-term lease. The Army, which has the largest fleet of support vehicles, has the following vehicles on lease in the United Kingdom and in Germany:

  Number

  Iveco Ford tractor units

  112

  Mercedes Benz tractor units

  36

  Volvo tractor units

  17

  Leyland DAF tractor units

  1

  Volvo rigid vehicles

  9

  Leyland refrigerated unit

  1

  Leyland DAF minibuses

  28

  Renault minibuses

  11

  Ford transit minibus

  1

  Minibuses (makes unknown)1

  6

  Box body Luton type van (make unknown)1

  1

  Mechanical grab (make unknown)1

  1

  Volkswagen pick-up

  1

  Peugeot cars2

  36

  Fiat cars2

  31

  Rover cars

  22

  Ford cars

  27

  Nissan cars

  2

  Vauxhall cars

  2

  Cars in BAOR1

  268

  Volkswagen minibuses in BAOR

  54

  Vans in BAOR1

  15

  1 The vehicle makes are unknown because the lease contract does not specify a vehicle make but calls for a vehicle type—for example 12 seater minibus.

  2 The Fiat and Peugeot cars are being phased out and replaced by Rovers as their lease period expires.

  Bands
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 778, on medical training of Army bands, what specific medical tasks medical assistants are qualified to undertake; and what is the equivalent level of qualifications in the Royal Army Medical Corps;

  (2) to what level of civilian medical expertise (a) Royal Marine and (b) Royal Air Force band personnel are trained.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All service band personnel are trained to a level that equates to basic first aider in civilian qualifications. In addition, Royal Marine and RAF personnel are awarded the Health and Safety Executive certificate in first aid in the workplace.

  Instruction includes emergency resuscitation using basic skills, control of haemorrhage, initial treatment of bone and joint injuries and the application of bandages and dressings. It also covers the basic nursing care of a patient, the management of intravenous infusion equipment, the transportation of casualties and casualty management under nuclear, biological and chemical conditions.

  Chemical Discharges
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which chemicals listed under the Trade Effluents (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1989 are discharged into the environment by facilities and sites operated by his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  Central records are not maintained of the types and quantities of prescribed substances discharged by MOD. However, non-domestic discharges from individual MOD facilities and establishments are subject to prior agreement with the appropriate pollution control authorities. These agreements take into account the quantities, concentrations and types of prescribed substances contained in the discharges which are, in turn, dependent upon the particular processes or activities being undertaken.

  Army Personnel Centre
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 1992,Official Report, column 176, if he is now in a position to make a statement about his plans for an integrated army personnel centre outside London.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 January 1993, c. 760]: The consultation period has now ended. A number of representations were received, one of which proposed an alternative building for the centre in Stockport at a purchase price to the Ministry of Defence of rather less than £4 million, against a purchase price of around £20 million for the original proposal. These representations are now being considered. No decisions have been taken and I will make a further statement on our intentions as soon as possible.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will(a) detail the cost, sample size and sample composition of the recent survey conducted by Research International for the Citizens Charter Unit and (b) place a copy of the research findings in the Library.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  (a) It is not our practice to reveal the cost of such contracts, as it could prejudice Her Majesty's Government's position when negotiating other contracts. All payments are, of course, open to scrutiny.

  A sample of 940 adults was taken, which was representative of the country as a whole. The table gives a detailed profile of respondents.

  (Base = 940)

  Per cent.

  Sex:Male

  49

  Female

  51

  Age:16–24

  18

  25–34

  19

  35–44

  17

  45–54

  14

  55–64

  13

  65+

  19

  Working Status:

  Full/part-time

  50

  Not working

  30

  Retired

  20

  Marital Status:

  Married

  66

  Widowed/separated/divorced

  15

  Single

  19

  Finished Full-time Education:

  16 years or under

  65

  17 years or over

  35

  Regions:

  Scotland

  9

  North/North West

  18

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  9

  Midlands/Anglia

  20

  London

  12

  South East

  19

  Wales/South West

  13

  (b) Copies of the research findings have been placed in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what research his Department has undertaken on the possible effect of the national lottery on the income of charities and voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Key
  The report prepared for the Department by the GAH group of consultants considered information available from other countries on the possible effects of national and state lotteries on charitable incomes.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received on the effect of the national lottery on the income of charities and voluntary organisations.
  229
  Mr. Key
  I have received a number of observations as to the likely effect on the incomes of charities and voluntary organisations—most recently from the Charities Aid Foundation, which wrote to all members of the Standing Committee on 4 February and the Council for Charitable Sport, which wrote to my right hon. Friend on 9 February.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what direct consultations he has had with(a) voluntary organisations in the disablement field and (b) other voluntary organisations concerning the effect of the national lottery on their income.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has met the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which expressed its views on the lottery's effect on charities' income, along with a number of other observations on the national lottery. I have also had written representations from a number of voluntary organisations.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what study he has made of the effect of a national lottery on charitable giving in the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Key
  I am aware of the report by DKM management consultants, which includes a chapter on the effect of the Irish national lottery on charitable incomes in the Republic of Ireland.

  Package Holidays
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many people in the United Kingdom took overseas package holidays during 1992.

  Mr. Key
  Latest figures from the international passenger survey show that there were 10,571,000 holiday visits made by United Kingdom residents on marketed package holidays during the first three quarters of 1992—22 per cent. higher than for the first three quarters of 1991. They represented 55 per cent. of all United Kingdom holiday visits overseas and 39 per cent. of all United Kingdom residents' visits abroad.

  Sport
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total tax revenue from sports and the total Government assistance to sport by way of grant in each EC country for the most recent available year.

  Mr. Brooke
  This information is not available.

  Children's Play
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will establish a dedicated budget for children's play from central Government.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Sports Council will take over the National Children's Play and Recreation Unit's responsibilities for information, and playwork education and training after 31 March 1993 and fund these from its main budget. This represents a very positive way forward, and I see no need to introduce any other financial arrangements.
  230
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will visit the National Children's Play and Recreation Unit to discuss the removal of ring fencing of money allocated to the unit by the Sports Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  In November, my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, met the chairman and vice-chairman of the play unit to discuss our plans for supporting children's play after 31 March 1993. The issue of funding after this date is a matter for the Sports Council and I therefore see no need for a further meeting with the play unit.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the representations he has received about the future of the National Children's Play and Recreation Unit.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 3 March 1993]: I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 19 January, Official Report, column 131. Between 15 January and 2 March, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and I received 85 letters from hon. Members, 28 from local authorities, 50 from voluntary sector play organisations, 34 from other organisations and 17 from members of the public. A significant proportion of this correspondence consists of identical letters reaching the Department by a number of different routes, and fails to appreciate that funding will continue to be available to play through the Sports Council.

  Irish Cannon
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the representations from the Irish Government about the future of the 16th century Irish cannon currently in the royal armouries.

  Mr. Key
  The two guns cast in London by Robert and John Owen in the late 1540s were bought in good faith from a reputable dealer in 1972. There have been various rumours in the subsequent 20 years, but no evidence about their origin. In June 1992 the National museum of Ireland claimed ownership, saying that an extensive police investigation was in progress. In October its acting keeper of antiquities visited the royal armouries and was given full access to their files. The position remains that no evidence has been presented to support the Irish claim and it seems sensible to await the outcome of their police investigation.

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had over the proposed reduction in the grant to the English tourist board and the relation between this grant and others to other tourist bodies in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My Department has received a number of representations from the tourist industry about the level of English tourist board funding. The ETB is currently carrying out a review of its activities which will enable it to decide how its resources can be allocated most effectively in future.

  Decisions on the levels of funding for the other national tourist boards are a matter for the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, based on their assessment of their particular priorities.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the increase in the legal aid budget is due to increased payments on account to solicitors holding legal aid certificates in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information is available only in respect of payments on account made to both barristers and solicitors in respect of civil legal aid. The percentage of the increase in legal aid fund expenditure clue to increased payments on account to both barristers and solicitors in those circumstances in each of the last three years was as follows:

  1989–90 £ million

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  Gross fund expenditure

  580

  690

  910

  payments on account

  3·0 per cent.

  4·4 per cent.

  5·8 per cent.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the expected cost of the reorganisation of the outer London magistrates court system as proposed in Cm. 1829, "A New Framework for Local Justice"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Taylor
  We have not yet formulated proposals on the future organisation of the magistrates courts in outer London. We are at present consulting the service on the options and issues. The cost of reorganisation will depend on the option for change which is selected. Any additional costs arising out of reorganisation will be recovered through the structural improvements made by the changes and by efficiency savings.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish his proposals for the reorganisation of the outer London magistrates courts by the end of February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Taylor
  We have recently issued a consultation paper about the future organisation of the magistrates courts service in London. Responses are required by 31 May. The Lord Chancellor and I will give careful consideration to the views of those in the service in London before reaching any decisions about its future.

  Committal Proceedings
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will abolish formal committal proceedings in court under section 6(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 in cases where the defence lawyer accepts that there is a case to answer.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Consideration of the reform of committal proceedings is within the remit of the Royal Commission on criminal justice. We shall be reviewing the future of these proceedings in the light of the commission's findings.
  232

  1989–90 £ million

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  Gross fund expenditure

  580

  690

  910

  Gross annual increase

  89

  110

  220

  Increase in payments on account

  8·3

  12·8

  22·3

  Percentage of increase attributable to increased payments on account

  9·3

  11·6

  10·1

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of legal aid in each of the last three years was accounted for by payments on account.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The percentage of legal aid fund expenditure in each of the last three years accounted for by payments on account was as follows:

TRANSPORT

  Light Dues
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on light dues.

  Mr. Norris
  We remain committed to the principle of funding the cost of navigational aids from light dues. We are, however, pursuing a number of initiatives in this regard. We have made a joint approach with the Irish Government to the European Commission proposing that the user should pay for navigational aids throughout the Community's waters. I have opened negotiations with the Irish Government with a view to increasing the level of contributions to the general lighthouse fund from sources within the Republic. I am not yet in a position to make an announcement on the difficult issue of light dues for pleasure craft. But work continues to identify an equitable and cost-effective charging system.

  On 15 February 1990 my right hon. Friend the former Member for Hertsmere, when Secretary of State for Transport, announced his intention of moving from a net to a gross tonnage basis for the assessment of light dues in 1994. The general lighthouse authorities and the payers of light dues are consulting together as to what the effects would be on differing types and sizes of vessels. I expect to make a further announcement later in the year.

  The tariff for light dues is usually revised annually so that the finances of the general lighthouse fund are maintained at a satisfactory level. Despite a substantial increase in the tariff last year, light dues revenue for 1992–93 was forecast to be 26 per cent. lower in real terms than in 1987. For the forthcoming year from 1 April I am today announcing an average increase in the tariff about of 3.5 per cent.

  I am therefore laying regulations to increase the light dues voyage tariff by 1·5p to 43p per tonne with effect from 1 April; I am also increasing the tariff for periodical payments including those for fishing vessels, from £205 a year plus £21 per metre—for 10 m and over—to £212 and £22 respectively, with consequential increases in related rates.

  Traffic Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution his Department made to the conference held in London on 22 February, "Less Traffic, Better Towns".

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I addressed this conference and the head of the Department's urban and general directorate gave a talk on current departmental initiatives. Three other officials from the Department attended the conference.

  Motorway Traffic
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider establishing indication markers on the back of vehicles not permitted to overtake in the third lane of motorways, as a contribution to road safety.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We have no evidence of vehicles not permitted in the third lane regularly flouting the regulations and using that lane, and no plans to require any markings on vehicles not permitted to use the third lane.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what type and size of vehicles are banned from overtaking in the third lane of motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Regulation 12 of the Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations, as amended by the Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, stipulates the type and size of vehicles prohibited from the third lane of motorways. These are motor tractors, light or heavy locomotives, vehicles with a maximum laden weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes and those drawing trailers.

  Trans-Pennine Study
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he used to select the consultancy organisation that produced the trans-Pennine study strategy commissioned by his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As with any such consultancy award, the ability to deliver the work set out in the study brief at a competitive cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what penalty was provided in the contract with the consultancy responsible for producing the trans-Pennine study strategy report for failure to deliver the report on time.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  These kinds of commissions do not include a specific penalty for poor performance. If a consultant does not comply with the Department's requirements this would be taken into account when selecting tenderers for future commissions.

  The time scale for delivery of this report was adjusted when the scope of the study was extended.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official
  234
  Report, column 385, if he will list the organisations that tendered for the trans-Pennine study strategy commissioned by his Department, and the estimated cost of producing the report which was put forward by each organisation.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We received tenders from Transportation Planning Associates, the MVA Consultancy, Alastair Dick and Associates and Wootton Jeffreys. The value of each tender is a commercially sensitive matter which we do not divulge.

  A361
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total value of the outstanding disturbance claims arising from the building of the A361 Tiverton to Barnstaple link road; and what he estimates to be the interest accumulated on this sum.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The value of third-party claims arising from the construction of the A361 north Devon link road stages 2A and 2B would be difficult to quantify, as they are subject to negotiation between the claimant, the contractors, the consultants who supervise construction, and the Department. Compensation negotiated in respect of third-party claims does not attract interest.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many disturbance claims arising from the building of the A361 Tiverton to Barnstaple link road are still outstanding.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The table provides a breakdown of third-party claims arising from the construction of the A361 north Devon link road stages 2A and 2B.

  Number

  Stage 2A

  Claims received

  58

  Claims settled

  54

  Claims yet to be resolved

  4

  Stage 2B

  Claims received

  65

  Claims settled

  46

  Claims repudiated

  5

  Claims on which no recent action has been taken by claimants

  14

  A1 (Road Works)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates the A1 carriageways in the area of Ferrybridge, South Yorkshire, have been restricted due to road, bridge or other works during the last five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Carriageway restrictions have been imposed on the A1 in the area of Ferrybridge to enable substantial maintenance or survey work to be undertaken on nine occasions in the last five years, as follows:
  235

  Scheme

  Dates

  A1 Safety fencing M62 to Redhouse

  18 April 1988 to 19 June 1988

  A1 Wentbridge to Darrington

  6 February 1989 to 20 April 1989

  A1 River Aire to M62

  31 August 1989 to 15 December 1989

  A1 Wentbridge access

  15 January 1990 to 27 May 1990

  A1 Topographical survey, Wentbridge

  1 June 1990 to 31 August 1990

  A1 Wentbridge to Barnsdale Bar

  10 December 1990 to 13 April 1991

  A1 Redhouse to Barnsdale Bar

  12 May 1991 to 19 August 1991

  A1 Fairburn village

  11 November 1992 to 19 December 1992

  A1 Darrington

  22 February 1993 ongoing

  The list does not include daytime lane closures of a few hours' duration at off-peak times for routine work, patching or safety fence repairs.

  Road Traffic (Emissions)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of(a) carbon monoxide, (b) nitrogen oxides and (c) volatile organic compounds are from road traffic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The contribution from road traffic to national emissions in 1990 was:

  Per cent.

  Carbon monoxide

  90

  Nitrogen oxides

  51

  Volatile organic compounds

  41

  Over the next few years tight new emission standards are coming into force for cars, lorries and buses and these will lead to better air quality as older vehicles are phased out.

PRIME MINISTER

  Agricultural Surpluses
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the availability of facilities within the EC to store agricultural surpluses.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

  Marriage Counselling
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps are taken to co-ordinate the work of the United Kingdom Departments of the Scottish and Welsh Offices concerned with Relate; and if he will make a statement on the grants for Relate for future years.

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 February 1993, c. 421]: The last two sentences should have read
  236
  "The Scottish Office provides a grant to Marriage Counselling Scotland. In 1993–94 this will amount to £87,288, an increase of one and a half per cent. compared with 1992–93."

EDUCATION

  Primary Schools
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list for each local education authority area the number of pupils aged five to 11 years educated(a) within and (b) outside the maintained sector;

  (2) what percentage of pupils aged five to 11 years in England are educated within the maintained sector.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested for pupils attending schools in each local education authority area in England in January 1992 is shown in the table.

  Pupils aged 5–11 years in maintained and non-maintained schools in each local education authority in England in January 1992 Ages at 31 August 1991

  LEA

  Maintained

  Non maintained

  Percentage of pupils in maintained schools

  City

  171

  377

  31·2

  Camden

  10,189

  3,133

  76·5

  Greenwich

  19,253

  904

  95·5

  Hackney

  14,376

  2,106

  87·2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8,264

  1,211

  87·2

  Islington

  13,245

  203

  98·5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,514

  5,619

  49·5

  Lambeth

  16,645

  914

  94·8

  Lewisham

  18,123

  1,124

  94·2

  Southwark

  18,335

  1,634

  91·8

  Tower Hamlets

  18,410

  106

  99·4

  Wandsworth

  14,485

  2,411

  85·7

  Westminster

  8,593

  2,516

  77·4

  Barking

  13,468

  0

  100·0

  Barnet

  21,506

  3,147

  87·2

  Bexley

  18,135

  430

  97·7

  Brent

  19,029

  930

  95·3

  Bromley

  20,656

  2,553

  89·0

  Croydon

  23,912

  3,595

  86·9

  Ealing

  21,453

  3,074

  87·5

  Enfield

  21,139

  808

  96·3

  Haringey

  15,554

  981

  94·1

  Harrow

  15,744

  1,659

  90·5

  Havering

  19,284

  433

  97·8

  Hillingdon

  18,345

  1,672

  91·6

  Hounslow

  16,855

  440

  97·5

  Kingston upon Thames

  9,411

  1,518

  86·1

  Merton

  11,606

  1,681

  87·3

  Newham

  22,441

  96

  99·6

  Redbridge

  18,112

  1,978

  90·2

  Richmond upon Thames

  9,867

  3,118

  76·0

  Sutton

  12,533

  970

  92·8

  Waltham Forest

  18,038

  484

  97·4

  Birmingham

  97,122

  3,056

  96·9

  Coventry

  27,036

  924

  96·7

  237

  LEA

  Maintained

  Non-maintained

  Percentage of pupils in maintained schools

  Dudley

  26,193

  146

  99·4

  Sandwell

  27,077

  138

  99·5

  Solihull

  17,640

  1,146

  93·9

  Walsall

  24,507

  373

  98·5

  Wolverhampton

  22,081

  753

  96·7

  Knowsley

  15,561

  113

  99·3

  Liverpool

  43,989

  1,224

  97·3

  St. Helens

  16,089

  365

  97·8

  Sefton

  24,934

  1,567

  94·1

  Wirral

  28,961

  1,879

  93·9

  Bolton

  24,368

  950

  96·2

  Bury

  15,112

  763

  95·2

  Manchester

  40,262

  1,810

  95·7

  Oldham

  22,041

  694

  96·9

  Rochdale

  19,875

  284

  98·6

  Salford

  19,812

  929

  95·5

  Stockport

  23,635

  2,380

  90·9

  Tameside

  20,116

  63

  99·7

  Trafford

  17,741

  1,638

  91·5

  Wigan

  27,974

  0

  100·0

  Barnsley

  19,153

  38

  99·8

  Doncaster

  27,134

  418

  98·5

  Rotherham

  23,341

  158

  99·3

  Sheffield

  39,344

  1,116

  97·2

  Bradford

  47,615

  1,569

  96·8

  Calderdale

  17,445

  484

  97·3

  Kirklees

  34,364

  717

  98·0

  Leeds

  58,869

  2,302

  96·2

  Wakefield

  27,716

  1,295

  95·5

  Gateshead

  16,360

  699

  95·9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  21,548

  2,242

  90·6

  North Tyneside

  16,592

  503

  97·1

  South Tyneside

  14,006

  31

  99·8

  Sunderland

  27,630

  610

  97·8

  Isles of Scilly

  181

  0

  100·0

  Avon

  74,052

  5,424

  93·2

  Bedfordshire

  48,708

  2,581

  95·0

  Berkshire

  61,392

  7,086

  89·7

  Buckinghamshire

  54,085

  4,755

  91·9

  Cambridgeshire

  56,095

  2,802

  95·2

  Cheshire

  83,453

  3,671

  95·8

  Cleveland

  55,241

  967

  98·3

  Cornwall

  38,196

  1,239

  96·9

  Cumbria

  40,231

  1,102

  97·3

  Derbyshire

  77,922

  2,280

  97·2

  Devon

  78,334

  5,177

  93·8

  Dorset

  46,610

  3,644

  92·7

  Durham

  51,853

  1,087

  97·9

  East Sussex

  47,710

  5,687

  89·3

  Essex

  125,438

  6,948

  94·8

  Gloucestershire

  42,407

  3,427

  92·5

  Hampshire

  125,924

  9,611

  92·9

  Hereford and Worcester

  55,220

  4,595

  92·3

  Hertfordshire

  80,291

  7,683

  91·3

  Humberside

  77,284

  1,644

  97·9

  Isle of Wight

  9,588

  426

  95·7

  Kent

  124,793

  9,297

  93·1

  Lancashire

  123,100

  4,134

  96·8

  238

  LEA

  Maintained

  Non maintained

  Percentage of pupils in maintained schools

  Leicestershire

  78,266

  2,972

  96·3

  Lincolnshire

  47,616

  2,154

  95·7

  Norfolk

  57,469

  2,991

  95·1

  North Yorkshire

  54,604

  3,690

  93·7

  Northamptonshire

  51,864

  3,063

  94·4

  Northumberland

  26,180

  457

  98·3

  Nottinghamshire

  84,742

  3,369

  96·2

  Oxfordshire

  43,121

  4,878

  8·98

  Shropshire

  34,509

  2,434

  93·4

  Somerset

  36,473

  3,128

  92·1

  Staffordshire

  90,572

  2,316

  97·5

  Suffolk

  50,266

  3,488

  93·5

  Surrey

  66,742

  17,193

  79·5

  Warwickshire

  39,431

  2,661

  93·7

  West Sussex

  52,107

  5,127

  91·0

  Wiltshire

  46,860

  2,723

  94·5

  England

  3,944,864

  243,113

  94·2

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for education what proportions of three and four-year-olds attended state nursery schools or state nursery classes in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated percentages of the local three and four-year-old population attending maintained nursery schools and classes in Cambridgeshire local education authority for each of years 1984 to 1992 are shown in the table. The table also shows the percentages of such pupils being taught in infant classes in maintained primary schools.

  Position as at January each Year

  year

  Nursery schools and classes

  Infant classes

  1992

  12

  32

  1991

  11

  31

  1990

  11

  34

  1989

  12

  30

  1988

  12

  30

  1987

  12

  29

  1986

  12

  28

  1985

  12

  29

  1984

  11

  27

  Estimated percentages of three and four-year-old population attending maintained nursery schools and classes and infant classes in maintained primary schools in Cambridgeshire LEA.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufacturing (Midlands)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the figures for manufacturing output in the midlands from the latest available date.

  Mr. Portillo
  According to provisional CSO figures for 1991, GDP for manufacturing industry at factor cost in the midlands was £21.1 billion, representing 20.3 of the United Kingdom total.

  Actors
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on taxation arrangements for actors.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received very few representations recently.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the main rate of corporation tax in(a) Japan, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The current main rates on distributed profits are 37½ per cent. in Japan, 36 per cent. in Germany, 33½ per cent. in France and 33 per cent. in the United Kingdom. In Germany a higher rate of 50 per cent. is applied to undistributed profits.

  Finance Ministers
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the discussions at the February meeting of European Community Finance Ministers.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the discussions at the February meeting of EC Finance Ministers.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 18 February,Official Report, col. 315.

  US Tariffs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement concerning the economy and the imposition by the United States of America of tariffs upon United Kingdom-manufactured goods.

  Mr. Portillo
  The United Kingdom is concerned about recent developments in trade relations with the US, in particular the imposition of anti-dumping duties on steel, which could have a significant impact on sections of the steel industry. The United Kingdom believes that it is essential that the dialogue between the Commission and US continues and that these disputes do not escalate into a trade war.

  Debt
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the ratio of debt to gross domestic product in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Italy, (c) France and (d) Germany.

  Mr. Portillo
  The OECD estimates that the gross general Government debt to GDP ratio in 1992 was 42 per cent. in the United Kingdom, compared with 44 per cent. in Germany, 50 per cent. in France and 108 per cent. in Italy.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with representatives of charities and voluntary bodies on the possible imposition of VAT on their activities.

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the removal of VAT payable on items of sanitary protection.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have received a number on the subject.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning rates of VAT.

  Mr. Nelson
  Many representations have been received and these will be considered in the run-up to the Budget.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the relative cost of sending publications by post in the United Kingdom and the other member states of the EC, when considering the question of extending VAT to books and magazines.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the differing costs arid VAT rates in member states on publications sent by post. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further in the period leading up to the Budget.

  Retail Prices
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the annual increase in the retail prices index; and what were the comparable figures for January 1992 and January 1991.

  Mr. Portillo
  In January the headline rate of RPI inflation was 1.7 per cent., down sharply from 4.1 per cent. in January 1992 and 9 per cent. in January 1991. Headline inflation is now at its lowest level for more than 25 years.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how Customs and Excise prosecution policy has been reviewed since the Matrix Churchill trial.

  Mr. Nelson
  The prosecution policy of Customs and Excise, determined within its role as an independent prosecuting authority, is guided by the code for Crown prosecutors which sets out the evidential and public interest tests which should be addressed when considering
  241
  criminal prosecutions. The commissioners keep under review their prosecution policies in relation to the wide range of enforcement responsibilities laid to them, taking account of all relevant factors. One such factor will clearly be the findings of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.

  Edinburgh Summit
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new projects are to go ahead in Britain as a consequence of the statement at the Edinburgh summit on European economic recovery.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General gave to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 26 February,Official Report, column 765.

  Public Sector Leasing
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about public sector leasing policy.

  Mr. Portillo
  The autumn statement announced as part of the private finance initiative, certain changes affecting leasing by public sector bodies. As a form of procurement, leasing must be based on an assessment of value for money, taking into account the transfer of risk. If the great majority of the risk lies with the private sector, the capital value of leased assets will not be offset from departmental spending allocations or external financing limits. In addition, in the particular circumstances of the run-up to privatisation, British Rail will be allowed to lease some £150 million of new rolling stock.

  Interim guidance on the private finance initiative as a whole was provided to Departments on 9 December and placed in the Library of the House. More detailed guidance on leasing will be available shortly.

  Statutory rules require that local authorities in England and Wales should count leases as credit arrangements for which credit cover is needed, unless they are operating leases or other specified types of leases. In Scotland, authorities are similarly required to count certain categories of leases as capital transactions which must have capital allocation cover.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on tax revenues of changes in the level of unemployment in the south-east over the last year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not possible to provide reliable estimates of the effects.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the President of the European Commission's call for an emergency summit of the Group of Seven to co-ordinate measures to tackle unemployment.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 February 1993]: The Japanese Prime Minister is currently the chair of the Group of Seven and it is for him to respond to this proposal. On Saturday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hosted an informal meeting of the G7 Finance Ministers and central bank governors.
  242
  Concern was expressed about the high level of unemployment in all countries and there was agreement on the need to strengthen non-inflationary growth. This meeting was in part to fulfil last year's economic summit request to Finance Ministers to strengthen co-operation and to intensify work to reduce obstacles to growth and thereby foster employment.

  Repossessions
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Building Societies Commission to discuss repossessions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Treasury Ministers meet the chairman of the Building Societies Commission from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Demand
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the level of total demand in the economy.

  Mr. Portillo
  Latest data indicate that the level of real domestic demand in the third quarter of 1992 was 0.6 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The majority of the Treasury's panel of independent forecasters and other outside forecasters expect it to pick up further in 1993. The Government will publish a new forecast in the financial statement and Budget report on 16 March.

  Consumer Spending
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the monthly change in consumer spending for each month since January 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates of consumers' expenditure are not compiled monthly. Quarterly estimates of the volume of consumers' expenditure are shown in table 3 of the publication "Economic Trends". Table 1 of this publication gives monthly estimates of the volume of retail sales which account for about two fifths of total consumers' expenditure. Copies of "Economic Trends" are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Money Supply
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage change in the money supply, M4, for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for the percentage change in the money supply, M4, for each year since 1987 are available in table 28 of "Economic Trends", January and February 1993 issues.

  Health and Education Expenditure
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been public spending on health and on education in each year since 1975 at current prices.

  Mr. Portillo
  Table 2.2 of the statistical supplement to the 1992 autumn statement, Cm. 2219, shows general Government expenditure by function from 1978–79. Figures are also available on a national accounts basis back to 1977, in cash terms, from the CSO database in the following series, identified by their database code:
  243

  GTGH: General Government expenditure on Health,

  GTGN: General Government expenditure on Education.

  The database can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  Sterling (Devaluation)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of the devaluation of the pound sterling against the basket of international currencies since Wednesday 23 September 1992, on the latest available figures.

  Mr. Nelson
  Between close of business in London on 23 September 1992 and opening 1 March 1993 the £ sterling has declined against its exchange rate index by 6.74 per cent.

  Car Tax
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the total annual amount lost in taxation by the changes in car taxation announced in his autumn statement.

  Sir John Cope
  As a result of the abolition of car tax announced in the autumn statement it is estimated that there will be a total loss of revenue, including consequential VAT, of £750 million in 1993–94. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced at the time that the costs would be recouped in the next Budget through other taxes on motoring.

  Bloodstock
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives from the Jockey Club to discuss the level of VAT on bloodstock in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I meet representatives of the Jockey Club from time to time, but have no meeting scheduled at present.

  Exchange Rates
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the benefits to industry of fixed exchange rates within the European Community.

  Mr. Nelson
  Exchange rate stability can be beneficial if there is sufficient convergence of monetary policy requirements among the countries concerned. The European Commission's 1990 report on the costs and benefits of economic and monetary union—"One Market, One Money"—surveyed a number of studies on this subject.

  Wages and Salaries
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current estimate of annual change in levels of wages and salaries and of the retail prices index; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  In December underlying average earnings growth was 4¾ per cent. This is estimated to be the lowest since 1967. In January headline RPI inflation was 1.7 per cent., also the lowest since 1967.

  Local Authorities (Loans)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed in the quotas for lending to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board.

  Mr. Lamont
  The public works loan commissioners have issued a circular today notifying local authorities of a change in the formula for calculating the quotas for 1993–94. The change reflects the Government's continued concern about the level of investments held by some authorities. The revised formula will reduce the quota available to local authorities which hold substantial investments, some of which could be used in place of fresh borrowing. It will have little or no effect on authorities where investments are small. Interest rates will continue to be set near but just below market rates.

  A copy of the circular has been placed in the House Library.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the extent to which the introduction of PEPs has increased investment in equities, unit trusts or investment trusts by type of investor; and to what extent it has resulted in switching from client equity, unit trust or investment trust investment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 March 1993]: Over £6 billion had been invested in personal equity plans by April 1992. Many investors will have been encouraged to invest more in equities and in unit and investment trusts, but the detailed information requested in not available.

  Charities
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts charities received in tax concessions and Government grants in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 February 1993]: The total cost of direct tax reliefs benefiting charities is not available. The latest information on the cost of income tax reliefs to charities, including donations by individuals and companies and relief for charities, is given in the table. In addition, inheritance tax relief for gifts and bequests to charities costs about £150 million per annum. The value of VAT reliefs specifically targeted on charities and the disabled is now worth some £150 million per annum. Information on grants to charities specifically in not available, but grants to the voluntary sector totalled £2.36 billion in 1989–90 and £2.68 billion in 1990–91. Comparable information for 1991–92 is not yet available.

  £ million1 Cost of income tax relief

  1990–91

  500

  1991–92

  570

  1992–93

  530

  1 These figures comprise the total sum repaid to charities and scientific research associations in respect of tax credits on dividends, and income tax deducted at source from other investment income, payments under deeds of covenant, single donations by individuals and companies under the Gift Aid Scheme and donations under the payroll giving scheme. Information is not available about income received by these bodies without deduction of tax and no allowance in the figures is made for this.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services Boards
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the definition of employees of each of the health and social services boards as(a) Irish, (b) United Kingdom, (c) British and (d) EC citizens is the result of decisions by the boards or of self-definition by the employees.

  Mr. Hanley
  The health and social services boards do not define the nationality of their employees as Irish, United Kingdom, British or EC. Applicants are asked to indicate on the application form whether they are EC or non-EC nationals.

  Caesarean Section Births
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many babies were born by Caesarean section in hospitals in Northern Ireland during each year since 1970; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures for 1971–1986 and 1991 and 1992 are given in the table. Equivalent information is not available for the years 1987–1990 when adjustments were being made to the data collection process.

  The figures in the table include both live and still-births.

  Babies born by caesarean section in hospitals in Northern Ireland 1971–1986, 1991, 1992

  Year

  Live/still births in hospital

  Babies born in hospitals by caesarean section

  Caesarean births as a percentage of total

  1971

  31,800

  1,611

  5

  1972

  30,464

  1,520

  5

  1973

  27,531

  1,488

  5

  1974

  28,047

  1,537

  5

  1975

  26,969

  1,720

  6

  1976

  26,936

  2,015

  7

  1977

  26,393

  1,910

  7

  1978

  27,380

  2,042

  7

  1979

  28,603

  2,408

  8

  1980

  28,240

  2,328

  8

  1981

  27,833

  2,395

  9

  1982

  27,420

  2,410

  9

  1983

  27,406

  2,445

  9

  1984

  28,897

  2,633

  9

  1985

  27,738

  2,642

  10

  1986

  28,333

  2,762

  10

  1991

  25,997

  2,912

  11

  1992

  25,508

  2,821

  11

  Irish Language
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in how many schools at each level Irish is presently taught to a majority of the pupils at some stage in their education in that school; how many children have achieved a pass in Irish at(a) GCSE, (b) 0-level and (c) A-level, in each of the last five years; what is the percentage of schools at each level offering Irish as a subject; how many of the schools offering Irish are (i) voluntary, (ii) controlled, (iii) maintained and (iv) integrated; and what is the percentage offering Irish in each of these categories.

  Mr. Hanley
  No information is available centrally on the number of primary schools which teach Irish.
  246
  The latest available information on the teaching of Irish at post-primary level relates to a survey conducted in respect of the 1988–89 academic year, based on a 10 per cent. sample of pupils.

  That survey identified 92 schools in which Irish is taught. All are voluntary schools of which 29 are voluntary grammar schools and 63 are voluntary maintained secondary schools. These figures represent 50 per cent. and 79 per cent. respectively of the total number of schools in these categories. It is probable, however, that there are other schools in which Irish is taught, but which were not identified in the sample used in the survey.

  The number of pupils who have obtained a pass in Irish at GCSE and A-level in each of the last five years is as follows:—

  GCSE

  A level

  GRADE

  A-C

  D-G

  A-E

  1988

  1,046

  469

  203

  1989

  1,133

  486

  183

  1990

  955

  436

  229

  1991

  959

  462

  214

  1992

  1,037

  504

  270

  1987 was the last year of NI GCE 'O' level examinations.

  Educational Administration
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he intends to take, in the light of the consultative document, "Educational Administration in Northern Ireland", to consult parents and teachers before concluding which of the three possible systems set out in the document he intends to install; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Copies of the consultative document on educational administration in Northern Ireland have been widely distributed to schools, colleges, teachers unions and professional associations. The views of parents have been sought through the Parents Action Group on Education. Press advertisements have also been placed informing the public of the publication of the document and inviting comments by 25 June. Furthermore, there have been detailed press articles setting out the contents of the document. The Government have stressed that no decisions will be made until all representations have been considered.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what study his Department has made of the potential impact on the current numbers employed within the five education and library boards, in the light of any move towards each of the three proposed models set out in chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the consultative document on educational administration in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The models described in the consultative document are intended to be illustrative of the broad frameworks within which educational services might be provided rather than to be detailed blueprints for future structures. They do not exclude consideration of any other models that might be suggested. The Government are committed to extensive consultation on the way ahead and will not make any final decisions until that consultation is completed. In these circumstances any notional assessment of the implications of the three models for present
  247
  levels of employment in the education and library boards was not considered to be of significant value at this stage of the review process.

  Slopping Out
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when slopping out will end at each of the gaols; and if he will make a statement on prison refurbishment.

  Mr. Mates
  Slopping-out does not take place in either of the two Maghaberry prisons as integral sanitation is provided.

  At the young offenders centre, Hydebank Wood, a system of electronic unlocking provides inmate access to sanitation at night in much of the accommodation. As a progressive regime operates in the centre, inmates normally progress into such facilities. Refurbishment at the centre costing £3·5 million over the next three years is planned.

  At Belfast prison a major £25 million programme aimed at ending slopping-out and greatly improving facilities by the year 2000 has now been planned and elements of work already begun. Due to the scale and complexity of the project and the need for it to be done while the prison is largely operational, work will take some years and the first elements will be security related. The remainder involve installation of many improvements for prisoners and staff, including en-suite toilet facilities in the wings.

  In both Maze and Magilligan prisons, prisoners often have their own cells. This allied to a regime which enabled them to spend much of the day out of cell, means that the sanitation difficulties experienced in other jurisdictions are much less prevalent. But we are currently developing a strategic plan for the entire prison estate in Northern Ireland which will include consideration of the installation of integral sanitation in these prisons.

  Regulations
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a list of all the regulations for which his Department is currently responsible with a descriptive title for each individual regulation.

  Mr. Atkins
  A provisional list of regulations that have an impact on business has recently been put together. Consideration will be given to placing the list in the Library once it has been fully checked for accuracy and consideration of definition.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industrial Assistance
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a breakdown of regional preferential assistance to industry for each year since 1981–82, inclusive, at 1992–93 constant prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The amounts spent on regional preferential assistance in Great Britain for the period 1981–82 to 1991–92 are set out in the table. The values are all expressed in terms of 1992–93 prices.
  248

  Government expenditure on Regional Preferential Assistance to Industry at 1992–93 prices

  £ million

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  1981–82

  818·0

  367·5

  432·6

  1,618·1

  1982–83

  639·9

  316·3

  641·7

  1,597·9

  1983–84

  498·6

  199·2

  379 5

  1,077·3

  1984–85

  477·5

  233·1

  295·6

  1,006·2

  1985–86

  372·6

  207·4

  295·2

  875·2

  1986–87

  512·6

  218·8

  351·9

  1,083·3

  1987–88

  372·4

  182·2

  210·8

  765·4

  1988–89

  405·7

  190·1

  193·9

  789·7

  1989–90

  317·5

  158·5

  174·0

  650·0

  1990–91

  227·8

  149·0

  177·3

  554·1

  1991–92

  157·6

  160·5

  134·4

  452·5

  £ millon

  Index

  1992–93 prices

  1978–79

  35·5

  1979–80

  41·4

  1980–81

  49·0

  1981–82

  53·7

  1982–83

  57·6

  1983–84

  60·2

  1984–85

  63·3

  1985–86

  66·7

  1986–87

  68·9

  1987–88

  72·7

  1988–89

  78·0

  1989–90

  83·1

  1990–91

  89·7

  1991–92

  95·9

  1992–93

  100·0

  Notes:

  1. All figures are gross and include payments to Nationalised Industries.

  2. Expenditure on a 1992–93 price basis for each year is calculated by applying the appropriate deflator to expenditure at current prices. The items included in the expenditure are Regional Development Grants, Regional Selective Assistance and Regional Enterprise Grants; expenditure on Land and Factories by the English Industrial Estates Corporation, the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, the Development Board for Rural Wales, and the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

  Gas Reserves
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the present known reserves of gas in terms of the number of years present consumption can be maintained.

  Mr. Eggar
  Figures for gas reserves and consumption are published annually in the Brown Book.1I expect to publish the 1993 edition around the end of April.

  1 "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom": a report to Parliament by the Minister for Energy.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much coal designated for power generation was imported into the United Kingdom in 1992; and how much was imported from each exporter.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of coal imported into the United Kingdom and designated for power generation1 during 1992 was 7,568,000 tonnes. The breakdown by exporting countries is:
  249

  Thousand tonnes

  USA

  3,390

  Former USSR

  2

  Poland

  52

  Australia

  1,224

  South Africa

  388

  China

  238

  Colombia

  2,274

  Total imported coal

  7,568

  1 Major electricity generating companies as defined in Energy Trends.

  British Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what policy he has for developing(a) competitive and (b) comparative advantages within British industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 16 November 1992,Official Report, column 71, and the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 27 January 1993, Official Report, column 735.

  Departmental Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of the individuals currently acting as inspectors for his Department have business connections with the organisations criticised in the reports published by him.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Two. The accountant inspectors in the Guinness plc and Astra Holdings plc investigations are, or have been, partners in KPMG Peat Marwick. One of the firms that now form KPMG Peat Marwick was criticised in the inspectors' report on Orbit Holdings plc, published on 23 December 1981. The firm's Bermuda office was criticised in the inspectors' report on Alexander Howden Holding plc, published on 29 August 1990. In both cases, the events in question occurred between 10 and 20 years ago.

  Recycling
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from(a) Safeway and (b) other retail trade organisations on the problems of the comparative practices of the United Kingdom and German recycling industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am aware of the concerns that Safeways and others in the retail sector have about the damaging effects on the United Kingdom recycling industry of the German approach to packaging recycling. My Department has received written representations from individual retailers and the British Retail Consortium, and from wider industry groups such as the Consortium of the Packaging Chain. We are currently discussing the position with the interests concerned.

  Aircraft Subsidies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 772, what information on US/EC aircraft production subsidies from defence programmes has been exchanged; when the meetings between EC and US representatives were held; and whether these or related issues have been raised recently with the United States Government.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The first meeting to exchange information under the terms of the agreement is expected to take place at the end of March. Indirect support programmes will be among the topics covered at that meeting.

  Global Technology Partnership Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies of the invitation to his Department's global technology partnership conference, to be held in Birmingham on 23 to 25 March, have been distributed; at what cost; which Ministers from his Department plan to attend; and what speeches by Ministers are planned.

  Mr. Eggar
  The global technology partnership conference is aimed at encouraging greater technology co-operation between businesses in the United Kingdom and those in the more industrialised developing countries. In addition to environmental improvement, such co-operation can lead to commercial opportunities for all businesses involved. To ensure this message was widespread, just over 8,500 invitations were distributed in the United Kingdom and the selected developing countries. The distribution costs of this were £5,392.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will speak at the conference.

  Petroleum Production
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the Government's latest forecasts of levels of United Kingdom petroleum production.

  Mr. Eggar
  The latest forecasts for petroleum production in the years 1993 to 1997 are as follows:

  Million tonnes

  1993

  85–105

  1994

  95–125

  1995

  95–125

  1996

  95–125

  1997

  85–120

  The forecast is presented as a range of outcomes for each year to take account of the many uncertainties involved. The figures include stabilised crude oil, natural gas liquids and condensates.

  These figures and a range of other information about the development of United Kingdom oil and gas resources may be obtained from "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom 1993"—the Brown Book—due to be published by the DTI at the end of April.

  Flats (Terrorism Insurance)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the additional premiums to be charged for terrorism cover for blocks of flats.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The new arrangements under which the Government will act as reinsurer of last resort in respect of damage caused by terrorist activity apply primarily to industrial and commercial property. The arrangements do not affect the property and homes of private policy holders, and these continue to be covered by insurance companies in exactly the same way as in the past.

  In the case of blocks of flats, the insurance companies have now decided that they will also continue to cover a property whose sum insured is under £2·2 million. Where a property's sum insured is above £2·5 million, the policy holder will be able to buy additional terrorism cover. The basic additional terrorism premium for a block of flats in London and other major city centres will be about one ninth of that for other industrial and commercial property and about one third in other parts of the country.

  These arrangements for blocks of flats represent a significantly more modest contribution from policy holders than previously envisaged.

WALES

  Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions the World Health Organisation's one hour guidelines on(a) sulphur dioxide and (b) ozone have been exceeded in Wales in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Records indicate that the World Health Organisation's one hour guidelines for ozone were exceeded in Wales on 21 occasions and 16 occasions in 1990 and 1992, respectively, but that no excesses occurred in 1991. For sulphur dioxide, the guidelines were exceeded on two occasions in 1992 but were not exceeded in either 1990 or 1991. No excesses have occurred to date in 1993 for sulphur dioxide or ozone.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received from independent schools regarding the provisions of the Education Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  One.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the Education Bill upon independent schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Independent schools will welcome the measures in the Education Bill which aim to prevent the employment of barred persons and also the proposals to exclude certain independent boarding schools from registration as children's homes. The Bill complements the long-established role of the independent sector in providing for greater choice and diversity to meet the needs of pupils and parents and in encouraging schools to specialise in their particular strengths.

  Caesarean Section Births
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many babies were born by Caesarean section in Wales in each year since 1970; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of caesarean deliveries reported in NHS hospitals in Wales since 1982 is given in the following table. Data for years prior to 1982 are not readily available and data for years after 1990 are not yet complete.

  Caesarean section deliveries

  Number

  1982

  3,311

  1983

  3,552

  1984

  3,820

  1985

  4,225

  1986

  4,238

  1987

  4,385

  1988

  4,508

  1989

  4,465

  1990

  4,204

  Note:

  Figures may understate the true position in that not all hospitals supply complete medical details on patient discharges and deaths.

  Aberconwy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the subject of granting objective 5(b) assisted area status to the borough of Aberconwy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received representations from Gwynedd county council and Aberconwy borough council seeking the inclusion of Aberconwy as an objective 5(b) area. This matter forms part of the wider consideration that is currently being given by my Department's structural funds review working group for Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys. I support strongly the case for its inclusion.

  Local Government Reforms
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he now proposes to make a statement on his proposals concerning local government reforms.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I made a statement to the House on 1 March.

  Health Service Resources
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what decisions he has reached regarding the allocation of resources for hospital and community health and related services in Wales for 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I announced on 16 December my decision on the allocation of resources for the national health service in wales for 1993–94. Within the £1,974 million resources available we propose to allocate £1,465 million for hospital and community health services and the cash-limited element of the family health services in Wales.

  For health authorities, the current resources within this sum which is subject to parliamentary approval to the supply estimates totals £1,290 million and represents a

  253
  cash increase of £47 million or 3·7 per cent. over 1992–93 estimated outturn provision. This sum, together with the additional £14 million which it is anticipated health authorities should, as a minimum, realise from further cost improvement savings and income generation schemes, will provide an effective increase in resources over 1992–93 of 5 per cent. Authorities will also benefit from further efficiency savings resulting from workload-related productivity increases through their contracts with service providers.

  £8·5 million of the sum available for health authorities will be allocated to fund the continuing and full-year cost of developments which are being funded centrally in 1992–93. £8·6 million will be allocated to other centrally funded developments which will be announced in due course.

  £29·2 million of the provision available will be made available for the discretionary use of health authorities. This provides for a 2·2 per cent. increase in HAs' discretionary revenue provision, or 0·4 per cent. in real terms, taking account of the 1·5 per cent. public sector pay restraint and the latest forecast of general inflation in 1993–94. In addition, authorities will be expected to generate the equivalent of at least a further 2 per cent. recurrent provision in efficiency savings from cash-releasing cost improvements and income generation schemes—1·3 per cent. minimum target—and productivity increases as throughput increase-0·7 per cent. minimum target—via their contracts with service providers.

  Authorities should therefore be in a position to make further improvements in the services offered to patients in accordance with the objectives of the patients charter.

  In order to continue progress toward weighted capitation funding, I have decided that all authorities will receive a minimum cash increase of 2 per cent. and that the balance of 0·2 per cent. will be provided to those

  Table 1

  Allocation

  Cash increase

  Remaining distance from target

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Clwyd

  170·805

  4·625

  3·2

  -3·93

  East Dyfed

  103·671

  1·860

  2·0

  2·22

  Gwent

  180·176

  3·250

  2·1

  -2·31

  Gwynedd

  101·341

  2·119

  2·4

  -2·40

  Mid Glamorgan

  226·009

  4·042

  2·0

  -1·30

  Pembrokeshire

  48·260

  0·850

  2·0

  1·52

  Powys

  62·701

  1·017

  2·0

  12·97

  South Glamorgan

  185·893

  2·810

  2·0

  2·88

  West Glamorgan

  146·327

  2·746

  2·0

  1·65

  Steady progress therefore has been made toward the equalisation goal set in 1991; but the progress to date has been neither so great as to justify bringing forward the 1998–99 target date for achieving weighted capitation shares, nor so small as to require extending the process. However, the formula will be subject to further review in 1993–94 and this will focus particularly on whether any progress has been or might be achieved in distinguishing the separate effects of differential morbidity and social deprivation on relative needs; and, if so, how these effects might be better reflected in the formula. Since this further review could have an impact upon formula targets, I will look again at the target date for achieving weighted capitation funding in the light of whatever emerges from the review.
  254
  authorities which would otherwise be more than 2 per cent. below their capitation formula targets in proportion to their respective distances from target.

  The formula targets used in determining the distribution of the 0·2 per cent. further tranche of equalisation funding have been updated to take account of 1991 census data and other changes which affect the 1993–94 revenue allocations—notably revised capital charge estimates following the revaluation of the NHS estate, a further redefinition of capital—which alters the balance of HA capital to revenue expenditure—and a decision to exclude from the formula assessment revenue provision associated with long-stay hospital services for patients with a mental handicap which will be predominantly transferred to local authorities in due course as hospital services for this group are progressively replaced by community care.

  These changes together with the equalisation funding provided over the past two years have together contributed to a narrowing of the range of differences between the most over-target and the most under-target HAs. Compared with 1991–92 when the range was from Powys at 14·61 per cent. over-target to Gwynedd 6·89 per cent. under-target, the position for 1993–94 prior to the distribution of the additional 0·2 per cent. equalisation provision shows a spread from Powys at 13·04 per cent. over-target to Clwyd at 4·82 per cent. under-target; and the latter figure reduces to 3·93 per cent. after its distribution.

  The resultant discretionary revenue allocations for 1993–94, the increases which they represent over their 1992–93 discretionary revenue provision in cash and percentage terms, and the consequent revised distances from authorities latest formula targets are shown in the table 1.

  Under the new capital allocation arrangements which came into force on 1 April 1992, £80·1 million will be earmarked for the purpose of the Welsh major capital programme. The funding will be made available respectively via specific cash allocations or external financing limit approvals to those HAs and NHS trusts that are responsible for managing the schemes in question. Details of this programme are set out in table 2.

  Table 2

  Welsh capital programme centrally funded elements

  1993–94 £

  WHCSA salaries

  4·509

  Dental Hospital re-equipping programme

  0·398

  Psychiatric/Joint finance/Psychiatric bridging finance

  0·028

  Breast Test Wales

  0·453

  255

  Welsh capital programme centrally funded elements

  1993–94 £

  Regional services

  Burns and plastic surgery—Morriston scheme IV

  8·430

  Adult cardiac services—UHW expansion

  0·156

  Paediatric cardiac

  0·538

  Club fees—United Kingdom transplant services

  0·514

  Blood transfusion centre

  1·659

  2nd cardiac unit

  1·552

  Sub-total regional services

  12·849

  Perinatal intensive care

  0·269

  Treatment centres

  0·496

  Information technology

  13·351

  Sub-total central programme

  32·353

  Health Authorities/National Health Service Trusts on-going schemes

  £ million

  Clwyd

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust -Phase 2A development

  4·828

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust - Phase 2 development

  0·364

  East Dyfed

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust - West Wales General Ward Block 3

  0·937

  West Wales General Ward Block 2 including day hospital

  0·650

  Gwent

  Gwent Community NHS Trust - Ebbw Vale Community Hospital - Phase 1

  2·000

  Torfaen Community Hospital - Phases 1 and 2

  2·969

  Gwent Health Authority - Nevill Hall remedial work

  0·690

  Gwynedd

  Gwynedd Health Authority - Ysbyty Gwynedd Phase 2

  3·545

  West Mon Community Hospital

  3·157

  North Meirionnydd Community Hospital

  1·213

  Mid Glamorgan

  Mid Glamorgan Health Authority - Taff Ely/ Rhondda DGH

  2·200

  Powys

  Powys Health Care NHS Trust - Brecon War Memorial Hospital Development

  2·004

  South Glamorgan

  Llandough Hospital NHS Trust - Barry Neighbourhood Hospital

  3·700

  South Glamorgan Health Authority - UHW Fire Precautions

  6·000

  UHW Energy Sources

  0·355

  Cardiff West (St· David's) Neighbourhood Hospital

  0·800

  West Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan Health Authority - Morriston Pathology

  2·734

  Neath Port Talbot DGH

  3·800

  Reserve

  For contractual claims, sundry creditors and miscellaneous rationalisation proposals

  3·723

  Sub-total on-going schemes

  45·669

  256

  Health Authorities/National Health Service Trusts New developments

  £ million

  Clwyd

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust—Ysbyty Glan Clwyd Psychiatric Unit

  0·850

  East Dyfed

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust—North Road Development

  0·900

  Gwent

  Gwent Community Trust—Nevill Hall MI Unit

  0·700

  Nevill Hall Elderly

  0·400

  Mid Glamorgan

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust—Princess of Wales—Phase 2

  0·500

  Powys

  Powys Health Care NHS Trust—Bronllys/Mid Wales Rationalisation

  0·976

  West Glamorgan

  Swansea NHS Trust—Singleton Hospital Theatres

  1·500

  Sub-total new developments

  5·826

  Note: The Welsh Capital Building Programme reflects a degree of over-programming in anticipation of slippage during the course of 1993–94.

  A further £37·6 million will be made available for the discretionary minor capital requirements of HAs and the 14 national health service trusts which will be operational on 1 April 1993 as well as the minor capital needs of other 2.000 service providers which are not managed by HAs. This sum will, however, be abated by some £4·3 million which will be transferred to HAs' current provision in recognition of the further redefinition of capital expenditure which will become effective on 1 April 1993. £16·1 million of the £33·3 million balance will be allocated in the form of additional revenue provision to the prospective purchasers of national health service trusts' services. It will thus form part of the trusts' income for 1993–94 which can then be recapitalised to meet their minor capital requirements. This capital expenditure will, together with any capital expenditure on major capital schemes, be taken into account in determining EFLs. Provisional EFLs for the 14 national health service trusts in Wales in 1993–94, which are subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary estimates, are shown in table 3. They will be subject to revision during the course of the year as a consequence of national health service trusts updating their financial plans for next year to take account of the revenue allocations to their prospective purchasers that are covered in this announcement.

  Table 3

  Provisional EFLs

  £ thousands

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS trust

  -39

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS trust

  4,079

  Gofal Cymuned Clwydian Community Care NHS trust

  -160

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS trust

  -1,700

  Carmarthen and District NHS trust

  1,035

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS trust

  916

  Glan Hafren NHS trust

  -3,712

  Gwent Community trust

  6,692

  Bridgend and District NHS trust

  86

  Pembrokeshire NHS trust

  -1,764

  Powys Health Care NHS trust

  2,680

  Llandough Hospital NHS trust

  1,890

  257

  £ thousands

  Swansea NHS trust

  -107

  South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust

  -771

  (-) denotes a negative external financing limit (i.e., no new borrowing—the sum indicated being invested by the trust concerned or used to reduce outstanding debt).

  A nominal capital allocation of £10,000 per authority will be allocated to HAs to cover their minor capital needs as purchasing organisations. Authorities will be able to supplement this by virement from revenue, subject to the normal 1 per cent. discretionary limit, if this nominal amount is insufficient. The £15·4 million balance of minor capital provision will be allocated between the HAs on behalf of their residual directly managed units. As was the case last year, and in order to ensure the fair distribution of this sum between service providers, it will be allocated between authorities pro rata to the revenue income which their units are expected to attract next year. In this way, capital provision, like revenue will "follow the patient".

  The resultant capital allocations are set out in Table 4. Nominal sums only are included for the Pembrokeshire and Powys health authorities, since they are no longer responsible for the capital needs of any directly managed units.

  Table 4

  £ million

  Authority

  Capital Allocation

  Clwyd

  0·110

  East Dyfed

  0·542

  Gwent

  0·546

  Gwynedd

  2·535

  Mid Glamorgan

  4·178

  Pembrokeshire

  0·010

  Powys

  0·010

  South Glamorgan

  4·560

  West Glamorgan

  3·056

  In addition, health authorities are expected to benefit from £5·4 million which will be generated in property sales in 1993–94.

  A further £1·5 million will be held in reserve to meet the minor capital requirements of various other service providers such as the dental hospital and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Table 5

  Allocations (£ million)

  FHSA management and administration costs

  FHSA GP practice support costs

  Revenue

  Capital

  Clwyd

  1·285

  4·673

  0·095

  Dyfed

  1·107

  5·029

  0·103

  Gwent

  1·350

  5·897

  0·120

  Gwynedd

  0·876

  3·803

  0·078

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·650

  5·952

  0·121

  Powys

  0·619

  2·182

  0·045

  South Glamorgan

  1·425

  4·627

  0·094

  West Glamorgan

  1·117

  3·762

  0·077

  These allocations together represent another substantial increase in provision for hospital, community and family health services. They once again underline the Government's commitment to the NHS and recognise our undertaking to increase activity and maintain downward
  258
  £11·8 million is to be made available to family health services authorities for their management and administration functions. The current element of this provision—£11·2 million represents a cash increase of 3·9 per cent. over 1992–93 provision and includes specific provision to finance the cost of strengthening the monitoring and accountability arrangements for GP fund holders and to buy in additional medical advice in respect of health promotion undertaken by general medical practitioners. The provision includes £0·13 million which will be differentially allocated between FHSAs in recognition of the need to make further progress toward the equalisation of discretionary resources between FHSAs. This differential distribution will result in the achievement of a good measure of equalisation in 1993–94 with most authorities achieving parity with each other and only two authorities, South Glamorgan and Powys, remaining significantly better funded than the rest.

  The provision to be made available to FHSAs for the cash-limited general medical services funding for GP practice support costs is £42·7 million. This represents a cash increase of 9.6 per cent. over 1992–93 provision and includes £5·1 million for GP fund-holding practices' operating costs and preparatory fees for aspirant fund holders. This sum will not be distributed until after 1 April, when the number of participating practices in each FHSA area is known. Prospective GP fund holders have until 1 April to decide whether or not to participate in the scheme. Once the numbers are known, allocations for management support for practices operating funds, and preparatory fees for aspirant fundholders—both revenue and the capital costs associated with upgrading computer systems —will be calculated and allocated.

  A further £0·9 million of the total sum available for cash-limited GMS needs has been held in reserve subject to the outcome of consultation with the service about the extension of the weighted capitation approach to this component of FHSA provision. It is anticipated that this reserve will be distributed early in 1993–94 in a way that enables a start to be made on the equalisation of this category of provision. Subject to this the allocations to be made to FHSAs are set out in table 5.

  pressure on waiting times. They also serve to underpin patients charter guarantees about service availability and quality.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ecological Balance
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect on the ecological balance in the United Kingdom of(a) grey squirrels, (b) foxes, (c) Canada geese, (d) mink and (e) sparrow hawks.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is some difficulty in assessing what, if any, effects a given species has on the ecological balance throughout the United Kingdom. There are continual fluctuations in populations, with each variation being dependent upon many factors and the ecological balance can be seriously disturbed locally without the overall United Kingdom balance being disturbed.

  The grey squirrel is a non-native species and now has spread through most parts of the United Kingdom. The only areas free from grey squirrels at present are north Scotland, Cumbria, Northumbria, Isle of Wight and north Wales. In all other areas which have been taken over by greys and where reds have become extinct, the reds have never managed to re-colonise. In coniferous habitats the populations of reds and greys are more evenly balanced. Grey squirrels also cause serious damage to growing timber and sometimes cereals, fruit, bulbs and crops.

  Foxes can have severe localised impacts on ground nesting bird colonies if not controlled. For example, the RSPB is having to destroy foxes on the Abernethy game reserve because of the damage foxes are causing to the rare capercaillie. English Nature is also having to take similar action on one of its nature reserves. Apart from farm animals and birds, the main wildlife killed by foxes are: small rodents, earthworms, insects and rabbits.

  Mink have spread throughout all parts of the United Kingdom and have even managed to swim the stretches of water and have colonised parts of the Western Isles. Detailed studies show that, overall, they have little impact so far on prey populations on mainland Britain although they have severe localised impacts on ground nesting bird colonies. Studies show that mink main food sources are fish, frogs and waterside birds especially moorhen, loot and mallard. Competition between mink and otter occurs when food sources and suitable breeding habitats become scarce.

  Canada geese numbers are increasing rapidly from 19,000 in the 1970s to over 60,000 now. This non-native species causes damage to crops as well as amenity land in parks, public open spaces and golf courses. Goose droppings may pose health and safety risks and standing water in lakes become polluted. The geese can be aggressive while they are breeding and there are indications that the species competes with other wild birds for food and nest sites. My Department has set up a working group to assess the possible impacts on the environment, target appropriate research and plan a strategy for managing the species.

  In the past 20 years sparrow hawk populations have increased rapidly from a low in the 1960s. There are now 25,000 breeding pairs, plus around 30,000 non-breeders. There is insufficient evidence to show what the effect is on other bird species, but their main food sources are small birds.

  Rural Homelessness
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the recommendations of the report "Homelessness in Rural Areas" by the school of advanced urban studies, Bristol, in collaboration with Acre, for the Rural Development Commission, on the case for restricting the right to buy and offering portable discounts in rural areas where restrictive planning policies apply; and what action he intends to take.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans to restrict the right of tenants in rural areas to buy their homes. In certain designated rural areas current legislation allows landlords to impose restrictions on resale or permanent letting which favour local people, or reserve a right of pre-emption for 10 years.

  We do not plan to introduce incentives in the form of portable discounts. The only purpose of these could be to compensate for the loss of the right to buy and we have no intention of preventing the exercise of that right by rural tenants.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take on the findings of the report "Homelessness in Rural Areas" by the school of advanced urban studies, Bristol, in collaboration with Acre, for the Rural Development Commission in the incidence of homelessness in deep rural areas and the relative increase in overall rural homelessness.

  Mr. Baldry
  We will be reviewing our policy on the provision of social housing in rural areas in the light of research which we have ourselves commissioned. The proportion of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme going to the special rural programme, which is targeted on villages with populations of 3,000 or fewer, is to be increased from 5 per cent. in 1992–93 to 6 per cent. in 1993–94, and our policy of allowing development providing affordable housing in rural areas on sites which would not otherwise be available continues to bear fruit.

  Merseyside Housing Associations
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much housing association grant was paid to each housing association operating on Merseyside during each of the last two financial years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The allocation of grant to individual housing associations is a matter for the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current annual rent for a housing association tenant on Merseyside; and by how much it has increased over each of the last four years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The average housing association rents for unfurnished accommodation in Merseyside metropolitan county are:

  Weekly

  Annual

  Percentage charge

  Registered fair rents (excluding service charges)1

  Q3

  1992

  25·52

  1,327

  + 5

  Q3

  1991

  24·75

  1,267

  + 6

  261

  Weekly

  Annual

  Percentage charge

  Q3

  1990

  22.88

  1,190

  + 11

  Q3

  1989

  20.65

  1,074

  Assured rent (including service charges) 2

  Q3

  1992

  30·13

  1,566·76

  + 14

  Q3

  1991

  26·45

  1,375·40

  + 21

  Q3

  1990

  21·92

  1,139·84

  1 Department of the Environment Rent Officer's Statistics.

  2 National Federation of Housing Associations CORE quarterly bulletin.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties are owned by housing associations on Merseyside.

  Mr. Baldry
  Housing association stock in the Merseyside region of the Housing Corporation, which includes Merseyside metropolitan county plus Ellesmere Port and Neston, Halton, Warrington and West Lancashire at 31 March 1992 was:

  Units

  Self contained accommodation

  50,500

  Bedspaces

  Bedspaces in hostels

  2,800

  Source: The Housing Corporation HAR10/1 return.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 11 December 1992,Official Report, column 835, about the take-up of grants under the home energy efficiency scheme, what plans he has to improve access to, and take-up of, the scheme in London.

  Mr. Maclean
  The home energy efficiency scheme is a nationwide scheme and access to the grant in London is the same as elsewhere. Take-up in London has been lower than in other parts of the country but is now beginning to improve. Neighbourhood energy action is undertaking a study into the causes of the low take-up in London and I await the results of that study with interest.

  EC Environmental Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which policy proposals and priorities on the environment established by the Danish presidency of the European Council will have(a) immediate effect and (b) longer-term effect on environmental policy in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom, with all other member states, will be bound by all environmental measures which are adopted by the Environment Council during the Danish Presidency and will need to ensure that they are properly implemented in the United Kingdom in the timescale specified in each measure.

  Housing Resources
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are considered by the Housing Corporation in making decisions regarding the allocation 262
  of resources, other than the housing needs indicator; and what consideration is given to a housing authority's performance.

  Mr. Baldry
  Each year, the corporation discusses with individual local authorities their needs for housing association development and sets out the results in a series of regional policy statements which it publishes in July. These describe the types of development which the corporation is prepared to fund in each local authority area and the resources which it anticipates will be available in the following year. The policy statements form the background to the competitive bids which the corporation then invites from housing associations.

  Following further consultations with local authorities, the corporation allocates funds to those bids which meet the locally identified needs at the lowest cost in terms of corporation subsidy, subject only to the association concerned achieving the corporation's regulatory standards. A summary of the framework and criteria for bids for the 1993–94 programme was published in November last year and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Other than the HNI, the factor which most influences distribution between local authority areas is the availability of good-value bids, which in turn is influenced by the extent of the contributions made by the local authorities concerned either in terms of discounted land or cash contributions, including those made under the capital partnership arrangements announced last November.

  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 10 February, allocations are made to housing associations and take no account of the performance of local authorities themselves, other than the way in which they work with housing associations in their capacity as housing "enablers".

  Local Government Planning
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has concluded his consideration of the response from the London borough of Waltham Forest to the notice served on the authority on 29 July 1991 under section 19A of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend has now completed his careful consideration of the response which the London borough of Waltham Forest made to the notice served on the authority on 29 July 1991, as well as the authority's direct service organisation annual accounts for the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 which showed a continuing failure to achieve the required rate of return, and has today given a direction under section 19B of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The effect of the direction is that authority is required to seek the Secretary of State's consent when it wishes to undertake certain maintenance work in circumstances where it has not submitted the lowest tender.

  Business and Environment Working Group
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received the report of the financial sector working group of his advisory committee on business and the environment; and when he expects to respond.
  263
  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment received the report of the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment's financial sector working group on 6 January. He and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have welcomed the report and circulated it widely. They will respond to this report and other recommendations from the advisory committee in response to the committee's final report, which is expected in May.

  CBI (Waste Minimisation)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent communications he has had from the Confederation of British Industry on its programme of waste minimisation.

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour organisations made significant financial losses in 1990–91.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Statutory notices under the Local Government. Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 were served on 36 local authorities between July and September last year in respect of financial failure in 1990–91. My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 2 December 1992,Official Report, column 209, his decision in respect of 10 authorities. He has now considered the responses of a further 16 authorities on which notices were served on 11 August 1992 and 2 September 1992. He has today given a direction under section 14 of the 1988 Act to Gloucestershire county council in respect of ground maintenance work.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has decided to take no further action in respect of financial failure in 1990–91 by the London borough of Barnet—building cleaning; Blyth Valley borough council—new construction in excess of £50,000; Brighton borough council—highways and sewerage; Buckinghamshire county council—other cleaning; Castle Morpeth borough council—building maintenance; Dartford borough council—ground maintenance; Fareham borough council—ground maintenance; Harrogate borough council—ground maintenance; Holderness borough council—ground maintenance; North Norfolk district council—building maintenance; Reigate and Banstead borough council—building maintenance; Rotherham metropolitan borough council—ground maintenance; Surrey Heath borough council highways and sewerage; West Lancashire district council — building maintenance; and Wycombe district council — highways and sewerage.

  In all these cases the authority:—

  (a) appears to have successfully responded to the financial losses incurred in 1990–91, and has either achieved a surplus in 1991–92, or expects to achieve the appropriate financial objective in 1992–93, or,

  (b) has re-tendered or intends to re-tender very shortly the works in question, or,

  (c) has disposed, or intends to dispose, of its direct labour organisation, or,

  (d) is now operating below the "de minimis" level and, as such, is outside the scope of CCT legislation.

  264
  My right hon. and learned Friend is still considering responses from the remaining authorities on which notices were served in September 1992.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has, from reports so far monitored by his Department, of the regional average council taxes in band C for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The regional average council taxes in band C reported to my Department so far are as follows:

  Band C

  Average

  Community charge average

  Northern

  590

  460

  527

  North West

  570

  470

  548

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  530

  430

  474

  East Midlands

  500

  420

  499

  West Midlands

  520

  440

  528

  East Anglia

  450

  395

  456

  South East

  470

  480

  464

  London

  500

  495

  422

  South West

  490

  460

  493

  ENGLAND

  505

  460

  486

  The average council tax bill is likely to be more than £25 less for two people than under the Community charge.

  City Challenge Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue formal guidance in the form of a planning policy guidance note or a circular to local authorities in respect of the city challenge scheme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have no plans at present to issue formal guidance or a circular on planning policy for city challenge schemes.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was invested in energy efficiency in the United Kingdom in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  A large part of the investment in the United Kingdom economy will have some effect on improving energy efficiency, although it is not possible to separate out an aggregate total of investment specifically directed at this purpose. However, in 1991 the amount of energy required per unit of GDP was some 18 per cent. lower than 1979.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners, Cambridgeshire
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners and people aged 85 years or over were resident in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1984.

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

  National Insurance
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances national insurance credits can be stopped for an unemployed person.

  Mr. Burt
  Generally, the same conditions for benefit apply to credits and are set out in regulations, copies of which are in the Library.

  Circumstances in which the conditions are not satisfied include the following:

  The unemployed person—
  ceases to register;
  is no longer available for work;
  is not considered to be actively seeking work;
  is engaged in employment (not the usual main occupation) for more than 8 hours in that week or
  is engaged in employed earner's employment (usual main occupation) on more than one day in the week or earnings exceed the lower earnings limit (currently £54 per week);
  fails to comply with a written notice to attend an interview in connection with his employment prospects;
  fails to comply with a written notice to an officer of the Department of Employment in order to make a written declaration in connection with his satisfaction of the conditions for unemployment benefit;
  becomes a student.

  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in the London borough of Lewisham received mortgage interest payments on homes where mortgages exceeded £100,000 or £200,000 in each year since 1987; and for how long the payments were received.

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

  Housing Benefit
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of housing benefit within the London borough of Lewisham have lived in(a) council housing, (b) other public sector housing and (c) private rented accommodation in each year since 1987.

  Investment income and occupational pensions for pensioners 1979 and 1989

  Source of income

  Investment income

  Occupational pension income

  Percentage of units with investment income

  Average amount for those in receipt (£ per week, 1989 prices)

  Percentage of units with occupational pension income

  Average amount for those in receipt (£ per week, 1989 prices)

  1979

  1989

  1979

  1989

  Per cent, growth 1979–89

  1979

  1989

  1979

  1989

  Per cent, growth 1979–89

  All ages

  Pensioner couples

  71

  87

  20·30

  38·80

  91

  65

  73

  43·80

  62·70

  43

  Single pensioners

  57

  69

  13·60

  24·90

  83

  32

  47

  29·00

  41·60

  44

  All pensioner units

  62

  75

  16·30

  30·70

  89

  43

  56

  36·80

  52·10

  41

  Recently retired pensioner units

  Pensioner couples

  73

  87

  21·60

  41·50

  92

  68

  75

  51·50

  65·60

  27

  Single pensioners

  60

  64

  12·60

  31·50

  150

  37

  55

  31·20

  41·40

  33

  All pensioner units

  68

  78

  18·20

  38·10

  109

  55

  67

  45·90

  58·00

  27

  Notes:

  1. Estimates of the percentage of pensioner units in receipt of occupational pension income are based upon data from the Family Expenditure Survey (1979 and 1989) and the GAD Survey of occupational pension schemes (1979 and 1987). They assume that the number of individual pensioners in receipt has remained at its 1987 level.

  2. Estimates of percentage growth are based on unrounded income figures and may not therefore be the same as those calculated from the

  266
  Mr. Burt
  Such information as is available is in the table. Information on tenants in other public sector housing is not available.

  Quarter

  Local authority tenants

  Private tenants

  1989

  May

  20,164

  8,666

  August

  20,469

  8,895

  November

  *

  *

  1990

  February

  20,092

  10,385

  May

  20,040

  10,468

  August

  20,071

  11,109

  November

  20,055

  11,345

  1991

  February

  20,568

  11,906

  May

  20,241

  12,738

  August

  20,453

  15,837

  November

  *

  *

  1992

  February

  20,099

  9,009

  May

  20,543

  11,976

  August

  20,326

  11,979

  Source: Housing Benefit Management Information System.

  Notes:

  Figures are only available for the new Housing Benefit scheme which was introduced in April 1988. Lewisham did not start submitting figures to the Department until May 1989 and have also failed to submit returns for quarters marked with an asterisk.

  Although authorities have been asked to identify Housing Association tenants separately since May 1992, returns from Lewisham do not show this information.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest information held about pensioners' income.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The presentation and calculation of pensioners' income data has been changed to harmonise with the households below average income series. The latest details, based on the 1989 family expenditure survey, are in the tables.
  267
  rounded amounts shown in the table.

  3. All average amounts area means.

  4. All figures are before housing costs.

  5. Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age and couples in which the husband is over state pension age.

  The Average Incomes of Pensioners—1979 to 1989

  Pensioner Couples

  Single pensioners

  All pensioner units

  Income Source

  Average Income (£ per week, 1989 prices)

  Percentage growth

  Average Income (£ per week, 1989 prices)

  Percentage growth

  Average Income £ per week, 1989 prices)

  Percentage growth

  1979

  1989

  1979–89

  1979

  1989

  1979–89

  1979

  1989

  1979–89

  Earnings

  21·60

  18·80

  -13

  4·90

  [4·10]

  [-17]

  10·70

  9·40

  -12

  Benefit Income

  72·60

  80·70

  11

  48·00

  55·00

  15

  56·50

  64·30

  14

  Investment Income

  14 50

  33·70

  133

  7·70

  17·00

  121

  10·00

  23·10

  130

  Occupational Pension

  27·00

  45·70

  69

  8·40

  17·40

  107

  14·80

  27·60

  86

  Other Income

  [0·70]

  [0·50]

  [-34]

  0·50

  [0·40]

  [-17]

  0·60

  0·40

  -24

  Total gross income

  136·50

  179·40

  31

  69·50

  93·90

  35

  92·70

  124·90

  35

  Deductions

  19·70

  29·30

  49

  8·50

  15·10

  77

  12·40

  20·20

  63

  Total net income Before housing costs

  116·80

  150·10

  29

  61·00

  78·80

  29

  80·30

  104·70

  30

  Total net income After housing costs

  101·50

  138·50

  36

  50·40

  67·10

  33

  68·10

  93·00

  37

  Source:Family Expenditure Survey.

  Notes:

  1 Components may not sum to totals owing to rounding.

  2 All average amounts are means.

  3 All figures are before housing costs unless otherwise stated.

  4 Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age and couples in which the husband is over state pension age.

  5 Square brackets [] denote figures that are particularly sensitive to sampling error (less than 100 cases).

  6 Estimates of percentage growth are based on unrounded income figures and may not therefore be the same as those calculated from the rounded amounts shown in the table.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of persons aged 16 to 18 years living in the city of Edinbrugh who are not in employment or in full-time education.

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those areas of legislation for which he is responsible which are subject to investigation by the deregulation unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  No areas of legislation for which MAFF is responsible are subject to investigation by the DTI deregulation unit. MAFF's deregulation unit is coordinating a major deregulation programme within the department. All areas of legislation which impose burdens on industry will be subject to review with formal deregulation plans prepared for the main policy areas. One of the seven task forces to be set up following the Prime Minister's seminar on deregulation on 2 February will cover the food, drink and agriculture sector. It will be up to the task force chairman to decide what particular areas of MAFF legislation to investigate.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to give a Minister in his Department responsibility for animal welfare; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Farm animals welfare is already included among the specific responsibilities of the Parliamentary Secretary, House of Commons, in the Department.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to other EC Agriculture Ministers on the transport of live animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Agriculture Council is currently awaiting proposals from the Commission for further measures to safeguard the welfare of animals in transport. The United Kingdom has made clear in the Council that it attaches high importance to the development of further Community rules on this subject.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) of 18 February,Official Report, columns 345–46, which research study estimated that a 10 per cent. change in wages council rates would lead to a change in employment of 0·6 per cent.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An estimate of this order of magnitude was made by Kaufman in 1989. That is one of several United Kingdom studies which show that statutory minima reduce job opportunities, although different estimates have been made about the size of the effects.

  Trade Unions (Subscription Check-offs)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to her answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 590, what representations she received, and on what dates, that employers should be required to seek renewed consent to check-off deductions from their employees each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Representations to Government are automatically treated as confidential. The Institute of Directors publicly supported annual renewal of consent to check-off deductions in its response of 23 October 1991 to the Green Paper "Industrial Relations in the 1990s". As a result of that consultation exercise, our proposal was modified and the period of reaffirmation was increased to three years.

  Unemployment, Southampton
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many travel-to-work areas in each standard English economic region have(a) higher levels and (b) lower levels of unemployment than those areas including Southampton, Itchen on the latest available figures.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 19 November 1992,Official Report, columns 337–38, on disposal of skills training agency or skill centre properties, if he will make a statement on the position of the remaining 10 properties.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The ex-skill centre properties which remain unsold following the privatisation of the skills training agency are being actively marketed, on the open market, by the Department's agent surveyors, King Sturge and Co.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 19 November 1992,Official Report, columns 337–38, on closure of skill centres, if she will list (a) the original 60 skill centres and (b) the eight sold with the skills training agency which she understands no longer to be functioning.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  (a) the original 60 skill centres were:

  Barking

  Basildon

  Bellshill

  Billingham

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Cardiff

  Chelmsford

  Cheshire

  Chesterfield

  Cumbria

  Deptford

  Dundee

  Durham

  East Lancashire

  Edinburgh

  Edinburgh RO

  Enfield

  Enfield (Annex)

  270

  Gloucester

  Gwent

  Hillington

  Hull

  Ipswich

  Irvine

  Lambeth

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Letchworth

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Manchester RO

  Medway

  Milton Keynes

  North Staffordshire

  Northampton

  Norwich

  Perivale

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Reading

  Redruth

  Rochdale

  St. Helens

  Sheffield

  Skyline House

  Slough

  Southampton

  Southampton (Annex)

  Swindon

  Twickenham

  Tyneside

  Wakefield

  West Glamorgan

  West Sussex

  Wigan

  Wrexham

  (b) The training businesses at the following properties, sold with the skills training agency, are understood to be no longer functioning:

  Barking

  Coventry

  Peterborough

  West Sussex

  Wrexham

SCOTLAND

  Water
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now intends to publish the Government's response to the consultation on options for the future of Scotland's water supplies.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Responses to the consultation paper are currently being studied. A large number of responses has been received and analysis will take time. A decision will be taken after this process is complete.

  Crown Office Fraud Unit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those cases resulting in conviction on charges brought by the Crown Office fraud unit since its formation; and what were the dates of those convictions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not the policy of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to make known historic information which identifies cases against individuals, in particular where they have served their sentences. In accordance with that policy, the annual
  271
  report for the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service for 1991–92, which was placed in the Library, gives details, omitting names and dates, of cases which were prepared by the Crown Office fraud unit and were disposed of during that period. Between the establishment of the unit in 1984 and 1991 a total of 65 persons were convicted in cases which were prepared for prosecution by the fraud unit. Since the period 1991–92 three persons have been convicted of offences in three separate cases, two involving fraud and one of corruption, and they were respectively sentenced to imprisonment for three years and four years and to pay a fine of £400. Criminal proceedings are pending in eight cases, and in two further cases warrants have been issued for the arrest of the accused.

  Prevention of Terrorism Acts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have had their period of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts extended pending the results of forensic tests.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 March 1993]: My right hon. Friend considers each application to extend the 48-hour period for which a person may be detained in light of arrest under section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 very carefully. It would not be appropriate to categorise cases in the manner requested; but in his most recent report on the operation of the Act in 1992, Lord Colville, who looked at all the extension order files held by the Scottish Office for that year, states that
  "… the proper criteria are being carefully observed in considering whether extensions should be granted".

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has decided the level of fee remission grant which will be available to parents under the assisted places scheme in school session 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is making £9·965 million available for fee remission in 1993–94. Fifty-eight schools across Scotland will participate in the scheme. This funding will enable the record number of 3,000 pupils currently benefiting to be maintained.

  KS Properties Ltd.
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer on 2 February 1992,Official Report, columns 167–68, when his Department was informed by the Scottish Development Agency that (a) the security for the loan was by mortgage deed with KS Properties Ltd., (b) the waiving of the security as a result of the decision made by his Department is shown in the accounts of KS Properties Ltd. as financially benefiting KS Properties Ltd. and (c) there are no loans from the Scottish Development Agency recorded in the accounts of KS Construction Ltd.

  Mr. Stewart
  I shall write to my hon. Friend.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what crime prevention initiatives his Department is currently supporting.

  Mr. Jack
  We are currently supporting 20 safer cities projects and planning the creation of a new type of project in order to fulfil our objective of achieving up to 40. We are setting up a National Board of Crime Prevention. The ministerial group on crime prevention will meet soon with its new membership. We are developing a good practice guide to provide advice for practitioners on the setting up and evaluation of crime prevention initiatives.

  We continue to provide a contribution to the core costs of Crime Concern, the independent crime prevention organisation, and to fund the Home Office crime prevention centre to provide training and advice to police crime prevention officers and others. We run various publicity programmes and, in particular, we are following up the success of Car Crime Prevention Year. We continue to encourage the establishment of neighbourhood watch schemes and of crime prevention panels and the development of local multi-agency partnerships for crime prevention. Our police research group is currently supporting 16 crime prevention research and development initiatives. In addition, the programme development unit is funding a range of innovative local projects, which includes schemes aimed at tackling family violence. The probation service grants scheme also supports crime prevention projects.

  Amusement Arcades
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the law relating to amusement arcades to restrict their use by children.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Following the Home Office research study, "Amusement Machines: Dependency and Delinquency", published in July 1988, we have concluded that further legislative controls on the use of amusement machines by young people are not justified, although we continue to keep the need for legislation under review.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the prevention of the manufacture and use of gaming machines which can be adjusted to make illegal pay-outs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. We are satisfied that the enforcement powers of both the police and Gaming Board under the Gaming Act 1968 are sufficient to tackle any breaches of that Act as it relates to gaming machines.

  Pornographic Material
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the penalty for possession of videotapes which are obscene by reason of the sexual or violent nature of their contents in cases where it is not alleged that trading has taken place.

  Mr. Jack
  The simple possession of an obscene videotape is not in itself a criminal offence, and the
  273
  Government have no plans to make it so. It is, however, an offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to possess an indecent photograph, film or video recording of a child under the age of 16, subject to a maximum penalty on summary conviction of a level 5 fine (currently £5,000). It is also an offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978 to possess indecent pictures of this sort with a view to their distribution, while the Obscene Publications Act 1959, as amended by the Obscene Publications Act 1964, makes it an offence to have an obscene article for publication for gain. The offences under the 1959 and 1978 Acts are both subject to a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment of three years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. The Video Recordings Act 1984 prohibits the possesssion of an unclassified video recording for the purposes of supplying it, unless the recording is exempt from classification, or the supply, if it took place, would be an exempted supply. This offence is subject to a maximum penalty on summary conviction of a £20,000 fine.

  The Government have no immediate plans to increase the penalties for these offences.

  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to engage private contractors to assist the police to search for and seize pornographic material and to recover the costs of such action from those who import, distribute, and sell, such material;

  (2) what plans he has to encourage the use of section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to order the seizure of pornographic magazines, books, videos, and other materials; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the desirability of changing the rules of evidence so as to enable pornographic magazines, books, videos and other materials to be seized more cheaply and efficiently.

  Mr. Jack
  As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point on 5 February at column 350, we are currently considering what improvements might be made in the enforcement of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, and other legislation relating to obscenity. This includes consideration of possible improvements in the effectiveness of the operation of section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which enables the police to obtain a magistrate's warrant to search for and seize obscene articles kept for publication for gain, and provides that such articles shall be brought before the magistrates for forfeiture.

  The deployment of police resources in matters such as seizures is an operational matter for chief constables and it would not be right for my right hon. and learned Friend to seek to influence the priority which they attach to the various demands placed upon them. There is no evidence that chief constables are unaware of their powers in this area. In 1992, over 17,000 video tapes were seized by the Metropolitan and Greater Manchester forces alone.

  Right of Silence
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to modify the right of silence so that courts may take fully into account the failure of defendants to answer questions put to them by an investigating officer in the presence of their solicitor and recorded on videotape.
  274
  Mr. Jack
  The opportunities available for an accused person to state his position and the extent to which it might be appropriate for courts to draw proper inferences from his failure to do so, are among the matters being considered by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which will be taking into consideration both the existing safeguards for accused persons and the potential for any further safeguards. The Government intend to study the Royal Commission's conclusions before deciding any and if so what changes may be necessary.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to extend the function of the Child Support Agency to pay to the victims of crime the sum awarded to them by a court compensation order and to recover that sum from the offender against whom the order was made.

  Mr. Jack
  I am writing to the hon. Member to explain why the Government do not think that it would be appropriate to proceed in this way.

  North Devon Police
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of policemen on the beat in North Devon.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The deployment of resources within the Devon and Cornwall constabulary is a matter for the chief constable. He must decide how best to deploy his officers in order to meet his operational priorities and the objectives of his force.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish crime figures for North Devon for each year since 1979;

  (2) if he will provide details of the numbers of crimes, by category, (a) committed and (b) solved in North Devon between April 1991 and April 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally for north Devon.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures showing the level of funding of Devon and Cornwall constabulary for each year since 1987 at 1987 prices.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The following table shows the total expenditure of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary for the years requested. Specific grant at the rate of 51 per cent. is paid on police expenditure.

  Year

  Total net expenditure £ million

  Expenditure at 1987–88 prices £ million

  1987–88

  76·629

  76·629

  1988–89

  85·227

  79·443

  1989–90

  93·697

  81·951

  11990–91

  107·797

  87·313

  11991–92

  121·467

  92·027

  1 21992–93

  137·560

  99·971

  1 Because of change in capital financing arrangements in 1990 some caution should be used in comparing 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 with earlier years.

  2 Estimated expenditure.

  275
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to enable the appointment of more police officers in Devon and Cornwall.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In view of the present economic situation, and the need to constrain public expenditure, my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the costs of increases in establishment for police forces in 1993–94 cannot be justified.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a national computer database for the immediate registration of bail orders for the information of any other court when considering an application for bail by an arrested person.

  Mr. Jack
  The national criminal record system, which is expected to come into operation in spring 1994, will have the facility for recording the remand status of the defendant, although it will only be at a later state of the project that courts will be able to enter and retrieve this information directly.

  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that the computer database containing the criminal records of convicted persons is kept fully up to date, including brief facts of each offence, for the information of courts when sentencing or considering bail applications.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The national criminal record system, which is expected to come into operation in spring 1994, will be kept up to date through the direct input of data by police forces and will include brief details of each offence entered on the system.

  Unit Fines
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the operation of the unit fine system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The operation of the unit fine scheme is being carefully monitored. However, as it only came into operation on 1 October 1992, there is, at present, insufficient experience of its operation for precise or firm conclusions to be drawn about its effectiveness.

  Prisons
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make more room available in prisons by removing prisoners who are riot a danger to the public.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present intention of using his power under section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. This allows him to order the release of some prisoners, essentially non-violent property offenders, up to six months before what would otherwise have been their release date. It is, however, one of the principal aims of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to ensure that the use of custody is imposed only on those offenders whose offences are so serious that custody is the only appropriate response or for whom custody is necessary in order to protect the public from serious harm.

  Secure Schools
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to provide secure schools in which any child over the age of 10 years cart be educated in a kind but disciplined environment until the attainment of their normal school leaving age.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend on 2 March,Official Report, columns 139–42.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the role of education in prisons; and if he will allow remission to prisoners who apply themselves to their education and obtain a recognised educational qualification while in prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice: The Way Ahead for the Prison Service in England and Wales" (Cm 1647), the Government stated that education is an essential part of the opportunities which must be provided in a prison. In recent years, the Government have significantly increased the resources devoted to education in prisons; the details of which were provided in the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 16 December 1992 at column 215.

  It would not be right to use the royal prerogative to award a prisoner special remission for educational achievement. It is, however, a consideration which the Parole Board can take into account in determining whether an offender, who has shown a willingness by attitude or behaviour in custody to address his or her offending behaviour and has made positive efforts and progress in doing so, should be recommended for early release.

  Ilfracombe (Drug-related Crime)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about drugs-related crime in Ilfracombe, North Devon.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There has been a recent increase in drug-related crime in Ilfracombe. Devon and Cornwall constabulary is aware of the problem and is taking measures to tackle it.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will encourage police authorities to recruit more special constables in order to protect the public in shopping centres, on public transport, in areas with a high incidence of burglary, and in other places where the public is particularly at risk.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A national recruitment campaign for special constables has been running since 1991. In the first year of the campaign, numbers increased by 14 per cent. to just over 18,000. The deployment of special constables within a police force area is a matter for the chief constable concerned, but they commonly perform patrol duties in public places.

  Crime (Clear-up Rates)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the clear-up rate for each police force in 1992 was accounted for by offences taken into consideration.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not yet available for 1992.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussion he has had with senior police officers in areas of England and Wales which have the problems of prostitution and violence, as to action that will give protection to people living in such areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  From time to time Ministers meet senior police officers to discuss crime including prostitution and violence. It is for chief officers to decide what action should be taken in areas which are particularly affected by prostitution and violence.

  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list all cases since the passage of the 1974 Prevention of Terrorism legislation in which persons have been found guilty of offences connected with Irish terrorism in Great Britain, stating, in each case, the sentence imposed by the courts and whether the person concerned was originally arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism legislation; (2) how many persons have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation since 1974, stating(a) how many were charged with offences, (b) how many were tried, (c) how many were convicted, (d) in the cases of those convicted, how many were imprisoned and (e) in the cases of those sentenced to imprisonment, how many of those were sentenced for (i) up to three months, (ii) three to six months, (iii) one to nine months, (iv) nine to 12 months, (v) 12 to 18 months, (vi) 18 to 24 months and (vii) more than 24 months, listing these individually by length of sentence.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The available information is contained in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism legislation (issues 10/84 and 5/93).

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those persons who have

  Date

  Location

  Incident

  30 November 1974

  Talbot Public House, Little Chester Street, London, SW1

  Device exploded. Eight people injured.

  11 December 1974

  Naval & Military Club, 94 Piccadilly, London W1

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  14 December 1974

  Churchill Hotel, Portman Square, London W1

  Four people injured in a shooting.

  17 December 1974

  GPO Telephone Exchange, Draycott Avenue, London, SW3

  Device exploded. Four people injured.

  17 December 1974

  GPO Telephone Exchange, Chenies Street/ Tottenham Court Road. London

  Device exploded. One person killed and one person injured.

  18 December 1974

  Harris Hearing Aid Consultant, 79 Park Street, Bristol

  Device exploded. 17 people injured.

  19 December 1974

  Selfridges, Oxford Street, London W1

  Device exploded. Nine people injured.

  21 December 1974

  Harrods, Knightsbridge, London SW1

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  23 December 1974

  40 Westridge Road, Portswood, Southampton

  Two people injured in shooting.

  19 January 1975

  Portman Hotel, Portman Square, London WC1

  Five people injured in shooting.

  19 January 1975

  Carlton Tower Hotel, Sloane Street, London SW3

  Two people injured in shooting.

  278
  been found to have been wrongfully imprisoned for offences in Great Britain connected with Irish terrorism, stating, in each case, whether he or she was originally arrested under Prevention of Terrorism legislation.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since the coming into force of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 on 29 November 1974, the convictions of the following people for offences connected with Northern Irish terrorism have been quashed by the Court of Appeal following a reference under section 17(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968:

  Paul Hill

  Patrick O'Neill

  Gerard Conlon

  Patrick Conlon* (deceased)

  Patrick Armstrong

  Patrick Hill

  Carole Richardson

  Robert Hunter

  Anne Maguire*

  Noel McIlkenny

  Patrick Maguire

  Hugh Callaghan

  William Smyth*

  William Power

  Vincent Maguire

  John Walker

  Patrick Joseph Maguire*

  Judith Ward

  Of these the four marked with an asterisk had been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation before being charged with the offences in question but this had no relevance to the quashing of their convictions.

  There have been no referrals in such cases to the High Court in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Information on people who have been convicted by the courts of offences connected with Northern Irish terrorism and whose convictions have subsequently been quashed by the Court of Appeal or the High Court in Scotland other than on a reference by the appropriate Secretary of State is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the terrorist incidents carried out in Great Britain since the enactment of the 1974 Prevention of Terrorism legislation with, for each incident, where appropriate, the numbers, respectively, of killed and injured.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 came into effect on 29 November 1974. A list of terrorist incidents relating to Northern Irish terrorism in Great Britain since that date, including the date, the location and, where appropriate, the numbers of people killed or injured, is in the following table. Before 1989, only those incidents which caused death or injury are recorded.
  279

  Date

  Location

  Incident

  23 January 1975

  MWB Pumping Station, Woodford New Road, Forest Road, London E17

  Device exploded. Three people injured.

  27 January 1975

  Lewis' Department Store, Manchester

  Device exploded. 14 people injured.

  27 January 1975

  City Girl Boutique, Victoria Street, London, SW1

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  27 January 1975

  Ratners Jewellers, 147 Kensington High Street, London, W8

  Device exploded. Four people injured.

  26 February 1975

  39 Fairholme Road, London, W14

  One person killed in shooting.

  30 June 1975

  Indian Restaurant, Rusholme, Manchester

  One person injured in shooting.

  9 July 1975

  Hope Street, Liverpool

  One person injured in shooting.

  10 July 1975

  14 Oxford Road, Crosby, Liverpool

  One person injured in shooting.

  27 August 1975

  Caterham Arms Public House, Caterham, Surrey

  Device exploded. 40 people injured.

  28 August 1975

  Peter Browns Outfitters, 25 Oxford Street, London, W1

  Device exploded. Seven people injured.

  29 August 1975

  K Shoe Shop Ltd., Kensington Church Street, London, SW7

  Device exploded. One person killed.

  5 September 1975

  Hilton Hotel, Park Lane. London, W1

  Device exploded. Two people killed and 63 people injured.

  15 September 1975

  12 Callcott Avenue, London, W8

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  15 September 1975

  Alcan Aluminium Ltd., 30 Berkley Square, London, W1

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  22 September 1975

  Portman Hotel, Portman Square, London, W1

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  25 September 1975

  Hare and Hounds Public: House, Lower Boxley Road, Maidstone, Kent

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  9 October 1975

  Piccadilly, London, W1, near Green Park Tube

  Device exploded. One person killed and 21 people injured.

  23 October 1975

  Campden Hill Square, London, W8

  Device exploded. One person killed and one person injured.

  29 October 1975

  Trattoria Fiori, 87 Mount Street, London, W1

  Device exploded. 18 people injured.

  3 November 1975

  Connaught Square, London, W2

  Device exploded. Three people injured.

  12 November 1975

  Scotts Restaurant, 20/21 Mount Street, London, W1

  Device exploded. One person killed and 15 people injured.

  18 November 1975

  Walton's Restaurant, Walton Street, London, SW3

  Device exploded. Two people killed and 20 people injured.

  27 November 1975

  50 Village Road, Enfield, Middlesex

  One person killed in shooting.

  20 December 1975

  Biddy Mulligans Public House, Kilburn High Road, London, NW6

  Device exploded. Five people injured.

  14 February 1976

  Landward Court, Harrowby Street, London, W1

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  21 February 1976

  Selfridges, Oxford Street, London, W1

  Device exploded. Five people injured

  1 March 1976

  Stanhope Gardens, London, SW7

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  4 March 1976

  200 yards South of Cannon Street Station, London

  Device exploded. Nine people injured.

  King Street, London, WC2

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  15 March 1976

  Eastbound London Underground Train, West Ham, London

  One person killed and one person injured in shooting.

  16 March 1976

  Stationary train, Wood Green Underground Station, London

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  27 March 1976

  Ideal Home Exhibition, Olympia, London, W14

  Device exploded. One person killed and 84 people injured.

  2 February 1977

  Department of Environment, Renshaw House, Renshaw Street, Liverpool

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  17 December 1978

  Davies Street, Liverpool

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  Maggs Department Store, Queens Road, Bristol

  Device exploded. Seven people injured.

  18 December 1978

  London Central YMCA, Great Russell Street, London, WC1

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  The Oasis Swimming Pool, 168 High Holborn, London, WC1

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  30 March 1979

  Car park of the Palace of Westminster, London, SW1

  Device exploded. One person killed.

  17 December 1979

  GPO Sorting Office, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  GPO Sorting Office, Charlton Green, Dover

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  2 December 1980

  Princess Louise Regiment, Territorial Army Centre, Hammersmith Road, London W6

  Device exploded. Five people injured.

  10 October 1981

  Ebury Bridge Road, London, SW1

  Device exploded. Two people killed and 39 people injured.

  17 October 1981

  76 South Croxted Road, London SE21

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  26 October 1981

  Wimpy Bar, Oxford Street, London W1

  Device exploded. One person killed.

  23 November 1981

  Royal Artillery HQ, Government House, Woolwich New Road, London SE18

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  20 July 1982

  South Carriage Road, Hyde Park, London W1

  Device exploded. Four people killed and 28 people injured.

  Regents Park, London NW1

  Device exploded. Seven people killed and 31 people injured.

  10 December 1983

  Royal Artillery Barracks, Repository Road, London SE18

  Device exploded. Three people injured.

  17 December 1983

  Outside Harrods, Knightsbridge, London SW3

  Device exploded. Six people killed and 91 people injured.

  25 December 1983

  Orchard Street, London W1

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  280 281

  Date

  Location

  Incident

  12 October 1984

  Grand Hotel, Brighton, Sussex

  Device exploded. Five people killed and 30 people injured.

  15/16 April 1987

  Various

  Devices exploded.

  1 August 1988

  Inglis Barracks, London SW7

  Device exploded. One person killed and eight people injured.

  20 February 1989

  Ternhill Barracks, Shropshire

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  22 September 1989

  Royal Marines School of Music, North Barracks, Deal, Kent

  Device exploded. Eleven people killed and 21 people injured.

  15 November 1989

  Kelso Place, Kensington

  Device made safe.

  18 November 1989

  Married Quarters, Messines Road, Colchester

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  16 January 1990

  Army HQ, SE District, Aldershot

  Device made safe.

  20 February 1990

  Combined Services Recruitment Centre, Rutland Street, Leicester

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  25 February 1990

  Army Recruiting Office, New Road, Halifax

  Device exploded.

  14 May 1990

  Service Education Centre, Eltham, South London

  Device exploded. Five people injured.

  16 May 1990

  Army Recruiting Centre, Wembley, Middlesex

  Device exploded. One person killed and four people injured.

  1 June 1990

  Lichfield Railway Station, Staffordshire

  One person killed and two people injured in shooting.

  9 June 1990

  Honourable Artillery HQ, City Road, London

  Device exploded. 19 people injured.

  12 June 1990

  West Green House,. Hartley Witney, Hampshire

  Device made safe.

  21 June 1990

  RAF Stanmore Park, Uxbridge

  Device exploded.

  25 June 1990

  Carlton Club, St. James, London

  Device exploded. 20 people injured.

  6 July 1990

  The Strand, London, WC2

  Device exploded.

  20 July 1990

  Stock Exchange, London

  Device exploded.

  30 July 1990

  The Dog House, Hankham, Nr. Pevensey

  Device exploded. One person killed.

  6 August 1990

  Woronzow Road, St. Johns Wood, London

  Device made safe.

  13 August 1990

  Pye Barn, Moulsford, Didcot

  Device made safe.

  10 September 1990

  Army and Navy Recruiting Office, Derby

  Device exploded.

  17 September 1990

  Army Information Office, Finchley, London

  One per injured in shooting.

  18 September 1990

  Milford, Staffordshire

  Two people injured in shooting.

  27 September 1990

  Royal Overseas League, Park Place, London, WC1

  Device made safe.

  24 January 1991

  Territorial Army Firing Range, Cannock Chase, Staffordshire

  Device exploded.

  7 February 1991

  Downing Street, London, SW1

  Three mortar bombs fired. One person injured.

  18 February 1991

  Paddington Station, London

  Device exploded.

  18 February 1991

  Victoria Station, London

  Device exploded. One person killed and 38 people injured.

  25 February 1991

  Napsbury Lane, St. Albans

  Device exploded.

  3 April 1991

  Preston Railway Station, Preston, Lancashire

  Devices made safe.

  5 April 1991

  Arndale Shopping Centre, Manchester

  Devices exploded.

  28 June 1991

  Beck Theatre, Hayes, Middlesex

  Device made safe.

  30 June 1991

  Royal Navy & RAF Recruiting Office, Fishergate Centre, Preston

  Device made safe.

  5 August 1991

  Cambridge Public House, Charing Cross Road, London

  Device exploded.

  29 August 1991

  London Underground Depot, Hammersmith

  Devices made safe.

  31 August 1991

  Bargain Bookshop, Charing Cross Road, London

  Device made safe.

  15 November 1991

  Old Barclays Bank, St. Peters Street, St. Albans, Hertfordshire

  Device exploded. Two people killed and one person injured.

  1 December 1991

  The Discount Furniture Store, Habitat, The World of Leather, The Reject Shop, Tottenham Court Road

  Devices exploded.

  2 December 1991

  Littlewoods, Oxford Street, London, W1

  Devices exploded.

  7/8 December 1991

  Various locations in Blackpool

  Devices discovered.

  8 December 1991

  Arndale Centre, Manchester

  Devices exploded.

  14 December 1991

  Brent Cross Shopping Centre

  Devices discovered

  15 December 1991

  Sainsbury Wing, National Gallery, London, WC2

  Device exploded.

  16 December 1991

  Railway line near Clapham Junction

  Device exploded.

  23 December 1991

  Ilford Underground Depot

  Device exploded.

  Neasden Underground Depot

  Device exploded.

  Train at Harrow-on-the-Hill

  Device exploded.

  10 January 1992

  Whitehall Place, London, SW1

  Device exploded.

  17 January 1992

  Marquis of Granby PH, Shaftesbury Avenue, London

  Devices discovered.

  30 January 1992

  Elephant & Castle Underground Depot, London

  Devices discovered.

  3 February 1992

  Neasden Underground Depot

  Device discovered.

  7 February 1992

  London Underground Sidings between Barking and Upney Stations

  Device exploded.

  11 February 1992

  Telephone box, Parliament Street, London

  Device made safe.

  28 February 1992

  London Bridge Railway Station, London

  Device exploded. 29 people injured.

  29 February 1992

  Crown Prosecution Service, Furnival Street, London

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  1 March 1992

  White Hart Lane BR Station Tottenham, London

  Device made safe.

  10 March 1992

  Nr. Wandsworth Common Railway Station, London

  Device exploded.

  282 283

  Date

  Location

  Incident

  6 April 1992

  Bridle Lane, Nr. Piccadilly Circus, London

  Device exploded.

  10 April 1992

  St. Mary's Axe, City of London

  Device exploded. Three people killed and 91 people injured.

  11 April 1992

  Staple Corner Junction of M1 and North Circular

  Device exploded.

  13 April 1992

  Army Careers Information Office, Derby

  One person killed on shooting.

  9–10 May 1992

  MetroCentre, Gateshead

  Devices exploded.

  7 June 1992

  Royal Festival Hall, London

  Devise exploded.

  8 June 1992

  A64 Leeds—York Nr. Tadcaster, North Yorkshire

  One person killed and one person injured in shooting.

  10 June 1992

  Wilcox Place, Victoria Street

  Device exploded.

  15 June 1992

  St. Albans Street, Nr. Piccadilly Circus

  Device exploded.

  17–18 June 1992

  Marks and Spencers, Leeds

  Device made safe.

  1717–18 June 1992

  Stop and Shop, Leeds

  Device exploded.

  1717–18 June 1992

  Waterstones Bookshops, Leeds

  Devices discovered.

  25 June 1992

  Coleman Street, City of London

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  30/31 July 1992

  Milton Keynes (Shops, Library)

  Device exploded.

  25 August 1992

  Shropshire Regimental Museum and two furniture shops, Shrewsbury

  Devices exploded.

  6 September 1992

  London Hilton Hotel, Park Lane, London

  Device exploded.

  17 September 1992

  Madame Tussaud's, Marylebone Road, London

  Devices exploded.

  The Planetarium, Marylebone Road, London

  Device exploded.

  Imperial War Museum, Lambeth Road, London

  Devices exploded.

  7 October 1992

  Junction of The Haymarket and Panton Street, Piccadilly

  Device exploded. Five people injured.

  Near Centre Point, Flitcroft Street, London, WC2

  Device exploded.

  8 October 1992

  Tooley Street, London, SE1

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  Melcombe Street, London, NW1

  Device exploded

  9 October 1992

  Royal British Legion, Nursery Road, Southgate N14

  Device exploded

  Car Park, Arnos Grove Underground Station

  Device exploded.

  10 October 1992

  Paddington Green PS, Harrow Road, Paddington, W2

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  12 October 1992

  Sussex Arms Public House, Long Acre, Covent Garden

  Device exploded. One person killed and four people injured.

  19 October 1992

  Novotel Hotel, Shortlands, Hammersmith, W6

  Device exploded.

  Oxenden St., London, SW1

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  21 October 1992

  Railway Line, Nr. Silver Street Station, Edmonton

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  Princess Louise Territorial Army Centre, Hammersmith Road, W6

  Device exploded. Three people injured.

  21 October 1992

  Railway Line, near Harrow Road (junction with Furness Road), NW10

  Device exploded.

  22 October 1992

  Sewage Pipe, Wick Lane, E3

  Device exploded.

  25 October 1992

  2517–28 Morpeth Terrace, London, SW1

  Device exploded.

  30 October 1992

  Whitehall, London, SW1, (near Downing Street)

  Device exploded.

  14 November 1992

  Stoke Newington Road, London, N16

  Device discovered. One person injured in shooting.

  15 November 1992

  Canada Tower, Canary Wharf

  Device made safe.

  16 November 1992

  Collingwood Street, Bethnel Green, El

  Device made safe.

  1 December 1992

  Stephens Street/Tottenham Court Road

  Device made safe.

  3 December 1992

  Deansgate and Cateaton Street, Manchester

  Two devices exploded. 64 people injured.

  9 December 1992

  Woodside Park Underground Station, North London

  Device exploded.

  10 December 1992

  Wood Green Shopping Centre, London

  Two devices exploded. 11 people injured.

  16 December 1992

  John Lewis Department Store, Oxford Street

  Device exploded. One person injured.

  16 December 1992

  Cavendish Square/Oxford Street

  Device exploded. Three people injured.

  22 December 1992

  Hampstead Tube Station

  Device exploded.

  6 January 1993

  Reject Shop, Plaza Shopping Centre, Oxford Street

  Device exploded.

  6 January 1993

  Dillons Bookshop, Northumberland Avenue

  Device exploded.

  6 January 1993

  C & A, Oxford Street

  Device exploded.

  6 January 1993

  Video Shop, 60 Oxford Street

  Device exploded.

  28 January 1993

  Harrods, Brompton Road, London

  Device exploded. Two people injured.

  3 February 1993

  Train at Kent House Station, Kent

  Device exploded.

  3 February 1993

  South Kensington Tube Station, London

  Device exploded.

  10 February 1993

  Cadogan Place, London, SW1

  Device exploded.

  26 February 1993

  Warrington, Cheshire

  One person injured in shooting.

  26 February 1993

  Warrington, Cheshire

  Device exploded.

  27 February 1993

  Camden High Street, London

  Devices exploded. 18 people injured.

  284

  Medomsley Prison
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current situation of the building that formerly housed HM Prison Medomsley; and what plans his Department have for that building.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no plans to use the site at Medomsley as a prison again. The property has been advertised for sale, but no acceptable offer has yet been received.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish his provisional list for market testing in respect of his responsibilities with a view to contracting out for the period September 1993 to March 1995.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have not yet decided the content of future market testing programmes.

  Secure Units
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much capital money his Department(a) has available and (b) has allocated for the provision of secure units for young people in England in 1992–93; and if he will provide a list of the establishments concerned and the sums allocated in each case;

  (2) how much capital money his Department (a) made available and (b) spent on the provision of secure units for young people in England in 1991–92 and each of the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 March 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 3 March at cols. 169–70.

  Convictions
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of crimes led to successful convictions in each of the last five years for which figures are available for each county; what was the average figure(a) for England, (b) for Wales and (c) the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proportion of recorded crimes has led to successful convictions in each of the last five years for which there are figures, in each county in England and Wales; what were the average figures for England, Wales and for the United Kingdom for the same years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The information is not available. Information on recorded offences and court proceedings is compiled on different bases and a measure that combines the two therefore cannot be prepared. Figures for crimes cleared up by
  286
  means of charge or summons were given in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) on 4 February at cols. 291–92.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had about revising the basis on which crime statistics are collected.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: My Department is currently looking at revising the rules and instructions for the forces to follow in collecting crime statistics. As part of this process each force, as well as representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers, have been consulted. I expect a set of proposals to be submitted for my approval later this year.

  Crime (Staffordshire)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was(a) the number of reported thefts from motor vehicles in Staffordshire in each year since 1979 and (b) the percentage differences in the number of reported thefts from motor vehicles in Staffordshire between 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) what was (a) the number of reported thefts of motor vehicles in Staffordshire in each year since 1979 and (b) the percentage difference in the number of reported thefts of motor vehicles in Staffordshire between 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available;

  (3) what was (a) the number of reported burglaries in Staffordshire for each year since 1979 and (b) the percentage difference in the number of reported burglaries in Staffordshire between 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available;

  (4) what was (a) the level of recorded crime in Staffordshire for each year since 1979 and (b) the percentage difference in the level of reported crime in Staffordshire between 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The available information is for recorded offences. Statistics for 1979 are published in table 32 of the 1979 volume of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales". Statistics for 1980–91 are published annually in table 3·1 of the "Criminal Statistics, Supplementary Volume 3"—copies of these publications are available in the Library. Figures for 1992 are not yet available. Figures for percentage changes between 1979 and 1991, the latest available year, are as follows:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police—Staffordshire

  Offence

  Percentage change 1991 compared with 1979

  Theft from vehicle

  +248

  Theft of vehicle

  +223

  Burglaries

  +193

  Total overall recorded crime

  +127

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Shipping: Pollution Protection
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent pollution by shipping to the seas and coasts of the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, following the announcement on 4th February and subsequent discussions, a paper was submitted to the secretary general of the International Maritime Organisation last week for consideration at the maritime safety committee meeting in May. The paper contained details of a number of interim measures to protect the United Kingdom coast. A voluntary code for tankers in UK waters is being developed which will also be submitted to the International Maritime Organisation for consideration at the maritime safety committee.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government consider that inspections of seagoing ships are adequate and satisfactory? Are they satisfied that ships registered under flags of convenience comply with international maritime law?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are very much in the lead in Europe in implementing the memorandum of understanding. In 1987 17 foreign ships were detained while in 1992 the figure was 124. Therefore, we are playing a leading role to try to correct the weaknesses in the shipping industry.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the press contributed to the recent "Braer" incident?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it was obviously an interesting incident for the press. I must admit to your Lordships that sometimes I thought that the press were looking at a different incident from that at which I was looking. However, it is well worth remembering that it was a press man who ran over one of the otters.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that plutonium nitrate—a most hazardous cargo—is to be shipped in the old converted "Aberthaw Fisher" through the Minch from Dounreay to Sellafield? Is he further aware that it is mad to consider barring oil but to permit plutonium? Is his department crazy? Is the Minister doing anything about that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that he is out of date. The cargo arrived
742
safely at its port of destination. As the noble Lord will be aware, the cask in which the cargo is transported is subject to the most stringent safety tests.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the United Kingdom authorities monitoring and, where there is evidence, bringing prosecutions against the owners of those vessels causing deliberate pollution by releasing oily wastes from their tanks at sea?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. That is much harder to detect, but if the patrols find and identify an offending vessel, then action is taken.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that there are other hazardous cargoes apart from oil? Does not the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, illustrate that? Should not the voluntary embargo be extended to many of those other cargoes?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. As the noble Lord will know, the voluntary code is an interim measure designed specifically to deal with oil tankers on various parts of the coast. The inquiry set up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, will look at wider issues.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Marine Insurance Act 1906 states that there is an implied warranty that all vessels should be seaworthy? That seaworthiness is guaranteed by being passed by Lloyd's or one of the other shipping classification bureaux. The television programme "Panorama" claimed that many of those bureaux were producing different standards. Is there any government policy to try to ensure that universal standards of seaworthiness are maintained by all the classification bureaux?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the classification societies are aware that some societies are not meeting the high standards of other societies. We are auditing all the societies in this country so that they come up to the appropriate standard.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, in view of the general interest in this matter, will the Government consider publishing the memorandum which they have sent to the IMO?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a copy is already in the Library.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I welcome the steps being taken by the Government. However, is it not a fact that only a small proportion of oil spilled at sea —about 12 per cent.—emanates from disasters? As to safety standards in our own merchant fleet, with the Budget coming up shortly, will the Government now take the fiscal measures which the Merchant Navy requires to enable it to order new ships and thereby maintain the standards described by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in his excellent report, as second to none?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct on the first point. Oil goes into the sea, and has done for millions of years, from a variety

743
of sources. There is natural seepage from under the sea itself. There is oil that has been taken down by rivers and oil that comes in from the atmosphere. The pollution from oil that occurs as a result of accidents —the subject of the Question—is a small proportion of the whole. As regards the noble Lord's second point, he will have to wait for the Budget.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, do the measures which the Government have undertaken, or contemplate undertaking, include a comprehensive review and possible amendment of routeing arrangements around United Kingdom coasts? Have the Government any proposals to ratify the international convention on salvage of 1989 which is an important measure? Will the Government consider increasing still further the number of inspections being carried out—creditable though the situation in this country is by comparison with other European Community countries, or other signatories to the Paris Memorandum—and the thoroughness of those inspections?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we hope that when the voluntary code is agreed it will contain recommendations for navigation in the Pentland Firth, the Minches, the North Channel, Off Smalls and Grassholm Channel, the Scilly Isles, the Needles Channel, the English Channel, the Dover Straits and the Firth of Forth. Once a legislative opportunity is available we shall ratify the salvage convention. However, that would have made no difference in the case of the "Braer" incident because the same rules applied.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the IMO should be invited to introduce an international regulation that all ships using coastal waters should be fitted with transponders for recognition and surveillance purposes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that question has been discussed at length in the IMO. At the moment there is no agreement but I know it is also a subject that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is considering in his inquiry.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what enforcement provisions will be included in the voluntary code when it is accepted?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, the whole point is that we have no compulsory powers under international law. This is a voluntary agreement. To make it as workable as possible we have discussed it with international and national shipping interests.

Rugby Union: Sports Council Funding
3.15 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much financial support the Sports Council gives to the English Rugby Football Union, and
744
whether they consider that this support should be continued in view of the one-year suspension of a young player for playing Rugby League.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in 1991–92 the Sports Council provided a grant of £54,000 to the English Rugby Football Union. It is for the Sports Council to determine whether it wishes to continue to pay the grant.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he consider the information that I have from published Sports Council reports that the grant is well in excess of the sum he has mentioned? I have been informed it is about £200,000 a year. In any case is it right that a sport should receive that kind of money when it takes action against a young lad, Stephen Pilgrim, in this day and age and suspends him for life for the crime of playing another quite lawful sport; namely, Rugby League? Will the Minister also bear in mind that the eminent legal advice that I have received, based on the cases of Eastham in soccer, Packer in cricket and, in New Zealand, Blacker in rugby, suggests that such discrimination is unlawful both because it goes against public policy and also because it is a restraint of trade? In all those circumstances do not the Government think it right that the law of the land should be upheld in respect of the sport of Rugby Union?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand that the rule which was used to disqualify Mr. Pilgrim was Rule 2(3) of the regulations of the International Rugby Football Board relating to amateurs which states:
"No person shall play in a trial or play with a non-amateur club or a non-amateur organisation involved in the playing of any other type of rugby football".
It is a matter for the rugby authorities to set and apply their own regulations and for players to decide which code they wish to follow and to ensure that they are fully aware of the regulations that govern their sport.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern in Rugby Football Union circles about the threat of professionalism to the amateur game, and that therefore there is considerable merit in maintaining as clear a dividing line as possible between the amateur and professional codes in rugby football?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is entirely a matter for the two rugby bodies. It is for them to decide what their codes should be.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the two governing bodies of rugby. The Rugby League is quite definite on this matter and it disagrees with what has taken place. Is not the principle of barring a young person from a particular sport for life totally alien to our approach to sport? Does not this kind of view belong to the past century? Would it not be in everyone's interest to ditch that view before we enter the next century?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand that the ban was for a year. Perhaps I should point out to noble Lords that the chairman of the Sports Council,

745
Sir Peter Yarranton, expressed his personal disappointment to the secretary of the Rugby Football Union on its interpretation of the rules. Noble Lords will realise that Sir Peter is a distinguished former international England player and that his views are particularly significant to this debate.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it would be best if the Government kept their fingers out of the sport bowl and left the ruling bodies of each sport to settle their own rulings and their own arguments?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The Government have no jurisdiction to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the governing bodies. However, we welcomed the introduction in 1987 of the free gangway system which allows rugby players to play both codes at amateur level and clubs to share facilities.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Rugby League has become very popular? I believe that that is due to television coverage. The general public are enamoured of the game. Is he aware that many of us regard it as infamous that a player should be suspended for one year by the ruling body of Rugby Union?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships would agree that all sporting bodies should have good relations with each other. It is particularly important that those involved in the same sport should work together.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware —although there is no reason why he should be—that when I joined my Rugby Union club in Wales many years ago I was told that anyone seen even talking to a Rugby League scout would not only be suspended for life but would be forbidden to sing the Welsh national anthem? Does he not agree that the young Englishman has got off rather lightly?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that the situation has improved a little since the noble Lord's day. As a professional body the Rugby Football League does not qualify for grant aid from the Sports Council and is therefore very much an independent body.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend happen to have with him the figure for the financial support given by the Scottish Sports Council to the Scottish Rugby Union? Does he agree that that figure and its effectiveness can best be evaluated after the match at Twickenham on Saturday?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not have the figure with me. It would be presumptuous of me to make any comment on the forthcoming match.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that people who play Rugby Union for their club, their town or city and then for their country are very proud of that fact and do not do it for money? Does he agree that they play for the love of the game and the honour of their club and their country? Rugby
746
League exists for those who do not agree with that principle, and quite rightly so. There are many Rugby Union players who played for their country and who now play for Rugby League clubs. They know full well that they can never return to play for their amateur club or their country. However, does the Minister agree with me that if a young man makes a small error there should be some indication that his case will be examined before he is finally excluded?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there has recently been comment in the press about what might be described as under-the-counter payments with regard to Rugby Union, but that is a separate matter. The Government support the discussions between the Rugby Football League and the British Amateur Rugby League Association, and the Sports Council has been actively involved in promoting discussions between those two bodies for their benefit. Consideration is being given to whether a decision on a unified body would be in the best interests of the two concerns.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a matter of government and public concern because much public money is involved? Does he also agree that the question of amateurism which has been raised is a very complex one given the huge sums of money which are earned by Rugby Union players? In that context, can he assure the House that the matter will be taken up with the relevant governing body, especially bearing in mind the encouraging statement by the chairman of the Sports Council? Can the noble Viscount promise us that this will be the last case of such injustice?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can make no promises to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on behalf of the bodies involved. It is a matter for them. I can tell him that the Rugby Football Union has recently issued regulations governing the extent to which players may derive income from non-playing activities. I shall certainly make sure that the two bodies involved are notified of what has been said this afternoon in your Lordships' House.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will he allow me to say, as a former member of the national Sports Council, that the Sports Council examines the rules and articles of the various governing bodies and it is open to the council to make suggestions about their application before giving grant?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's remarks to the chairman of the Sports Council.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that anybody who believes that Rugby Union players receive no money will believe anything? Is he also aware that, contrary to what he told the House, this is a matter of great public concern? If it is unlawful, the Government should look into the matter, and that is all that I am asking the noble Viscount to do today. Will he please examine the legality of the matter?
Viscount Astor: Yes, my Lords, if the noble Lord wishes I shall certainly look into the matter and write to him.

CAP: Export Refund Frauds
3.25 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the auditing of export refunds under the common agricultural policy of the European Community, or with the results so far achieved in combating massive fraud.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the House will be pleased to know that the Council of Ministers addressed the problem of fraud during our recent presidency. It established a high level group to examine a number of issues, including the audit of export refund claims, where steps were agreed which should improve controls on multinational companies. The Government, while pleased that positive steps to advance the effort against fraud were agreed during our presidency, will continue to press hard for effective measures to tackle fraud.
Lord Jay: My Lords, can the Minister confirm or deny that a total of almost £5 billion sterling is being lost through such frauds at present? At a time when corruption is not altogether unknown in Italy and French agricultural policy is periodically determined by rioting farmers and fishermen, is it tolerable that the British taxpayer should have to contribute several hundred million pounds a year to funds which are disappearing down that sink?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised some important points. It is almost axiomatic that one cannot quantify the amount of fraud within the Community. However, there are some encouraging signs. In particular, one of the recommendations of the high level group on fraud in respect of export refunds was that there should be better co-operation by member states and that a stronger lead should be taken by the Commission on dealing with fraud involving multinational companies, which is a particularly difficult area, and transactions across a number of countries.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that all the laudable efforts which are being made to investigate and control fraud in the European Community are likely to be frustrated because the Commission is far more concerned with the proper authorisation of expenditure than with ensuring that the money has been properly spent?
Will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that he will take into account in any future developments in this direction the reasons which lay behind the recent resignation of the British representative on the Court of Auditors, Mr. Carey? Will he indicate whether the Government have yet held consultations with Mr. Carey as to the reasons which lay behind his resignation from the Court of Auditors?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot comment on that resignation. However, the noble Lord raised an important point. The Government strongly support the comments in the 1991 European Court of Auditors' report about the need for the Commission itself to ensure that member states' accounting and control arrangements are adequate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend quantify even approximately the cost of those frauds to the British taxpayer?
Earl Howe: No, my Lords. I cannot do so, for the reasons which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Jay. It is almost impossible to arrive at estimates of the extent of fraud within the Community.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the common agricultural policy is just one big fraud which costs the British taxpayer—and indeed all European taxpayers—very dear indeed? Can he say to what extent senior politicians in Italy have been involved in the very real fraud which has taken place in the common agricultural policy and perhaps elsewhere within the funds of the EC?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there has recently been a report of substantial attempted fraud in Italy involving durum wheat. The extent of that fraud is estimated at £23 million. Five of the perpetrators have been arrested. Three also have alleged associations with the Mafia. The intervention agency is investigating possible frauds in previous years. The Commission is carrying out discussions with the Italian authorities but it is too early to assess what action it will take.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, shall we not debate this important matter on Monday on a quite full report from your Lordships' sub-committee of the European Communities Committee? Would it not be a good idea to have a balanced view after the debate?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. The Government welcome the opinion of your Lordships' sub-committee in its report of 15th January of this year. Although the report recognises the progress that has been made to date, it stresses the need for a great deal more to be done if fraud and irregularity are to be contained. The committee recognised that the problem has to be addressed in a systematic and patient way. That is the approach that the Government adopt.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, do the Government still support a modification of the regulation on the monitoring of exports of agricultural products receiving refunds so that the current requirement of 5 per cent. checks by Customs officers would be replaced by a lesser rate of inspection said to be risk targeted? Is that alternative supported by other member states? Can we be assured that it is not influenced by a desire on financial grounds to restrict time spent by Customs on such important checks.
Earl Howe: My Lords, those checks on export refund claims are important. Claims are subject to a minimum of 5 per cent. physical check under EC rules. The UK achieved a 7.4 per cent. checking level against

749
that target in 1992. Export refund claims also come within the ambit of the post-payment scrutiny regulation, under which the commercial transactions of traders are examined after the event. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the other questions that he raised which are somewhat complex. However, I hope that I have covered the principal point.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, will my noble friend assure us that it is the intent of the Government to see that the powers and the effectiveness of the European Court of Auditors are strengthened? Whatever backing may or may not be forthcoming from individual member states or from the Commission, the Court of Auditors over many years has not proved effective in following expenditure of European Community money in the way that we expect our own PAC and our Comptroller and Auditor-General to follow through expenditure in this country. It is an important reform which still has a long way to go.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The European Court of Auditors' role under the Maastricht Treaty has been enhanced. It will now be required to provide a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the Community's accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.

Disability Living Allowance: Claims
3.32 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the backlog of claims for disability benefits to be cleared, and what steps they are taking to ensure that claimants have not lost any benefit to which they were entitled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the number of outstanding claims to disability living allowance has now been reduced to normal working levels. Claims made before December 1992 will be cleared as soon as possible but in any case by the end of March 1993. No one should lose benefit because of delays as payment is backdated to the date of claim.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I appreciate the reply although I am not sure what the noble Lord means by "normal working levels". Are those the same as the levels which we have seen recently which involve misleading advertising, reliance on an untried computer involving loss of 1,400 files or, as the Government put it, files still being looked for, and 7,000 complaints to another place? I know that the noble Lord is concerned about the issue. Will he inform the Government that those working levels have caused real hardship and heartache to severely disabled people and have been an absolute disgrace?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not understand what the noble Lord means by "misleading advertising". As regards the second half of his question, I repeat the apology made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Disabled People that on various
750
occasions clearly we have not provided a satisfactory service in introducing the new benefit, the disability living allowance. As the noble Lord will appreciate, we have been dealing with about 1.25 million claims over the year. It is a totally new benefit. Obviously difficulties will crop up. That is likely with any new benefit. It would possibly have been a route forward to have introduced it by stages, as was done with mobility allowance. We took the decision to introduce it all at once. In the end, that was a more satisfactory solution for most individual claimants. As I said, we hope to have dealt with all existing claims by the end of the month.
Lord Rix: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of people living in residential care, some of them with a learning disability, are being incorrectly told by members of his department that it is not worth claiming the mobility component because it will simply be deducted from their income support? Will the Minister authorise back payments to such people who have been woefully misled into not claiming?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of those allegations. If the noble Lord would like to give me details, I shall certainly have them looked into. If people have been denied benefit as a result of official error, obviously we would be prepared to look, as is the usual way, at backdating their claim to the date of official error.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given what the Minister said and the chaos involved, many DLA claims and appeals will take over a year to be resolved. The Minister said helpfully that payments will be backdated. In that case, will he confirm that linked benefit such as invalid care allowance will also be fully backdated and not limited by the normal 52 week rule cut-off point?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that with regard to linked benefits, on the occasions when they can be backdated the position is slightly more complicated than the noble Baroness appreciates. If she so wishes, I shall write to her. Linked benefits can only be backdated 52 weeks.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the Minister accepts that those linked benefits are attached to DLA, and if he accepts that delays on paying DLA claims are not the fault of the claimant but of his department, is it not fair that linked benefits should also be backdated to the date of claim? Otherwise poor people are losing money because of his department's incompetence.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject the allegation of incompetence. I am saying that the general rule is that such benefits can only be backdated 52 weeks. I am not sure about the exact details in the case of official error. As I said, that is slightly more complicated than perhaps the noble Baroness appreciates. I prefer to write to her.

The Honours System
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Honours. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Honours system and to announce some changes which have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen.
"The award of Honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for centuries. It is the means by which, as a nation, we can show our respect and gratitude to those who have contributed most to our national life. Acts of courage, lives of sacrifice, inventiveness, generosity and commitment to others are formally recognised and acknowledged. It is rooted in our history and given special value by the close personal attention which the Sovereign has given to it. To retain its valued role in our national life, the Honours system must—from time to time —be reviewed and renewed.
"The present system has remained largely unchanged for 70 years despite huge changes in national life. I have therefore been discussing with Her Majesty some changes that will, I believe, enjoy widespread support.
"I wish to start by clarifying the circumstances in which awards should be made. First, Honours should be awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or exceptional service, over and above what normally might be expected. Secondly, there should be different levels of award to reflect different levels of achievement. Thirdly, awards should not be automatic and follow simply as a result of doing a particular job. Fourthly, awards should place more emphasis on voluntary service. I therefore propose to end the recommendation of Honours where they are given solely by seniority or on appointment. In future, with one exception I shall turn to in a moment, there should be no assumption that Honours will automatically be attached to particular posts in either the public or the private sector.
"Public servants and office holders will of course still be eligible to receive honours and many will qualify on merit. But the assumption that a particular post automatically carries an Honour will end. Instead, awards will be open—on merit —to a wider range of individuals.
"I intend that these principles should be applied throughout the Civil Service and the rest of the public sector, and my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence concur in respect of the Foreign Service and the Armed Forces.
"I also intend the same principles to apply in the private sector. Many people give generously of their time, energy and expertise to help their fellow citizens, and a more flexible system can take greater
752
account of such contributions. While heads of particular organisations can no longer expect an Honour just because their predecessor received one, they will of course continue to be eligible if their achievement and their service to the community merit this. I propose to continue making recommendations for political service and I shall apply the same principles there too.
"I mentioned earlier one exception. The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to our legal system. Awards of honours should not be thought to depend upon the Government's approval of legal judgments. For that reason I believe that High Court judges should continue to receive the traditional honour of a Knighthood on appointment. This practice has preserved the independence of the Bench from the exercise of patronage for two centuries and I believe it should continue.
"I should like now to turn to specific awards where I have some changes to announce. The largest proportion by far of current awards are MBEs and BEMs, mainly for service to local communities. The distinction between service meriting the award of an MBE and that meriting a BEM has become increasingly tenuous. It cannot be sustained. I therefore intend in future to increase the number of recommendations for MBEs and to discontinue recommending awards of BEMs. I should make it clear that this change will not affect existing holders of the BEM, who will of course retain their medals. These are rightly highly treasured personal possessions.
"The change will also apply to the lists recommended by my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. The Governments of those Commonwealth countries which recommend British Empire Medals in their own lists have been informed of these proposals.
"To end a similar distinction in the Imperial Service Order I shall no longer make recommendations for awards of the ISO. Those considered to merit the award will instead receive OBEs. The associated Imperial Service Medal is a long service medal awarded on retirement and will continue.
"At present those receiving the BEM do not attend a Royal Investiture. For the future, the Queen has graciously agreed to increase the number of Investitures both at Buckingham Palace and elsewhere in the country. This will enable the increased numbers receiving MBEs to attend a Royal Investiture, though the Queen will not be able to conduct all Investitures herself. I realise, however, that some may value a local presentation which gives greater opportunity for friends and family to mark the occasion. Her Majesty has, therefore, agreed that those awarded MBEs, OBEs or CBEs may receive their Honour from their Lord Lieutenant if they prefer. The choice will rest entirely with the recipient.
"I turn now to military gallantry awards. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for

753
Defence is separately conducting a review, and will be announcing his conclusions shortly. But there is one change I can announce today.
"At present, except for the Victoria Cross, awards for gallantry are linked to the rank of the recipient. Officers are eligible to receive crosses or equivalent decorations but non-commissioned ranks are eligible only for medals. The time has come to end this distinction. In future, the level of award will be determined by the part played by the individuals concerned and the courage they displayed, without regard to their rank.
"At present the numbers and distribution of Honours are reviewed every five years. However, I have requested that the next examination of these numbers be brought forward to the summer of this year. I have asked the review: first, to take greater account of the desirability of recognising work in the voluntary sector and service to the community; and, secondly, to look at the proportion of awards to state servants to ensure that it appropriately reflects changes in the role and size of the Home Civil Service, the Diplomatic Service and the Armed Forces.
"Finally, I believe the means of nomination for Honours should be more widely known and more open. It is at present too haphazard. Nomination forms, setting out the type of information needed, have therefore been prepared. I shall make sure that the forms are readily available both to members of the public and particularly to voluntary bodies and charities. I will also place a supply in the Vote Office for honourable Members. I hope that this change will help increase the recognition of merit of all kinds.
"The Honours system has been with us for centuries and has a continuing and valued role to play in British life. I strongly support it. But it is right that it should periodically be examined. The changes I have announced today mean: that exceptional service or achievement will be more widely recognised; that greater importance will be given to voluntary service; that automatic Honours will end; that the distinction between ranks in military operational gallantry awards will cease; that the bulk of Honours in the half-yearly lists will be of a single, undifferentiated award, the MBE; and that all recipients of Honours will be invited to a Royal Investiture.
"I shall report to the House in due course on the review of the numbers and distribution of Honours and I shall consider at that time whether further changes are needed".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this long overdue overhaul of the Honours system. We have long argued that the whole system of awarding honours is—to use as neutral a phrase as I can think of this afternoon—dubious. We certainly welcome the abolition of false distinctions between classes of Honours such as the BEM and the
754
MBE which have themselves served to perpetuate false distinctions between citizens. We particularly welcome the abolition of distinctions between military medals. It is obvious to all that bravery has no rank and that there should be no such distinction when it comes to the recognition of gallantry.
The efforts of ordinary citizens to improve the lives of their fellow citizens will, I hope, be properly recognised under the new Honours system. The recognition of people valued in their own localities will help to lead to a new sense of community. I welcome too that part of the Statement which extends and widens the categories of people who are entitled to nominate others for Honours. I think that that change is desirable and we welcome it.
It is a pity, in our view, that the Statement has been marred merely by one sentence which the noble Lord the Leader of the House will find on page 6:
"I propose to continue making recommendations for political service and I shall apply the same principles there too".
I assume that the principles to be applied are those set out at the beginning of the Statement that:
"honours should be awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or exceptional service, over and above what normally might be expected".
The habit has grown up over recent years of awarding political Honours to members of the Conservative Party for political services. We on this side of the House think that that is regrettable. I should be interested to know what,
"exceptional achievement or exceptional service, over and above what normally might be expected",
of members of the Conservative Party will have to be provided before someone receives the regulation "K". I hope that it will not be something of which there has been criticism in the past—merely the size of the contribution to Conservative Party funds.
Subject to that one sentence, which does not seem to us to fit in with the tone of the rest of the Statement, broadly, overall we welcome this.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, there are several aspects to the Statement which we welcome. That certainly goes for the amalgamation of BEMs and MBEs, it goes for the amalgamation of the MC with the Military Medal; it goes for the ending of the discrimination by which some people, according to the rank of their honour, were allowed a Royal Investiture and other people were not. There are a number of other points which equally I would welcome.
However, I see one difficulty lurking in the new arrangements. It is suggested that high civil servants —permanent secretaries are primarily concerned— shall in future not automatically qualify for Honours. Most people would agree with that as a general statement of principle. So it may perhaps seem a little odd that the Government should have prefaced that by making entry to this House—as was shown by the mass creations following the election—a more automatic reward for service as a Minister than has hitherto been the case.
Leaving that aside for the moment, the position of permanent secretaries seems to raise the slight problem of making it still more difficult to maintain the traditions of a wholly impartial Civil Service.

755
Those traditions have been put under considerable strain by 14 years of continuous one-party government, fortified by the existence of the "Is he one of us?" philosophy. We have seen, as a result, certain unfortunate examples of Civil Service weakness. Those examples, frankly, have deeply shocked someone like myself who has a great admiration for the British Civil Service tradition. Therefore we have a position in which there are two desiderata running into conflict with each other. We agree that there should be no automatic Honours, even for permanent secretaries—only for exceptional and very good service. But to make civil servants, who may naturally desire Honours very much indeed, still more dependent on the goodwill of their political masters is not desirable. The logic of that position, for which a very strong case exists independently, is that the right of unilateral decision on Honours should be taken out of the hands of the Prime Minister and placed upon a wider and more impartial basis. If that were done, which I think is the logical consequence of much that is in the Statement, one could welcome the Statement wholeheartedly. Until that is the case I have considerable reservation about one perhaps un-foreseen consequence, which I have endeavoured to outline to your Lordships' House.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, for the part of their remarks which supported what the Government propose.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, welcomed a great many aspects of the Statement and I shall therefore comment only on the points on which he had some difficulty. I believe that there is a clear difference between us over political Honours. We take the view that there is no reason why those who work for, or support, a political party should be excluded from recognition. Work done for a political party is a fundamental part of our democratic process and in many cases involves substantial voluntary effort. We for our part regret that the Labour Party does not recognise that. We believe that it would be better if it thought differently, but that is a matter for it to decide. It is not true to say that awards of Honours are influenced by donations to political parties. As the noble Lord knows full well, all recommendations for political Honours are carefully examined by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee, a committee of Privy Counsellors, on which all three main parties are represented. All three members of that committee are, as is well known, Members of this House. They have very careful rules about the information that has to be supplied to them. The concern raised by the noble Lord cannot in practice be substantiated in any way.
With regard to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, I am pleased too that he accepts a great deal of what is proposed. If his concern about the Civil Service was one that would cause difficulties in practice, I too would be worried. But I do not believe that it will cause the sort of problems which he suggested. The Government are fully behind the independent, impartial Civil Service. Honours will
756
continue to be awarded with impartiality, with assessments based upon merit. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will know from his time in government, there is a very substantial system for making impartial assessments of the performance of civil servants, and that impartial assessment will still play the same substantial part. We have great admiration for the way civil servants and others provide dedicated and impartial service to government. Certainly, nothing in the Prime Minister's Statement should imply that civil servants will be debarred in future. Many will continue to receive recognition but that reward will now be based much more on merit and not just on career level.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I welcome particularly my noble friend's statement that all awards will be graced by a Royal Investiture. I am sure he appreciates that that will add enormously to the value of those awards which at present do not receive that advantage. It is a very sensible addition. Can he say how much additional work that will involve for Her Majesty and what numbers are involved.
Secondly, perhaps I may say how glad I am that the Government have at long last abolished the ridiculous rule in the Armed Forces whereby the award received for gallantry in service was affected by rank and that there was a different award according to whether one was another rank or an officer.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, particularly for his support for changing the way in which gallantry awards are made. My noble friend is absolutely right. Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed to increase the number of Royal Investitures so that all who wish to attend to receive their award can do so. However, as I indicated, Knighthoods apart, those preferring a local ceremony will be able to choose to have their award presented by their Lord Lieutenant. It is not possible to be absolute about the increased number of Investitures that will have to be held, but I understand that the increase is likely to be from about 16 to about 22. That is the order of the extra work.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I express a general welcome for the announcement that has been made. It represents, I believe, an improvement on the existing situation. Following upon the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will the Government and the Palace consider holding investitures in Wales and in Scotland? It might, for example, be very appropriate for the Prince of Wales to hold an investiture in Cardiff or indeed somewhere else in Wales. Many people might be happy to take advantage of that.
Another point on that topic is the disappointment felt by many people who receive awards at the limitation on the numbers of those who may attend, leading to denials to close members of the family. Can that position not be looked at to see whether the problem can be overcome so that intimate members of

757
the family can attend with the recipient on a day which gives such great pleasure? Sometimes that does not happen.
I am glad to hear that the right to nomination is being widened. Will those nominations go straight to No. 10, or go through departments, where there has always been an input and the departments themselves put forward names? That may be made clear in due course. I would suppose that they will go direct to No. 10. I was the recipient of many such nominations and always regarded the self-nominators with a sceptical eye, especially when they assured me that they did not want the Honour for themselves but that it would give the wife such pleasure!
I agree with my noble friend Lord Richard that there is a blench in the question of the conferment of Knighthoods on Back-Benchers who do not make the grade as Ministers. Knighthood should not be regarded as a consolation prize for those who do not really come up to it. The appropriate distinction for Members of Parliament is the Privy Council. To become a Member of the Privy Council is the most honourable position one can hold. That is where the distinction should lie, and I support what was said on that issue.
Despite what the Leader of the House said, there must be rigorous examination of those managing directors and captains of industry who are put forward for Knighthoods. For the most part, those people are well rewarded in other directions. I cannot escape the suspicion that on many occasions the award of a Knighthood is to some extent related to the amount of the contributions to the Conservative Party. The noble Lord may deny that, and indeed it may be untrue, but I can tell him that the view is widely held. If he wishes, as I am sure he does, as I do, to ensure that the lists are clean and wholesome—though clearly there will be occasions when industry should be rewarded, such as when somebody breaks into an export market in a difficult foreign country —the granting of Knighthoods should be considered much more rigorously than at present.
Finally, let me say how welcome I find the Prime Minister's Statement on the need to reward voluntary service. I always found that the most genuine pleasure was felt among those who had served publicly and voluntarily for many years—who never hit the headlines and never had their names in the media but did it without expectation or hope of reward—and one morning awoke to find a letter on the mantelpiece saying that they were being proposed for a distinction. That is where the awards and Honours system has a great deal to commend it. I am delighted that it is continuing.
In increasing the number of voluntary awards I hope that the Government will not increase the total. If there was a substantial increase it would begin to devalue the awards, which are so important. Subject to what I have said, I genuinely welcome the changes that are to he made. I am sure that they will be for the good.
4 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for those questions. I suspect that not many people have had the experience of the responsibilities he has held and would therefore not be able to ask those questions, which in many ways go right to the heart of the issues that had to be resolved. I made a note of them and hope that I can give the noble Lord answers to all of them. If not, I shall certainly write to him afterwards.
As I understand it, it is the intention that a greater number of Investitures should take place out of London. While I have no authority to say that the Prince of Wales will conduct an Investiture at Cardiff, the fact that the noble Lord suggested it may add to the possibility of its happening rather than diminish it. It is a sensible suggestion.
As the noble Lord will fully recognise, numbers at the Palace was a problem under the old system in regard to how many people could attend on these special occasions. With the increased numbers attending it will not be any easier. I know that the Palace will want to do all it can in that direction. It is also one of the reasons why the Queen agreed to keep the local ceremonies, where the Lord Lieutenant presents the awards, in those cases where recipients prefer it. On those occasions they are able to have a greater number of their family present, and that is a choice that people will have to make.
With regard to the nomination forms and to where they are sent, my understanding is that they should be sent to No.10. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be a degree of flexibility. If they arrive at the wrong desk we shall soon get them to the right desk. The object is to make it easier to receive nominations and not to introduce additional bureaucracy. I remember the noble Lord on occasions having a list in his pocket of those who applied which he has been known to bring out from time to time to help him. I do not need that today, and in fact I do not have such a list in my pocket.
I recognise the point that the noble Lord makes with regard to Knighthoods. With respect, I do not agree with him. I agree this far: the whole thrust of the Prime Minister's Statement was that few Honours were formerly automatic but now none will be. That will apply to political as well as to any other kind of Honour. It is therefore appropriate with the Statement that time-serving Members of Parliament will not automatically receive a Knighthood, if that should be the suggestion, purely for their time-serving service. However, I do not believe that they should be excluded if their service is of such distinction that it merits recognition.
The noble Lord also made some important points with regard to voluntary service. At the moment around 15 per cent. of the awards on the Prime Minister's list are for unpaid community service and to voluntary bodies and charities; 50 per cent. of those on the list have undertaken some measure of voluntary work. It is our view that that percentage should increase.

759
The noble Lord also makes an important point that the total number of awards should not be increased because by doing so the the award would thus be devalued. The lists are at present around 1,000; it is anticipated that at the end of the review the number will be of the same order.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the more disturbing points of the Statement is the suggestion that the Military Medal is not equal to the Military Cross? I have always been brought up to understand that the two were equal. The Statement suggests that there is a ranking between the two, which I have never understood to be so.
The second point that disturbs me is the suggestion that our senior civil servants are not there because of merit. If so, why have the Government allowed it?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, if I may say so, that is something of a misunderstanding. The concern that government have with regard to, for instance, the Military Cross and the Military Medal is that, because there was a distinction between the rank of person who received them, there might be perceived to be a difference. We do not accept that there is a difference, and therefore we do not accept that there is a need for a different kind of medal as between one rank and another. What is in the Statement is to correct the true position rather than to change it.
With regard to the high ranking civil servant, he has achieved his position through the promotion arrangements that are made in the Civil Service, which are based on merit. That will continue. There is no suggestion that civil servants or public servants are not there on merit. The suggestion is that getting there purely on merit is not sufficient in itself to be the justification for an award. It is something over and above the ordinary service in doing the job that merits an award. That is something which I should have thought would commend itself to most people.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will allow me to call his attention to what some noble Lords may feel is an omission from the Statement. I refer to the lack of any reference to civilian awards for gallantry—the George Cross and the George Medal. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and others, have called attention to the fact that these are too rarely awarded. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether this might be looked at when the whole question of the numbers, and so on, is considered again later this year. Here is something which people feel very worried about.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I should answer my noble friend Lord Beloff before we go on to the next question.
My noble friend raises an important point. The civilian awards did not feature in the Statement because there is going to be no change in the criteria by which they are awarded. But the review of numbers
760
that will take place will look right across the board. If there was any change in the numbers to be recommended, that would come out of the review.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I ask one question arising out of the very welcome change in the removal of the distinction between crosses and medals. I ask the noble Lord to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to consider it. I speak from a knowledge of the Royal Air Force which in this sense was very different during the last war. People who were awarded medals and crosses become fewer every day because of anno domini; but a large number of the young men who captained aircraft during the last war, with officers as navigators or even gunners, were themselves sergeants or flight sergeants. Most of them, if they lived, became officers. They became wing commanders and even group captains. But if they had been awarded the DFM, which they revered—it was much more difficult to get a DFM than to get a DFC —they had to put a subsequent DFC in front of it. I ask the Secretary of State for Defence to consider not a change or retrospection but that if a man wants to put his DFM before his DFC he should be able to do so.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I shall probably get into trouble after I finish; but I think that the noble Lord makes a suggestion with which I cannot find any fault. I shall certainly pass it on to the Secretary of State.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the fundamental principle that I glean from the repetition of the Statement by my noble friend is that the holding of a high office with great distinction will not of itself merit an award with, if I may say so, the most correct distinction with regard to Her Majesty's judges appointed in the High Court. Will this principle be applied to judges of the Court of Appeal, who as a direct result only of their high office are awarded the great honour and distinction of membership of the Privy Council?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the Statement does not indicate any change in the system of appointment to the Privy Council. That is not just an award in the sense of a medal. It also brings with it some responsibilities. That will continue in the same way as up to now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, relating to political honours. The Prime Minister has indicated his enthusiasm for more open government. That being so, many of us would welcome the publication of the criteria by which the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee makes its decisions and in particular whether, when a captain of industry is recommended for a knighthood, that committee is informed of the donations made to the Conservative Party by the company of which he is chairman.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee considers political honours. It does not consider honours that are made for industry, medicine or anything of that kind in the normal course

761
of events. However, there is one very important improvement or change which was made by my noble friend Lady Thatcher in 1979. She said that for the protection of the system, any name which the Prime Minister personally adds to the list at CBE level or above which has not been through the ordinary selection procedure, (which involves a quite complicated Whitehall system) is then treated like a political honour and is scrutinised by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. So no name on the Prime Minister's list avoids impartial and careful consideration. As to the the generality of honours for captains of industry, and so on, they will not get an award merely for being a successful chairman of a company. Under the new system, they will have to show some merit or some public or voluntary service over and above that. The long-established system for considering honours of that kind takes account of all the factors which are relevant and would discount from an assessment any question of political contributions that an individual's company or organisation might well make. So a great many of such awards do not come to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee but are dealt with by the Whitehall machine in the normal way.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear that I ask this question only out of my thirst for knowledge and with no ulterior motive. The noble Lord the Leader of the House made it perfectly clear, as does the Statement, that automatic honours by way purely of holding certain offices will cease. Is that to be the position with the Lord Mayor of London, who until now has had an automatic knighthood on becoming Lord Mayor?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my understanding is that is the position. The practice of recommending the Lord Mayor of London elect for a GBE automatically on appointment will end as an application of this principle. But experience shows that Lord Mayors have given great public service of some kind. In future, individual service and achievement will be taken into account; but there will certainly be no automatic appointment on becoming Lord Mayor elect. It does not follow—indeed, the contrary must be obvious— that all Lord Mayors' public service will be the same to qualify for the same award, if any.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, we should move on now.

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
4.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been
762
committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 4 to 22,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 23 and 24,

Schedule 3,

Clause 25,

Schedule 4,

Clause 26,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 27 to 41,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clause 42,

Schedule 8,

Clause 43,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 44 to 47.—(Viscount Ullswater.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 10 [Visitors, short-term and prospective students and their dependants]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 36 I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 36A or 37 on account of pre-emption.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 7, leave out lines 28 to 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we considered Clause 10 in Committee my noble friends and others on these Benches—indeed others all round the Chamber—took the view that the whole of Clause 10, which denies the right of appeal against exclusion from the United Kingdom to visitors and some categories of students, was offensive and repugnant. We sought to persuade the Committee that the, whole of this clause should be deleted from the Bill. We failed. We recognise that it would not be appropriate for us to bring back a comparable amendment at Report stage. Therefore, we have concentrated in Amendment No. 36, which I now move, and in Amendment No. 38 to which I would like to speak at the same time, on the most important of the evils which are brought about by Clause 10 of the Bill. I refer to the issue of visitors to this country other than students.
In case there may be some confusion about the way in which those two amendments are constructed, perhaps I should make it clear that Amendment No. 36 removes the reference to students from the first part of the Bill, which of itself is an amendment to Section 13 of the 1971 Act. The beginning of Amendment No.

763
38 reduces the occasions on which a right of appeal can be denied to a visitor to the occasions when he has obtained leave to enter the United Kingdom by deception; or has been removed as an illegal entrant; or has failed on a previous visit to observe a condition attached to his leave; or has remained without authority beyond the time limited by law.
The second part of Amendment No. 38 restores the wording of the Bill, as drafted, in respect of students, with no change whatever. Amendments have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in connection with students. If, unfortunately, these amendments are defeated, there will be an opportunity for those two amendments to be raised. I appreciate, sympathise and agree with the depth of their concern for students, but we thought that it was right, in accordance with the traditions of this House as a revising Chamber, that we should seek to concentrate in our amendment on what seems to us to be the most important aspect; namely, visitors.
We do that for issues both of principle and practicality. Perhaps I may first deal with the issue of practicality. It is a fact that of those entering this country as visitors, something like 72 per cent. are from non-black—I cannot quite say "white"— countries. I do not mean that the individuals are of any particular colour. I have no way of knowing the proportion of citizens from the United States, for example, who are black. Thirty-two per cent. of visitors to this country come from the United States; 22 per cent. from the non-EC countries; 9 per cent. from Japan and 11 per cent. from Canada and Australia. The remainder come from all over the world and very considerably, of course, from the black Commonwealth countries.
I now turn to the proportion of refusals to enter this country. The 72 per cent. who come from the countries and the areas which I have named account for only 34 per cent. of refusals. That means that the proportion of those who come from the black Commonwealth countries, in particular from the Caribbean and the Indian sub-continent, and who are refused entry to this country, is very much higher than the proportion from, for example, the United States, Canada or Australia.
Of those coming from the white countries, if I may put it that way, only one in 1,154 is turned back whereas of those coming from the black Commonwealth, one in 95 is turned back. I cannot prove any causal relationship which says that, because people are black, they are being turned back. But I can certainly assert a statistical relationship which is clear; namely, that those coming here with black skins are much more likely to be turned back. There is no evidence whatever that those coming to this country with black skins have any less right to visit this country as visitors. Indeed, in many cases they have more right because those arriving from the black Commonwealth are coming with the express purpose of visiting relatives; attending family occasions; perhaps seeing new children or grandchildren, grandparents or parents who may be old and at risk of
764
dying. So if there is any possibility of difference between the right of white and black people coming to this country as visitors, surely the emphasis must be that more black people have good reason to want to come here. The evidence is to the contrary. It is that, even with the right of appeal, refusals at the port of entry are very much higher for black people.
The next practicality which we have to look at is that there is a right of appeal now and appeals are frequently successful. In other words, immigration officers and entry clearance officers for visa nationals as opposed to non-visa nationals, frequently make mistakes which are corrected on appeal. If this clause is carried unamended there will be no such appeal and no opportunity for those mistakes to be corrected. It must be added that the very fact that there is that number of appeals does not mean that the same number of problems would not exist if there were no right of appeal. It must be a fact of human nature that immigration officers who have absolute authority and who know there will be no appeal against their decision, can afford to act in a less responsible or less consistent way than if there is the known possibility of an appeal to their actions.
In debates in another place Ministers made what was supposed to be a concession, saying that there would be a full statement of the reasons. In debate in Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made the supposed concession; namely, that in large posts overseas there would be a daily review by senior management of decisions made by individual entry clearance officers. We did not and do not accept that those are adequate answers to the problems raised by Clause 10. First, it applied only to large posts; and, secondly, it applied only to those cases where entry clearance is required. It did not apply to non-visa nationals who are entitled to come to this country without obtaining entry clearance before leaving their own country. That applies to Caribbean countries.
For all those practical reasons, the removal of the right of appeal is not only likely but certain to lead to greater injustice. It is certain to continue and increase the discrimination affecting visitors as between black and white people which already takes place in admissions to this country.
Before I move on from that point, I refer very briefly to Amendment No. 39A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. If it comes to a vote, we shall support it because it will certainly make an improvement. However, I hope she will agree that the more general case I am making is a necessary position which has to be put before your Lordships.
I apologise for taking time on this matter; but, in the view of many people, the issue of principle as regards the removal of appeals is the most important single issue in the Bill. I remind your Lordships that when looking at appeals generally, the Home Affairs Committee in another place said in 1990:
"The backlog of appeals should not be used as an excuse for reducing rights of appeal".
That is the issue above all on which it is necessary to make this significant but not wrecking amendment to Clause 10 of the Bill.
It cannot be right that, because the Government have not allocated adequate resources or made adequate administrative arrangements to deal with what is not, after all, an overwhelming number of appeals (although many of them are successful), the right of appeal should be taken away. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support the amendment. I have not been asked to do so, but I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has said and that this is perhaps the most important matter in the Bill. Grouped with Amendment No. 38, Amendment No. 36 establishes a fair and reasonable regime both for visitors and students who have been refused entry. It mitigates the harsh incidence of Clause 10 as it stands, to which I referred in Committee when I went into the Lobby to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on the understanding that my noble friend the Minister was unable, unfortunately, to take the amendment back. I said expressly that I understood his position.
Subsection (3B) of the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which I supported, was, in effect, my Amendment No. 50, which I had withdrawn. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships (because this is relevant to what I am going to say) that the object of that amendment was to limit the grounds of appeal from the refusal of an immigration officer.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 afford another and, I think, a far more appropriate way in which to limit the appeals by visitors in one way and by students in another. And why? First, because these amendments conform with the broad concepts of fairness to which my noble friend the Minister referred on Second Reading and to our individual concepts of justice. To my mind, they would also square with the manifesto commitment of the party which I have the privilege to support. I referred to that in Committee. As I understood it, that commitment implicitly affirmed some form of right of appeal.
Secondly, as drafted, Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 would avoid the veritable avalanche of judicial review applications which would ensue if Clause 10 were to stand unamended. Noble and learned Lords spoke to that both on Second Reading and in Committee. Surely your Lordships' House can accept that those noble and learned Lords know what they are talking about. Even from my very unimportant professional experience, I agree with everything that they have said about this.
In addition, as drafted, the two amendments would avoid or curtail the substantial area of appeals as regards visitors and, in effect, proscribe in practice appeals by students. As drafted, the amendments take account of the element of administrative inconvenience to which my noble friend the Minister properly referred. They also take account of the imperative necessity to end abuse.
I do not wish to enter into the black/white controversy. However, looking at the matter straight up, surely Clause 10 as it stands will not work fairly
766
—but at least these amendments would. I commend them to my noble friend the Minister for his serious consideration.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 38 and do so largely on the strength of evidence that has been supplied by the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux.
It is clear that at present immigration officers possess a high degree of autonomy and that some of them are apt to use that autonomy in arbitrary ways by sometimes employing subjective criteria. That is why I feel strongly that appeals are necessary so that a body of case law may become established, so that there may be greater uniformity between one decision and another, and so that more objective, firm, and hard criteria may be identified.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has already mentioned how the drafting of the amendment is quite tight and restrictive. I am sure that your Lordships will have noticed that subsection (3B) is additional to the original amendment and cuts down the number of possible appeals. For that reason alone, I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Government.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I believe that in some quarters it has been asked, "How is it that so many Law Lords are at odds with the Government on certain specific aspects of this Bill?" Amendment No. 3, so successfully moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman on Tuesday, had the support of no fewer than 10 Law Lords, and no Law Lord voted against it. The answer to that question is, in fact, very simple. It is encapsulated in a very wise observation that was given by one of my eminent predecessors in a case some 50 years ago called the GMC v. Spackman case. Lord Atkins said:
"Convenience and justice are often not on speaking terms".
As regards the Bill now before your Lordships and the Asylum Bill that was considered last year, the Government have taken convenience as their guiding principle in respect of appellant rights and have relegated justice to second or third place. I trust that your Lordships will feel that it is desirable that, whenever that eventuality occurs, this House should expect its judicial Members to intervene and to do so with the appropriate vigour when required. In regard to the previous Asylum Bill, the Government initially preferred convenience to justice by saying, "No rights of appeal to asylum seekers". Under the impact of very heavy criticism, they were able to concede that in that regard justice should be preferred to convenience, but at a cost—and the cost is reflected in Clause 10.
Perhaps I may indicate to your Lordships by using three particular points that my proposition is wholly sound. First, it is convenient to provide the necessary resources now required for asylum seekers to have a right of appeal by removing the rights of appeal enjoyed for over 21 years by the visitors, the subject matter of this amendment—an entirely different category of foreigners. However, it is wholly unjust to take away any entrenched right of appeal without powerful and compelling reasons. The principle or

767
philosophy, if it can be deigned such, of robbing Peter to pay Paul, which is precisely what the Government propose to do, is neither a powerful nor a compelling reason.
Secondly, it is highly convenient to leave to the "ipse dixits" of the bureaucrats to decide who should be allowed on short-term visits. The bureaucrats inevitably say, "Look what happens when you allow independent scrutiny of our decisions. Last year we had to justify, or try to justify, 9,000 decisions. We therefore had to give our reasons, and the Foreign Office had to produce documents. That put us to an immense amount of inconvenience; but, worse still, it published the unpublishable—just how fallible those decisions were. It emerged that we were wrong in 1,500 cases out of 9,000".
That is a highly inconvenient situation for any body of bureaucrats to be faced with and therefore how convenient it is to do away with a right of appeal altogether. But this is not justice. Justice requires—indeed demands—that there should be redress against unfairness or defective judgments whether applied to short-term or long-term visitors. I know that the noble Earl who is always eminently fair will concede that as a general principle.
Thirdly and lastly, it is convenient—once again I stress that motivating factor—to say, "Well, there is always available to the unsuccessful applicant the complex and expensive remedy of judicial review if he can show that the decision about which he complains was quite irrational". However, that overlooks the fact that it is entirely unjust that the grossly overburdened lists in the Divisional Court, for which it appears there will be no relief, should be further swollen for want of a simple appellate process, thus causing cases of far-reaching importance nationally to be put further and further down the waiting list. There must be very few legislative provisions which are so blatantly indicative of a preference of convenience to justice, as is the case with Clause 10, and I too invite your Lordships to give it as much quietus as possible under the terms of the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this discussion because I have an open mind about the merits of the amendment and I was somewhat impressed by what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said. However, the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, obliges me in my own mind to point out to your Lordships that justice is not one and indivisible. There is social justice. There is economic justice. There is justice which has to be applied by the courts in the judicial application of the law and that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, concentrated upon. However, throughout the discussions on the Bill, we must bear in mind that we have 3 million unemployed in this country, that tens of thousands of people try to get here under the pretence of asylum and that that is a factor, an item of justice, that we should not overlook. Having said that, I should be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say about the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I intervene to make a plea to the Government to look at the issue with as much humanity as they can. I have a briefing from the CAB which shows large numbers of people who have had injustice done to them as a result of arbitrary actions by immigration officers. It does not follow that immigration officers are in any way not good men; but if you have that degree of power and no one looking over your shoulder and it is a difficult issue, it is easier to send the person back rather than let him in.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this has nothing at all to do with the number of unemployed. We are talking here about visitors and students. I do not want to repeat what I have said previously; but I am unable to understand why the Government adopt this antipathy to students. A country like ours should regard students, and the opportunity to provide for them, as an investment. Why are we making it difficult for them? We should welcome them. After all, the student of yesterday is the president of today. So why this attitude?
The appeal procedure was introduced in the first instance to relieve hardship. From the figures that we have, it has relieved hardship only to a limited extent. The Government ask that there should be more hardship. What is wrong with allowing people to come here to visit their relatives? If they overstay and are known to have overstayed, when they come next time they will be refused and will have no right of appeal. That makes sense and is just because they have already abused the system. What is wrong with encouraging students to come here?
I do not believe that the Government have thought through the matter. They are probably being encouraged by the immigration officers who do not like the idea of having their decisions revoked in the way that they are being revoked by adjudicators. I hope that the Government will rethink the matter. This issue can land us in a great deal of difficulty. I say in all seriousness that, if we go down this road, I am sure that it will be a very dangerous road for us. I merely plead with the Minister to look at the issue in the broad sense.
It has been said that the fact that the Government are having difficulties in the courts has not encouraged them to abolish appeals to the courts. It seems to me —the Minister admitted this—that because there is a large number of appeals, the Government have concluded that the appeals procedure must be withdrawn. I put it the other way round: the fact that many appeals are successful indicates that an appeal machinery is required. That is the other side of the coin.
Some leeway is granted in the amendment in that people who have transgressed are not allowed to appeal, but the bulk of visitors and students would have the right restored. I hope that the Minister will deal with the point in that way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I always differ from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with diffidence and a feeling of perhaps almost personal

769
alarm, because he is undoubtedly the most effective debater in the legal hierarchy which we have the pleasure of having in the House. I thought he sought to beg one question. He made a passionate appeal for justice. If he will allow me to say so, no one is better entitled to do that than he is, because he has served the cause of justice over many years with the greatest of success and distinction.
If one thinks a little further about the issue, why is entry to this country a matter of justice? Why does justice appear to affect the right of entry of foreigners into this country? We are a small country; we are an overcrowded country, as my noble friend Lord Renton said; and we are a country with substantial unemployment. It is surely the Government's duty to secure that we do not have a free flow of people entering into this country for a wide variety of reasons. I am bound to say that I have some difficulty in seeing why the right of a foreigner to enter this country should raise a question of justice.
There are many foreign countries which raise difficulties over the entry of British citizens. One has to obtain passports and documents of one kind or another. No one has suggested that that is a denial of justice. In those circumstances, we must bear in mind the problem that faces Her Majesty's Government. My noble friend the Minister will speak on that with all his authority and knowledge. But it does not require the knowledge of a Minister of the Crown to know that this country has an overcrowding problem, and that therefore a British government have a duty to restrict the entry of people who will add to that overcrowding unless there is some special reason for their entry. That goes far beyond raising a question of justice. It is raising the question of what is the duty of a British government in admittedly extremely difficult circumstances. I for one am delighted that we have my noble friend on the Front Bench in the Home Office to help guide us in this difficult and dangerous matter.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, without wishing to emulate the passion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and going only by the cool light of reason, I thought that I had never heard a more irrelevant speech than that of my noble friend Lord Renton until I heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Both of them made a good case which one would have to answer—if that is what we were debating—for a restriction on the entry of foreigners into this country. There are social arguments; there are economic arguments; but that is not what we are discussing, because the visitors whom we are discussing are granted by our present legislation the right to visit. So it is not a question of restricting rights. It would of course be possible to move an amendment that we should have no visitors in this country. But visitors are permitted and there is a procedure for deciding which of them is eligible for that privilege. Let us grant that it is a privilege.
All the amendment says is that in view of the mistakes which have been made in assessing whether individuals are entitled to that privilege, there should be some mechanism to assure people in the future that such mistakes will not be made or will be made more rarely. Therefore whether a matter is one of social or
770
any other kind of justice, we are dealing with something simple: should British law continue the practice of safeguarding the rights of individuals? That seems to be a narrow but acceptable and universally understood meaning of the word "justice".
Lord Acton: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I want to make just one point: the reason justice enters the question is that Britain is a just country.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beloff for his clear exposition of what we are discussing. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter speaks of foreigners. They are not just foreigners, they are the families of people who are British citizens. Let us not forget that if my brother wishes to visit me he has to go through that procedure. If he is refused entry he has no right of appeal. He can make another application. He will not be a charge on the state; he will be a charge on me. He will not stay permanently, because that is not what he will be permitted to do. He will not be able to get employment in this country, because he is not permitted to take employment in this country.
Let us not confuse asylum seekers—people who want to stay here permanently—with visitors. Let us think of the millions of tourists whom we encourage to come to this country to spend money, although we do not allow members of the families of people who are settled here to come here as visitors. We must be clear about what we are talking.
5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships would agree that all countries must have some system of control for people who come into those countries from another country. I do not believe that there will be any dispute about that, because otherwise one would just open the doors and let everyone in. The country would become overwhelmed and all the services would become inundated. I do not believe that any country would say that there should be no form of control. What we are doing is to have a form of control.
The amendments would create a different set of rights of appeal for people who seek entry as visitors from those who seek entry as short-term and prospective students. Under the amendment, the position for students would be the same as it is in the Bill: there would be no right of appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked what is wrong with students and why do we not encourage them. We do encourage them. We encourage all bona fide students provided that they have a place and money, and will not be a burden on the state. But some people come saying that they are students when they are not. That is why we have to have some form of control.
Under the amendment the position with regard to students remains as it is in the Bill. Visitors, on the other hand, would be entitled to appeal against refusal of entry clearance at the post abroad or against a refusal for leave to enter at a port unless on a previous occasion they had entered or stayed in this country in

771
breach of the Immigration Rules. The amendment would allow no appeals for students but there would be an appeals system for visitors.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on having devised an amendment which is almost contrary to what was decided and voted upon at Committee stage, which was that the clause should be included in the Bill and that there should not be an appeal back to this country.
Relatively few refusals to visitors are based on breaches of the immigration laws. Many refusals involve first-time applicants. The majority of applications concern visitors rather than students. If the amendment were to be accepted, the position would remain the same had Clause 10 been taken out of the Bill, which your Lordships decided at Committee stage not to do. The amendment would undermine the fundamental purpose of including Clause 10 in the Bill, the point being that the resources of the appeals system need to be directed to big decisions which will affect people's lives when they want to live here. That is where the system is clogged up and we wish to see it released.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has stated that some appeals have succeeded. In almost every walk of life one finds appeals that succeed. There cannot be 100 per cent. accuracy in all spheres. However, just because some appeals have succeeded, I question whether it is necessary to have the whole edifice of the appeals procedure, which would clog up the system for the genuine long-term applicant.
I should like to remind your Lordships of the current position, because anyone would think that under the Bill we are being harsh on anyone who comes to this country, which is not the case. In 1991 there were 918,500 applications for visitors' visas. Seven hundred and eighty thousand were issued. There is no paucity there. Seventy-seven thousand were refused, and of those only 12,300 people decided to appeal. Nine thousand three hundred appeals were determined, of which 1,500 were allowed, 6,300 were dismissed and 1,500 were withdrawn. In the majority of cases visas are issued. At the moment there is a very expensive and heavy bureaucratic procedure to deal with appeals. We are talking only about students or would-be students who are allowed into this country provided that they can show that they have a place to go and that they have money and visitors who are coming for six months. I accept that there may be members of their family whom they wish to see. However, there are sometimes reasons why visas must be refused.
We have set up a new procedure to deal with that situation. Those who are refused a visa will be given a more detailed notice of refusal which will make it perfectly clear why the application has been refused. That refusal will not prejudice a subsequent application and they will be able to reapply. The applicants or sponsors may put forward any new information at a fresh application which will, where possible, be considered by a different entry clearance officer. In exceptional compassionate circumstances or where there are illogicalities or procedural errors,
772
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will ask the post to review the decision. That review will be done by a senior officer wherever possible.
There will be improved information leaflets to tell the applicants and the sponsors what they have to do and the criteria that are necessary for a visa. There will be new guidance to the entry clearance officers to ensure that applicants have a full opportunity to present their case; and, in post, with the entry clearance managers, they will conduct a daily review of all refusals to ensure consistent standards. That measure will deal with 90 per cent. of all refusals.
If those safeguards were put in place, I do not see how one could justify a whole system of appeals by people who want to come to this country for six months or less by sending them over to this country, having a huge appeals procedure at great cost and a procedure that clogs up the system for the genuine long-term visitor. We have taken considerable steps to ensure that every single case which is refused is looked at a second time.
It would not be right to accept the amendment. I remind noble Lords that your Lordships did not think that it would be right to exclude this provision at Committee stage and I advise your Lordships to remain with that decision.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend state whether he accepts that the series of distinctions that I drew between Clause 10 as it stands and the amendment are correct? My noble friend appeared to question the suggestion that I was putting forward. There are, are there not, very real and effective distinctions and safeguards, in the light of which we are respectfully asking the Minister and the Government to think again?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, however much we think again we come back to the simple premise that there is either a large appeals system or there is a new review system in post abroad that enables the procedure to be carried out quickly and relatively inexpensively. That is the position that we think is correct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I spend very little time on the response of the Minister. He chides me for making a distinction between visitors and students. He then chides me in almost the next breath for seeking to take out almost all of the clause. He cannot have it both ways. What we are doing is entirely proper. We are looking at the greatest evil in a clause that has not been rejected by your Lordships and we are trying to do so constructively.
The remainder of the Minister's speech in response to the amendment was concerned entirely with matters of convenience and the resources that are available for the appeals system. He described an enormous and complicated procedure which would clog up the appeals system. That point has been adequately answered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
I should like to confine my remarks to the question that was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He asked why entry to this country is a

773
matter of justice. I almost forbear to suggest to him that entry to any country ought to be a matter of justice. If he has a relative in a country that has entry procedures which might or might not exclude him from visiting that relative in the case of sickness or a family reunion, for example, wherever that country might be, he would be justified in expecting his application to be treated with justice. That is what we are proposing.
It is not just a question of justice, as was made clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, in a moving speech. This is not only about justice for foreigners, although I am not against justice for foreigners; it is about justice for the people of this country as well. We are talking about a very small number of people. Of the 9,300 appeals which have been determined, an astonishingly high number—1,500—has been agreed to. Those people have links with this country. They want to come here but they are excluded largely because their faces are the wrong colour. One in 2,000 people who come from the United States as visitors is rejected. One in five people who come from Ghana or Bangladesh is rejected. That cannot be justice and we cannot agree to such injustice. We cannot agree to the inclusion of that provision in the Bill. I commend the amendment to the House.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 36) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Flather, B.

Acton, L.

Foot, L.

Addington, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Annan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Geraint, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Auckland, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Aylestone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Beloff, L.

Gregson, L.

Birk, B.

Halsbury, E.

Blackstone, B.

Hampton, L.

Blake, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hertford, M.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Hollick, L.

Brightman, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Howell, L.

Brookes, L.

Hughes, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hylton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jay, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Chester, Bp.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Longford, E.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lowry, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Diamond, L.

McNair, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Eatwell, L.

Mayhew, L.

Erroll, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falkender, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

774

Mulley, L.

Serota, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Shannon, E.

Nicol, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Peston, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Tenby, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rea, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Richard, L.

Underhill, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Russell, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Woolf, L

Seear, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Abinger, L.

Hooper, B.

Aldington, L.

Howe, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kitchener, E.

Knutsford, V.

Astor, V.

Layton, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lindsay, E.

Barber, L.

Long, V.

Birdwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Melville, V.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mountevans, L.

Chilver, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Moyne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nelson, E.

Crathorne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Davidson, V.

Prentice, L.

Denham, L.

Prior, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Quinton, L.

Dudley, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles, V.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rennell, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Romney, E.

Elphinstone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Finsberg, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Forbes, L.

Stewartby, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stockton, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gisborough, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Haddington, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Terrington, L.

Harvington, L.

Thatcher, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

775

Ullswater, V.

Westbury, L

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wise, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 36A:
Page 7, line 29, after ('accepted') insert (", except if the course is an adaptation course for nurses").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I know that I was told that if the last amendment were agreed to, my amendment could not be called. Although I look forward to moving the amendment, I wish that Amendment No. 36 had been agreed to.
This amendment seeks to reinstate the right of appeal against refusal of entry to nurses wishing to study on adaptation courses in the UK for a period of less than six months. I suppose that one can say that those nurses are not students in the ordinary sense because they are fully qualified nurses in their own country. They come here to take part in adaptation courses for the purposes of obtaining registration on the United Kingdom Central Council. That is one of their reasons for coming here. They wish to study here because of the reputation that nursing qualifications gained in this country have all around the world.
They also come here to take part in adaptation courses to acquaint themselves with new equipment and to make themselves familiar with new medications and drugs that exist in this country but perhaps do not exist as yet in their own countries. They want to become qualified so that they can use modern equipment to the best advantage if they have the opportunity to do so.
They are not coming here purely to obtain a qualification. They are coming here to learn about modern medicine which may not be known in their own countries. The students are of great value to the nursing profession in this country as UK health professionals can become acquainted with different cultures and different outlooks on health care. The Royal College of Nursing estimates that, of the nurses wishing to follow adaptation courses who come from countries where an entry visa is required to enter this country, over 90 per cent. will come for a period of less than six months. There are no adaptation courses that last more than six months. If a nurse wishes to study for that qualification in this country, he or she cannot apply for a longer period of leave to study. I sincerely hope that the Minister can see his way to accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long but I believe the noble Baroness has made an unanswerable case for what is, after all, a modest amendment. There are many kinds of such courses for students. It is not just a case of nursing courses. I am sure the noble Baroness would agree there are half a dozen other examples of courses which normally last less than six months. The Government's behaviour seems to be a case of rigidity carried to extremes in that they have so far been
776
unwilling to consider the very modest concession demanded by the noble Baroness. I support the amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, before the Minister replies to the amendment, I must say that I hope he will accept it. On Second Reading I referred to the diploma in child health. That course lasts less than six months. There is no point in trying to keep such students out of the country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should first like to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that the Government recognise the important contribution made by nurses from overseas. That is why the Immigration Rules already contain specific provisions intended to assist the recruitment of nurses. An applicant for training as a nurse or midwife will be granted entry clearance unless there is evidence to show that he or she obtained acceptance by misrepresentation or does not intend to follow the course. Unlike all other students, a nurse or midwife is permitted to stay here to work on completion of his or her training at a hospital in this country subject to Department of Employment approval. So under the current Immigration Rules, an overseas nurse is able to come here without first obtaining a work permit, undergo an adaptation course, which normally lasts between three and 12 months and involves undertaking nursing work under the supervision of a registered nurse, obtain registration with the United Kingdom central council and enter employment here as a nurse. That is a concession not available to other groups of workers whose potential employers must obtain a work permit before the worker comes here.
We are not aware that overseas nurses have experienced any problems whatsoever in obtaining entry clearance or leave to enter. If the noble Baroness knows of such cases, I would certainly be grateful if she would send me the details so that they may be looked into. I believe that fears that Clause 10 would make it more difficult to recruit overseas nurses are misplaced. I hope that that reply gives the noble Baroness some satisfaction.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am sad that the Minister cannot accept this amendment which is so modest. It is not a measure that would hurt the Government. I am sure it would make nurses who are applying to enter this country to take part in adaptation courses feel much more relaxed. I shall read the Minister's words in Hansard and I shall decide whether I wish to return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 7, leave out lines 30 and 31.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Robson I, too, am sad that the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was not carried. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I claim no priority for students. I agree with everything the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said about justice being no respecter of persons. In speaking of students

777
I am speaking of that of which I know. The words this amendment seeks to delete from the Bill deny the right of appeal to people who enter this country with the intention of studying but without having been accepted for any course of study.
In Committee the Minister gave the unfortunate impression that he believed that all students entering this country with serious academic purposes were entering to accept courses at British universities. Having been director of graduate studies in a history department in a foreign university, I know that that is not the case. Large numbers of serious scholars come to this country to carry out work for degrees at foreign universities. My colleagues in other countries working on the history of this country regularly have occasion to come here. Their livelihood demands that they should. The Minister did not appear to know anything about that.
I was rather dismayed in listening to the Minister replying to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to find that he is still under a misapprehension—not once but twice. He said that students may enter this country provided that they have a place here. He said they are allowed in provided they can show they have a place to go. He still does not appear to be aware that the international comity of scholarship—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, used that phrase in Committee—demands that members of universities travel from one country to another in the course of their studies.
If the Minister is not aware of that a fortiori I suspect that entry clearance officers are not aware of it either. Not merely are people doing degrees in foreign universities to be denied right of appeal; they are to be made subject to decisions which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, explained extremely clearly in Committee, are subjective decisions and subjective decisions made by people with a very limited awareness of the perfectly legitimate category to which they belong. That is likely to lead to a great deal of injustice, with very little chance to remedy it.
In Committee the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, talked about distinguishing between those decisions which have a most fundamental impact on a person's future life and those which do not. With respect to the noble Earl, if one earns one's living from the study of a particular country and one is denied the right to enter that country, that is a threat to one's livelihood. In my book that is a matter of fundamental importance. If a scholar is placed in that position his career is likely to be brought to an end, unless he has the wit to turn himself into a martyr. I have known scholarly careers built on that principle. It is not in the interests of this country that people who have worked on our history or our literature should want to turn themselves into martyrs because they have not been allowed entry here. After all, they might be successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked why entry to this country is a matter of justice. Has the noble Lord any idea of the sort of reaction that that would produce if repeated to the graduate students of a major American university? A great many of them study in this country because, like the noble Lord, Lord Acton, they believe that it is a just country.
778
When they hear a remark like that they may begin to wonder whether the reason which led them to study the history of this country was mistaken in the first place. It might be very difficult to persuade them to change their minds.
If we do not delete the clause we shall gravely diminish the international standing of this country. We shall diminish our political influence and our reputation, and we shall do a great deal of harm. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has selected a curious category to remove from the class of those who are, under this clause, being deprived of a right of appeal. They are, in the words of the subsection which he seeks to delete, people who come to this country,
"with the intention of studying but without having been accepted for any course of study".
Therefore, they would have no evidence other than their own word that they had come for the purpose of study. If they have come for the purpose of study but have not bothered to obtain entry to any institution which they can name, that would seem to be a good reason for being suspicious of their claim to have come for the purpose of studying.
Therefore, I find the noble Earl's idea that one is depriving such people of justice fantastic in the circumstances. If there was anyone one would have no hesitation in excluding from the clause it is surely those people. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am afraid that once again the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has failed to understand the argument which is being put forward. The argument could perhaps be improved if it were made clear that it related to the fact that such students have not been accepted for a course of study in a British university because they are studying for the degree of another university in their home country. For the purposes of their research they may well not require to be accepted by a British academic institution since they may need to examine documents in the Public Record Office in order to complete their studies. There is no reason why they should ask the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or someone from another British university to enrol them briefly. Universities have enough administration forced upon them for them to be spared that requirement. Nevertheless, those people would be perfectly bona fide students because in many cases they would be students of universities of equivalent rank to our own.
All that is suggested is that that should be a normal reason for coming to this country, and if that purpose is questioned such people should have the right to demonstrate it. Otherwise we are talking about something which exists only in the imagination of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was stung by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am sure that he will be pleased to hear

779
that, because I usually like to get the noble Lord to his feet during my speeches rather than the other way round.
The noble Lord said that such people had not bothered to obtain admission to a course of study in this country. I do not know whether he was present at the debate on a comparable amendment during Committee stage when we went over the ground fairly thoroughly. Using examples from Yale and less distinguished universities, we established that a large number of colleges, universities and other places of education do not admit people, even for short courses, without seeing them. Students have to obtain admission to this country in order to be interviewed before gaining acceptance. Those people will almost certainly be able to show an immigration officer that they have applied for a course of study in this country. These are not cheats and people who will use the false status of a student in order to achieve entry to this country illegally. They are people who are fulfilling the very natural and reasonable demands of colleges and other places of education for an interview before admission to a course. It is as simple as that. Such people ought not to be denied a right to appeal against refusal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there is another factor in this matter. Perhaps I may give your Lordships the benefit of my personal experience some years ago as vice-chairman of the Council of Legal Education, which trains people for the Bar. A great deal of planning and expense were required by the Inns of Court, as well as by the students themselves and local authorities, which paid some of the students' fees.
At the beginning of each academic year we had to plan in advance how many people we were prepared to admit to the course. I think that I am right in saying that we had arranged that 600 students would start at the beginning of the academic year in October. A week or so before the beginning of the academic year 100 more students came to the office of the Council of Legal Education saying that they wished to take the course. We had no previous record of their names. Our facilities did not enable us to take an additional 100 students. We inquired into the matter and found that those people had found it an easy way round the Commonwealth immigrant Act which then applied. That was some years ago and it does not happen now because we prevailed upon the immigration authorities to deal with the matter. It is not true, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, claims, that all such cases are necessarily genuine. They may not be.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has a distinguished position in the academic world. I believe that he would have some thought for the universities and colleges which have to plan in advance. They have to know what their obligations will be. They therefore need to work on the principle of educating the people whom they have prepared to accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has rightly draw attention to the words which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wishes to leave out. They are,
"without having been accepted for any course of study".
I believe that is asking the impossible.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, a question which arose from some observations that were made earlier. My understanding was that prospective students are a legitimate category of people under the Immigration Rules. However, perhaps in the light of some of the observations made by his Back Benchers, he will indicate whether I am right or they are right.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the point about the impact that the Bill might have on American students. He referred to justice when he attacked my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I remind the noble Earl that people can go from this country to America with a valid visa and be rejected by the immigration people there with no right of appeal. That situation is nothing unusual.
I was confused. I listened to my noble friend Lord Beloff attacking again my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, the discussion arises from the confusion created by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He spoke about a different kind of student. He used the words "graduate student". He stated that they were highly distinguished people who come to this country for a course of study perhaps of history. Such people will not come on the spur of the moment. They will have planned their courses well ahead. They will have been in touch with the authorities. If they have not done so, I feel sorry for them. They will have planned well ahead because they cannot suddenly take off on the spur of the moment. If they are studying seriously, they will come to this country having planned whom they wish to see and what they wish to find out and they will therefore not be caught by this provision.
I have had too many cases of students (I almost put the word in inverted commas) who come to this country, having made no arrangements, with a view to taking one of the all too many phoney English language courses which last for six months or less. Many are taken for a ride; they believe that those courses will do them good. What is proposed in the Bill is right. I believe that we make a great mistake if we accept the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, irrelevancies in your Lordships' House are increasing by the minute. We are talking about appeals. There may well be people who seek to enter the country spuriously. They will be rejected at the port of entry. Occasionally the people at the port of entry will have made a mistake; and therefore people should have a right of appeal. That is all that is being dealt with.
[Interruptions.]
I hope that we may continue our discussions in a calm and orderly manner without interventions from outside because they do not help anyone. All that we are talking about today is the need for those people who have been wrongly excluded to have a chance to appeal.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may add one sentence to that. We are talking of a little more than that. We are clearly talking about appeals, but we are

781
not talking about putting in an appeal. We are talking about the justification for taking away a right of appeal which has existed for 21 years. That is taking away an established right. With the deepest respect as always to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, those concerned with justice have for the past 21 years been convinced apparently that that right of appeal should exist. It is a right of appeal which is to be taken away.
The other point I wish to make is this. My recollection of the aborted asylum Bill which we debated last year did not remove those rights of appeal. Despite all the references to over-clogged lists, as I understand it the Government were content to keep that right of appeal last year. One therefore asks: why is it going now? It is going now purely in order to gather in the extra resources which result from removing the entrenched right of appeal to offset the extra demand for resources by providing at long last an appeal system for asylum seekers. That is why there is a total absence of any justification except on the basis that we cannot afford justice at that level. If that is the Government's admission, let them make it clearly.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on the amendment. I do so only because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that refusing entry to American postgraduate students would lower Britain's reputation in the eyes of Americans. I wish to enlarge on what the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, said.
Has the noble Earl, Lord Russell, read a newspaper item which appeared within the past week in, I believe, the Telegraph and other newspapers? It reported the case of an unfortunate British student who went to the United States for a visit of a few months, partly to study and partly to stay with relations. He was refused entry at Logan International Airport, Boston, by immigration officers not because he was too scruffily dressed but because he was too well dressed. The immigration officers believed that anyone who was so well dressed could not possibly be a genuine student; he must have been on the look out for work and would therefore take the bread out of the mouths of unemployed Americans. The unfortunate young man was therefore sent back to this country and is consequently several hundreds of pounds out of pocket. No one in the press, or in either House of Parliament, has complained about the position or has suggested that it lowers Americans' reputation in the eyes of Britain.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said in Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, earlier today. We have always encouraged genuine students from overseas to come to this country. We shall continue to do so. I do not believe for a moment that anyone will suggest that we should encourage non-genuine students to come, saying that they are students. There is nothing between us on that. Of course we shall always encourage genuine students to
782
come. However, as my noble friend, Lord Renton, said, some people come to this country saying that they are students when they are not.
Perhaps I may interrupt the conversation of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for one moment. He is momentarily distracted. I am sure that his conversation was much more valid than what I was about to say. I was about to say that he was right; I thought that he would like to hear that. He was right to say that prospective students are allowed to come in under the rules.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that was the point of the conversation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord now has conversation with me and perhaps will have better advice than he received from his noble and mischievous friend by his side.
Nothing in Clause 10 makes it any more difficult for a genuine student or a prospective student to gain entry to this country. Nor do I believe that Clause 10 will make it any less likely that genuine students will choose this country as the one in which they wish to pursue their studies.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is concerned with students at overseas universities who wish to come to this country for a short period to pursue some academic project, perhaps involving research in libraries, without enrolling in a college. Those people are not prospective students, they are treated, for the purposes of the Immigration Rules, as visitors. Paragraph (c), which the noble Lord's amendment seeks to delete, is concerned with the person who claims that he intends to study at a college in this country but has not yet been accepted on a course. I do not think that it would be right to put those students at overseas universities in any different position from other visitors.
For the purposes of the Immigration Rules, a student is someone who has enrolled at a bona fide educational institution in this country. That is what they are under the Immigration Rules. People who are registered at a university overseas such as Princeton, which the noble Lord mentioned, or who are graduate students and come here for the purposes which the noble Earl describes, such as studying but not being enrolled, are treated under the Immigration Rules as visitors, so they may come. If a person who is here as a visitor then finds that he can enrol as a student, he can change his status. I say to my noble friend Lord Beloff that there is no reason to treat a visitor to this country who wishes to look at documents in a public records office, for example, as being any different from anyone else under the terms of the appeal rights, who wishes to come here to study anything else.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that we are talking about something quite simple: whether a person should have an appeal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that we are removing the rights of appeal which have existed for 21 years. If a person is a genuine bona fide student, he can come in. But if he were rejected, what is the use of an appeal which will take 12 months or more to conclude? He will only come for six months. Under our new

783
arrangements, if he is rejected, it will be explained perfectly clearly why he was rejected and he can apply again forthwith. So the anxieties which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had are unfounded.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for the example of the student rejected for being too well dressed. I have heard no better example of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the officers are making subjective decisions. However, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the process in the United States does nothing to discredit that country. I have heard a great many people who have been subjected to that kind of process speaking ill of the United States as a result. There was a particular occasion in my own family when my mother attempted to enter the United States. She was asked to sign a declaration saying that she thought resistance to authorised government was not justified under any circumstances whatever. She said that she agreed with the proposition. She thought that the United States should still be subject to the British Crown! As your Lordships can imagine, that produced a lengthy discussion.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that verification is necessary. We are not dealing here with claims for people who wish to make totally unverifiable claims. But it is no use saying that verification is necessary, until we allow that working for a degree in a foreign university is worthy of verification. If the Minister will allow that it is a legitimate ground for entry, provided it can be verified, then I am wide open to discussing verification. It would then be necessary. However, it is no good verifying something until it is recognised as a relevant reason for coming here.
I am afraid that I agree with my noble friend Lord Tordoff that standards of relevance in this House are declining, and that fact is showing. Most people have in their minds an indissoluble association between the notion of a student and the notion of a course in this country. That is the main problem. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that he hoped that I would have given some thought to the universities and colleges themselves. I would have done if I had been discussing only people who were going to enrol. But the whole point of the amendment is that I am not, so the noble Lord's observations were beside the point under the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, said that surely a student would not come on the spur of the moment. I can tell him that if one is discussing a nearly completed thesis with its author, one goes over the argument in very much the same way as we go over the last stages of a Bill on Report—to see whether it is watertight. At that stage, one often discovers something where it is necessary to do perhaps only two days' work in the archives in another country. Unless that work is done, the thesis is not watertight and cannot be submitted.
Thus I say to the Minister that it would make a difference to have the right of appeal, even if it took a year, because often people are in a position where the work can never be completed until those few extra
784
days of verification are completed. It is like tightening the final bolts on an aircraft at the end of maintenance. One knows what happens if that is not done.
I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that students registered for degrees in foreign universities are classified as visitors. That narrows the area of disagreement and limits the confusion, but I do not believe that it removes the disagreement. The Minister is still arguing that these are decisions not of fundamental importance to the person's livelihood. He is still arguing that it is in just the same category as someone who is refused the chance to have what would have been an enjoyable holiday. The Minister still does not understand that someone denied entry to a country from the study of which he intends to earn his living is being denied the means to earn that living. When we deny somebody the right to earn their living, we are depriving them of something which in a great many senses is of value to them. People suffering such a deprivation are entitled to justice. For that reason, I commend the amendment to the House.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Beloff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blake, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Erroll, E.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Richard, L.

Foot, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Gladwyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollick, L.

Underhill, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Howell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hughes, L.

Woolf, L.

Hylton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Barber, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blatch, B.

Boardman, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

785

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Mancroft, L.

Brookes, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Melville, V.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monson, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chilver, L.

Morris, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mountevans, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moyne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E.

De La Warr, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Dudley, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Portsmouth, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Prentice, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Finsberg, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Romney, E.

Geddes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Haddington, E.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harvington, L.

Stockton, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hertford, M.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hooper, B.

Howe, E.

Swansea, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thatcher, B.

Knutsford, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Leigh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.5 p.m.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 39 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 7, line 36, at end insert:
("() Any decision to refuse entry clearance or to refuse leave to enter shall be reviewed from time to time by a special adjudicator.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at every stage of the Bill I have expressed my deepest concern over the removal of the right of appeal from short-stay students and visitors. We have had a very full debate on other amendments on the matter so I shall not proceed to say any more about it.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reiteration of all the safeguards that the Government have built into the administrative procedure to provide an option to the appeals system. The question
786
of whether we feel they are sufficient to compensate has been fully answered: they are not sufficient. A second application is perhaps the most important of the safeguards. But we have not been given an assurance that the second application, which will go to a different entry clearance officer, will be a completely new application inasmuch as the second entry clearance officer will not know about the first refusal. It is my fear that if the second officer has the file of the first refusal in front of him, he will be affected by that refusal. That is one aspect that concerns me. The second compensation offered is a review by a superior officer. That is very important and should be carried out. A third safeguard which is perhaps almost equally important is that of giving more detailed reasons. That will probably cut down many of the applications which should not be made a second time.
As a matter of principle, it is wrong that a right enshrined for 21 years should be taken away. The Minister himself said that 1,500 applications were successful-1,500 out of 9,000; 9,000 out of (if I remember correctly) 77,000 people who applied. It seems a very small proportion when one looks at the huge number of refusals. But I am always concerned about this numbers game. Each of those 1,500 people who were successful is very important—to themselves, to their families and in whatever they are trying to do with their lives. It is not a small matter. The proportion is small, but it is not one or two applications which were allowed; it is a full 1,500, which is a very substantial number.
However, if one is obliged to accept the Government's argument that the machinery has become overloaded and therefore unworkable, there is still a very important need to find a way of keeping a check on how the entry clearance officers discharge their duties.
As I said earlier, I see that as the most important factor in the equation. No member of the Executive should be able to make decisions of that nature without a review by an independent authority. My amendment is designed to provide just such a check through a random audit of refusals—perhaps of 5 per cent.; if possible, 10 per cent. I would personally prefer a 10 per cent. audit. The effect of that would be threefold.
First, it would provide consistency. After all, the posts are scattered throughout the world, with different conditions and pressures on the entry clearance officers. It is therefore understandable that different or indeed more stringent criteria may gradually evolve. Secondly, by making each entry clearance officer aware that any of his decisions may be reviewed at any time by an independent adjudicator, it will provide a measure of safeguard against possible unfairness. Thirdly, it will allow the Secretary of State to be able to reassure the public that through this mechanism he is in a position to keep the procedures under review and that the danger of arbitrary decisions will be avoided.
Perhaps I may say further to my noble friend the Minister that it will not be a costly exercise. The adjudicator will not be receiving complaints or calling for both sides of the argument. He will look only at a

787
percentage of refusals. I would expect him then to make his recommendation direct to the Secretary of State in the same way as many other bodies do at the present time. I hope that the report would then be made public, as I am a firm believer in the Government's policy of more openness. The information would also be open to parliamentary scrutiny.
If a major right is to be removed, at the very least there should be some external check on those who exercise an unfettered right to make decisions which can have a profound effect on individuals. I feel sure that the entry clearance officers will welcome such a move, which will go some way to allay justifiable public anxiety. I urge my noble friend to take on board the measures that I propose should be built into the clause. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as Ministers tend to say, I have enormous sympathy with the amendment. The noble Baroness is trying to set up a more informal appeals procedure in place of the formal procedure which is taken away by the clause. What she is suggesting is clearly better than the modest offers made by Government, first, of greater detail in a refusal statement and, secondly, review by higher management at large posts outside this country. For that reason the amendment deserves the support of the House.
I suggest that the amendment deserves the support of government as a way forward. As the noble Baroness would be the first to recognise, we would rather not have the right of appeal taken away at all. I know that she agrees with that point and has shown that by her actions this afternoon and in Committee. But as a significant and worthwhile extension of the tiny concessions so far wrung from government, I wish the amendment success.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I do not know whether I am allowed to speak again at this stage. I merely want to correct a wrong impression. The amendment is not meant to be a back-door right of appeal; it is just a check on the administrative function of the entry clearance officers.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment. It also meets one other main objection to the other amendments; that is, that it will not impose a time delay. Thinking back to the time when I was a Minister, I would not have been unhappy to have been given from time to time a record showing whether there were any inconsistencies with or departures from the broad guidelines and principles that had been laid down.
As my noble friend Lady Flather said, it will not be expensive; it will not be time consuming, but it will be valuable for Ministers. It does not in any way open a right to appeal; it is merely proposing the review of a number of cases. I am sure one needs to work out in more detail the points raised by my noble friend in regard to publication and so forth. But I have some sympathy with the principle and would like to know what my noble friend the Minister feels is wrong.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, anyone who has been here any length of time must agree that half a loaf is better than no bread. We on these Benches are happy to welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, as providing half a loaf in this situation. We should be glad to hear that the Minister is prepared to contribute his half a loaf to meet us. That would be an honourable resolution of what has been at times a heated discussion.
I agree profoundly with what the noble Baroness said about how unwise it is to ignore erroneous decisions simply because there are only a few of them. That is an unjust way of looking at things, and I am glad that the noble Baroness said what she did on the subject.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the publication produced by the Civil Service for the benefit of the Civil Service, which I believe is a best seller, entitled Judge Over Your Shoulder, is issued in order to keep decisions straight. The result of removing the rights of appeal is to make that work superfluous so far as immigration officers are concerned. There is no one looking over their shoulder except a superior in their own office who will apparently make a judgment as to the merits of a decision on credibility after the applicant has left the office. How he will do that is difficult to imagine. Therefore I too support the amendment as being a check particularly to avoid inconsistencies and spurious decisions.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I too welcome the amendment and hope that the Government will accept it. It at least makes it necessary for the immigration officer to think through his decision, knowing that it will be reviewed. It is important. Many of the instances about which one hears suggest that subjective decisions are made and consequently injustice is done. If the immigration officer knows that his decision will be scrutinised by a special adjudicator, he will take more care.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I too support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on similar grounds to those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. We argued at Committee stage and brought forward examples of the way in which the decisions of entry clearance officers may be based on subjective assessments. It is that element of subjectivity which disturbs some of us. This modest amendment will furnish one way of providing a check on the consistency between decisions that are made and to some extent overcome that element of subjectivity.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Flather for informing me in advance of the debate of what the intention was behind her amendment. Before I deal with that intention I should say that I do not believe that the amendment is appropriately worded to achieve what she intends.
I was therefore surprised when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with all his legal expertise, supported the amendment. He perhaps did not read it

789
quite as well as his customary practice. He referred to the booklet Judge Over Your Shoulder as fascinating reading. It must be almost, but not quite, as formidable as Judge Face to Face when I see the noble and learned Lord supporting an amendment which will not work. Perhaps I may explain why.
The amendment refers to a special adjudicator. Special adjudicators will be those who are designed to hear asylum appeals under Clause 8 of the Bill. Clause 10 has nothing to do with asylum; it deals with people whose stated intention is to come here as visitors or students.
On the face of it, the amendment seems to be aimed at creating a right to have a review of individual refusals of entry clearance of leave to enter. That would amount either to an appeal by another name, or to some kind of half-way position between having a right of appeal and not having a right of appeal.
The powers of adjudicators in determining appeals are defined by the 1971 Act. That sets out quite clearly the duty of the Secretary of State or of an officer to comply with any directions which may be given by an adjudicator when allowing an appeal. It provides for an avenue of appeal to the tribunal against an adjudicator's determination of an appeal. It provides for the making of procedure rules for the lodging and conduct of appeals. It enables the Secretary of State to fund organisations to assist persons who have rights of appeal.
All those provisions concern appeals under the 1971 Act—and appeals on asylum. They do not concern "reviews" by an adjudicator. It is not at all clear what would be the status or the effect of the suggested review. Nor is it clear what is meant by inquiring that any decision shall be reviewed "from time to time". That would, taken literally, require all decisions to be reviewed more than once, a point which I think even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would find rather unsuitable.
For all these reasons the amendment would be unsuitable. I realise that my noble friend is concerned not so much with what the amendment actually does as with what it is supposed to do. Trying to replace the present right of appeal with an alternative right of individual review would be an unsatisfactory kind of compromise. Either there should be a statutory right of appeal against immigration decisions or there should not. The Government think, for reasons which have been well rehearsed, that in the case of visitors and short-term students who are denied entry there should be no right of appeal. Your Lordships, both in Committee and today, have endorsed the Government's view.
My noble friend Lady Flather said that she was concerned that if an entry clearance officer had an applicant who had been previously refused he would refuse that person again. The previous refusal will not lead automatically to another refusal. The entry clearance officer has to consider each application on its personal merits.
My noble friend has, though, made quite clear that her aim with the amendment is to seek to ensure proper standards of consistency and fairness in the taking of decisions by introducing an independent
790
periodic review of cases which have been refused. We have made it perfectly clear that we are concerned to ensure that decision making is both consistent and fair. Your Lordships will be familiar with the administrative measures which I have announced and which will be introduced when rights of appeal are removed. I shall certainly look carefully at whether it would be practical and helpful to reinforce the measures with an independent review of the kind which my noble friend has in mind. The involvement of adjudicators would, though, raise some problems as such a review would be outside their statutory functions.
As I have explained at earlier stages, the Government have already put a great deal of effort into devising measures to ensure proper quality control of entry clearance decisions once the appeal right is removed. I shall certainly look further at the principle of introducing an independent element into the quality control of entry clearance decisions and let my noble friend know the outcome of our discussions with the interested departments as soon as I can. I hope, though I cannot be certain, that it will be before the next stage of the Bill. I cannot give my noble friend or your Lordships any guarantee of what the result of that consideration will be. I would also point out that as these are administrative matters concerned with the management of the entry clearance system, I doubt whether it would be appropriate to put them into primary legislation.
I hope that I have been able to give my noble friend the satisfaction which she seeks when she says that the whole purpose of her amendment is to ensure fairness and consistency. That is our desire too.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for some tiny chinks of light. They are very small, but beggars cannot be choosers.
I should like to say a few words about one or two of the items that he has mentioned. I think that he has been very unfair to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who had nothing to do with the drafting of the amendment. Any faults of drafting are not his. It was a hurriedly put together amendment to try to reiterate the principle. As I received so much support from all sides of the House, for which I am very grateful, I clearly have made my point. It has been taken on board by so many noble Lords. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will also take on board the underlying point and not treat it as an individual review. It is not intended as a backdoor appeal. I repeat: it is not intended to replace the right of appeal. It is not intended to be a review of all the applications. It is not intended to be a review more than once. In fact it is only intended to be a review of a percentage of applications.
I want to say something on a matter which concerns me deeply. I refer to the question of whether this is purely an administrative device or whether it should be enshrined in primary legislation. If it is not in the Bill it will not fulfil the purpose of allaying the fears and anxieties of the general public. If the public is to have a sense of this being done in the way that it ought to be done, then something of this nature has to be in the Bill. Some commitment has to be made in the Bill

791
itself. I hope that my noble friend will look at it carefully. Perhaps I will have a chance of speaking to him on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

  Resource allocations to local authorities
  . In allocating resources to local authorities under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 the Secretary of State shall have regard to the number of relevant citizens and their dependants who are persons claiming or given asylum in the United Kingdom.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She is committed to an engagement and I am therefore acting as a very poor substitute for her. The amendment is simple in so far as what it wishes to do is to extend Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to a rather wider constituency than that for which it was originally devised. Section 11 was designed to help local authorities financially where there were substantial numbers of Commonwealth immigrants for whom special provision had to be made, much of it in the field of education—English language teaching and so on. It proved an extremely useful and constructive source of resources which was used in a very effective way.
  The position that has arisen is one which we have discussed in earlier debates on the Bill. The patterns of migration have to some extent changed over the years and certainly the pattern of the flow of refugees has changed over the years. What we are now receiving and have been receiving is a substantial number of refugees from places which are not part of the Commonwealth. It was to migrants from the Commonwealth that Section 11 was originally confined. Then in the 1970s we saw Chilean refugees. Later we saw Vietnamese refugees, then refugees from the Middle East—Kurds, Iraqis and Iranians—and more recently refugees from Ethiopia, Zaire, Angola and Somalia. Still more recently we have seen refugees from Yugoslavia.
  These people have settled largely in major towns or near airports and particular local authorities have had to bear the brunt of paying for the special services which they require and in particular for the kind of services which Section 11 used to support. I believe that no one who has had any experience of dealing with this kind of problem will underestimate its importance. Perhaps I may take as an obvious example English language teaching. If newcomers to our society are to get a job, use their skills, contribute to our society and live satisfactory lives with their neighbours, it is essential that they should learn the English language. That requires special provision, special courses and special expenditure. It is illogical that that expenditure should fall by pure luck on certain boroughs and local authorities rather than on others. For example, I refer to local authorities near airports and those in London such as Westminster,
  792
  Kensington and Chelsea, Hillingdon and so on. One can identify them. Therefore they are under considerable financial pressure.
  In this amendment all we are suggesting is that central government should take responsibility for the bulk of that financing, as I understand the refugee council has advocated for many years.
  It is fair that the whole country should bear that cost rather than that it should fall quite adventitiously and fortuitously on certain places. That is the nub of the proposal. We know that this is not a new idea. In 1985 the Home Affairs Select Committee produced a report in which it made that recommendation. The Home Office itself carried out a review subsequently in which that proposal was examined and recommended, as I understand it.
  Finally, as I further understand it, the refugee council received a letter from Mr. Peter Lloyd, who was the Minister at the time, saying that it was the Government's intention to extend the scope of Section 11 but that they could not find parliamentary time.
  This is a probing amendment which is meant not merely to draw the Government's attention to something which we regard as rational, reasonable and helpful, but also to awaken them and sharpen them up. The probe is also intended to get this item higher on the agenda so that the Government do find parliamentary time to make this simple change which can only do good. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the case for this amendment has been very effectively argued. I bring to it only a certain amount of local knowledge in that I live in the London Borough of Haringey which has suffered for many years from the fact that Section 11 money and a considerable amount of determination of SSA has been directed towards people coming from the New Commonwealth in particular. However, in Haringey we have had successive waves of people—very welcome in many ways—from other countries outside the Commonwealth. We have had Kurds, Somalis, Eritreans, and we now have a considerable number of refugees from the former Yugoslavia. As I say, they continue to make a valuable contribution to our community. However, they also stretch the limited resources of the local authority.
  It would be of enormous help if the intention expressed by Mr. Peter Lloyd in the letter to the British Refugee Council of extending the terms of Section 11 of the 1966 Act to cover those of non-New Commonwealth origin, were now agreed to. I suspect that it is simply an oversight by the Government; that it was their intention all along to extend the terms and that the reference to parliamentary time overlooked the ease with which this amendment could be incorporated into the Bill. After all, it falls entirely within the Long Title of the Bill. It would be an appropriate gesture if, at this late hour of the Report stage, the Minister were to indicate that it is indeed an oversight which he proposes to rectify straightaway.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, it is only necessary to pronounce the name "Stansted" to remind the House that those living in the neighbourhood of a major airport are on occasion capable of objecting to plans to extend it. If it should be recognised as a permanent situation that those who live near a major airport also have to shoulder on their own international obligations which should properly rest on the holders, we shall deliver a very big weapon into the hands of objectors to airports in future which might severely handicap the development of air travel in this country.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, in the discussions on the amendment moved on Tuesday by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I said that we need a national strategy for the reception of refugees. It is worth repeating that. Dare I add that we need a national strategy for their reception as well as and on top of a strategy by the Home Office for making sure as few refugees as possible reach our shores.
  It is perfectly obvious that the presence of accepted refugees and of people given exceptional leave to remain in this country who have made an asylum application, are bound to impose extra burdens on health authorities, social services, housing and education. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, quite rightly pointed out the importance and necessity of teaching English to refugees who arrive in this country without possessing our language. So for all those reasons, I hope that the Government will take this amendment most seriously.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that the Government are committed to making sufficient resources available for authorities to be able to carry out all their functions properly, and they attach great importance to Section 11 grants. We are determined to tackle the root causes of disadvantage which inhibit members of ethnic minorities from playing a full and active part in the social and economic life of the country. The grant remains at the heart of the programme to address racial disadvantage.
  For historical reasons, the grant is restricted to the cost of employing additional staff to address the needs of ethnic minorities of Commonwealth origin. Much has changed since 1966. We have every sympathy with the motives of those who point out that members of other ethnic minority groups have similar needs, too. The Government have recognised this in framing the new ethnic minority grant which is paid via Training and Enterprise Councils to support employment, training and enterprise projects run by voluntary organisations. The ethnic minority grant is not circumscribed by the same legislative restrictions and is able to support valuable projects to assist refugees and other communities outside the scope of Section 11 through bodies such as the refugee council.
  The Government intend to come forward with legislation, at a suitable opportunity, to extend the scope of the Section 11 grant. But this new clause would not achieve that end. It is restricted to asylum seekers only and their dependants. Important though
  794
  their needs are, they are only one of the groups who fall outside the scope of the present Section 11. We need to take a more coherent approach.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was right to point out that a large number of asylum-seekers from outside the Commonwealth have come in recent years. The amendment would not extend the availability of the Section 11 grant to those people. Nothing in the amendment removes the restriction of Section 11 to Commonwealth immigrants.
  The new clause would also require that regard should be had to the numbers of asylum-seekers and their dependants. That kind of approach does run against the tide of the important steps which have been taken to ensure that the available funding is not allocated solely on a simple numerical basis, but that is targeted on the basis of specific evidence of need within particular communities. Such steps have been taken in order to ensure that expenditure achieves the maximum benefit for the ethnic minorities.
  Therefore, I doubt whether the new clause is the right way forward at present. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, tabled it as a probing amendment—and he has probed. He said that he wanted to wake up the Government. I do not think that any Minister who could take part in the Report stage of this Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill could be asleep or need waking up. Having said that, I hope that I have been able to give the noble Lord the assurance that he sought.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his partially satisfactory answer to my question, but it poses certain problems for me. He said that he is waiting for a suitable opportunity to do all these things, including producing a coherent plan for helping the local authorities which have this problem. I cannot think of a more suitable opportunity than that provided by the introduction of this Bill. Why cannot the Government do it here and now? Why do they not deal with the problem which they have been contemplating and which has been put to them since 1985? Seven years' contemplation is quite a long time even for the noble Earl. The time has come for him to stop thinking and to start acting.
  I hesitate to misquote the noble Earl, but he said or gave the impression that the Government were paying great attention to the needs of ethnic minorities and that we need not be frightened that they would forget that. However, he did not tell us that Section 11 grants had just been drastically cut. That seems a funny step to take if one is looking carefully and conscientiously at the needs of ethnic minorities. Those two things worry me.
  We know the specific needs of these communities. As I have said, one is English language training, but the whole area of education is a crucial element in this. As I understand the ethnic minority grants, at the moment only one quarter of the projects funded by such grants are refugee projects providing English classes, employment guidance and training through the voluntary sector. I am informed that they do not address wider educational needs either in schools or for adults (whether provided in the local education authority or in the new further education sector).

  795
  I am informed that ethnic minority grants are not effectively addressing the needs of the adult refugee population, to which I have referred. Such people would be greatly assisted if Section 11 grants could be extended to cover them. It is for that reason that we have tabled this amendment. I hope that it will have the effect of putting this matter higher on the Government's agenda, and that the results of their contemplations during the past seven years will shortly bear fruit. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 40A:
  After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
  ("Determination of country where there is fear of persecution
  . No immigration rule made under the Immigration Act 1971 shall distinguish between different parts of another country in determining or defining whether there is a country in which a person who makes a claim for asylum fears persecution.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving a comparable but more complicated amendment in another place my honourable friend, Mr. John Fraser chose to use a number of historical references when describing the differences between the safe part of a country and the unsafe part of a country, and the extent to which the distinction between a safe and an unsafe part of a country is reflected in the Immigration Rules. He gave two examples, the principal example being of Chenonceaux castle on the river Cher in France, which during the war had its front door in Nazi-France and its backdoor in Vichy-France. If one went to dinner from Nazi-France and went out of the backdoor, one was then relatively safe in Vichy-France. He also pointed out that those parts of the Immigration Rules which provide the fast-track procedure—the 48-hour procedure—could well be called the Robespierre rules on the grounds that Robespierre was placed in detention on 23rd July 1794; he was tried on 23rd July 1794 and he was executed on 24th July 1794—a full and ruthless application of a 48-hour rule with no possibility whatever of appeal.
  My examples will not be historical. I am concerned with the possibility (which the Government are hugging to themselves) that they may use the fact that one part of a country is safe to deny the right of a refugee who comes from an unsafe part of that country to apply for asylum. Although it is impossible to be precise in geographical terms, the classic example of that is Yugoslavia. I say that it is "impossible to be precise in geographical terms" because even if the Owen-Vance peace plan is successful in the next few days, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, seems to hope (and as we all fervently hope), nobody has yet drawn the map. Therefore, what is safe for a Serb, a Croat or a Moslem is by no means clear. When the visa restrictions were imposed on the nationals of the former Yugoslavia, they were made available only in Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana. They were therefore
  796
  quite inaccessible to those living in the dangerous parts of the country who were the ones who really had need of access to a place where a visa could be issued.
  With the degrees of civil war that exist in Sri Lanka, Somalia, until recently in Ethiopia and, above all, in Yugoslavia, and probably in the future in a number of areas of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the concept of a safe part of a country is no longer valid for immigration or asylum purposes. Even if the wording of the amendment is defective, I hope that the Government will recognise that point and that they will voluntarily restrict their powers under the Immigration Rules to use the concept of a safe part of a country as a reason for exclusion. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I have considerable difficulty getting my mind around the concept of a safe part of a country. It seems to put the Home Office into the position of saying, "You can perfectly easily return to your country—parts of it are excellent".
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I have two short points to make. The first is one on which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, agreed with me the other night—that if we are referring to rules to be made, sometimes they should go into a schedule. This is an immigration rule and it is rather different from what is to be found in the second schedule. Nevertheless, I am not sure whether the provisions should be in the form of a new clause. I merely raise the doubt. I have an open mind about it.
  I followed with great interest what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, gave as the examples that arise in present world conditions. However, I think that there is another example that could disprove his case. I refer to Iraq. If someone leaving Iraq is a Kurd, he might very well have reason to fear his return and he should not be forced to return. He might well be given asylum in this country. The same might apply to people at the southern end—is it the Sunni?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Shi'ites.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, yes, the Shi'ites. Someone who is a Shi'ite whose home is at the southern end of Iraq might have a claim for asylum because of fear of persecution. He might have to go back to the Baghdad area even to get back to the southern end where he lives. On the other hand, there might well be a person who lives in what we can only describe as the safe part of Iraq—the Baghdad area—where most of the people (not all of them, I agree) seem to support Saddam Hussein. He would probably have less fear of persecution if he returned. Therefore, we need to be flexible and each case must be decided on its merits. It would be unwise to have a rule that sweeps right across the board as this one does by stating:
  "No immigration rule … shall distinguish between different parts of another country".
  In order to discover the truth of the matter and whether there is a real fear of persecution, one may well have to distinguish between one part of a country and another.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am not quite sure in the case of Iraq what you do with those people who are at present in camps in Saudi Arabia and who come from the Baghdad area. If they were to come here and be sent back because Baghdad is a safe place for Iraqis who are not Kurds and are not Shia's, they might well get back and have their heads chopped off as soon as they arrived.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the concern of noble Lords for the care of people who come from war-torn parts of the world. It is a natural and proper reaction to try to give them shelter and succour, but we must try to operate within our obligations under the 1951 convention. In the draft rules, paragraph 9 provides that a person may be refused asylum if it would be reasonable to expect him to go to another part of his own country in which he would be safe. That is in keeping with paragraph 91 of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees handbook and that approach has been endorsed by the High Court in this country. In some countries troubled areas are relatively localised and it does not seem unreasonable to expect a person to seek his own safety within his country, if that is possible. It is not unreasonable to question why a person should wish to seek refuge in a strange country, perhaps leaving behind family and friends, when it might be possible to move to a different part of the same region with which he will have many personal and cultural links.
  One understands the concern of noble Lords, but refusal in those cases will not be automatic. A full assessment will be made in each case of all the circumstances of the case, including any links which the asylum seeker may have here in this country; an assessment of the whole situation in the country of origin, including the extent of any alleged persecution; the ability of the national authorities to offer protection; the reasonableness of expecting the applicant to move to another part of that country; and the practicalities of returning him to a safe part of his own country. Even if a person comes from a war-torn part of the world in which the war is localised, it does not mean that he would necessarily be returned automatically.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and am fascinated that he seeks to use the authority of a decision of the High Court in support of the Government's proposals. That is the first time he has paid any attention to the law, as far as I can see, in the course of our proceedings on the Bill.
  The Minister referred in particular to paragraph 91 of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees handbook on procedures and quite rightly cited the fact that it states that:
  "The fear of being persecuted need not always extend to the whole territory of the refugee's country of nationality".
  However, the handbook goes on to state:
  "In such situations, a person will not be excluded from refugee status merely because he could have sought refuge in another part of the same country, if under all the circumstances it would not have been reasonable to expect him to do so".
  798
  I appreciate that the Immigration Rules are not rigid on this point and that there is the possibility for someone to claim and to show that it would not be reasonable for him to return to another part of the country. The Minister recognised that fact in his speech. I was looking for a little more in recognition of the fact that these cases will be very frequent; for example, that the Shi'ite Arabs in the marsh part of the country or the Kurds in the northern part of the country have no real prospect of settling in the Sunni part of Iraq. I wonder whether anyone except Saddam Hussein's immediate family are really safe from the fear of persecution, or perhaps other people from the village of Tikrit. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, rightly said that those who are already refugees from Iraq, even if they come from the Sunni part of Iraq, are hardly likely to have a safe reception when they return home.
  I listened to what the Minister said about reasonableness as a criterion. He could have gone further. It is not appropriate for me to push him further now, but I hope that, when the draft rules are finalised and they come before Parliament, this point will not be neglected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 Carriers' liability for transit passengers]:
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 9, line 19, at end insert:
  ("(4) Nothing in this section shall permit a fine to be levied when a person is granted leave to enter the United Kingdom.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be quite brief about this. We seek to remove some of the disincentives for airlines in carrying asylum seekers to the United Kingdom and to make it less important for them to stop people boarding in situations where ultimately a passenger is granted leave to enter. It seems a perfectly logical proposition. The burden is on the Minister, which he may or may not be able to fulfil, to establish that that is not the case.
  The fact that the disincentives are very real has been disclosed in previous debates at an earlier stage in the Bill. The fact that they have resulted in injustices and that substantial financial penalties have been imposed on the airlines in all circumstances where necessary documentation is not available is very clear. Amnesty has revealed a serious state of affairs in this respect. It states that genuine refugees have either been prevented from travelling or wrongfully returned by airlines anxious to avoid fines. This point has been made in previous debates and it is not therefore necessary for me to enlarge upon it now. The burden of the argument here is that, when ultimately a passenger's position is vindicated to the extent that he is permitted leave to enter, it makes sense that the airline carrying that passenger should not be subject to a penalty.
  As regards Amendment No. 42, I can be even briefer. This simply adds the words,
  "where a person is under 18 years of age",
  to what is said in Amendment No. 41. Again, that argument has been explored and I need not add anything to it. I still believe that the arguments

  799
  adduced on that earlier occasion remain valid, although the Government, in a misconceived way, rejected them. If they are not prepared to move on the age point, there is an overwhelming case for them to make a concession on Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I support the amendment. At the outset let me say how much I welcome my understanding that the Government have decided to exempt the Channel Tunnel passenger trains and car-carrier shuttles from the provisions of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. I raised the issue on Second Reading, and I hope that my understanding of subsequent developments turns out to be correct. If that is so, then I am most grateful.
  I fear, however, that such a development would merely distort the playing field for the airlines and the ferry companies. Hence I agree with the continuous attempt of such carriers to ameliorate the workings of that Act. I support them because the Act is damaging to our tourism and to those like the British Tourist Authority which seek to promote tourism. I raised this matter at an earlier stage. I support them because it is wrong that carrier staff overseas should be the first line of immigration control and should be prone to being sued in foreign courts for acting in such a capacity. I have a recent case to hand, but I shall not detain your Lordships save to say that it refers to an EC citizen refused boarding permission by a Danish company trading out of a Dutch port towards Sheerness.
  I support the carriers because the Act has not succeeded in its short-term purpose which was originally to stem the flow of Tamils seeking to escape the Sri Lankan civil war; nor, indeed, in its longer-term purpose which was to prevent attempted economic migration in the guise of spurious asylum claims. How, and, indeed, why, should check-in staff be asked to decide such matters? I support the carriers because at the end of the day it is we, the consumers (noble Lords) who pay the penalties, if they are paid at all. One of the iniquities of the working of the Act is the evidence of varying degrees of penalty collection forced upon carriers, especially those from the third world.
  I support the carriers because of the doubt raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who apologies for being unable to be present tonight. On Second Reading he said that to require a carrier to carry out the document-checking procedures required by the Act may be outside French and Belgian law which specifies that such checking may be carried out only by authorised officials, whom I take to be government employees.
  France and Belgium are two major countries for embarkation and thus for enforcement of the Act. On Second Reading my noble friend the Minister promised to look into the matter. Perhaps he will now clarify the position. I may be wrong. Lastly, I support the carriers and Amendment No. 41 because I believe that many of those who generate penalties are bona fide tourists. The tourist industry was worth £8 billion
  800
  to this country's economy last year. It does us no good to damage that traffic or the carriers which bring them here. Hence my support for the amendment.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I support the amendment on two broad grounds. One is the ground which has just been expressed so carefully, which is a strictly commercial ground. That argument was rehearsed in earlier debates. The point that I find powerful is that I do not believe that airlines should be turned into substitute immigration officers. It is not their job. To ask people to do things which are not their job probably means that they will do their own job worse and will not do the job of immigration officers very well. Giving them a short course in forgery will not solve that problem which is a matter of principle. That is a fundamental matter and one which the Minister should take on board.
  The broader grounds were put clearly by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. If someone is given exceptional leave to remain, that presumably means that that person has a genuine fear of persecution but does not, for some reason which one cannot identify in general, satisfy the authorities sufficiently for them to grant him refugee status. Nonetheless, they allow him to remain here. If they do that, it seems remarkable that they should fine the airline for bringing him here. How does the Minister box that compass? The airline has brought him here. He has been allowed to stay, presumably because to send him back would be dangerous. The airline is then fined for bringing him here. That is a difficult proposition to justify.
  Amendment No. 42 deals with people under 18, and the case, on straight humanitarian grounds, becomes much stronger. Children are sometimes—there are not many of them, as has been said in earlier debates—thrust onto aeroplanes without documents by terrified parents who want to get them out of difficult and dangerous situations. Those children are unlikely to have documents. That they should then be sent back by the airline because it does not want to be fined, or it is fined when they arrive because the children are passed on, is a travesty of the humane treatment of children.
  The Minister should be reminded that the 1951 convention imposes an obligation upon those countries which have signed it not to obstruct access to their asylum procedures. Children under the age of 18 thrust on aeroplanes without papers who are not then allowed access to our asylum procedures fall within the convention; that is to say, we break the convention unless we allow those children access to our asylum procedures. For all those reasons, the amendment is important. It is one which we support from these Benches and one on which I hope we shall receive a more elastic reply from the Minister than some we have had today.
  The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 42. I wish to underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that this attempt to keep at bay those who are genuinely seeking asylum by a fine on carriers is a denial of our responsibilities under the UN convention. Not only do we have a responsibility to determine the status of

  801
  those who reach this island. We also have a responsibility not to prevent them from doing so by means such as the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act.
  Reference has already been made to the difficult position in which carriers' employees are placed if they are expected to be immigration officers. That difficulty is compounded in the case of children. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, spoke of the scenario when children are put on an aeroplane by parents who are frightened for their children's future. To expect the airline's employees to prevent them taking that action places them in an extremely difficult position. Surely it is one for which their status as the airline's employees does not equip them.
  I wonder whether the Minister can answer that point and in particular say how that can be squared with the humane treatment of children who are trying to escape from difficult and terrifying circumstances.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, although I said earlier that I broadly support the Government on the Bill, Amendment No. 41—not Amendment No. 42—is justifiable and wholly desirable. I support it without qualification.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I spoke in Committee on the principle that Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill. I support the amendment so far as it goes. As I said in Committee, I believe, as the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, that airlines should not be expected to act as some kind of immigration officer.
  I have asked my noble friend for clarification, but as I understand the matter, if a person is eventually granted asylum in this country, the airline gets its money hack. However, I understand that a number of people reach a kind of half-way stage, which I presume is the meaning of the phrase, "leave to enter". In that circumstance, the airline or the shipping company does not get its money back. If for some reason the immigration authorities allow the person to stay in this country, why should the carrier have to pay the £2,000? Why should the money not be refunded if the Government admit that for some reason that person should be allowed to stay?
  I admit to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I am viewing the situation from a commercial point of view, as a carrier, rather than from a humanitarian point of view. I have no expertise in that aspect of the matter, but I like to think that I have a little expertise in the field of carriers. I ask my noble friend to clarify the situation.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when the 1987 Act went through Parliament, similar amendments were debated and rejected on that occasion. We stated then that statutory exemptions to liability would undermine the aim of the Act. I know that it does not meet with everyone's approval, but the underlying aim is to prevent people travelling here without the proper documents; and it would encourage carriers to make judgments that they cannot reasonably make.
  The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon stated that we are keeping at bay those who seek
  802
  asylum. With the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate, we are doing nothing of the kind. We are saying that carriers who bring people here should ensure that those people are carrying the proper documents.
  The simple proposition underlying the 1987 Act is that carriers should not bring to this country passengers who are not in possession of the proper documents. Carriers are not asked to make judgments as to the acceptability of any individual passenger. All they must check is whether a passenger holds the proper documentation. The amendment would permit the carrier to bring to the United Kingdom passengers who are not in possession of the proper documents if the carrier believed that the immigration service would give leave to enter. However, if a passenger does not have proper documents, it may not be possible to return him to another country. In consequence, the immigration service may be obliged to grant such passengers leave to enter by default. In such circumstances it is right that the carrier should be discouraged from repeating its action by the levying of a charge under the 1987 Act.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Brabazon, stated that airline operators should not be turned into immigration officers. We are not doing anything of the kind. There is a very real and important distinction between a carrier's responsibilities under the 1987 Act and an immigration officer's responsibility under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration Rules made thereunder, to determine whether or not a passenger may be granted leave to enter the United Kingdom. The carrier's responsibilities to ensure the possession of proper documentation may be described as narrow in comparison with those of the immigration officer who is bound to consider all factors relevant to the passenger's admission to the United Kingdom.
  In relation to asylum-seekers, I can assure noble Lords that no charge is made to carriers in relation to any passenger who is accepted as a refugee. Where a charge has been levied in such a case, it will subsequently be waived or refunded. My noble friend Lord Brabazon asks: if a person is granted leave to enter, why can the money not be refunded. However, leave to enter does not mean that a person is given asylum, and it does not grant refugee status. Many people are given leave to enter who do not fall into the category of refugees; and it is refugees for whom the expenditure will be waived.
  My noble friend Lord Mountevans reminded me that I said that I would consider complex legal issues concerning the ferry companies and the position under French and Belgian law in the context of their liabilities under the Carriers' Liability Act. We are giving considerable careful thought to that matter and I hope that my noble friend will understand that because of the complexity of the issues, a decision has yet to be made. I cannot give any further information about that matter.
  Amendment No. 42 proposes that a fine should not be levied if the person is under the age of 18. The right reverend Prelate stated that children were bundled

  803
  into aeroplanes in terror—or perhaps it was the noble lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who stated that. I thought that it was more dramatic language than the right reverend Prelate is usually disposed to use. I do not find that the airlines act in that manner. One never sees people being bundled into aeroplanes; they are put onto aeroplanes with great care.
  If Amendment No. 42 were to be accepted, it would open up an avenue for abuse. Fraudulent claims as to age and circumstances would he made before embarkation in order to secure carriage to the United Kingdom. Without proper documents, it would be impossible to decide whether a person were over 18 or younger, and the amendment would result in argument and disagreement whether a charge should be levied.
  An important feature of the present carrier liability arrangements is that there are no statutory exemptions to confuse the carrier's check-in staff. They would only have to ask each applicant whether they had the right documents. The amendment would serve to discourage parents or guardians from obtaining the necessary visas. It would encourage carriers to ignore the checking of documents of all those who are under 18.
  Even if there was an exemption from liability to a charge under the Carriers' Liability Act, I wonder whether it is likely that a responsible carrier would wish to remove from his own country an unaccompanied child with improper or inadequate documentation.
  The amendment, in practice, would not afford extra protection to genuine refugee children. If a child is at risk of persecution, it is not obvious that the most appropriate course is for him to make his way unaccompanied to an international airport and then to find an aeroplane to take him to the United Kingdom. No charge is made to carriers in relation to any passenger, adult or child, who is accompanied as a refugee. Where, a charge has been levied, in such a case it will be subsequently waived or refunded.
  I hope that noble Lords will keep the matter in perspective. In 1992, 185 children claimed asylum at our ports; but millions came to this country in other circumstances. The simple fact is that if children need a visa, parents or guardians should obtain one and the carriers should not transport people without them. Travellers must have the appropriate documents, whether they are an adult or a child; or, as I remember from Committee stage, if they happen to be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office. That is not an unreasonable situation. If a child or an adult arrives in the United Kingdom and is a genuine asylum applicant but has no visa, his application will nevertheless be fully and properly considered.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I shall not dwell on Amendment No. 42, although I do not want the Minister to infer that I have come to the conclusion that he is right about the matter. I have not; I think that he is wrong. Noble Lords have voiced their anxiety about the anomaly that is revealed in the argumentation about Amendment No. 41. With
  804
  respect, I do not think that the Minister has disposed of the arguments that have been adduced by his noble friends Lord Mountevans and Lord Brabazon. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, speaks with some authority in this field having been a Minister in this House with responsibility for transport on two separate occasions. If he believes that the situation has been totally unsatisfactory, as he has said, he should be listened to with care. With the greatest respect, I do not believe that the Minister has done that.
  At the end of the day the position of a passenger who is granted leave is partially vindicated. Therefore, the carrier should also be vindicated. I cannot see how that undermines the purposes to which the Minister alluded in his response. It seemed to me that the case that he was arguing was full of logical inconsistencies. He says that certain practices have emerged so that in certain circumstances the carriers are not penalised because repayments are made. However, that is in the gift of the Minister and the Home Office. I do not see why such practices should not be enshrined in law along the lines that we propose.
  The Minister said that carriers are not immigration officials. Strictly speaking, that is right. However, they have become quasi immigration officials performing some of the tasks performed by immigration officials. In certain instances it is important that they should take a chance where they believe that their judgment may be vindicated by the passenger being granted leave to enter. In my view, the Minister has not begun to answer that case. In those circumstances, the opinion of the House should be tested.
  7.22 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 65.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Auckland, L.

  Kagan, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Brightman, L.

  McNair, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Monson, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Darcy (de Knayth), B.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Desai, L. [Teller.]

  Ripon, Bp.

  Erroll, E.

  Russell, E.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Sterling of Plaistow, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hollick, L.

  Tordoff, L. [Teller]

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Abinger, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Astor, V.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Barber, L.

  Chilver, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L

  Blake, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Blatch, B.

  Colwyn, L.

  Braine of Wheatley, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Cumberlege, B.

  805

  Dudley, E.

  Marlesford, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Morris, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Flather, B.

  Moyne, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Nelson of Stafford, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Reay, L.

  Harvington, L.

  Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Henley, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

  Stockton, E.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Howe, E.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

  Jeffreys, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Thatcher, B.

  Long, V.

  Trumpington, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  7.30 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
  Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 43:
  After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
  ("Definition of offence under 1987 Act
  . A person shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine of not more than level 5 on the standard scale or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both, in any of the following cases—

  (a) he shall either by himself or in conjunction with any other person or persons prevent, hinder or delay any traveller claiming asylum from being lawfully examined by an immigration officer,

  (b) if being an immigration officer he shall conduct the examination either without authority or in such a manner as to render that examination unlawful, or

  (c) if as an owner or agent of a ship or aircraft he shall procure, assist or permit any employee, servant, agent or any other person to commit an offence under paragraph (,a) above.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter to which I referred in Committee. The Minister promised to write to me and he has done so. I merely table this amendment as a probing amendment to tease the question out a little further. Noble Lords who were present on the previous occasion will remember that this matter concerns those cases where carriers seeking to avoid paying the carrier's liability tax intercept people whom they suspect of not having the correct documents before those people reach the immigration officials. Those people are forced back on to the plane and forced back to the place whence they came.
  In this amendment we seek to introduce a new offence—I know the Government never like that, particularly coming from the Opposition—to cover that situation. I know the Minister suggests that the current position covers those cases adequately. However, I thought it might be useful for the House to hear the Government's reasons and for me to test the Government a little more on this issue. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has argued this matter
  806
  more extensively before. However, I wish to reinforce his plea that the onus should be on the Government to explain what, on the face of it, constitutes a serious dichotomy of treatment between the asylum seeker and the carrier, or the officer of the carrier, who misbehaves, or who exceeds his or her duty. It appears to me that, on the face of it, the consequences for the person who is treated in an ultra vires way are certainly far more draconian than any consequences for the carrier. It also seems to me that there should be some criminal sanction applied to people who misbehave in this way and whose actions can have such dire consequences.
  I believe that a civil redress is not satisfactory in such circumstances, or may not be satisfactory in such circumstances, particularly as legal aid is so difficult to come by. These people cannot finance actions in the civil courts, more particularly if they are unable to be here. This is not a case where the Government should simply be tested. I should say on behalf of the Opposition that we deplore the whole process that the Government have established. The Minister has been invited to respond to what is a probing amendment. I cannot complain about that at this time of the evening. However, the burden of establishing their case rests firmly on the Government and they have not begun to establish that burden of proof in all the debates we have had on these issues.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for saying this is a probing amendment. That seems to be quite a rarity today. I am grateful to him for informing me of that even though it did not find much favour with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I do not think there is anything between the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and myself on the principle that someone who comes to the United Kingdom wishing to claim asylum should have the opportunity to do so. I said I would consider this matter and I have done so. I have written to the noble Lord, as he said I had.
  I am aware of the allegations that, in some cases, passengers have been prevented from disembarking or from approaching the immigration control. That is, of course, quite intolerable. The Government have made it clear that this is totally unacceptable. Where the noble Lord and I might differ is over the need for new offences to be created. Immigration officers have clear instructions that a person who claims asylum while in the United Kingdom or at one of our ports must have his application referred to the Home Office. I do not believe that the creation of a new offence is the right response should those instructions not be followed.
  As I said, I have reflected further on this since Committee stage and our view remains that there is not a gap in the law which makes it necessary to create a new offence of preventing an asylum seeker from being examined by an immigration officer. That someone should be prevented from being examined is, of course, intolerable. The common law offence of false imprisonment encompasses the unlawful detention of a person on an aircraft or a vessel within the United Kingdom. It carries a penalty of imprisonment

  807
  or an unlimited fine. Anyone who uses force to detain a passenger unlawfully would also be committing an assault.
  I recognise that it would be difficult to prove the commission of these offences, especially once the person has left the country. But that difficulty would not be lessened by the creation of a specific new offence and the new offence would also face that difficulty. While we all disapprove of such actions, they are at present unlawful and I suggest that the inclusion of an extra criterion is not necessary.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he indicate to the House how practicable in many of these instances, particularly having regard to the difficulties of obtaining legal aid—I shall not go into that again as I have already referred to it—such civil remedies are? It is no use the Government saying they disapprove of such actions and that they are intolerable. If there is no effective remedy, the position is completely unsatisfactory. As I have said, there is a dichotomy of treatment. Does not the noble Earl accept that a criminal sanction would in itself operate as a deterrent where no really effective deterrent exists at the present time because of the difficulties of securing redress in the civil courts?
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite see there is a difficulty in the hypothetical case of a person who comes off an aircraft wanting to seek asylum being detained by another person as the latter wishes to force him back on the aircraft for fear of facing a carrier's liability fine. I appreciate that is a difficult situation. The noble Lord asked what is the remedy for that situation. He claimed that it was no use the Government merely saying that situation was intolerable. The remedy is the law. Under the law it is a criminal offence falsely to imprison a person. The remedy is not a civil remedy. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said as regards it being difficult to get hold of the person concerned but making a new offence will not make that any easier. Whether the act of false imprisonment takes place in an aircraft or on the ground at an airport, it is a criminal offence.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, there is obviously wide agreement on the fact that this is a practice up with which we shall not put in this country. The argument concerns what can be done about it. I understand what the noble Earl is saying and I am sincerely grateful to him for having taken the trouble to explain the matter in such detail. Perhaps, through having exposed this issue in this debate, we have gone some way towards drawing it to people's attention. Before I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, I hope I may ask the noble Earl, whether, with the leave of the House, he would be prepared to suggest that steps are taken to make sure that carriers understand this is a serious offence in the eyes of the Government and of the law in this country and that anyone found behaving in this way will be dealt with most severely.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond to that intervention. I shall
  808
  certainly take note of the noble Lord's suggestion. I am not quite sure what will be done or whether it will be appropriate for anything to be done but I shall certainly take note of the suggestion. I shall look into the matter.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. We have made a tiny bit of progress and I hope that between us we can prevent people facing such terrible traumas. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 43A:
  After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
  ("Special immigration officer
  .—(1) Where an individual is, or may be an asylum-seeker, any examination of such an individual shall be conducted only by a special immigration officer.
  (2) A special immigration officer is an immigration officer who shall have received training of not less than 10 working days per annum in—

  (a) the contents of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Protocol and the Handbook;

  (b) the customs, religious practices, political background and contemporary political circumstances of the country of origin or habitual residence;

  (c) interviewing techniques;

  (d) the use of an interpreter.

  (3) Any interpreter used by the immigration service or the Immigration and Nationality Department for the purposes of any examination or interview shall be accredited by the Institute of Linguists in the language of choice of the interviewee.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 43A perhaps I may say at the outset, as I am sure the noble Earl has been yearning for me to do throughout the proceedings, that this is a probing amendment. Therefore, the Whips can ease off and the noble Lord, Lord Clark, can leave.
  The amendment has been tabled because we felt that it was necessary to ascertain from the noble Earl what training is provided for immigration officers. They deal with highly sensitive matters, as I am sure the Minister will concede. For that reason we believe that it is essential that they should receive appropriate and extensive training. We believe that the elements of that training which we have set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) are highly relevant.
  It goes without saying that an interpreter must be used. I shall not press that issue because the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has been kind enough to give me a copy of a very long letter dated 26th February which he has received from the noble Earl dealing with the question of interpreters. If the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, wishes to address that matter further he may wish to refer to the letter, in which the matter is dealt with extensively.
  I am more concerned, therefore, about the issue of the training which immigration officers receive as regards dealing with this difficult area of the law. That it is difficult and complex goes without saying. Clearly, familiarity with the contents of the United Nations convention, the protocol and handbook are all important. Those are the more legalistic aspects. There is also the question of the background and environment from which asylum seekers come and the political circumstances which have given rise to their

  809
  seeking refuge in this country. We have set out those aspects in paragraph (b). They are plainly important and it is equally important that immigration officers should be well educated in those matters.
  As regards interviewing techniques, it is obvious that the necessary educational techniques to ensure that somebody is a good, reasonable and sensitive listener are very important.
  Can the noble Earl indicate to the House how far the present training encompasses those matters? What is the nature of the training presently undertaken? Where does it take place? Is it in one place or a number of places? How many instructors are employed for that purpose. Over what period is the training undertaken? To what extent are interrogations carried out by people who may be relatively untrained? I hope that the Minister will say none at all.
  As regards interviewing techniques, if there is a bad apple, training will not improve matters. There are bad apples in this situation as there are in the police. That cannot be gainsaid. I know of instances where the interrogation carried out has been intolerable and unacceptable. I do not suggest that the overwhelming majority of immigration officers are of that ilk, but it does happen. Somebody who is educated in interviewing techniques is less likely to feel insecure and less likely for that reason to adopt unacceptable practices in interviewing.
  Subsection (3) deals with interpreters. Unless I have missed any points as a result of reading the letter rather hastily, I believe that the Minister has dealt with that matter extensively. I leave that aspect to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to pursue. I beg to move.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is an important amendment. I like it particularly because it distinguishes between asylum seekers and ordinary immigration cases. The Bill has to some extent lumped them together, certainly in its Short Title, but they are of their nature very different. People wish to immigrate to this country because they want to be here. Asylum seekers come for a totally different reason. They are in fear of their life or in fear of severe persecution or discrimination in some other country from which they are seeking to escape. Those are two very different situations.
  Training is clearly of the greatest importance in the case of asylum. That is a subject about which I have had considerable correspondence with the Home Office. I am glad that the amendment specifically mentions interviewing techniques. It is vitally important that those conducting the interviews should be aware of the special circumstances of some asylum seekers—quite a high proportion—who have already suffered persecution, maltreatment and sometimes torture. Those people arrive in this country in a state of trauma. In addition, they may well be disoriented by having crossed several time zones and having had long and sleepless journeys. Interviewers should appreciate that before starting an interview or when considering postponing it.
  810
  The subject of interpretation is of the greatest importance because if the asylum seeker cannot speak English and does not understand, the result will be useless unless the interpretation is first class. Perhaps the amendment goes a little too far in specifying that interpreters must be accredited by the Institute of Linguists. I accept that that may not always be possible in the case of minority languages or obscure languages which are not used much. Nevertheless, interpreters should have training in the matters listed at the beginning of the amendment just as much as immigration officers.
  I apologise to the noble Earl that I have to leave the Chamber and therefore will not be able to listen to his reply, but I promise him that I shall study it most carefully in Hansard.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, again I am delighted to know from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that this is also a probing amendment. I shall try to answer his probe as best I can.
  The amendment is concerned with the qualifications of both immigration officers who conduct asylum interviews and interpreters who are used in any interview which is conducted by an immigration officer or by another member of the Immigration and Nationality Department. I share the noble Lord's views, and indeed those of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who has already vaporised, that those are important and sensitive interviews and that all parties involved should be fully competent for the job they have to do.
  It is important to distinguish between the role of an immigration officer, who, after all, interviews an asylum applicant, and the role of the official in the Asylum Division of the Home Office. The official in the Asylum Division of the Home Office makes the decision as to whether the applicant is or is not a refugee. For that purpose he needs some knowledge of the political and other background of the country in which the applicant claims persecution. He also needs to be aware of the law and the international obligations which relate to the treatment of asylum seekers. The department provides training and written guidance on this.
  The immigration officer, on the other hand, is not a specialist in those fields, and he does not need to be. His job is to elicit a full account of the asylum claim from the applicant which will enable the officer in the Asylum Division to reach a decision. All immigration officers are trained and practised interviewers and they are instructed on the use of interpreters.
  In practice, if we allowed only "special immigration officers", as the amendment suggests, to conduct asylum interviews we would have to train so many that they would cease to be a special category. The sheer number of asylum interviews which are conducted makes this inevitable. The new clause would also oblige us to have officers specialising in particular countries. The wide variety of countries from which asylum seekers come, the variety of locations in the United Kingdom and the times at which they need to be interviewed would make it very

  811
  unlikely that exactly the right specialist officer would be available to deal with a particular applicant at a particular time.
  I therefore think that we must leave it to the specialists in the Asylum Division to decide claims, and we must look to immigration officers to carry out competent interviews. That does not mean that immigration officers should not be aware of the sensitivities of asylum cases. Of course they should; and they have specific instructions on how to deal with asylum applicants. I can tell your Lordships that representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees regularly address immigration officer training courses. It is necessary for interviewing officers to understand what the state of mind of an asylum seeker might be both to ensure that he treats the person properly and in order to conduct a fully effective interview.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked me a number of questions about training. I can tell him some of the answers. Training is conducted both centrally and at individual ports. Both the immigration service and the Asylum Division have specialised training units. There is a six-week initial training period for all new immigration officers and one week's consolidation training after two years or so of having been in post. Further, more specialised courses are provided too.
  The amendment also proposes that all interpreters who are used by the immigration service or the Asylum Division should be accredited by the Institute of Linguists. We all agree that we must have competent interpreters, but I am afraid that the new clause represents an unrealistic aspiration. The fact is that there are very few people in this country who are able and willing to act as interpreters in asylum interviews in certain unusual languages. There are, after all, hundreds of different languages and dialects. A high standard of interpreting is required in interviews and generally the interpreter will be a native speaker of the applicant's language. I can tell your Lordships that it is not an easy matter to obtain competent speakers of, for example, Lingala or Kurdish who are willing to act as interpreters in asylum interviews. We are though constantly looking at ways of improving this situation. The Immigration and Nationality Department is conducting a review of its interpreting needs; and it is also represented on the steering group of the Nuffield Foundation Interpreter Project.
  One must distinguish between the interpreter's linguistic ability on the one hand and the conduct of the interview on the other. The interview itself is the responsibility of the interviewing officer and all
  812
  immigration officers have been clearly instructed on that point. Interpreters are instructed that their role is to give an accurate verbatim translation of what is said, no more and no less. When an interpreter is used by the immigration service for the first time he is asked to sign a declaration that he will translate faithfully from English to the language in question and vice versa. Interpreters should not intervene in the interview in any other way or express personal opinions.
  I hope that I have been able to satisfy the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for information about those matters of immigration officers and officials at the Asylum Division. I hope that that has been of help to him.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I remain more than a little unhappy about the situation affecting the immigration officer as distinct from the officials in the Asylum Division of the Home Office. Of course, I accept what the Minister says about the significance of the role undertaken by the officials in the Asylum Division. They have to have a more intimate knowledge of the law, the background and the circumstances in which asylum is sought. However, the fact remains that under the legislation and rules so much importance has to be allotted to that original interview. That is what worries me. If the interviewer is not sufficiently aware of the circumstances which affect the asylum seeker, the wrong impression could very easily be given. Although it is true that the official in the Asylum Division would check that situation later, nonetheless what is attributed to the asylum seeker in the original interview can be absolutely crucial. Consequently I believe the fact that officials are not specifically trained in such matters is unsatisfactory.
  I hope that the Minister will recognise that, with a substantial number of asylum seekers coming to this country —the number remains substantial—at the initial training of the immigration officers at the ports of entry and the further training undertaken (the consolidation course and further courses to which the Minister referred) there is need for considerably more emphasis to be placed on the requirements relating to interrogations and interviews undertaken by those immigration officials in the first instance than perhaps applies at present.
  I hope that the Minister will look into those matters further. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.

  HONG KONG: ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS
  HONG KONG: ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS
  TREATY OF ROME
  TREATY OF ROME
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS: INFORMATION LEAFLET
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS: INFORMATION LEAFLET
  TRANSCAUCASUS: DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
  TRANSCAUCASUS: DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
  WHITCHURCH SCHOOL
  WHITCHURCH SCHOOL
  EC FOODSTUFFS WITHDRAWN: QUANTITY AND VALUE
  EC FOODSTUFFS WITHDRAWN: QUANTITY AND VALUE
  AGRICULTURAL LAND DESIGNATED AS LESS FAVOURED
  AGRICULTURAL LAND DESIGNATED AS LESS FAVOURED
  LIGHT DUES
  LIGHT DUES
  JOBCLUBS ON POLITICAL PARTY PREMISES
  JOBCLUBS ON POLITICAL PARTY PREMISES