Sitting of 8 March 1993

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

    West Coast Main Line
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport if he will sponsor a cost-benefit study of proposals to upgrade the west coast main line to accommodate 250 km per hour passenger trains and associated improved freight services.
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment plans for the west coast main line.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): At present, it is for British Rail, as operator of the west coast main line, to bring forward a cost benefit study into its upgrading. BR intends to start the resignalling work in this corporate plan period. Following the establishment of Railtrack in April 1994, this responsibility will pass to that body.
    Mr. Hoyle: Would not it be better to ask BR for the proposals instead of the Secretary of State shunting us into the siding of rail privatisation? He must agree that money should be spent immediately on the west coast line in the way that money has been spent on the east coast line, to provide efficient rolling stock, efficient track, efficient signalling and an efficient rail service. Instead of having a charter of complaints—the citizens charter—funds should be made available immediately for rail projects for this vital rail link.
    Mr. MacGregor: 1 am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there has been substantial investment in the east coast main line: some £550 million. There has been substantial investment throughout British Rail. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that investment is currently running at record levels. However, not everything can be done at once. As I have said, in the context of its corporate plan, which will be coming to me fairly soon, BR is currently looking at resignalling work. The hon. Gentleman asked about rolling stock. The Government's contribution remains at record levels, but, inevitably, as a result of the recession, there has been a decline in revenue and British Rail decided that it was not prudent to proceed at this stage with work on the rolling stock, which is likely to cost about £350 million. It is considering its rolling stock strategy and will no doubt present proposals in due course.
    Mr. Martlew: Over the past decade, the Government have starved the west coast main line of investment. Bearing that in mind, will the Minister ensure that the £150 million that was made available in the autumn statement is spent on that line? It would be a travesty for that money to be spent in any other region, including Network SouthEast. Not only would there be anger in my constituency, but the users of the line from Birmingham all the way up the west coast and including those in Belfast would be angry.
    Mr. MacGregor: The £150 million of leasing to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, of course, a major new contribution which the Government have made available to British Rail. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. We have asked British Rail to confirm by Easter what rolling stock it proposes to lease and tor which lines. Is it for British Rail to make the decisions and I have no doubt that it will hear what the hon. Gentleman has said and will take it into account.
    Mr. Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the unreliability of that line causes many people not to use it unless they are absolutely forced to do so? Does he realise that it will be necessary for much money to be spent on the line fairly soon? Is it true that work on signalling will begin this year? Will my right hon. Friend play his part and try to kick some life into the management at the top of British Rail, who do not seem to have got out of their old, bad, complacent habits and who are a contributory factor to the unacceptability of the line?
    Mr. MacGregor: I acknowledge that the upgrading of the line is necessary, both in terms of rolling stock and of the infrastructure. I cannot give my right hon. Friend a date: it is for British Rail to come forward with proposals on resignalling. As I said, that is being considered in the context of the corporate plan. The whole purpose of our privatisation proposals is to improve management and prospects, not only on the west coast main line but throughout the system.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I heartily agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we are very proud of the standard of station staff and of their handling of passengers and so on, but we are not satisfied with British Rail management. If British Rail were privatised there would be better investment and a better deal for those who use the line. We are proud of the staff, but we want to be as proud of other parts of the line as we are of Lancaster station.
    Mr. MacGregor: As I said earlier, our proposals are intended to improve services to passengers through franchising. It is unlikely that the west coast main line will be among the first, because it was not included in the seven lines that I announced as shadow franchises. I hope that it will follow not long afterwards, so that my hon. Friend can enjoy the benefits to which she looks forward.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that all the work has been done and that the cost is known? All that is lacking is political will and Government resources. Is not the right hon. Gentleman concerned that the taxpayers' money invested in the east coast line will be highly attractive to a privatised railway, which will undermine the west coast line? Will the Secretary of State

    647
    give an assurance that the strategic route from London to Scotland will be on the west coast line and that he will instruct the track authority to see that it is?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not accept that the investment in the east coast main line will have a particular effect on franchising. The terms of the franchise will reflect a number of factors. I recognise that the east coast investment took place ahead of the west coast main line and I recognise the need to upgrade the infrastructure and rolling stock. However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a lack of political will. Investment is currently at record levels, but we must establish priorities.

    Night Flights (Heathrow)
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to reach a decision on the number of Heathrow night flights.
    Mr. MacGregor: We asked for comments on the proposals to reach us by 30 April. We shall consider all the responses carefully and I hope to announce decisions by the end of June.
    Mr. Jessel: As one comment, is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents regard night flights as totally unacceptable and that any increase would make them very angry? They consider that night flights should be stopped entirely, except in emergencies.
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my hon. Friend recognises the need for some night movements, but I acknowledge the importance of balancing that requirement with the legitimate concerns of local residents. The present regime attempts to do that. If we did not replace it, there would be no restrictions whatever, so it is right that we should be considering what should be done at the end of the year. I know of my hon. Friend's great concerns, which he has already made clear to me. I assure him that the consultation is genuine and that we shall listen to all representations before we take decisions for the future. We have been endeavouring to seek a better system for the future, taking account of new developments—particularly in aircraft technology.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State agree that the most effective way to reduce pressure on Heathrow is to develop regional airports such as Manchester? Will he congratulate Greater Manchester's local authorities on their enterprise and the opening of terminal 2? Will he press British Rail, because it is scandalous that the 40 yd of track needed to link the airport with routes to the south is still not built?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's last question was a little remote from the issue of Heathrow night flights. As he knows, we are encouraging regional airports in a variety of ways. There has been a big improvement in regional airport output in recent years—not least at Manchester, which is now a major European airport. I congratulate all involved. I am glad that private sector finance has been involved in that expansion. The right way ahead is to continue the private sector development of regional airports and, wherever possible, privatisation of them, too.

    Network SouthEast
    Mr. Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Network SouthEast British Rail services improved in 1992.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): At the end of 1992, 14 out of 15 Network SouthEast service groups were achieving punctuality performance above the level at which compensation would be paid to season ticket holders. The latest results show all 15 above that level. For the most recent four-weekly reporting period, 13 out of 15 routes performed above their punctuality targets.
    Mr. Bowden: Is my hon. Friend aware that commuters in my constituency are fed up with cold, dirty trains? If the Brighton line were franchised, what would be in the contract to ensure that trains ran on time and were warm and clean?
    Mr. Freeman: I assure my hon. Friend that the franchise contracts will require not only reliability and punctuality targets, but standards of cleanliness. One great advantage of the franchise contract system is that there will be a specific agreement between the franchising director and the rail operator.
    Mr. Denham: Does not the Minister recognise that Network SouthEast services are currently being destroyed? Does he know that, in the past six months, many Hampshire stations have had their Sunday services withdrawn? Does he realise that commuter lines from Southampton to Waterloo are being cut, that the service between Southampton and Eastleigh is being cut by 50 per cent. and that the service between Guildford and Portsmouth is changing from semi-fast to stopping trains?
    Why does not the Minister recognise that all that is being done to lower the standard of service to the level at which a franchise operator may be able to come in? None of his assurances will take away the reality for rail travellers—that their services are being destroyed around them.
    Mr. Freeman: Their services are not being destroyed. British Rail is sensibly accommodating the drop in demand that has resulted from the recession of the past two years and it has therefore had to reduce the frequency of services. However, new 159 class trains are being introduced on the Waterloo to Exeter lines: that represents a substantial investment by Network SouthEast, with the Government's support.

    Special Parking Areas (London)
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when local boroughs in London will be able to implement special parking areas.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): We aim to have all the necessary regulations and procedural rules in place in time to enable parking enforcement to begin in special parking areas from 1 July this year.
    Dr. Twinn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that welcome news. Does he agree that it is very good news for Londoners as a whole? Parking regulations will now be properly enforced on the basis of local knowledge—and,

    649
    I hope, removed when they are not really necessary—all at no cost to council tax payers, provided that they do not park illegally.
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right. The boroughs themselves asked for the parking areas, which will give them more control, enable them to manage their own problems in their own areas and ensure that the resources released will be available for better enforcement on the priority route programme and elsewhere.

    British Rail (Investment)
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the levels of investment in British Rail.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have received several representations about the levels of investment in British Rail. This year is the highest in real terms since 1960.
    Sir Roger Moate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in contrast, the very worst years for railway investment were in the 1970s, under a Labour Government? Did not a Labour Government close more railway miles than any Conservative Government? Nevertheless, new capital investment is still urgently required for Network SouthEast. When might an order be placed for the new, urgently needed Networker express trains for the Kent coast?
    Mr. MacGregor: I take my hon. Friend's point. I note that it is always when Labour is in opposition that it calls for higher investment in British Rail and that it is when the Conservatives are in government that that is achieved.
    As my hon. Friend will know, British Rail is now examining our proposal for a £150 million leasing scheme. I cannot say yet what projects it will implement to fulfil the orders, but it is for British Rail to decide whether one of them will be the project for which my hon. Friend has pressed. He will also know that we are carrying out substantial resignalling projects, which, although currently causing disruption, are designed to improve the service in the longer term.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Secretary of State confirm or deny reports—particularly in the weekend press—that crossrail and Thameslink will not go ahead, and that the channel tunnel rail link will end at St. Pancras rather than King's Cross? If he is not prepared to make a statement today, will he make one later this month and will it include a final announcement about the Jubilee line?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no change in our position on the Jubilee line, which I have expressed frequently. The Government have made their full provision of £1·4 billion and are waiting for the administrator to complete his talks with the banks and London Underground. I recently received from British Rail two reports in two stages on the channel tunnel rail link. I received the second very recently and I shall make an announcement when I have considered it. There is no change in our position on crossrail, which was outlined in the public expenditure plans for the next three years. The hon. Gentleman will know that Thameslink is not provided for in those three years.
    Mr. Adley: What, expressed as a percentage of rail investment, will be the investment figure two years hence, compared with the figure for the current year? Does my
    650
    right hon. Friend realistically expect any private sector investment to be made in rail infrastructure in the next decade and is not Railtrack the creation of yet another nationalised industry, which unlike British Rail, will not be answerable to passengers?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not have a calculator in my head, so I cannot give my hon. Friend the precise percentage figures now. High investment continues to be made in British Rail and investment this year is the highest in real terms since 1960. I cannot say exactly how much investment will be made in two years' time, not least because that will depend on revenue, but we expect it to be about £1 billion a year, which is a substantial amount indeed. I do not agree with my hon. Friend about Railtrack. Our proposals will create a more efficient track infrastructure and administration. I very much hope that private investment will be made in track over the next 10 years.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Why is the Minister being so coy about investment in British Rail? He knows very well that, without the amount that has been set aside for the channel tunnel and its infrastructure, investment this year would be very poor. It is clear that investment would drop in ithe next two years. I am sure that he would like to make it clear to Conservative Members that, far from getting better rail services from franchising, they will lose on every count.
    Mr. MacGregor: I disagree totally with the hon. Lady's last point. It is fascinating that she suggests that certain aspects of capital expenditure can be ignored as though they did not need financing. British Rail's capital investment in the channel tunnel is good investment indeed. It is a priority for a priority market and it is therefore right to make that investment. The hon. Lady must acknowledge that that requires money, which can not be spent twice.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Rail's ability to invest will improve as revenue grows? Will he therefore welcome BR's decision to introduce a penalty fares scheme on the Kent link sector of Network SouthEast from 5 April next, which will improve its revenue significantly in the years ahead?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that as revenue improves so do the prospects to increase capital investment over and above the Government's major contribution. As he rightly said, revenue is up as a result of such schemes.
    Mr. Wilson: Instead of blustering with bogus statistics, will the Secretary of State confirm the reality that is set out in his own expenditure papers, which shows that investment in the existing railway is already at the lowest level for a decade and that overall investment in British Rail next year will be at its lowest level since nationalisation in 1948? Is that a record of which he is proud? What does he see in a railway? [Interruption.] There is no point is asking the Minister for Public Transport because it is true; it is at its lowest level since nationalisation in 1948. Is it the west coast main line that justifies that figure, or the cancellation of Thameslink and crossrail and the loss of other major infrastructure projects? Why are the Government continuing to run down the railways in advance of privatisation, particularly

    651
    on routes such as the west coast main line? We shall be left with the rump of a privatised railway while the rest is left to wither on the vine.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman manipulates the statistics. He strips out of the figures what does not suit his case. He ignores the fact that substantial investment is being made elsewhere and refers merely to certain areas as lacking investment. Investment is currently running at levels that have not been higher since 1960 and it will continue at a high level next year. Investment in regional railways will mean that by the end of the year nearly 90 per cent. of rolling stock will be less than eight and a half years old, a change caused as a result of investment. Since the mid-1980s, about 2,500 new passenger vehicles and locomotives have been brought into service. More than 900 are on order and will come into service in the next two years. Such massive changes in rolling stock investment have been made possible because of the capital expenditure that British Rail has incurred and to which the Government have made a substantial contribution.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend will understand that many people are interested in the future of the existing railway. Stripping out the plans for the channel tunnel means a cut in capital investment from £1,000 million a year to £500 million a year.
    Will my right hon. Friend argue with his colleagues that, if we want to protect employment, some of the money that might otherwise go in transitional aid to the coal mines should be used for rail capital investment for greater long-term benefit and benefit in terms of jobs?
    Mr. MacGregor: I argued the case for British Rail this year and secured £250 million on top of existing plans, in addition to the extra £150 million leasing scheme.

    Commuter Fares (Greater London)
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the level of commuter fares in Greater London.
    Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this issue from hon. Members and others.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Has the Minister seen the survey by the Association of London Authorities which shows that the highest commuter fares in Europe are in London? Does he accept that deregulation and the Government's privatisation proposals will threaten children's reduced fares and the London travelcard? Is he aware that London Transport has predicted a 20 per cent. increase in fares as a result of the proposed deregulation and privatisation? Will the Minister for Transport in London accept some responsibility for the chaotic state of London's transport and give the House a guarantee that, after deregulation and privatisation, children's reduced fares and the London travelcard will be protected and will remain at least as beneficial as they are at present?
    Mr. Norris: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it plain that, after deregulation and privatisation, the concessionary fare arrangements funded by the boroughs will continue. Every operator wants the travelcard scheme, but it would be extraordinarily foolish to preserve the present system in aspic as though it were incapable of
    652
    improvement. It is perfectly obvious that the operators want to keep the concept of intermodal travel and to develop it, which we shall help them to do.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to say straight away that the scare stories that have circulated recently about price increases after privatisation and deregulation, on the buses and on the railways, are mere speculation and are being used cynically to frighten people unnecessarily about the prospects for travel in London.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that we heard the Labour party's ideas —constructive or otherwise—for London commuters? So far we have heard nothing except, as my hon. Friend said, scare stories and scaremongering, which merely serve to upset people trying to work in London and those seeking work in London and do nothing for the recovery of London and commuters generally.
    Mr. Norris: I am tempted to agree with my right hon. Friend, but she is not quite right, as I have heard of a policy from the Labour party. I hear that there is a policy of charging virtually nothing for the system but somehow managing to magic the necessary resources out of thin air —as the Opposition resist the idea that either the user or the taxpayer pays. However, my right hon. Friend is right that no constructive opposition to the Government's proposals is emerging from the Oppositon parties.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister understand that his words, which are designed to be of assurance, are no such thing? He talked about speculation. Speculation can turn out to be correct. If the railcard, which is so useful to all citizens in London, is to continue as everyone wishes, and if it can be improved as the Minister says, can it be improved within the concept and operation of future privately franchised railways in Network SouthEast? Is the Minister aware that before the first world war the independent underground railways of London came together to form a group so that there could be reasonable operation and lower fares? How can that be compatible with the Minister's proposals for splitting them up again?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman says that speculation can occasionally turn out to be true, but in my experience over the past 10 years, speculation from the Opposition has more often than not turned out to be absolutely fatuous.
    The hon. Gentleman, with his experience of the system, should know that the travelcard has no statutory basis at present. It is an agreement entered into by the operators because they all know that it is a vital way to attract addtional revenue. There is therefore not the slightest reason why private contractors should not want to be in the scheme, and they have told us that they do want to be in it. Indeed, they are developing yet more exciting additions to the basic travelcard concept to increase passenger use of London's transport rather than to reduce it.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the extension of the hopper services to many estates in my constituency and around London, to the delight of pensioners and others? Will my hon. Friend also consider the age of the rolling stock on south-eastern services and see whether it can be modernised more

    653
    quickly? Can there be more rolling stock so that people coming to London every day from Ealing do not have to stand?
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point about hopper buses. He could have made the same point about midi buses. All these developments in more flexible bus operation have arisen as a result of privatisation. They are the result not of a planning-led system but of operators seeking to match the availability of transport to the needs of consumers. 1 take my hon. Friend's point about rolling stock. I will look into the matter and come back to him.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister's ability to sell second-hand Rollers, but I believe that his ability to sell a second-rate transport system is somewhat tested here. Will he tell Londoners how it can be fair and right that they should have the most expensive urban transport system in Europe while having to maintain it with the lowest level of subsidy in western europe? Why is that the case? Why does everyone else do it differently?
    Mr. Norris: I am not sure that my ability or anyone else's in selling the advantages of London is ever helped by the carping from Opposition Members which is so often devoid of any positive criticism of the system. Such carping is not helpful in any way; it is in no one's interests. The Government are right to believe that either the taxpayer or the user pays. Operators certainly welcome the fact that they can recover 90 per cent. of their operating costs through the fare box. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience of the Greater London council, understands that these days when taxpayers invest in improving the system every pound that they spend goes into improvements rather than merely into subsidising operating costs.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from private operators who may wish to bid for running rail franchises.
    Mr. MacGregor: We have received expressions of interest from more than 70 prospective private sector operators and British Rail management bid teams interested in operating franchised passenger services.
    Mr. Bruce: My right hon. Friend's answer is in stark contrast with the view of the doom and gloom merchants in the Opposition who seem to suggest that nobody will want to run our rail services. Will my right hon. Friend encourage management buy-outs and franchisees who wish to extend our rail system to more freight and more passengers than are carried by British Rail?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, certainly we are keen to encourage management-employee teams to bid for franchises in competition with all others who are bidding. We have had more than 20 expressions of interest from management-employee teams. I regard that as an extremely encouraging sign. I know that there is a great deal of interest among them. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we shall encourage passenger franchisees to extend their services as well as to meet the commitments in
    654
    the contracts. Freight will be different because they will not be bidding for franchises. However, I believe that there is a great deal of interest in our proposals for the freight sector. I am confident that our proposals, combined wil h my recent announcements about three freight proposals, are the best way to try to achieve a halt in the decline of freight on rail and to bring about a shift from road to rail.
    Mr. Olner: The Minister must surely realise that without substantial investment in BR, particularly on signalling and rolling stock, no franchisees who are attracted will do the job correctly. When did the Minister last travel on the west coast line to see just how dilapidated are the track, the signalling and the rolling stock? The Minister must do better, get out of his complacent mood and do something about our railways before they disappear completely.
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no complacency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there has been substantial investment in recent years in very many parts of the country. I have said that it is not possible to do everything at once. For example, very recently a £40 million contract was announced for investment in signalling on the London to Tilbury and Southend line. Investment is taking place on a substantial scale. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there needs to be continuing investment and I believe that our proposals will achieve that.
    Mr. Cormack: Has anyone at all expressed interest in taking over the west coast line? What comfort can my right hon. Friend offer my constituents who will soon have longer journeys to London than they have had hitherto? That is a totally unacceptable situation.
    Mr. MacGregor: I cannot disclose those bids that are commercially confidential and at this stage, as my hon. Friend will recognise, most of them are. I recognise that there have been marginal differences in the timetable on some aspects of the west coast main line, reflecting to some extent the position in relation to some of the signalling. I have indicated that BR is currently considering that. However, the changes in the timetable are very small indeed.
    Mr. Prescott: What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the subsidies for such franchises in the first and second years? Will he assure the House that the finances for the payment of those subsidies will not come from the £4 billion surplus that he has seen in the British Rail pension fund, as that would constitute the greatest rail robbery in history and would be bitterly opposed in iLhe House?
    Mr. MacGregor: I cannot, of course, say what the subsidy will be for the first two years as that will be part of the public expenditure negotiations in the autumn. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that. However, I am glad to respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point. I give him a complete assurance that in no way would we countenance—and certainly in no way would I countenance—the BR pension scheme fund being used for purposes other than for paying BR pensioners. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance—[Interruption] Yes, in relation to the total fund. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in trying to stop the mischievous and unwarranted scares that I encountered in Swindon on

    655
    Friday, when I was very happy to give that assurance to the petitioner there who came to see me about it. Such scares are totally unfair to the pensioners and I hope that they will stop.

    Disabled People (Travel)
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department will take to facilitate travel by the disabled in London.
    Mr. Norris: My Department's disability unit works closely with the unit for disabled passengers at London Transport in promoting accessible transport services. Dial-a-ride services in London are funded by my Department and administered on our behalf by London Transport. We shall be announcing shortly the funding levels for 1993–94. In addition, there is a requirement for all London taxis to be wheelchair accessible by 1 January 2000.
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: My constituents will be grateful for, and reassured by, my hon. Friend's answer. As we so often hear Opposition Members knocking London's record, will my hon. Friend draw a comparison with cities comparable with London and our record in the matter? So that we can see what the Opposition did when they were in power, will he also draw a comparison with what the Greater London council did under Labour control?
    Mr. Norris: I think that it is fair to say that while we can and will do more, London offers on balance the best transport service for disabled people of any major city in the world. To emphasise that point, it is partly because by increasing our funding by a further £1·5 million this year we have achieved a real increase of more than 60 per cent. compared with the last year in which the service was funded by the GLC.
    Ms. Walley: Is the Minister aware that today is International Women's Day and that many women, especially disabled women, all over the country do not have access to public transport? During the six months of the United Kindom's presidency, why did the Government not take further the European directive on the mobility of disabled workers?
    Will the Minister give an assurance that, whatever his proposals for the future of black cabs and private hire vehicles in London, there will be no threat whatever that access to disabled people will be lost? He should bear in mind that there is a real chance that black cabs could well be put out of business if he does not deal with the whole issue properly?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady will appreciate that women, especially disabled women, are uppermost in the Department's mind when it considers what steps to take to provide disabled access to transport. As I said, those steps are more advanced in London in terms of buses, access to rail systems and especially taxis and other forms of personal transport than in any other major city in the world.
    I merely reiterate that the Department requires all London taxis to be fully accessible to the disabled by the year 2000. The hon. Lady should know that some 7,000 taxis are available for disabled people to hire from the
    656
    street. I am committed to the proposition that we should continue with that policy and have all London taxis accessible to the disabled by the year 2000.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Science Budget
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the size of the science budget 1978–79; and what it will be in 1993–94, at comparable prices.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): The science budget in 1978–79 was £800 million at 1993–94 prices. The planned expenditure in 1993–94 will be £1,165 million. After taking account of changes in departmental responsibilities, the figures on a comparable basis are £827 million and £1,040 million, which gives a real-terms increase of 25·8 per cent.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Can he, in the real-terms increase in the science budget for the coming year, underline the Government's commitment to supporting British science and technology? Is he aware that the Agricultural and Food Research Council will be able to undertake much valuable research work as a result of the settlement?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I know that my hon. Friend makes a contribution as a member of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, and that is valuable. I greatly admire the Agricultural and Food Research Council, which has taken difficult decisions recently. It has reorganised its work and is now doing internationally acclaimed work both in basic areas such as molecular biology and applied work such as the work that it has done on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
    Dr. Bray: Does the Chancellor agree with the Agricultural and Food Research Council that the figures for 1994 to 1996 represent a cut in previously planned totals and that that will mean cuts in terms of its programmes?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I published all this advice to meet some of the justified demands for more information on these matters. I do not deny that the previous plans were higher before the recession hit—we should all like to spend more on some of these important programmes—but we got a real-terms increase this year which we are protecting in the years following and which is good against the present background.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the total may be arguable, what is important is the distribution of that money within the sciences and the technological programmes that we want to see continued? Does he expect not only to address that matter in his White Paper but perhaps to indicate whether defence science will be lower and civil sciences will be higher?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the implication of what my hon. Friend said. This year, total civil research and development by the Government has increased faster than the science budget—by about 2 per cent. That represents a proper balance of priorities.
    Ms. Mowlam: Is it not hypocritical, on International Women's Day, to create a committee to look at discrimination against women scientists at the same time as women civil servants are having their jobs contracted out to the private sector and he is unable to ensure that the benefits of equal opportunities apply to both the public and the private sectors?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady should have welcomed the fact that the chief scientific adviser, with my strong support, has launched a campaign to bring more women into science and engineering. I am sorry that she does not welcome that fact.
    Mr. Mans: How does our current expenditure on civil research and development compare with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are above the average for the OECD countries in our total spend on civil research and development. Hon. Members on both sides of the House might be forgiven for forgetting that fact in the barrage of somewhat selective statistics sometimes produced by Opposition Members.

    Charters
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charters have specific reference to the needs of disabled people.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The charter calls on all public services to make sure that services are accessible to all their customers and clients. Twenty-five charters make specific reference to people with disabilities.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that many disabled people still feel that decisions are taken for them, without involving them, by people who think that they know what is best for them but are not necessarily always right'? Will he ensure that there is more involvement of disabled people and that the private Member's legislation enacted some years ago to extend facilities to disabled people is fully implemented?
    Mr. Jackson: First, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern for people with disabilities. I recently wrote to him after he came to see me on behalf of a constituent about the provision of information for people with disabilities about the citizens charter. I hope that I was able to satisfy him that we are taking steps to meet his concern. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the need to bear in mind the interests of people with disabilities in constructing charters. We thought long and hard about the idea of special charters for special groups, but we decided that the right approach was to ensure that all the various clients and customers of public services are taken into account in framing charters. We endeavour to make sure that the interests of people with disabilities are taken fully into account in that context.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware that British Rail's policy of phasing out the use of barrow crossings is causing problems and reducing the opportunities of wheelchair users, including many such people who travel to Stoke Mandeville spinal injuries unit and the Ludwig Gutmanne stadium in my constituency? Could he please
    658
    have a word with the chairman of British Rail to see whether other means are available to restore the opportunities of wheelchair users to travel freely?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I shall have to go into it. I cannot answer the point immediately, but I shall follow it up with his assistance.
    Ms. Hoey: The Minister must surely agree that if citizens charters are to mean anything and have any credibility, citizens must have a right to compensation when Government services are inadequate. The operation of the disability living allowance by the Benefits Agency, for which there is a citizens charter, is clearly disgraceful. Does he realise how many people are still waiting to have their claims dealt with and will he insist that all who have suffered from the delays will be compensated?
    Mr. Jackson: Of course the Government recognise the problems that have come about as a result of the introduction of disability living allowance. Some 800 extra staff have been recruited to deal with the delays. Overtime equivalent to some 300 extra staff has been undertaken. Compensation has been paid in 139 cases. There is a commitment to clear up the backlog of letters from Members of Parliament by the end of March. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is fully on top of the need to improve the position in respect of DLA.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that even more important than inclusion in charters is the level of spending on the disabled? Will he confirm that under the Conservative Government spending has doubled in real terms? While the Labour party talks, we act and get on with the job.
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend, as usual, is absolutely right. Spending has trebled in real terms since we came to office in 1978–79. Some £14 billion is currently being spent in support of people with disabilities.

    Purchaser/Provider Split
    Mr. Wells: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures the Government are taking to extend the purchaser/provider split as part of their programme of public service reforms.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The principle of splitting responsi bility for purchasing services from that of providing them has been established in the national health service and in local authorities for a number of years. It is now being applied in central Government through the next steps initiative and market testing.
    Mr. Wells: Will my right hon. Friend give the House some examples of savings from market testing and contracting out, and are the savings retained by the Department which achieves them?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can give one example that may be of interest to the House. Recent market testing by the Ministry of Defence enabled savings to be made which allowed the retention of two front-line regiments. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the savings are retained by the Department for spending on the services that it provides.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that there is considerable and clear evidence that if the sort of market testing that he is talking about is extended, for example, to the income tax authorities, it will lead to real problems with confidentiality for our constituents? Before he rides that hobby horse off into the distance, will he consider its implications carefully?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have never understood why it is thought that only those of our fellow citizens who work in the public sector can keep proper rules of confidentiality. In national defence, for instance, defence contractors have for many years held secrets at least as sensitive as those held by any part of the public sector.

    Charters
    33. Mr. Steen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy towards establishing a citizens charter regarding Government posts abroad.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Citizens charter principles apply to all public services, here and abroad.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that the diplomatic service overseas boasts leisure facilities on a par with those of some of the best five-star hotels, with 135 swimming pools and 81 tennis courts? Just as the hotel industry is having to consider carefully how it is run, does the Minister agree that we need to find evidence of whether tennis courts and swimming pools make the civil service leaner and fitter? If he is thinking of a charter for overseas, will he consider that permanent secretaries and their families travel first class at taxpayers' expense, and that every member of staff in the diplomatic service travels club class if they have to be on a plane for more than two and a half hours?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not find myself entirely in sympathy with my hon. Friend. I have had the privilege to be a Foreign Office Minister and I am aware of the extreme pressures under which many of our diplomatic staff work abroad. I do not think that the House would begrudge them some basic amenities.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce new charters.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: New charters in 1993 will cover child support, the environment, and further and higher education. Other charters, such as the parents charter, will be revised to reflect new and higher standards.
    Mr. Coombs: May I prevail on my hon. Friend to encourage local authorities to undertake the production of charters, in the hope that that may do something to improve their rather poor public image? What advantage, in particular, does he see in the production of league tables so that residents can compare how their local authority performs?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government do encourage local authorities to produce citizens charters and many are doing so or thinking about it. My hon. Friend refers to league tables and the Government are committed to the
    660
    improvement of information about councils' performances. It is interesting to note that the other day the National Consumer Council welcomed the proposed publication of local authority league tables, which it described as
    "a sea change in what people can find out about council services".
    I noticed my hon. Friend's implication that such league tables are likely to show that Labour authorities provide relatively low-quality services at high cost to the public, which is no doubt why they are so hostile to the proposal.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: In drawing up his plans for future charters, will the Minister make it clear to the House how he intends to involve consumers—the citizens—in decisions about what should be contained in the charters? Concern has been expressed, not least by the National Consumer Council, that citizens are not sufficiently involved in decisions about what should be in the charters as they are drawn up by civil servants and those who operate the services, together with Ministers.
    Mr. Jackson: We encourage every Department, when drawing up a charter, to conduct some sort of detailed survey of customer opinion and to consult customers when framing the survey. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not join those who question the money being spent to enable that new customer service to take place.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. and hon. Friends reconsider their decision not to have a charter for the disabled? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable that my constituents from Manchester Davyhulme and those from other constituencies should be confined to unheated guards vans for long journeys when are travelling on lines other than InterCity? Under a Conservative Government in the 1990s that is just not acceptable. Will my hon. Friend see that British Rail gets its act together and starts treating disabled people at least as well as the airlines do?
    Mr. Jackson: I will certainly look at the case to which my hon. Friend refers. As to whether we should have charters for particular groups, such as people with disabilities or other special groups, I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). We thought long and hard about the idea of specialist charters, but we believe that it is better for people in special groups to be treated on an integrated basis with other customers and clients of public service organisations. In our view, it is not necessary to have a special charter for people with disabilities. Instead, when appropriate, such people should be taken into account when charters are being framed. Indeed, they are taken into account in the case of almost all charters, except where it would be inappropriate to do so.

    Duchy Land
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total area of land within the ownership of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Duchy owns approximately 50,000 acres of land, made up principally of 35,000 acres of agricultural land.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that some of the money accruing from that land is part of a carefully constructed tax avoidance scheme for the Queen? Is he

    661
    satisfied—we are not—with the fact that the Queen is able to take part in this tax fiddle while any ordinary person has to pay tax—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should rephrase his question. If he wishes to make a direct criticism of any member of the royal family, he should do so by way of a substantive motion. Of course, if he rephrases his question we shall have to listen to it.
    Mr. Skinner: With regard to this carefully constructed tax avoidance scheme, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that any ordinary citizen would have to pay up to seven years' back tax? For 40 years the Queen has not had to pay a penny. The least we are entitled to is seven years' back tax.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The report of the royal trustees with regard to tax matters is in the Vote Office. The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no, and to the second part yes.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Duchy is an outstandingly good landlord, whose tenants were delighted when, not long ago, the duke turned up for tea? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the Duchy fund benefits many thousands of good causes and charities throughout Lancashire and that the recipients of benefit bitterly resent Labour's constant attacks on it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks for Lancashire. I suspect that if there were a Duchy of Yorkshire we might hear more sense from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    Mr. Skinner: My constituency is in Derbyshire. Mr. Waldegrave: Derbyshire, then.

    Next Steps
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the civil service is now working on next steps lines.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Over half of the civil service is currently working on next steps lines. This will rise to about 60 per cent. in April with the expected launch of a further group of agencies.
    Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he please take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Ordnance Survey, which employs
    662
    many of my constituents, for its commitment to customer service and, in particular, for the fact that it has succeeded in computerising 230,000 maps 10 years ahead of schedule?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that my hon. Friend is entirely right. Ordnance Survey has always been a fine organisation, but it has improved its standards markedly since it became an agency. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that it completed that magnificent programme 10 years ahead of schedule. The nation should be very proud of it.

    Venture Capital
    Mrs Gillan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from industry concerning the availability of venture capital for the funding of science-based businesses.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Several of the submissions received during the White Paper consultation highlighted the importance of venture capital for innovation.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he accept that, recently, many science-based businesses, particularly small and medium-sized firms, have had difficulty raising finance, chiefly because of short-termism and the short-term view taken by City institutions and venture capitalists? Can he give sorne assurances and perhaps encourage the City to look more carefully at the small and medium-sized businesses whose activities are based on science, as it is from such businesses that the recovery in this country will come?
    Mr. Jackson: There is interesting evidence from the British Venture Capital Association and its constituent companies, showing an increase in the level of support to science-based businesses from 14–3 per cent. of the business of its members in 1989 to 18 per cent. in 1991.
    I appreciate the spirit of my hon. Friend's question, but the allegation about short-termism in capital markets is one which is often made but has never been demonstrated. The key point that is often overlooked is the importance of interest rates. In this country, we have tended to have relatively higher interest rates than elsewhere, particularly the United States and Japan. The achievement in reducing interest rates will help the situation. Meanwhile, the Government have acted to promote proper reporting by companies of their research and development efforts.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, the Opposition parties have been told to expect a Government statement tomorrow on the "taking stock" proposals for Scotland. However, I understand that the editors of certain Scottish newspapers have had a closed briefing on the contents of that statement at some point today. Many is the time that I have heard you deprecate the practice of briefings taking place in the morning before a Government statement. It would be quite extraordinary if such a briefing took place 24 hours before Members of this House have had a chance to analyse the contents of a Government Command Paper.
We are told to expect 50 pages in this document. By the usual practice, we shall receive it at 3.30 tomorrow and we will have to ask questions straight away. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, the document and the proposals have been leaked so much that there will be nothing left in the bucket. It may turn out to be the biggest damp squib since Guy Fawkes. It would be a tremendous discourtesy to the House if this briefing has taken place. I note that the Leader of the House is in his place on the Government Front Bench and perhaps, with your intervention, we might have some clarification and the Government could confirm or deny whether such a briefing took place today.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, have heard that complaint levelled this morning by a journalist in Scotland. If we are to receive such a hefty document, would it be possible to place it on the Board some 30 minutes before the Secretary of State comes to make his statement?
Mr. James Wallace: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understand it, that briefing has been given by a Minister of the Crown, not just by officials. That in itself should be of some concern to you. I notice that, in addition to the Leader of the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is also on the Treasury Bench. He might be able to elucidate whether the fourth estate has been given advance notice of what we expect to hear tomorrow.
Madam Speaker: I remind the House that the point of order is to me.
There is nothing new about Government documents and statements being embargoed, but I would regard it as a great discourtesy to the House if there had been an extensive unembargoed briefing of the sort to which the hon. Members have referred. In recent weeks, there have been more leaks from papers and more statements than there are holes in my kitchen colander. I would deprecate very much statements and heavy briefing of the nature that has been raised on the Floor of the House today. I regard this Chamber as supreme. Any statements that have to be made should be made here in the first instance. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Order. I began by saying that the points of order were to me as Speaker. I have to respond to them and I have done so. This is a long-awaited statement and I have no idea when I shall be in the Chair to deal with such a statement, but I look forward to it enormously.

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

Statutory Instruments, &c
  COUNCIL TAX (SCOTLAND)
  That the Council Tax (Transitional Reduction Scheme) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 277) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUPERANNUATION)
  That the Local Government Superannuation (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 366) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  SEA FISHERIES
  That the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Quota Measures) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 387) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Loch Crinan Scallops Fishery Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 177) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Arbuthnot ]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 4 March]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
      Amendment proposed [4 March]: in page 1, line 9, after 'II', to insert the words
      '(except Article 138d on page 42 of Cm 1934)'.—[Mr. George Robertson]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I remind the Committee that we are also considering 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
      `(except Article 146 on page 43 of Cm 1934 which relates to the Composition of the Council of Ministers)'.
      Amendment No. 168, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 8d on page 12 of Cm 1934)'.
      Amendment No. 221, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 189c(a) on page 52 of Cm 1934'.
      Amendment No. 222, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 189c(e) on page 52 of Cm 1934'.
      Amendment No. 235, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 138b'.
      Amendment No. 236, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      'except Article 138e'.
      Amendment 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'.
      Amendment 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'.
      Amendment 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'.
      Amendment 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'.
      Amendment 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'.
      Amendment 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'.
      Amendment 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).'.
      Amendment No. 19, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 10, Clause 2 on pages 60 and 61 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 21 in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 9 on page 60 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 22, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 10 on page 60 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 23, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 20a on page 62 of Cm 1934).'.
      666
      Amendment No. 24, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      `(except Article 20b on page 62 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 25, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Article 20d on page 62 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Chapter V on page 65 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 136, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      'except paragraph 3 of Article 21'.
      Amendment No. 137, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      'except Article 20d'.
      Amendment No. 410, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Articles 7 to 17 on pages 60 to 62 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 413, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
      '(except Articles 20a and 24 on pages 62 to 63 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 141, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
      'except paragraph 3 of Article 108'.
      Amendment No. 142, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
      'except Article 170d'.
      Amendment No. 414, in page 1, line 9 after 'IV', insert
      `(except Articles 107 a-c on pages 69 and 70 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 417, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
      '(except Articles 160 a-c on pages 74 to 76 of Cm 1934).'.
      Amendment No. 55, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not Article 137 in Title II thereof'.
      Amendment No. 143, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not paragraph 3 of Article 21 in Title III thereof'.
      Amendment No. 144, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
      'but not 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 1—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 Conciliation 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.'.

      3.34 pm
      Sir Trevor Skeet: When I was last speaking on the treaty, I was interrupted by the 10 o'clock motion. I had been talking about the growing bureaucracy in Europe being duplicated, both there and here. I said that additional powers in Europe normally tended to mean the diminution of United Kingdom powers.

      667
      I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and other Ministers: many Conservative Members feel sincerely about the problems in Europe. We think that Ministers would do themselves more credit if they argued their case for the benefit of the country and ceased to denigrate Back Benchers who have individual views.
      It is important that we should deal with the matters as we find them, and the European institutions such as the European Parliament. There seems to be a cleavage between the views of those who have read the treaty and those who have bothered to go through the clauses one by one.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy and giving way. Did he read yesterday's edition of the Observer, particularly the article by the grand old Conservative Lord Blake, who argued the case for a referendum from a Conservative perspective? Does the hon. Gentleman agreee with Lord Blake's view?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I did not read the Observer yesterday, but if the hon. Gentleman would like my view on a referendum, may I say how wise it would be—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the subject of European institutions.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Perhaps I should change my response to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), as I have been checked by the Chair—yes, I do.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend said that he wished that more people would read the treaty, as they could come to only one conclusion. The division in the House is between those who believe that what is in the treaty will happen and those who do not believe that. Those who believe that what is in the treaty will happen are against it.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: If one reads the treaty carefully and takes a long-term view, one reaches a conclusion about precisely what will happen. Many people who take a short-term view will get the wrong end of the stick. It was not surprising that, when the Minister of State sought the opinion of his Department, he was given one version, and when he went to the Attorney-General, he received another. I am sorry that I cannot pursue that subject further, as I shall be ruled out of order. I shall return to the subject of the institutions.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not my hon. Friend sad that some of the Ministers and others who hurl abuse at men of integrity and principle like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), are never here to listen to the arguments about the treaty when they are advanced in Committee, which is conducted under a splendid Chairmanship?
      Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better if, instead of trying to negotiate scrappy and nasty deals with minority parties in smoke-filled rooms, more of the so-called tiny band of Euro-hitmen in the Government would come to our debates and listen to the arguments? Instead, they engage in dreadful bogus deals with minority parties, in which they have to try to stand on their heads. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we should have a referendum.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I agree with my hon. Friend. My simple point was that Ministers should take the arguments to the country and argue them before the country, so that everyone can hear the debates, and that they should not simply argue about matters in the Chamber and reach general conclusions.
      As for the European Parliament, certain co-operation procedures have been in operation, and they have been greatly extended under the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. These procedures are fairly complicated, as is article 189b.
      I am thinking of the negative assent procedure, the information procedure, and the budget procedure under article 206. With the completion of the single market on 1 January 1993, the volume of co-operation procedure legislation will be sharply reduced, so it would be desirable to assign further pieces of legislation to this category. Although I am not encouraged by a great increase in the powers of the European Parliament, I believe that it should enjoy a balanced position, and this is the only way of achieving that.
      The European Parliament still cannot initiate legislation; that is the sole prerogative of the Commission and of the Council of Ministers. The powers of the Commission have not been reduced, and there is no prospect of their being reduced. The democratic deficit will remain for many years to come.
      Having looked at article 189b, I have come to the conclusion that it is far too complicated to work. If the treaty is to be revised in 1996, it would be a good idea if those who revise it carefully looked at this matter again to determine whether more of a controlling influence would be had over the Commission, which is the cause of many of the troubles.
      Mr. Marlow: I apologise for interrupting again, but is it not an essential ingredient of good government that people should understand how they are being governed? Anyone looking at article 189b or article 189c would throw up his hands in horror and not have the vaguest idea of what was being done to him.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: In the House of Commons, we pass legislation through various stages; that is not done in the European Parliament. It has only a right of veto. That veto may be exercised only over legislation that falls into a defined set of categories—outside them, it does not operate at all. It is a well known fact—it is an admitted fact—that the Commission is a non-elected body. The Council of Ministers is appointed by the Governments of the member states. So between the two, the people have little say.
      Before we concede any additional powers, should we not ensure that the people have their say on matters that are indispensible to the future of this country?
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one of the small minority of pro-Europeans in the Chamber today, may I ask the hon. Gentleman—
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Pro-Common Market—there is a difference.
      Mr. Dalyell: Yes.
      Would the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) accept that the European Parliament is rather better at monitoring what it has done and the money that

      669
      it has given out than is the House of Commons? We are in no position to lecture that Parliament on the monitoring of legislation or of what happens to the money.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: But we have several Committees to monitor these things, and they do remarkably good work. This House has many years of experience of these matters, and some of the Select Committees are quite capable of handling them. We should remember that the European system is of a European type, which is rather different from our own. Certainly, it is up to European standards, but the European Parliament has had a short life by contrast with the centuries of experience behind this place.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the Committee that, although the work of the Court of Auditors is excellent, it is limited? Does he agree that, when the work of the Public Accounts Committee is set against the work of any of the European institutions, it becomes painfully clear that, far from there being proper auditing, not hundreds of pounds but hundreds of thousands of pounds are wasted by European institutions?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: We are aware not only of the waste of money in Europe but of the big mountains of agricultural produce. We are also worried by the amount of fraud in certain parts of Europe.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): In view of the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) no doubt my hon. Friend will welcome the provisions of the Maastricht treaty to strengthen the powers of the Court of Auditors and formally to make it an institution of the Community.
      3.45 pm
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Shall we not have an extraordinary system? We shall have checks in the United Kingdom and in Europe, and we shall be over-governed by all those additions. Why not continue with the existing, thorough arrangements? Over time, there could be more Select Committees and not simply a check on legislation covering a vast range of subjects and coming from other people.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am afraid that I cannot allow my hon. Friend, or the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, to have it both ways. I agree that, regrettably, there is fraud in the European Community, but surely the Court of Auditors being formally made an institution of the Community and being given further powers to investigate such fraud should be welcomed.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Does not the Minister agree that the United Kingdom is known for the purity of its operations? I have been in Parliament for about 26 years, and I do not think that I have discovered a single case of fraud. In the European Parliament, and in some of the European institutions that have been built up, there is evidence of fraud—in Greece and Italy and elsewhere. I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) can smile at that, because he knows perfectly well that it exists.
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: It was a modest smile. Every report of the Court of Auditors, year in and year
      670
      out, emphasises that there is fraud in every member state, including the United Kingdom, over the operation of the CAP and other matters.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: May I ask my hon. Friend about this question—
      The Chairman: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I have listened attentively to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East. He and I have roughly the same experience of Parliament. He says that there are illustrations of fraud here, but I have not discovered any. One cannot say that about the European institutions which we are being invited to join.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Would my hon. Friend explain to the Minister of State that, while greater powers of inquiry and the principle of a European institution are to be granted to the Court of Auditors, it will still have absolutely no power of any sort to do anything apart from publishing its annual report? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the Government do not seem to take those reports very seriously, because this week, as my hon. Friend is aware, we shall discuss the latest annual report for an hour and a half after midnight on Wednesday?
      Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Minister of State that, although there is a vast amount of shameful, scandalous and shocking fraud, the Court of Auditors has no power: it can only publish its reports and seek views on them? Those views are usually disregarded, especially by the Government, who will have them discussed for an hour and a half after midnight.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
      Is not the trouble precisely that we have not uncovered fraud? I have experience of the Public Acounts Committee and the sub-committee of the Budget Committee of the indirectly elected European Parliament, which was responsible for such matters. Along with Martin Bangemann, who was then an MEP, and others, we turned our attention to fraud. We did so, often in difficult circumstances, in respect of Italy.
      Something was done years before the issue would have been examined by the Public Accounts Committee. At least such incidents are dealt with reasonably currently. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) does a splendid job, but his Committee examines only cases that arose many moons ago, by which time nothing can be done. At least the European Parliament can attempt to take some action.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I do not want to be taken too far down that path. It will be apparent from the record that we have a good reputation. Many of the other European countries will say what they will do and then ignore the result, and allow checking by the Commission at a later stage. Our attitude towards government and the law is one of respect and compliance.
      Mr. Marlow: Newspaper reports appearing in the past few days make it apparent that there is a European policy on sanctions against Serbia, yet arms, petrol and other supplies are flooding into Serbia through Greece—which is a member of the Community. Institutions and policies

      671
      already exist to stop Greece permitting that. The treaty contains more institutional powers that will supposedly prevent Greece allowing such a thing in future.
      How optimistic is my hon. Friend that those powers will be effective with regard to Greece? If a similar problem applied to the United Kingdom, how effective would those powers be with regard to the United Kingdom? Would it be a level playing field?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Yes. My hon. Friend is perfectly right, but I cannot pursue that aspect because we shall be debating title V, article J, later, in relation to foreign policy and defence. The article leaks like a sieve and will continue to do so.
      Extraordinarily enough, the Commission has the exclusive right to initiate legislation. It can modify its proposals before they are presented by the Council of Ministers, and thwart the European Parliament under article 189b. I am only left in doubt as to the full extent of the functioning of the Conciliation Committee. Will it not add to a particular complication?
      The Commission will also have special powers under the pillars that are outside the treaty. It will be an enormously powerful body—much more powerful than the House of Commons, because it will be Europewide in its application.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my hon. Friend describe the powers that the Commission will have under the pillars that it does not already enjoy in relation to intergovernmental activity—such as European political co-operation.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: The Commission has a right to be fully informed about and to take an interest in both articles J and K. It has a right to settle legislation, if legislation is to be agreed. It will have a right to carry that legislation out, by convention or other methods.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If my hon. Friend examines the Commission's position in relation to European political co-operation, which is the governmental activity that currently exists under the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act, he will find that the Commission already has those powers. What are the enormous new powers to which my hon. Friend refers?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Under article 100c, the Commission has powers, by convention, to carry things through—but these all come out of the fact that they are an addition to the powers that the Commission could normally utilise, not simply under the treaty of Rome. It could now use them under the pillars that are being established.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers have claimed that, as the pillars are outside the treaty, they are also outside the European Court and the Commission. That is certainly not true.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: What I am saying is that the Commission has no new powers in, for example, the intergovernmental pillar relating to interior justice. I believe that the wording of the treaty is "fully associated with", but those words are lifted from the provisions in the Single European Act that established existing practice for European political co-operation. My hon. Friend tells us
      672
      that the Commission has a huge range of new powers; I am asking him to tell the Committee what they are. So far, he has not done so.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I very much want to come on to that, but I fear that articles J and K are beyond the remit of our debate. I should like to be led into such a discussion, however, so that I could explain to the Minister that the Commission has substantial powers, and that Ministers have not been frank with the country in saying that some of those powers are entirely outside the provisions of the treaty.
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has quite properly been preparing for other aspects of the debate, but this is to do with the powers of the Commission. Article K.3(2) states that the European Council may,
      "on the initiative of … the commission, in the areas referred to in Article K.1(1) to (6) … adopt joint positions and promote".
      The Commission has a great deal of power within that article, although the Government have said that it has not. If my hon. Friend has time to read it in detail later, he will be alarmed at the massive power of initiation that the Commission will have in the areas of justice and home affairs.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but I am familiar with that article. Under sub-paragraph (2), the Council may "draw up conventions", after adopting "joint action", and may even stipulate that reference can be made to the European Court of Justice, which will settle the matter. The Minister knows that that is so.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Perhaps my hon. Friend should ask the Minister of State to read the treaty. He may be in grave danger of finding himself in the same position as the Home Secretary. Notwithstanding the various discussions in which he has engaged, the Minister should be prepared to listen, and to examine article K.9. That article allows specific policy areas, such as immigration and fraud, to be transferred to the remit of the treaty through the extension of the application of article 100c of the treaty establishing the Community.
      My hon. Friend should advise the Minister to stop making silly interjections, to read the treaty and to appreciate that, by extending the provisions of article 100c in that context, we are making a substantial change. Does my hon. Friend agree that, by bringing whole new areas of policy into intergovernmental agreement, we are extending the Commission's powers specifically, clearly, and in terms of the treaty that the Government have signed?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is clear that the Minister of State has not read the treaty closely.
      Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
      Sir Trevor Skeet: The Minister rises again, and he will be thrust down again. Ministers must read the treaty extremely carefully to find out what it actually says. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—whom I support—
      Mr. Skinner: Not very often.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I do support my right hon. Friend. He has been telling the country that the pillars make a very big

      673
      change: they are outside the European Court and the Commission. I consider that quite wrong, because they are inside for certain specific purposes.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I promise him and the Committee that I shall not try to intervene on him again. I respectfully submit that, were I to intervene every time he needed to be corrected, we should not make much progress.
      In seeking to support my hon. Friend's argument that the treaty gives the Commission enormous new powers in the intergovernmental area, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) tried to talk about the transfer of competences from article K to article 100c. As a close student of the treaty, my hon. Friend will know that, for any such transfer to occur, the member states must first agree to the proposition. The Commission is not a member state, and therefore has no vote. It must then be agreed by the parliament of every member state.
      Therefore, far from getting new powers, the ability of the Commission to obtain new powers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) sought to illustrate, is entirely dependent on the unanimous vote of the parliaments of all 12 member states.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it in order for the Minister to predict inaccuracies, as he sees them, in the future speech of an hon. Member?
      The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister is responsible for his own views.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am not impressed by what the Minister says. He is talking about the contemporary position. I was told that a certain result would follow from the Single European Act. Many of us were let down by the advice that we were given. My right hon. Friend the Minister is wrong: all the current trends are towards majority voting. How long will unanimity last? The Commission will shortly be involved in other operations, by which time we will have lost a freedom that we shall never be able to get back.
      4 pm
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman referred to the pillars and the trunk. Many of us believe that there is no separation and that it is all one edifice—the union. Indeed, article E of title I gives us that impression. Will he draw Conservative Members' attention to article J.8, which deals with a common foreign affairs policy and which states:
      "Any Member State or the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy and may submit proposals to the Council." That is not the European Council—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: As now.
      Mr. Spearing: Under this treaty, it will be able to submit proposals not only to the European Council but to the Council of Ministers—an institution of the present market that would become part of the union.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am much obliged for that intervention.
      The Minister should put his ideas before the country in a referendum, from which he would learn that the British people have their doubts and want clarification.
      Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: No. I shall proceed for a moment. We shall shortly debate this article under foreign policy, at which time it can be argued extensively. It would be wrong if I went further down that road.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister said that there was no provision in the treaty to extend powers, but article K.9 is specific, and we should worry about it, because it transfers responsibility for immigration and fraud to the EC. That may require a unanimous vote, but, sadly, many unanimous decisions are taken as part of horse trading.
      Instead of trying to trap my hon. Friend, quite wrongly and unsuccessfully, it would have been more helpful if the Minister had informed the Committee of the huge dangers in article K.9—which I am afraid he did not mention at all.
      Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The Minister has intervened on the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) about half a dozen times. It is becoming apparent, post-Harrogate, that the Tory party and the Government do not have an answer, and that nobody believes what the Minister says about the common market and Maastricht.
      Would it not be more sensible to halt proceedings so that the Attorney-General could be brought here? Let us have some more new legal advice. There is no point in listening to the Minister when we know that he gets it continually wrong. It would be a good idea if we packed up the proceedings, got fresh legal advice and then started afresh.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I must rule on one point of order at a time.
      The hon. Gentleman's good advice is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I hold the mirror image position of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I agree with him about the presence of Ministers. Do you recollect that, during previous debates on European matters, at least the Solicitor-General, the then right hon. and learned Member for Reigate, was constantly in attendance to offer his expertise? We also frequently saw the Foreign Secretary and other senior Ministers.
      What better occupation do the Law Officers of the Crown and the Foreign Secretary have than to come to the House of Commons at this juncture to help the Minister of State, who has unprecedentedly made declarations about his own future? I agree with my hon. Friend that it is deeply unsatisfactory for the business to be handled in this way, and that we at least deserve the presence of the Foreign Secretary. What better things has he to do?
      The Chairman: I am sure that members of the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that it is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will be aware that, when we held very important debates on the Single European Act, the House was given assurances by the Government that it would be able to maintain its competence over immigration policy and such issues as the working week. However, that has proved not to be the case.

      675
      We are now receiving assurances from those on the Government Front Bench about the meaning of the treaty, but, similarly, they might be wrong. I agree that it would be in everyone's interest, now and in the long term, to have permanent legal advice available in the Chamber, especially while we are discussing the powers of European institutions. It is a matter of controversy, and it is important that we should be able to ask those who can best give us the answers.
      The Chairman: Again, that is not a matter for the Chair, and I do not think that it needed a point of order twice as long as that of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
      Mr. George Robertson: I appreciate that this may not strictly be a matter for you, Mr. Morris, but it is a matter for the Committee whether we are going to get correct information, especially from the legal point of view, about the complex matters being debated. The Minister of State has intervened repeatedly on his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) in order to give him information. I was under the impression that the House was to be assisted fairly frequently by the Attorney-General. I do not recollect seeing him here yet, although we are reaching a complex stage at which his help might be necessary.
      May I remind you, Mr. Morris, of a letter sent two weeks ago by the Prime Minister to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition? The Prime Minister said:
      "If the House of Commons wishes to have further advice on the meaning and effect of the Bill, Law Officers will be present when the Committee Stage of the Bill resumes. I believe that this is the right way to proceed, consistent with established practice and to ensure that the House of Commons has available to it the advice it may need."
      Surely the Attorney-General or another Law Officer should be here when we need them, especially while we are debating such complex matters.
      The Chairman: I suggest that we hear from the Minister of State.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If you will allow me, Mr. Morris, and if it will help the Committee, I can confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend is available to the Committee. If the Committee wishes to put a specific legal point to the Government, he will make himself available immediately.
      Mr. Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I appreciate your problem, and I admire your forbearance. The Minister, on a point of order, is articulating a novel constitutional arrangement. How will it be procedurally possible for us to say that we wish to have a point answered if the Attorney-General is not present? The Minister is not here on the basis of listening and then enunciating what has been said. He is present, and he has chosen to intervene in many speeches as the debate has proceeded.
      If the Committee needs the valued opinion of the Attorney-General on a point, how precisely are we to bring to your attention, Mr. Morris, the fact that we want to hear his opinion? How can he be involved in the debate without some notice being given to him?
      The Chairman: I have already ruled that the Treasury Bench is occupied. Presumably it is listening, and
      676
      presumably it will act. There is certainly nothing further that the Chair can do other than to emphasise those three points again.
      Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: I hope that these are new points of order.
      Mr. Dalyell: You raised the subject of the Treasury bench being occupied, Mr. Morris. The fact is that the Treasury Bench is not fully occupied. Not since the late Dick Crossman was left completely alone by his colleagues on the reform of the Lords has a Minister been so deserted on the Treasury Bench. We all know that the previous occasion was caused because the Government of the time decided that they did not like the proposals for reform of the Lords. That is why Dick Crossman was left alone.
      We have a very lonely Minister here; apart from him, the Treasury Bench is unoccupied. Those of us who are pro-European think that it is high time that it was occupied, to give the expertise necessary for the answers to the legitimate questions being asked by hon. Members from all points of view.
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government are indivisible.
      Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: I shall take no more of the same points of order.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I want to ask the Chair a question on a point of order.
      The Chairman: I hope that it is not on the same issue.
      Mr. Walker: I assure you, Mr. Morris, that my point of order is a matter with which, I judge, you should be able to deal.
      The Chairman: Is it on the same issue?
      Mr. Walker: No. My point of order covers the conduct of the Committee.
      The Chairman: I shall trust in the hon. Gentleman's honour.
      Mr. Walker: Is there any point in the proceedings at which you, as Chairman, can make a judgment that the Committee is not being given the assistance required to carry out its duties properly? If so, at what point do you intervene?
      Mr. Spearing: On a new point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: It may be an entirely new point of order. However, the hon. Gentleman must allow me to deal with the present point of order.
      The Chair has to listen to the debate. The Chair has no responsibility for statements made by any hon. Members as long as they are in order.
      Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: I hope that this is an entirely new issue.
      Mr. Spearing: My point of order concerns a new procedural issue, Mr. Morris. Of course we accept that you have no responsibility for anything said by any hon.

      677
      Member in this place as long as it is in order. I also accept that you have no responsibility for any statement by any Minister who, as you have stated, is indivisible from the Government.
      We have had a certain undertaking, to which I shall not refer, relating to advice from Ministers who are present to answer in this debate. In the opinion of certain hon. Members, that advice has not been shown to be effective.
      In those circumstances, in view of the disagreement on a matter of interpretation of the treaty between the Minister and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), and as no reply has been given about that undertaking, about which we all know, may I have your permission to move that we report progress so that we can discuss the matter until such information is available?
      The Chairman: No, I am not prepared to accept that.
      Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: I ask Sir Trevor Skeet to proceed.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I find that the next six groups of amendments all contain legal technicalities, because they cover subjects such as institutions, subsidiarity, the Court of Justice, the European system of central banks, the banking system, economic policy and deficits, and economic and monetary union.
      All those amendments, including the group headed "Foreign and Security" relating to article J, require the attention of the Attorney-General. It would be a happy compromise, as all hon. Members in the Chamber would agree, if the Attorney-General were to sit through all those debates, as they are of a technical nature.
      I should make a little progress, because I hope that the Whips will take note of my suggestion. It is important that we should receive the correct advice. I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Minister of State: he is not a lawyer, and he is doing the best he can in respect of the difficulties involved. However, we are entitled to the best advice before we surrender the powers of the nation.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I think that I should make a little progress first.
      Mr. Corbyn: Give way.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I have been giving way continually, and I have been very patient. Perhaps I will give way in a few minutes.
      Just a moment ago, I referred to the substantial powers of a non-elected assembly. I stated that it had an exclusive right to initiate legislation. It can frustrate the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Although both those institutions have rights of way or entry, as it were, the Commission has substantial enforcement powers in respect of imposing fines under the treaty. To be able to impose fines is very important. I have selected a number of cases in respect of which fines can be imposed.
      Mr. Corbyn: Give way.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: In a moment.
      Those cases involve article 171 for non-compliance with the treaty and article 104c on instructions of the Council of Ministers in stage 3 on monetary policy. Fines may be imposed for breaches of competition business, and search
      678
      warrants may be issued to enter private premises. There would be a free right to approve agreements that have been negotiated.
      Under article 169, breaches by member states may be referred to the European Court of Justice. Those enormous powers are being granted to the Commission either through the Council of Ministers or through the Commission's inherent right. Under Maastricht, those powers have not been diminished-they have been increased.
      The Commission is the executive body that implements Community policies, in particular, in respect of European integration. Let no one suggest that it cannot implement that. Under the obligations of the treaty, it is there to do so. The Commission is the body responsible for negotiating treaties with states outside Europe—for example, under GATT and in respect of articles 113 and 228. It is the agent for the union.
      Is not that body, which has supreme powers, completely unelected? The United Kingdom public receive no knowledge from Ministers about the enormous powers that the public are ceding. Once those powers have gone, they are like rockets in the sky—they burst and are gone.
      Mr. Skinner: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is a little ironic that, after those two or three days in Harrogate, when people like the hon. Gentleman were told that they were to be pulled into line and that the Government were going to go to town and explain Maastricht, the hon. Gentleman is putting forward his arguments about the institutions when there is only a tin-pot little Minister present today, who gets it wrong every time he opens his mouth?
      I fully expected to see rows of Ministers present today, including the President of the Board of Trade and all the rest, to argue their corner and to challenge the hon. Gentleman. What has happened? After Harrogate, it is all the same again. The rebels are in charge, and Ministers have left the sinking ship.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I feel obliged to protect the Minister, because he has a difficult job to do. As I said, he is not a lawyer, and the Attorney-General is not here to advise him. The Minister is doing the best he can, but he could get things in better shape. When we reach article J, in about six paragraphs' time—
      Several Hon. Members: rose—
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I shall proceed a little further.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: I think that my hon. Friend will accept that we might have trouble with the next set of amendments, relating to subsidiarity, because it seems that no one knows what it means. There has been a competition, with a first prize of 140,000 ecu, but who won the prize? A former president of the European Court said that subsidiarity was a prime example of gobbledegook. How can the Committee consider such a set of amendments if no one knows what they mean?
      The Chairman: Order. That is not relevant to this batch of amendments. It is the next selection, not this afternoon's selection.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: We should not go round in circles on this matter. My suggestion is that the Whips and the

      679
      Minister should take it on board that we should have a Treasury Minister and a Law Officer in Committee to answer the questions that we have raised.
      I should like to mention the extension of competences under the Maastricht treaty. The original areas of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, include competences ranging from A to K in article 3. That is quite a slab of mainly economic power. I should like to mention a few of the competences: the free movement of people, services and capital, competition policy, the single market and, of course, a common agricultural policy.
      People in the United Kingdom appreciated that the treaty of Rome was an economic treaty, and they understood it. It was called the European economic treaty. When we move to Maastricht, we move into an entirely different plain with a different stratum. In article 3, we have an extension of the categories from J to T. Those categories are partly economic, but largely political.
      One of the political competences is citizenship, which we have already dealt with in article 8. Economic and monetary policy is dealt with in articles 102(a) to 109. Many people would say that that was dead as a dodo in Europe, because the only country which would qualify for it at present is France. Germany would not qualify, so it is unlikely that we will have a common currency in the future.
      There is a whole linkage of categories, including education, culture, public health, consumer protection, trans-European networks, industry and development co-operation. Do people realise how far the political powers have been extended?
      There has been no reduction in the Commission's powers. Article B argues that the Commission must maintain in full the "acquis communautaire", and further tasks have been assigned to the Commission for those major purposes.
      Majority voting has been alluded to. I would not be overdoing it if I said that there has been a vast expansion of majority voting in many policy areas. Column 511 in Hansard of 12 March 1986 on the Single European Act shows that the matters to which majority voting applied totalled about 86, and unanimous voting another 32. When one looks at Maastricht and written answer 169 in Hansard of 20 May 1992, one finds that qualified majority voting increases by another 40. Enormous areas of policy are covered by majority voting and the trend is definitely towards majority voting being extended further.
      In a Europe of 12, majority voting might be serious or less serious, but in an enlarged Europe of up to 16 countries, it would become more complicated. On several matters, such as the middle east, we would never co-operate. We have to operate as members of the United Nations Security Council. Would we not find ourselves with incompatible duties? We are still largely responsible for the Commonwealth. We have certain historic obligations. I doubt whether we could have done anything in the Falkland islands if the Europeans had been invited to have their say.
      Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend referred to majority voting. There is a serious consideration here, is there not? If the Scandinavian countries come in, their interests will differ in many respects from those of the rest of the Community. They
      680
      will not wish to join if decisions are made by majority voting and their interests are overwhelmed by those of other countries. That message is coming through clearly from the Scandinavian countries.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: As my hon. Friend appreciates, in 1996 the treaty will be renegotiated. That will mean even more majority voting. As the process of enlargement continues, we shall find ourselves in great difficulties.
      I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his article in The Independent on 4 March, talked about a Europe extending right across to Russia and as far south as we could imagine. That would bring in about 30 states. He asked us to imagine what we would be able to achieve in a Europe of that size. In fairness to the Government, since the large draught of qualified majority voting was introduced under the Single European Act, we have been outvoted on only three occasions. We were outvoted on emulsifiers, on the safety warning on tobacco products and on fisheries policy in the Factortame case. That may be true. It is encouraging. That is in the past three years, but I can see us getting into great difficulties in later years.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the issue of majority voting. Is he aware that, when we move on to discuss foreign policy—if we do—the issue will be crucial? It is possible that, by qualified majority voting, troops could be ordered into parts of the world and deployed in battle? The internal foreign policies of certain countries could be overridden. For example, Ireland has a tradition of neutrality going back to 1922. That is ended by the Maastricht treaty and the consequences of qualified majority voting.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I dare say that my right hon. Friend the Minister would say that unanimity might rule. That might be true in one or two cases in the early stages. However, before the introduction of the Single European Act we had many majority cases. They will be converted to majority voting. We are on the road down. The only way to operate a large Europe is to have majority voting. If decisions are made by majority voting, it matters little what one happens to think of the United Kingdom. If the public appreciate that and are prepared to give away their powers, that is another matter, but we are under an obligation to point that out to them in the first instance.
      Mr. Marlow: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to article 104c, which deals with excessive deficits? Article 104c (1) says:
      "Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits."
      The protocol says that article 104c does not apply to the United Kingdom. Article 104c (5) says:
      "If the Commission"—
      the Commission, no less: Mr. Delors and his friends—
      "considers that an excessive deficit in a Member State exists or may occur, the Commission shall address an opinion to the Council."
      The article goes on to say that the Council, on the recommendation of the Commission, by majority vote shall take such and such action. The Commission will get into the entrails of the economy.
      Does the exemption under the protocol apply, or do articles 104c 5 and 6, which are not exempted, apply? Will the Commission have any control over a United Kingdom Government deficit, and will it be able to make any recommendation or have any opinion on it? As we have a

      681
      large deficit, that is of fundamental importance. It is so important that we require legal advice, and the Attorney-General should be here to give it.
      4.30 pm
      Sir Trevor Skeet: We shall reach debate on that subject later, but article 104c applies only during stage 3. We can debate the words "avoid excessive government deficits". The protocol removes article 104c 1 for application to the United Kingdom.
      European union operates on consensus, which derives from the increasing use of majority voting. Member states with great power and authority will end up with the greatest authority. Germany had 63 million people and added another 16 million when it amalgamated with the east, which makes about 79 million people—let us call it 80 million. Under article 148, it has 10 votes on the Council; Luxembourg, with 384,000 people, has two votes; and Portugal, with a population of 10.5 million, has five, or half as many as Germany.
      When the treaty is revised, I envisage that someone will suggest, quite reasonably, that the numbers of votes should be altered, that Germany should get more and that Portugal's votes should be pared down, but that will be a difficult decision.
      Let us not fool ourselves: with an economic and political treaty, the country with the greatest potential in EuropeߞI think that it is hereߞwill have the right to determine that it has more rights and more say about what does on in Europe. I do not want to be directed by a German-French axis.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend's actions, in attempting to undermine the Maastricht treaty, would deliver the very thing that he fears most—a Franco-German axis dominating future developments. If the House does not approve the Bill and the Government do not ratify the treaty, who does my hon. Friend think will dominate the 1996 intergovernmental conference? Having thrown away the chance to take the initiative in the Community, which we established at Maastricht, it certainly will not be our Government. If we throw, that chance away, we shall not dominate the next intergovernmental conference.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: That is totally misconceived; I had thought that my hon. Friend would come up with a more rational idea. The Government have been saying that the capital position of the United Kingdom will be almost negated and that the Americans and Japanese will leave this country. The new Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Eddie George, said that the City's position depended upon the completion of the single market rather than on monetary integration—in other words, he was saying that we are in Europe. The single market is here and will remain, as the Japanese know.
      Referring to the Japanese, the Confederation of British Industry—a fairly responsible organization—says:
      "Only a small number would see this as having a major effect on their investment, provided it did not lead to withdrawal or exclusion from the single market".
      We are not suggesting that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the single market; we are suggesting that we should withdraw from Maastricht, which, as a political treaty, could lead to complications. Switzerland—a
      682
      neutral country—was invited to join the European Communities. It decided to remain isolated and independent, and it is doing very nicely.
      I am all for co-operation, but the rights of the people must not be surrendered without their consent.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend must realise that other countries are applying to join on the basis of the Maastricht agreement. That is a very important point. Another point of importance is that, following a survey last week, the CBI, which my hon. Friend has just quoted, has pointed out that 19 per cent. of investment in manufacturing industry in Britain in the last five years was accounted for by overseas companies, and that more than half of those investors would regard our failure to ratify Maastricht as having a very negative impact on investment and on jobs. I refer to a CBI press release of 2 March.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Other countries invest in the United Kingdom at the time of their supreme power for the purpose of gaining access, through our membership of the single market, to other European countries. But this is not the story that Ministers are spreading.
      Mr. Taylor: I am not a Minister.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: My hon. Friend says that he is not a Minister. On this basis, he has no propect of becoming one.
      I am keen to promote accurate information. In years to come, there may be some abatement. Germany and many other countries are going through a recession. Once they start pulling out, investment will increase again. The United Kingdom is sitting pretty. It will be the first country to come out of recession, and will be able to lead Europe in many ways. This is the most inventive country in Europe. That is why the Japanese have come here, instead of going to France and Germany. We think up processes, and the Japanese apply them.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sure that we have a splendid Government, but I must ask my hon. Friend to accept that we shall recover from the recession earlier than other countries because we got out of the ERM—whereas, sadly, the others are still stuck in it. Will my hon. Friend warn our friends at the CBI that, if this treaty is approved, we shall be back with fixed exchange rates from 1 January? The Government are entitled to much credit, but my hon. Friend should appreciate that most of it is due to the fact that we escaped from the dreadful, irrelevant, artificial European monetary system.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: My hon. Friend supports the line that we should remain in the ERM.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am against the ERM.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
      The Government were against our pulling out of the ERM. However, we did so, and were able to lower interest rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that, if we were to stick to the mechanism we should be all right, that we should go through with the Bundesbank. We found, however, that it was not appropriate.
      Mr. William Cash: We were proved right about the exchange rate mechanism, but the Maastricht treaty would take us straight back into that system. This country cannot afford the risk of absorption into a

      683
      political union that would bring protectionism and lead to massive losses in our international trading, at a time when we are running a deficit of about £15 billion a year with the European Communities.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I accede to that, but do not think for one moment that one is not obliged to return to the ERM at a later stage. If one makes a close reading of article 109—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted into areas into which he should not stray and he should return to the amendment he was summating.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It would be churlish, given what I said a short time ago about the presence of senior Ministers, not to record that the Foreign Secretary is in his place.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Morris. Much against my will, I have spoken for longer than I intended, largely because of a number of interruptions—
      Sir Teddy Taylor: From the Front Bench.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: And elsewhere. I am glad to give way to some of my colleagues who are breaking their necks to try to speak in this debate. I would say to the Foreign Secretary—now that he is here—take your campaign to the country, sir, and give the public the facts.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that on this group of amendments. I have already ruled on that once this afternoon.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am very much obliged. In that case—
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has mentioned Japanese investment in the United Kingdom. We have an existing institutional arrangement with the European Community. The treaty suggests—
      The Chairman: Order. This specific set of amendments is about the Council, the Commission and Parliament; it is not about Japanese inward investment. Sir Trevor Skeet.
      Mr. Marlow rose—
      Sir Trevor Skeet rose—
      Mr. Marlow rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I called Sir Trevor Skeet, not the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The hon. Gentleman may wish to speak later, in which case I may seek to call him.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Bearing in mind the number of interruptions from the Floor on the amendment concerning the institutions, I think that it is only right, given that the closure is likely to follow in two hours' time or perhaps even sooner, I should give other people the opportunity to make their contributions. Against my will, I have spoken for an hour, which I did not intend. I intended to be very brief, but I was induced to make a further contribution. I have done so, and I am now only too glad to finish.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I would be grateful for your advice, and I believe that the Committee may be, in view of the fact that, after the completion of the debate on this group of amendments, I believe that we may then come to a vote on amendment No. 28.
      Throughout the debate on this group of amendments, I made it clear to the Committee that the Government had made no final decision on this matter. We shall retain an open mind on the merits of restricting representation on the Committee of the Regions to elected local government representatives. We shall, however, still be asking the Committee to reject the amendment—not because we have a rooted objection to the principle of elected local government representatives, but because, from the discussions that we have already had and the content of the debate, it seems wise for the Committee and the Government to retain an element of flexibility to enable us to meet the specific requirements of our regions. However—
      Mr. Corbyn: Why is this a point of order?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am coming to that.
      The real issue that lies behind amendment No. 28 is not its content but the fact that its approval by the Committee would trigger the Report stage, thus deliberately delaying ratification of the Maastricht treaty. [ Interruption.] I am coming to the point of order.
      The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the Chair to make a specific ruling—that is the only basis on which a point of order can be raised, not a point of debate.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course. I am just coming to the question that I want to put to you, Mr. Morris. Some hon. Members have made it clear that they will be voting on this issue as a tactical manoeuvre, as it were—an approach which we deprecate. [ Interruption.] I am just coming to the question I want to ask, which is important.
      The Chairman: Order. Let us be clear on the procedures of this Committee. When a point of order is raised, obviously anybody from one of the Front Benches is called earlier than other hon. Members. Nevertheless, it is a point on which the Chair must rule, and it is not correct for any hon. Member to raise an issue on a different set of amendments. That is why I called to order the hon. Member for Northampton, North. The point of order must relate to the institutions and current group of amendments, and not to subsequent amendments.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If I could have your indulgence for one moment, Mr. Morris—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I believe that I am right to say that, when debate on this group of amendments is completed—the Opposition have been good enough to inform the Committee that they do not intend to press the lead amendment in this group to a Division—we shall then move immediately to the next group. I think that that is right.
      4.45 pm
      The Chairman: Order. I announced last Thursday that there would be a vote on amendment No. 28 if it were moved immediately following the conclusion of the debate

      685
      on the amendments which are before us now. That is established. What is the right hon. Gentleman's point of order?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful for that, Mr. Morris. It seems to me and to my colleagues on the Front Bench that the issue that will now be voted on is a procedural one. Would it be possible—this is the question for you, Mr. Morris—given that we seek to reject the amendment in order to prevent the artificial delay of the Bill, for a further debate to take place on that matter before the Division is called?
      The Chairman: No.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: I was very interested in your earlier ruling, Mr. Morris, when you said that, as a legal entity, the Government were indivisible. We have just seen that this is a difficult concept to apply when the Government are schizophrenic and move from one interpretation to another of what should be done in the Committee.
      Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that a Minister of the Crown, a Privy Councillor, is unaware of the basic procedures in relation to this group of amendments and subsequent ones? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Attorney-General should attend the Committee to answer the matters raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and my hon. Friend? Unless he attends, in accordance with the undertaking given, we should ask the Chairman—not at this stage, but when the debate is concluded—to consider accepting a motion to report progress.
      Mr. Barnes: That seems an intelligent suggestion, which should be taken on board.
      On Thursday, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was taken to task by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) on the interpretation of the word "federal". It was felt that the hon. Member for Stafford was mixing up "federal" with "unitary" and using them in an interchangeable way. The problem is that there is a sense in which the words can be interchanged, under certain circumstances, because they describe the same set of arrangements. They are most commonly interchanged when a highly bureaucratic system is being described.
      Therefore, the federal structure is something of a sham, because it really turns into a unitary system. The tendency is to use the words "federal" and "unitary" in a similar way. That was how the word "federal" was used to explain the position in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. In that sense, it might not be wrong to describe federalism and the unitary system in Europe as similar. However, if we want to apply the concept of democracy to the developments that should be taking place in Europe, the distinction between "unitary" and "federal" becomes of key importance.
      Some people look towards a United States of Europe modelled on the United States of America, with nation rights equivalent to state rights and federal rights at the centre. They see a clear democratic division, and democratic systems determining matters at nation level and at federal level. In that context, the terms need to be kept entirely separate. I argue that we should introduce democratic aspects into the picture. We should be concerned about the serious democratic deficit in the
      686
      developments currently taking place in the European Community. We seem to be heading towards a unitary system, not a federal system.
      When we first entered the Community in 1973, the Commission was clearly the only co-ordinated, organised and permanently centralised influence operating in the Community. The restrictions placed on it related to the unanimity rule, especially as it operated under the Luxembourg accord, and the treaty base under which decisions had to be justified as legally acceptable. However, the restrictions on what the Commission could do were only limited. Even within the unanimity arrangements, horse trading was possible between nations, and between the Commission and different nations, in order to advance as many items as possible and to allow the sphere of influence and treaty considerations to grow. Even then, the treaty was sufficiently wordy and complex to allow extra bits to be added.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Could it be registered that the Foreign Secretary stayed for eight minutes to hear the Minister of State's point of order, and has now gone again, leaving the Treasury Bench friendless, as it was before?
      Mr. Barnes: We hope that the Foreign Secretary has made way for the Attorney-General, and that someone will soon join the Minister on the Front Bench.
      Mr. Marlow: On a totally separate and perhaps surprising point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be in order for the Front-Bench team to give a commitment with regard to the Liberal party that it will introduce amendment No. 28—on which a vote is about to be taken —in the other place? Would it be in order for that deal to be done and for my right hon. Friend the Minister to make a statement to that effect from the Dispatch Box?
      The Chairman: No.
      Mr. Barnes: I see that, in order to make my speech intelligible for those who read it, I shall have to get some scissors and paste to stick together the flow of ray argument.
      As well as the co-ordinating factor of the Commission, the other aspect that existed from the time of our entry into the Community in 1973 was the role of the Council of Ministers. It met in secret conclave and operated—depending on which version one prefers—either as the legislative organisation making the final decisions in Europe or as a rubber stamp, somewhat like the Privy Council when it agrees to ratify legislation that has passed through the two Houses. The Council of Ministers finally gave legal respectability to measures that were based on decisions that had earlier emerged from the Commission.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: That was never the case. It was always clear that the Council of Ministers—through its civil servants in the Committee of Permanent Representatives and through previous meetings—had total control over the agenda. Although there was some horse trading, there was never any question of the Council of Ministers becoming a rubber stamp. We need to develop our EC Committees so that they have even more powers to control our Ministers, not to seek to create other institutions outside.
      Mr. Barnes: That intervention illustrates the distinction between our two views on Europe's future development.

      687
      Presumably my hon. Friend looks towards a Europe of the sort that initially emerged, whereby, under the unanimity provisions, we could block measures through decisions taken by our Ministers. I look to something different; I want something of a proper, democratic, federal nature to be established in Europe. For there to be merely a blocking mechanism, which could be used by nation states, was unacceptable to me. Our views are influenced not just by what has occured, but by how we see matters developing in future.
      The next set of institutions that developed were consultative and included organisations such as the Economic and Social Council and the European Parliament—a strangely named parliament, which was not a parliament in the sense of a decision-making institution. It was no more a parliament—perhaps even less of a parliament—than that which developed in Germany under the Kaiser, which was a consultative avenue. At least Germany at that time was under universal franchise, and the Parliament was seen to be important and a sign of the various developments of the Social Democratic party. It gave various openings to Germany's future.
      The same could not be said of the European Parliament, which was a purely consultative and amorphous body consisting of different representatives of different nations of different political tendencies. The representatives' voices might be taken into account, but often were not. No wonder there was little interest in what took place in European elections. The decisions that were being made through those elections had very little impact on what would influence the future development of Europe.
      The problem with the subsequent changes under the Single European Act and the Maastricht provisions is that the move to overcome the democratic deficit is complex. It contains some progressive elements that are heavily stressed by advocates of Maastricht. However, it also contains many regressive elements that are used by opponents of the development of the Maastricht treaty. We must be aware that those two elements are intimately interconnected.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I shall not interrupt further. Will he give a short and accurate description of exactly what the term "democratic deficit" means in English?
      Mr. Barnes: Essentially, it means that Europe is not operating according to the democratic principles. We want a move either to establish such an operation or to pull away from further bureaucracy. I do not know whether the hon. Lady wishes to take up those points—
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am your hon. Friend.
      Mr. Barnes: I think that as I progress it will be discovered that I have very few friends in the debate. I argue strongly against Maastricht and involve myself in all activities in the House that seek to block the Maastricht treaty. We want a proper, social, democratic and federal Europe. That is often the aim of some of those who support the Maastricht treaty, but it will not achieve that. I support many of the arguments relating to danger used by opponents of Maastricht and agree with the vision of
      688
      some of its supporters, but I do not think that their aims will be achieved by the treaty, which sends us further into the unitary democratic progress.
      The Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman philosophises any further, will he return to the amendments under discussion?
      Mr. Barnes: I thought, Mr. Morris, that I was confining myself to this rather wide group of amendments; I was dealing with some of the relevant aspects of political philosophy, but I shall, in deference to you, return to the subject.
      It seems to me that Europe has been only nibbling at the democratic deficit, not tackling it head on. We have moved some way towards giving the European Parliament a greater impact, but such moves have been severely limited. Under the Single European Act, the Parliament operates co-operation procedures with ECOSOC. If there is no unanimity in the Council, certain measures can return to the Parliament for what is called a second reading— although it is a strange form of second reading, and not one that we would understand. Here, on Second Reading, we can make solid decisions or block legislation. In Europe, we are talking about a second consultation on a measure that has been to the Council of Ministers.
      5 pm
      If the European Parliament is not co-operative and amends a measure, and if the Commission agrees, the Council can adopt the qualified majority voting rule, but the Parliament is only employed to provide further scope for the operation of that rule.
      To some simple-minded people, it might seem that qualified majority voting was a democratic procedure. A number of people get together; they do not have to agree unanimously; one lot can outvote the other. It all depends who is making the decisions, and how they have been appointed. In this case, they have been appointed by the nation states and they have been horse trading among themselves before deciding how to act. They are all experienced at using certain devices to hoodwink their own national parliaments about what is taking place.
      In this House we have a system of so-called scrutiny, but even if we decide to change a recommendation from the Government in Committee, the Government merely change the resolution when it comes before the whole House and pass what they have wanted all along. The scrutiny measures of the House cannot actually control the Government, therefore. That is not a shortcoming on the part of hon. Members or of our institutional arrangements; neither is it the fault of our Clerks who serve the various Committees. Everything is done as effectively as it can be, but ultimately nothing can be achieved because of the structures into which we are tied.
      Mr. David Winnick: If the treaty came into force, would we not get the worst of both worlds? We would lose a great deal of our power from the House. That power has been diminished in the past 20 years in favour of the Community, but we would lose even more of it. Moreover, the European Parliament would not be able to take over those powers, for reasons that my hon. Friend is explaining, and in any case I would not be in favour of its so doing. I might disagree with my hon. Friend about that.
      Perhaps this explains why Mr. Alan Clark wrote his article in The Daily Telegraph outlining his experience of

      689
      what happens in Europe, where permanent officials have tremendous power and Ministers are happy to delegate that power to them.
      Mr. Barnes: I agree. Losing powers from the House does not mean that we pass them to an alternative Parliament. Instead, we hand them to the institutions of the Community, giving the Commission greater influence and leaving decisions to the Council of Ministers, where horse trading and outvoting by qualified majority voting are allowed, with no democratic checks and with the electorate having no say.
      Under the Single European Act, and until the conference at Edinburgh, the Council still met entirely in secret, and there was no record of how its members had voted. Governments may have made statements about that on occasion—we had some feedback about our Government—but there was no full record. Since Edinburgh, that has started to change. We have to dig around to find out what is going on, though. I have had to table questions to discover what the votes were at the recent Agriculture Council meeting.
      I trust that the Government will see to it that such votes are recorded for our information in future so that we can check up on what they are doing and on whether it ties in with the decisions of the House—and of the two Committees that investigate some of these proposals.
      There are still some inadequate features of Council meetings. The qualified majority voting provisions have been extended and will be further extended under the Maastricht treaty, by means of the co-decision procedure which amends the consultation and co-operative procedure that has applied hitherto. Formerly, when an item was dropped, it might be lost altogether. Now it can be resurrected under the co-decision procedure. The Council and the Parliament will be equally represented on the Committee dealing with co-decison making. If they can agree, a joint text goes to the Council of Ministers and to the Parliament. Parliament can then decide by simple majority and the Council by qualified majority.
      That seems to represent some sort of democracy for the European Parliament, but it actually provides more opportunities for decisions to be taken by the Council of Ministers by qualified majority voting. That is fundamentally undemocratic. Before, when a number of nations came together, the unanimity provision gave a say to each country that was party to an agreement. Qualified majority voting, however, prevents that. So we have been kidded that we are making a democratic advance in this area.
      Mr. Marlow: On another institutional aspect, we have referred before to article K.3.2, under which the Council may, on the initiative of the Commission in the area of home affairs and justice,
      "adopt joint positions and promote, using the appropriate form and procedures, any co-operation contributing to the pursuit of the objectives of the Union".
      The Minister has said that this is all subject to a double lock, under the unanimity procedure and the procedures of the House, but the article is not subject to that double lock and the Commission, with its agenda day by day and year after year, can pursue policies without the House having any further control over them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address that matter, because it gives the Commission massive new powers that this Parliament will not be able to gainsay.
      Mr. Barnes: I am not impressed by the double lock argument because even if decisions are unanimous a treaty provision will allow the area to be decided by the Community to be extended, even if all that happens is that some nations get together and agree. Treaties should spell out the precise areas of operation and such treaties should be ratified throughout Europe in a series of referendums.
      These are seeming sets of democratic changes to facilitate undemocratic practices of qualified majority voting. Maastricht considerably extends qualified majority voting through economic and monetary union, common citizenship, education and public health. Areas that are already covered are extended. The Labour Front-Bench spokesman said that 61 items were to he added to qualified majority voting. Even the social policy provisions fall within those areas and are not entirely unproblematic for democratic socialism.
      There will not be a host of social provisions flowing from the social chapter. It will merely provide some hooks on which the Commission and the Council of Ministers can hang certain provisions. Many of those provisions may be progressive, but some could be regressive. Social policy should proceed hand in glove with the development of democratic decision making and should he determined democratically.
      There will be a bean feast for Brussels bureaucrats. I am not against bureaucracy in all cases. One cannot have democracy in the advanced systems of the modern world without a host of associated bureaucracies. Bureaucracy should be under solid democratic control and checks, and should not itself run the show. Under the current arrangements, that will occur because of agreements between top politicians in the Government and the Commission.
      Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has one or two fatal, subversive ideas, but I am glad to know that he is an ally on this measure. He spoke about democratic control. Even if the treaty did not have the glaring omissions and defects that he recognises, what kind of democratic controls or accountability could there be as an effective substitute for Parliament? This Committee is an exercise in democratic accountability, because, however keen the Government are to get the Bill through, they cannot do so until the Committee has examined it line by line. No European Parliament could ever achieve such democratic control, and it would be ridiculous to suggest the contrary.
      Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke about problems in the Conservative party and Conservative arrangements in Europe and their links. We should consider the position of democratic socialists. The development of democratic revolutions has always been to the fore in the Labour party. In this country, that revolution was associated with universal franchise. That was not achieved until 1928, when afterwards a minority Labour Government came to power for the first time.
      We in the Opposition should direct our minds to democracy in Europe and how it can be established. That is why we should reject the Maastricht treaty and adopt an agenda for a fully fledged democratic, social and federal Europe in which all powers are accorded to the Parliaments, whether European or national. There should be a clear division of authority for those Parliaments. Subsidiarity in no way overcomes the problem; nor is it a substitute for the arrangements that I have outlined. It is

      691
      a vague and waffly notion and we can get our teeth into it at some later stage. We should seriously involve ourselves in the democratic concept of Europe.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman describes subsidiarity as a vague and waffly notion. He will recall that it was basically and originally a theological notion.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Barnes: It is a philosophical, social and political theory. It is not a legal concept of constitutional significance that can have anything to do with establishing systems with clear divisions of authority. People should not be fooled by it. We shall come to that on the next amendment.
      There is some emptiness about the way in which we deal with European measures. I am involved in many such matters because I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation and of Standing Committee A which considers European legislation. That does not fool me into believing that my work on those Committees is of any great import. I am discovering the difficulties of Parliament's having some say and control of such legislation. We spend a great deal of time and effort investigating such matters, but there is no possibility of our making any serious decisions.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am also a member of European Standing Committee A. We are discussing institutions. Does my hon. Friend accept that the machinery of those Committees is there to be exploited, and that hon. Members do not use those powers? No other part of Parliament has the right to question a Minister for an hour in detail. Hon. Members who do not use such facilities are missing a great opportunity.
      Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend is greatly involved in the activities of Standing Committee A. She fully uses the facilities and makes many fruitful contributions. Hon. Members should be encouraged to do that and can involve themselves in the work of Standing Committee A and Standing Committee B without being members of them. The hour's question time before the one and a half hours of debate on European measures is most fruitful. That procedure would be beneficial in other parts of Parliament.
      The Committees and their procedures can unearth details of measures and can embarrass the Government and thereby influence consultative procedures, but they are of minor legislative significance. Even if an amendment is accepted in Committee, it is stood on its head on Report or it is taken over by the Government and put down in their name. We do not know what happens when the amended measure reaches the Council of Ministers because there is no complete report of what happens there or details of the Council's vote. If that changed, the Committee's institutional significance would become more important. Meanwhile, I accept that they are valuable and worth while, and I encourge right hon. and hon. Members to become involved in them.
      It is a shame that there are only two European Standing Committees. We tried to establish three, but not enough right hon. and hon. Members could be found to fill them. The Committees are worth while, but let us be under no illusion that they can achieve the unachievable. There must
      692
      be changes in the Community itself before the scrutiny undertaken by the House can have any democratic significance.
      Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. However perfect our procedures can be made, and regardless of the number of right hon. and hon. Members who attend European Standing Committees—I know that my hon. Friends the Member, for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) do so assiduously—those Committees are purely advisory, and until the Community's institutions become transparent, there will be no proper accountability. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the treaty makes no provision, those who say that the institutions are democratic should not agree to the treaty because the institutions are not transparent or fully accountable in the way that my hon. Friend described?
      Mr. Barnes: They are neither transparent nor accountable. There should either be extensions or the type of democratic provision that I described, whereby there would clearly be a federal division between different areas of responsibility. The House could then investigate at a federal level, though it would still have no great say because that would be done under the provisions of an over-arching constitution. This institution could complain that its rights were being invaded. A federal institution could make proper provision, discuss matters and ensure that the legal provisions existing in Europe were observed.
      My position is not commonly held in the Committee. Those who are against Maastricht are not usually great friends of the European Community or in favour if its extension and development. Those who are friends of Maastricht are usually happy with its likely achievements. However, I believe that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have a democratic vision of the future after Maastricht, in which some of the improvements which I suggested might be achieved.
      I do not believe that that will happen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) suggested that there was among many Members of the European Parliament a belief in the dream of federalism, and that it is on the cards. If I also believed that, I would be in the Maastricht camp, but I do not. I doubt whether the Council of Ministers and the Commission will readily surrender the powers that Maastricht will confer on them.
      A Labour party briefing—I will not spill all the beans, but I will dissociate myself from some of the points that it makes—states:
      "The EC is not a unitary state and we do not agree that further progress towards European unity will, or should, lead to a European superstate."
      I wholly believe that Maastricht's provisions will take us much closer to a unitary state and to becoming a European super-state that lacks democratic input—or which provides, at best, for democratic consultation—and democratic decision making. We must add those other elements to produce something acceptable. If that cannot be done, the treaty must be stopped until the safeguards that I described are on the agenda.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Before I turn to lead amendment No. 18, moved by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), it is worth noting that a considerable number of amendments in the group relate to titles III and

      693
      IV of the treaty. They cover the provisions establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Changes made by the treaty are purely technical, to bring those provisions into line with the treaty of Rome. It would be nonsense to have different rules for appointing the Commission depending on which Community treaty was being used. That would be a recipe for chaos.
      I hope that the Committee will think it right that I do not deal with the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom provisions separately. I shall limit my remarks to those amendments which relate specifically to the treaty of Rome, which will hold true also for Euratom and the ECSC.
      I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the right hon. Member for Copeland for indicating that amendment No. 18 is a probing amendment. It has allowed right hon. and hon. Members to have a wide-ranging debate on Community institutions. Amendment No. 18 seeks to delete article 138d of the treaty, which grants citizens of the union the right to petition the European Parliament. I hasten to say that I feel certain that the Opposition have no wish to remove that privilege from European citizens.
      I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members agree that individual citizens should have a channel to air grievances relating to the Community. Article 138d formalises and confirms a right which has existed in practice and in the rules and procedures of the European Parliament for many years. It provides useful clarification by specifying that grievances must be concerned with matters which come within the Community's fields of activity and which affect the petitioner directly. It is entirely up to the European Parliament to decide how to respond to complaints. It may refer them to the ombudsman provided for under article 138e.
      It is important to remember that those provisions help to make the Community more real and accessible to the people, which I am sure will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee.
      Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend knows that I have the greatest personal respect for him, and the greatest sympathy for the difficulties in which he finds himself at the moment. Many technical, legal questions were asked during the debate, and others might be put to my right hon. Friend during the course of his speech. Is it the intention that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be present for part of this debate?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's sympathy and concern, which has been a great encouragement to me throughout the Committee stage. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made it clear that, where specific matters require the Committee to receive legal advice on amendments and their legal status, he will make himself available.
      My hon. Friend reminds me that I had some exchanges with one of my hon. Friends, and I shall refer to them. The Committee will decide, but I think that they were commonplace exchanges about opinions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That matter is for the Committee to decide when I reach the relevant point in my speech.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later, but I should like to make a little more progress. The right hon. Gentleman was not present at that point in the debate. I do not say that in any critical sense; I know that he is a frequent attender.
      The role of the European Parliament is strengthened by the provisions of the Maastricht treaty, in both the legislative and non-legislative spheres. Apart from the establishment of the right to petition the Parliament, and the establishment of an ombudsman, the Parliament will be enabled to set up temporary committees of inquiry under article 138c to investigate alleged contraventions of maladministration in the implementation of Community law. The Parliament will also have a similar role in scrutinising the actions of the Commission, particularly through enhanced provisions for financial accountability. Those proposals were both promoted and strongly supported by the United Kingdom during the Maastricht negotiations.
      5.30 pm
      There is also an increase—albeit limited—in the legislative role of the European Parliament. The Parliament has always been consulted on EC legislation. The Single European Act increased its involvement by creating a "two reading" procedure for single-market and other business. That procedure, which is known as the co-operation procedure, is now in article 189c. The Maastricht treaty makes two important changes. First, it extends the co-operation procedure in article 189c into some policy areas, such as transport and training; in those areas, the voting procedure moves up from simple majority to qualified majority. Secondly, in article 189b, the treaty introduces a negative assent procedure—into certain areas, such as the single market.
      That is a "three reading" procedure. After the Council has made its final decision on the substance, the European Parliament may block the legislation, but it may not amend it. It cannot overrule the Council on substance. The choice is between legislation on terms decided by the Council, and no legislation at all. When the institutions disagree, there is a conciliation procedure; but the last word on substance remains with the Council, and I think that the Committee will agree that that is right.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I have already promised to give way to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). If he does not wish to intervene now, I shall continue.
      Two other amendments tabled by the official Opposition—Nos. 33 and 34—are of particular interest. Both deal with the Commission.
      Mr. Marlow: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: May I make a little more progress? I will give way when I have finished this part of my speech.
      Amendment No. 33 seeks to delete from the Bill article 158 of the Maastricht treaty, which relates to the appointment of the Commission. The article provides for an increase, from 1995, in the term of office of the Commission's president from two to five years, and in that of ordinary members of the Commission from four to five years, thus making their appointment conterminous with the European Parliament. Article 157 makes it clear that the Commission must remain independent, and we shall work to ensure that that remains the case.

      695
      Article 158 also subjects the Commission as a body—including the President—to a vote of approval by the European Parliament. That is a welcome step forward. The Commission will now be subject to greater democratic scrutiny, but member states will retain the right to nominate their own Commissioners, and to appoint both president and Commission. The third element introduced in article 158 is the establishment of an interim Commission, whose term of office shall expire on 6 January 1995. As the Maastricht treaty has not yet entered into force, the present Commission has been appointed for four years under the existing article 158, but on the understanding that its term of office will end in January 1995.
      Before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), let me answer a specific point put to me by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the European Parliament. He asked about decisions on the additional six seats that Britain will have as a result of the Maastricht decisions. The distribution of seats is now under active consideration by all Departments, and I expect the Government to reach a view at a very early date. Of course, we shall then consult the Opposition parties.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need to redraw boundaries. As he will know, the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 contains no provision that permits use of the Boundaries Commission in these circumstances; the Government are therefore considering how best to proceed, and hope to reach a decision soon. We are aware of the tight deadline to which the hon. Gentleman referred —before the 1994 elections—and the heavy work load on the existing Boundaries Commission.
      Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Among the most important characteristics of a nation state—even one which is co-operating with other nation states—are defence, foreign policy, immigration and judicial affairs. Why has it been found necessary to involve the European Parliament in those affairs? Doing so suggests that we are moving towards a European nation state, rather than a group of independent nation states.
      Mr. Garet-Jones: I strongly agree—as do the Government—with my hon. Friend's identification of what could be regarded as the most significant attributes of nation statehood: foreign policy, interior, justice and defence. One of the unique breakthroughs of the Maastricht treaty is its provision of a framework for co-operation between member states, albeit within the wider framework of a union treaty.
      We have debated these matters earlier in the Committee stage. I have never claimed—nor, I think, have the Government—that we can be positively certain that we can entrench the intergovernmental structure which, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's negotiating skill, is a unique feature of the Maastricht treaty. We believe, however, that it marks the point at which intergovernmentalism—co-operation between nation states—becomes respectable: indeed, we would argue that there is nothing more respectable, in co-operation between 12 member states within the framework of the traditional treaty of Rome, than intergovernmental co-operation.
      Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Gard-Jones: Perhaps I may finish the point. Then I will give way to the hon. Member for Hamilton.
      As I have said, we have never claimed that we can be certain of entrenching that intergovernmental structure for ever. The point about the Community is that there is a perfectly proper, continuing debate between nation states about the way in which we want it to develop. We believe —with the support of not only Conservative Members but, I think, all hon. Members—that we now have a chance to influence and shape that debate. In my view, the Maastricht treaty will give us the opportunity to entrench the aspects of co-operation between nation states to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and I—and, I believe, all hon. Members—attach importance.
      Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the specific questions that I asked him last Thursday about the six extra seats in the European Parliament that were agreed at the Edinburgh summit.
      When the Minister submitted his highly publicised but lengthy notice of resignation, he said that his resignation would allow him greater flexibility to speak his mind during the Maastricht ratification procedures. However, his answers to the questions that I have put to him on a specific and important issue read like a classic "Yes Minister" script. The matter is "under active consideration"; a decision will come "at an early date"; "we expect to hear soon"; "we appreciate the early deadline, but I am not going to tell you anything".
      Does the Minister realise that the European elections are some 56 weeks away? This time next year, candidates will be standing for constituencies in this country. It really is not good enough to tell the House of Commons at this stage that the Government have all these matters "under active consideration", but cannot tell the House anything now. Is this yet another sign of the Government's present state of dazed confusion over the whole European issue? The Minister has nothing to announce, because the Government are paralysed by the splits in the Conservative party.
      The country will come to exactly the same conclusion. Given that the Government have gone such a short way down the road to agreement on the boundaries, candidates will be chosen and then have to be chosen again.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is a perfectly charming Member of the House and of the Committee, and I do not object to being teased about my postdated cheque, but as he has never been a Minister, and is not likely to become one, it may surprise him to learn that from time to time Ministers have to read out bits of paper given to them by other Departments. The essential point that he made was a fair one, and it is well taken. The matter is extremely urgent, and I assure him that, despite the rather turgid prose that I have read on its behalf, the Home Office attaches importance to it and is well aware of its urgency.
      Amendment No. 34—
      Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall in a moment. I like to make progress, if I can, in little chunks.
      Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I have given way twice to my hon. Friend. I shall give way next to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
      Amendment No. 34, which stands in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), would require the Government to obtain the approval of the House for its nominees as British Commissioners. There is already some consultation between the Government and the Opposition on the appointment of the United Kingdom's Commmissioners. The Government intend to continue this practice, but it should remain a matter of practice. It would be inappropriate to enshrine it in legislation.
      Amendment No. 426, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), is important. It is, essentially, the proportional representation amendment and it would require the Government to implement a uniform electoral procedure for the 1994 European parliamentary elections. It is clearly a reference to proportional representation, and the Committee understands the motives of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in tabling it.
      It is impossible for the Government to give a commitment to implement proposals which depend on agreement, first, in the European Parliament and, next, by unanimity in the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament has been trying to agree a uniform electoral procedure for, I think, 20 years. It is considering new proposals which would require at least 50 per cent. of seats in member states to be elected by proportional representation. It is necessary, first, for the Parliament to agree those procedures; they then have to be agreed unanimously by the Council of Ministers.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The Minister is correct. Nevertheless, it is a fair guess that the DeGucht proposals, as they are popularly known after the rapporteur, will reach the Council of Ministers later this month. That being so, and unanimity being required, is the Minister saying that the Government will seek to veto the proposals?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I would rather wait and see whether Parliament approves them. It has failed to do so in the past 20 years. If it approves them, we shall see what becomes of them.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The Minister may unconsciously be misleading the Commmittee, but the European Parliament agreed a proposal for a uniform system in 1983, which was ignored by the Council of Ministers.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If that is so, I stand corrected. It certainly was not my intention to mislead the Committee. I am not aware of that proposal being put to the Council of Ministers. My understanding is that, if it had been agreed under the normal procedures, it would have gone automatically to the Council of Ministers.
      5.45 pm
      New clause 21, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is also important. It would require the Government to provide a written account of their position and intentions if the European Parliament, acting under the negative assent procedure, stated that it intended to reject a common position agreed by the Council of Ministers.
      698
      I believe that that is the import of the right hon. Gentleman's new clause. We had a debate similar to this on another new clause tabled by the right hon. Gentleman.
      I understand that hon. Members will wish to be informed of the progress of proposals under the new negative assent procedure, especially if the European Parliament states that it intends to reject the common position agreed in council. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the House will be kept fully informed, as it is now, of the progress of all legislative proposals under existing scrutiny procedures. Under those procedures, the Government have agreed to keep Parliament informed of developments which occur after an initial explanatory memorandum has been supplied detailing the Commission's proposals and the Government's view. Hence, we would expect to submit a further explanatory memorandum if the European Parliament rejected a common position.
      The scrutiny procedures of the House—I shall comment further on this later, as the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised it only recently—work well and are capable of dealing with the extension and modifications of the co-operation procedure that the negative assent procedure entails.
      I say to the Committee, especially to Conservative Members, that we should be extremely cautious before passing an amendment which would tie down the way in which hon. Members scrutinise legislation. The Committee will recall that the scrutiny arrangements for European Community legislation were revised in 1990 following the fourth report of the Select Committee on Procedure in the 1988–89 Session.
      Two recommendations of particular significance were made, to which the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Derbyshire, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred. Hon. Members, regardless of their view and attitude to the Community, have made a significant contribution to the work of the House on those Standing Committees. The Procedure Committee reported in December 1991 on its review of the first Session of operation of the two Standing Committees, which led to some minor changes.
      I ask members of the Committee to put to one side their differences about Britain's place in the Community and how it may develop. This is, essentially, a House of Commons matter, and if we lay down procedures on how the House is to scrutinise Community legislation—
      Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: May I finish the point? I shall then give way to the hon. Lady, who has made interesting interventions on this point and who plays an important role in one of the Standing Committees.
      The procedures are bound to some extent to be inflexible. It would require further legislation to change them if they proved less than ideal. That would require parliamentary time, which could be devoted to more useful purposes, and furthermore—this is a point that the Committee will want to bear in mind, and I mean this with no disrespect to the other place—it would mean that the other place would have a legislative say in the procedures of this House.

      699
      The two new Standing Committees may have defects, and we may want to improve them as we go along, but if we tie the way in which we scrutinise EC legislation we shall be going down a very dangerous road. I am sure that the irony of the situation would not be lost on a number of my colleagues if we reached the point where our procedures were effectively regulated by a piece of European legislation.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that much of the legislation which comes before the House has the force of law and that we seek adequate ways not only of debating it before the decisions are taken but of getting a report. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously cares about the House of Commons, he will want it to be possible for us to get a report on what is happening. If he does not care but wishes to transfer all our rights, he will clearly not accept the amendment.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: With respect, we are discussing what I would call a House of Commons matter. I am attempting to separate it from the disagreements that we may have about our approach to the Community. I agree that it is important that the House should have the opportunities that it thinks appropriate to examine matters in Committee. The hon. Lady was kind enough to say that she thought that the new procedures introduced in the Standing Committees, which enable right hon. and hon. Members to question Ministers on an inquisitorial basis for an hour before dissolving themselves into a Committee, were an interesting innovation. Certainly it is an innovation of which she has made particular and distinguished use.
      What I am trying to say is that it would be a rather rigid way in which to proceed if we were to put such matters, about which the House knows a great deal, into a Bill which much pass through another place and then become an Act of Parliament. As I said, the irony would not be lost on a number of my hon. Friends who are anxious—as I am, and as we all are—to preserve the House's position if we were to allow a piece of EC legislation to become the vehicle through which the procedures of the House were decided. If the Committee divides on any of the new clauses, I hope that hon. Members who are worried about the House's position—especially my hon. Friends among them—will at least for these issues place on one side our debates on the treaty as a whole and regard this as a House matter.
      Two other issues have been raised in the debate so far. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) suggested that all the activities listed in article 3a to 3t are now for decision by qualified majority voting, not unanimity. That is not quite correct. Unanimity is retained for key decisions on the environment under article 3k, for all decisions on industry under article 31, for key decisions on research and development under article 3m, for all decisions on culture under article 3p, and for all decisions on energy, civil protection and tourism.
      In a previous debate, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) mentioned legislation on zoos. He should know that the Commission agreed at Edinburgh to consider withdrawing its proposals on the conditions in which animals are kept in zoos on the grounds of subsidiarity. Of course, that is to be the subject
      700
      of the next debate when the Committee moves on, but I observe in passing that it must be significant that proposals are already being considered for withdrawal under subsidiarity before it has even come to have the force of law, as I hope and trust that it will when the treaty is ratified.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) was kind enough to give way to me several times. He was, of course, right to say that as a general proposition there are, under the treaty of Rome, areas in which the Commission's power has been extended. I do not dispute that, but I was attempting to explain that the wording of the arrangements in article J.9 of the new treaty, where the Commission is fully associated with the work of the Community, applies by extension to the new intergovernmental areas. The wording is broadly speaking that of article 30(3)(b) of the Single European Act. Article J.9 states:
      "The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out".
      I believe that the wording is, indeed, identical with that of the Single European Act. That is the point that I was trying to make. I do not dispute my hon. Friend's general proposition about other parts of the treaty.
      Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because he said a little while ago that he would give way on that point. Does he agree that the Commission will have greatly increased powers of initiative in what he claims is an intergovernmental area? Under article J.8, which covers foreign and security policy, the Commission can initiate matters to the Council. Under K.9 it can initiate matters relating to six home affairs topics, such as immigration, asylum and similar issues. So is the Minister not wrong to suggest to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) that there are no increased powers? As the Minister knows, powers of initiation are very important, so the idea of the intergovernmental being separate—as the Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who has just walked in, would claim —will surely not be correct in practice.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If I gave that impression, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, to the Committee and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North. I am trying to say that the powers under article J.8 or J.9—
      Mr. Spearing: Article J.9.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The powers under article J.9 are, in practice, not new powers because they have developed under European political co-operation. In practice, the Commission has already been able to initiate discussions and this merely formalises it in the treaty. I do not think that there will be any disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and me on this issue. The crucial difference is that, within the treaty of Rome proper, as one might call it, the Commission has the exclusive right of initiative; that is its essential power in that treaty.
      I realise that many other hon. Members wish to speak. I have perhaps spoken a little earlier than the Committee expected, but I now conclude so that other hon. Members can participate.
      Mr. Hoon: For the first time in these debates, I have some sympathy with those who consistently criticise the European Community and, in particular, the operation of

      701
      some of its institutions. Clearly, proper criticisms can be made, but I differ from the critics over what solution should be suggested to the problems that they describe.
      From the debate so far, I can only assume that the solution favoured by most of the critics would involve the repatriation of virtually all European Community decision-making powers, thereby making most of its institutions redundant. The practical difficulty with that argument is that it assumes that it is possible to return to decison making by each of the 12 member states, presumably operating together on an intergovernmental basis to produce what would, in effect, be a series of international treaties.
      Even those who have been most critical of Community institutions have accepted that it is necessary to take decisions at the European level. Indeed, I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who spoke about the operation of international rules on environmental protection. In the modern world, it is clearly vital that we recognise the urgent need to take effective international action to protect our environment. In such urgent matters, it would not be possible to wait for a series of countries to agree on the text of an international treaty.
      Anyone familiar with the operation of the various conferences considering ways to protect our environment knows that, in the end, we reach the lowest common denominator of agreement, which is usually far too late in terms of the problem under consideration.
      The institutions of the European Community have one significant advantage over any international organisation —the advantage that is most criticised in this debate. The EC's advantage is that it can make law that is binding across its territory. Moreover, it can now by a majority make that law for all 12 member states, which are then bound by those decisions.
      6 pm
      Mr. Ron Leighton: My hon. Friend makes a good point on the environment. However, does he agree that the environment and pollution cannot be dealt with across half a continent? If we are seriously to deal with the matter, we must involve eastern Europe and countries outside Europe. The only way in which we can deal properly with environmental questions is internationally.
      Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are concentrating for the moment on the environment as an issue in relation to institutional change. Because the EC takes decisions more efficiently by majority voting, it can set standards that are often then followed by the very countries to which my hon. Friend refers. The EC manages to produce a series of standards which, if we waited for every country affected to agree a policy, would be far too late in terms of environmental protection.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that many of the existing Community members automatically follow the rather poor environmental standards that are set by the Community?
      Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that the environmental standards are poor. Indeed, in many respects the EC has enacted progressive standards—
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Are those standards followed by member states?
      Mr. Hoon: I shall come to that point. Those standards have not been received especially enthusiastically by this Government. The Community enacts legislation, and if member states are found to be in breach of it, there are proper procedures within the treaty to enforce it. Right hon. and hon. Members frequently draw that point to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
      I make that point as an illustration of the difficulty for the critics of the existing constitutional arrangements. They seek simply to turn the clock back, and for each member state to try to reach a common decision. That is impractical in the modern world. Nevertheless, given that the EC has legislative responsibility, an essential underpinning all its legislative activities is that that legislation is passed by democratic institutions. In this respect, the European institutions fail a significant test—the democratic test.
      Of the various European institutions that we are debating, the one that has been directly elected to reflect the views of the people of Europe, the European Parliament, has the least influence and the least responsibility, both in terms of day-to-day decision making in the European Community and, crucially, in terms of its role in the legislative process.
      It has often been observed that, when the EC considers whether a country should be admitted to membership, the first basic question which is always asked is whether that country operates democratically, whether its institutions are freely and fairly elected, and whether they exercise proper control over its Government. It has been rightly argued that, on that test, the EC's own institutions would fail on the ground of their lack of democratic accountability. It has been argued that the EC's own institutions would not qualify to be admitted to membership of the EC.
      The debate about democracy in the EC is not new. The Single European Act was seen by some as marking a significant change in the powers of the European Parliament. Although the Single European Act has clearly improved the ability of the European Parliament to delay legislation, the real beneficiary of the Act has been the European Commission, especially because of its ability to select amendments during the legislative process.
      Since the passing of the Single European Act, the European Commission has been able to play off the European Parliament against the Council, and vice versa. When the European Parliament's amendments agree with the line established by the European Commission, it is generally prepared to accept them. It rejects amendments that might cause it difficulty in the Council. The Commission also tells the Council that certain amendments are vital to the European Parliament, and that it is not prepared easily to be deflected from its course. As a result, the institutional view of the Commission increasingly prevails, as it plays off one institution against the other.
      The weakness of the European Parliament can be seen by examining in detail the legislative process in the European Community. At the end of what may have been a long period of consultation, of debate and of decision, the European Parliament agrees on amendments to proposals for legislation. Those amendments may reflect the views of Members of the European Parliament from

      703
      12 different countries, they may reflect the views of a wide range of political parties and groups, and they may be approved by the overwhelming majority not only of the Members of the European Parliament present, but of all those who are entitled to be present.
      At the end of that exhausting process, what happens far too often is that a single Commissioner rejects the amendments, not necessarily in terms of principle. The Commissioner may say not only that will he not accept the amendments, but that he will not even put them to the Council for consideration. Nothing in the Single European Act requires that. It is simply a way in which the Commission has chosen to exercise its powers.
      As many hon. Members have said, the European Commission, which has the sole responsibility for initiating legislation, in practice can also determine which amendments are selected for further debate in the Council. The Commission's response is that the great majority of amendments tabled by the European Parliament are ultimately accepted by the Council of Ministers. The reason for that, again, reflects the lack of real accountability in the European Commission.
      The amendments accepted tend to be sensible and practical amendments, which are necessary because the European Commission often has not thought through the detail of legislation when it makes proposals for new directives or regulations. The European Parliament provides the opportunity for widespread public consultation among those affected by the Commission's proposal.
      Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend is offering a sustained and thoughtful critique of the modus operandi of the European Commission. Surely that institution, along with the others, will have new competences as a result of the treaty. Is it not likely that the extent of those competences will be determined ultimately by the European Court of Justice?
      Mr. Hoon: Certainly, challenges to the institutional framework of the EC have occasionally been successful in the European Court of Justice. I am not sure that I can anticipate what those challenges are likely to be in future. The European Court of Justice certainly fulfils a constitutional role in determining the precise framework of the EC decision-making process, but I cannot say what those cases are likely to be.
      The European Parliament often fulfils a function in the legislative process in the EC similar to that fulfilled by a House of Commons Standing Committee. Essentially, a series of amendments are tabled, many of which are readily accepted by the European Commission because they are tidying-up amendments that alter the wording, but not necessarily the substance. Those amendments may have been tabled at the suggestion of interest groups directly affected by the legislation which had not previously been consulted by the Commission.
      If it is sensible for the European Parliament to table tidying-up amendments and assist the Commission to produce more sensible and practicable legislation, it must follow as a matter of principle that the European Parliament should also have a much more significant role in determining what is politically necessary.
      After all, the European Parliament has been directly elected to fulfil a particular responsibility within the
      704
      Community. The European Parliament should have political responsibility. The Commission should not be allowed to claim, in the interests of its own institutional policy, that the amendments of the European Parliament cannot be put before the Council of Ministers. Unfortunately, that happens far too frequently.
      The Maastricht treaty provides changes in that legislative procedure and some improvements, which can be welcomed with two small cheers. The co-decision procedure allows the European Parliament the opportunity of a Second Reading across a much wider range of subjects than was previously the case. It offers the European Parliament an enhanced ability to reject legislation. In turn, that gives the European Parliament a greater ability to pressure the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament will have greater bargaining power within the institutional framework that we have been discussing.
      The problem with the negative powers, which have been available to the European Parliament under the Single European Act, but which are extended by the Maastricht treaty, is that, after many years of discussion and debate on a particular legislative proposal, in practice the European Parliament can reject legislation entirely or simply accept what is on offer at a fairly late stage in the process.
      Those who criticise the operation of the European Parliament because the Maastricht treaty allows it far too much influence and power are missing the point. The European Parliament either accepts what is on offer or it throws out the legislation, with all the consequences of doing so. The changes in the Maastricht treaty will only slightly enhance the ability of the European Parliament to participate in the legal process of making law. However, they do not do that in a helpful or constructive way.
      I welcome the assent and consultation procedures. The assent procedures were originally introduced by the Single European Act, and they are likely to be extended by the Maastricht treaty to new areas involving the structural and cohesion funds and certain international agreements. The assent procedures, as extended by the Maastricht treaty, will undoubtedly give the European Parliament greater bargaining power. There are currently suggestions in the European Parliament about how those bargaining powers might be used.
      However, in the context of an intergovernmental conference, where there were great debates about giving the European Parliament real power and responsibility, it is unfortunate that the power that can be exercised in the light of the Maastricht treaty will, in the end, be only at the margins. It will be a power for the European Parliament to use its negative influence to block what might otherwise be sensible proposals to achieve something practical. That is a matter of regret.
      I want now to consider the European Commission, and link that to my remarks about the European Parliament.
      Mr. Peter Hain: I have followed my hon. Friend's comments with great interest. He is making a thoughtful contribution. However, does he agree that, in the way that he has described, the European Parliament is not being given the necessary powers to control the Community—and, in particular, to regulate and control the monetary express train that is now sweeping through Europe? The European Community is increasingly dominated by unaccountable bankers, financiers and

      705
      business interests. We do not have through the European Parliament what we should have—which is a proper democratic mechanism to regulate and control. In other words, the interests of economics, business and financiers are being put before democratic interests, That is the problem with the treaty.
      Mr. Hoon: The view that I have held for many years, and the view that I hope would receive a widespread support in the Committee, is that the real issue for the European Community is to make the Commission subject to some democratic control. That must be control through a series of national parliaments or—I believe that this is more practical—through national parliaments working together with the European Parliament. In practical terms, it will not be possible for 12 separate, national parliaments to control the activities of the European Commission. In practical terms, control will have to be exercised by the European Parliament.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend has made an interesting contribution about the European Parliament. However, does he really believe that the European Parliament could hold the European executive to account? Does he really believe that the European Parliament could be accountable to the European electorate? There is really no such thing as a European electorate. There are a number of different electorates. The European Parliament will never be the focus for the aspirations, hopes and loyalties of the diffrrent European electorates.
      Mr. Hoon: I do not see the difference. There are clearly different electorates across the Community. However, I dare say that my right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland would claim that their electorate is different from that in Ashfield which elected me to the House. Electorates vary in the different parts of the European Community.
      I see no difficulty in the European Parliament controlling the activities of the Commission. Those who have criticised the operation of the European Parliament have claimed that it is not democratic. In a sense, if that is the criticism, we must find ways of making it more democratic.
      One argument that has been advanced which I do not accept is that we could make the Community more democratic by repatriating decision making to national Parliaments. The days of that kind of approach have passed. The kind of decisions that we now have to take must be taken at an international level.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems is that the Community has reached the point where it is taking highly important decisions on economics and politics and imposing them from the top downwards? There is no sign in my constituency that people want the powers that my hon. Friend is talking about to be transferred to the institutions. There is no clear commitment in any part of the electorate that people want those powers to shift. Why cannot my hon. Friend accept that repatriation, as he calls it, would conform with the views of our electorate, while centralisation would not?
      Mr. Hoon: That depends on a basic philosophical view of the role of parliaments and elections. It seems to me that parliaments exist to control the forces that my hon. Friend has described. The economic forces need to be subject to
      706
      the democratic control provided by parliaments. However, I disagree with my hon. Friend in that I do not believe that many of the decisions that she described are capable of being controlled by one Government in one nation state.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that we must seek to exercise democratic control not simply through the European Parliament, but also through national parliaments? One of the tasks of this Parliament in the next four years is to improve the Committees on which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) serves, and make them more effective where we can. We must also try to influence other national parliaments, which have not been as active as this House, to take an interest. Democratic control in respect of the Commission should be exercised by national parliaments in co-operation with the European Parliament.
      Mr. Hoon: The Minister has anticipated some of the points that I hope to develop.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an alternative which he has completely excluded? We could return to the previous situation, in which the assembly of parliaments in Europe was indirectly elected and reflected the situation in each of the member states' parliaments. Effectively, that would answer the points which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made about the European Parliament reflecting the views of the nation states.
      Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and it is certainly a possibility. As someone who is struggling with responsibilities both in the European Parliament and the House of Commons, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the volume of legislation which goes before the European Parliament makes it much more difficult to combine the two functions than perhaps it was before 1979. Therefore, I am not sure that that is still a practical possibility.
      Given the weaknesses, as I see it, in the decision-making process in the European Community in terms of the criticisms which have been expressed about a lack of democratic accountability, the first priority on which we could agree is that the European Commission should be subjected much more to the democratic will of the European Parliament. The intergovernmental conference failed to address that properly.
      There was the opportunity, with widespread support across the Community, of tackling the problem which hon. Members have criticised—that decisions were taken by the European Commission without reference to parliaments, and sometimes without reference to Governments. Those decisions need to be checked, and the way in which to check them is by making the Commission much more accountable to the European Parliament.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has a great deal of faith in the European Parliament, although I do not think that it is shared universally. One reason is that there is a suspicion—I put it no higher—that the European Parliament will always take a decision based on what that decision will do to enhance its power and prestige, not on what is best for the government of Europe.
      Another reason is that we have a Parliament here which is not perfect, but at least we speak the same language, and we have coherent parties. The European Parliament speaks about eight different languages, has no such thing

      707
      as party and is often referred to as the tower of Babel. It is not a coherent body which can take coherent decisions and coherently monitor other European institutions.
      Mr. Hoon: There are nine official languages in the European Parliament. All I can say about the tower of Babel is that, when I came here, I was not entirely prepared for the amount of noise which is generated at 3.15 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It is no criticism of the House of Commons; it is simply part of the nature of our democracy.
      If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) spent some time listening to the European Parliament and the excellent interpretation and translation facilities which are available, he would not have the difficulties he anticipates. If he spends some time at the European Parliament, he may well be more impressed than he is at present.
      The Commission enjoys some improvements to its position as a result of the Maastricht treaty. The treaty will allow the European Commission to have an improved role in the process of bringing about economic and monetary union, especially in the assessment of the economic performance of member states as a basis for entering the third stage of that system. Article 171 gives the Commission power to impose fines on member states which the European Court of Justice might have found to be in breach of the treaty. Essentially, the changes do not substantially alter the role of the European Commission.
      A much clearer effort could have been made at the intergovernmental conference to bring about the appointment of a European Commission which was more clearly subject to control by the European Parliament. Article 158 contains a new power to allow the European Parliament to approve nominations to the European Commission, Moreover the President of the European Commission will be nominated only after consultation with the European Parliament.
      Article 158 says:
      "The president and the other members of the Commission … shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament."
      The provisions set out in the Maastricht treaty reflect only article 144 of the treaty of Rome, which allows the European Parliament to dismiss the European Commission as a whole by passing a vote of censure with a two-thirds majority. That has never happened in practice, although it came close once. Over many years, the European Parliament has recognised that the power to dismiss is in the nature of a blunderbuss. While eliminating a specific Commissioner who might have been unpopular or incompetent, one lost many friends in the process.
      Given that the changes in the Maastricht treaty will allow the European Parliament to play, for the first time, some role in the reappointment of the Commission, there may be some slight improvements in the treaty, which must be welcomed. Nevertheless, we have not established a situation in which the European Commission and, more importantly, individual Commissioners are aware that their decisions are subject to the control that we would expect to see with in the relationship which exists between an elected body and appointed officials. Changes in the terms of office for the European Commission may help. The coincidence of the terms of the European Parliament
      708
      and those of the European Commission may improve the situation by making the Commissioners more accountable.
      I turn to the points made by the Minister of State a few minutes ago. In the institutional framework in the European Community, we must find a way of bringing together democratic control by national parliaments, together with the sort of control which should exist at the European level. In a practical sense, that is the only way in which those of us who are concerned about the lack of democracy in the European Community can look forward to the necessary changes.
      We need to establish a community of interest. We must find ways in which we can bring together, in an institutional sense, members of national parliaments, together with members of the European Parliament. That is already done practically in two countries. Belgium and Germany have established joint committees of elected members of the national parties, which meet regularly with members from those countries of the European Parliament. That gives the advantage of early warning of legislative proposals from the European Community to national parliamentarians. Equally—I recognise the criticisms made earlier in the debate about the European Parliament—it gives members of the European Parliament access to the prestige and institutional arrangements which are available as far as most national parliaments are concerned.
      It would have a double advantage for each of the bodies involved in the process. The joint committees appear to operate effectively as a means of channelling information from the European level to the national level and—recognising the concerns and sensitivities of this Committee—from the national level to the European Community level. That is one practical way in which we could enhance the process of making the European Community accountable.
      I have not spend much time talking about the Council of Ministers. The Minister of State talked about the role of the Standing Committees of the House of Commons. Clearly, those Committees must exercise much greater control over Government decisions. There must be a much greater understanding of the ways in which the decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers in order to render those decisions properly and effectively accountable in the House of Commons.
      Ultimately, we need properly to recognise the role of democracy in the European Community. We must not simply criticise the institutions but must examine ways, perhaps at the next intergovernmental conference, to tackle the problems which were not properly faced at the last intergovernmental conference to put in place real democratic reform in Europe.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) and I will have to agree to differ about the European Parliament. An effective European Parliament with effective powers exist when there is a European nation state. I do not believe that we have a nation state of Europe, that we should have a nation state of Europe or that the people want a nation state of Europe. Times and circumstances may change. If they do, there may be a case for a European Parliament with some of the powers which the hon. Member for Ashfield would like it to have.
      Mr. Derek Enright: Which is the nation state of the United Kingdom?
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Marlow: The simple answer is two words: the "United Kingdom".
      I wish to dispatch a few small red herrings. First, I and my hon. Friends who are referred to as Euro-sceptics are not anti-European. We are not against the single market. We are very much in favour of it. We believe that within the single market the United Kingdom can take the lead and be prosperous. Secondly, we oppose the institutional provisions of the Maastricht treaty and believe that they are the most significant and important part of it. We oppose them not necessarily because they are wrong for Britain—although we believe that they are wrong for Britain—but because they are wrong for Europe.
      Europe has not reached the stage at which it wants a central Government. The treaty seeks to impose a central Government on Europe. It is the ambition of Mr. Delors, President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl to impose their blueprint of a European union on Europe before it realises what has happened and before they have moved from the European scene.
      If the Maastricht treaty is imposed on Europe, it will be bad not only for Britain but for Europe, because it will be unstable. It will try to do things in a way that is unaccountable and will cause resentment, stress and strife among the European nations which make up the European Community. It is for those reasons, not because we are anti-European, that we oppose the treaty. We feel that it is damaging to both Europe and the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend will be aware that some people suggest that the treaty is a decentralising measure. Admittedly, Chancellor Kohl in the Financial Times said the opposite. Perhaps the thought that the treaty can mean all things to all people is its strength.
      Mr. Marlow: I shall deal with that point later. The difficulty—or, as my hon. Friend would say, the strength—of the treaty is that everyone can say that it satisfies his requirements. Everyone looks at the treaty from a different angle, through a different pair of glasses and from a different perspective.
      When one reads the treaty on any subject, there are about 15 different routes through it. Some of those routes are blocked by other aspects of the treaty. Some of those routes are not blocked. There is a problem with the social chapter in the treaty. The Government have said that we must exclude the social chapter —
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman should refer to the institutions of the Community. He is becoming somewhat Second Readingish. If he will stick to the amendment, it will be useful to the Committee, and will enable other hon. Members to speak. The social chapter has already been discussed and will be discussed in the future. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would stick to the amendments.
      Mr. Marlow: I accept your point entirely, Mr. Lofthouse. We are dealing with the powers that the treaty gives to the institutions of the Community to take action on the social protocol, even if it is excluded.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: As Chancellor Kohl has been prayed in aid yet again by those who believe that the objective of the Maastricht treaty is to create a super-state, I wish to remind the Committee and my hon. Friend what Chancellor Kohl said in Oxford on 11 November:
      "We have not laid the foundation stone with Maastricht for a European superstate …we have committed ourselves to a Europe constructed on the principle of unity in diversity."
      Mr. Marlow: I might be in difficulty with you, Mr. Lofthouse, if I followed my right hon. Friend's point, because he was not referring to the institutions of the Community. I can reassure my right hon. Friend, although I am not prepared for it, that Chancellor Kohl has said many things about the European Community. Rather as the treaty is all things to all men, Chancellor Kohl is all things to all men.
      Mr. Bill Walker: This group of amendments covers the institutions of the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and the European Parliament. My hon. Friend will recognise that, if many of the amendments were accepted by the Committee, they would effectively do what the majority of those who have spoken in the debate want. They would remove the additional powers that are provided and destroy the treaty.
      Mr. Marlow: I am sure that my hon. Friend has a valid and interesting point, on which other hon. Members will comment later.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: In case you call me to order, Mr. Lofthouse, I promise that I will not pursue this line of argument much further. However, my hon. Friend will have noticed—this is connected with the institutions—that a group of Members on the Conservative Benches believe that the treaty is a communist conspiracy, and a group of Members on the Opposition Benches believe that it is a capitalist conspiracy.
      It is neither. The treaty is what we choose to make of it. It is my belief that, on the basis of the treaty, my hon. Friend and I, from this side of the House, will be able to make the contribution that we want to make, and others will seek to make the contribution that they wish to make.
      Mr. Marlow: Again, I am not sure how my right hon. Friend's remarks relate to the amendments, but they obviously do, Mr. Lofthouse, because you have not ruled him out of order. I have given way twice to my right hon. Friend, and I shall be happy to give way to him again, because this is an important matter which relates to the amendments.
      Why have the Government seen fit to involve the European Parliament—which the Government do not hold in particularly high esteem and to which they do not want to give certain powers—in defence, foreign policy and judicial and home affairs?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not responding to that point in my speech. He is right that the European Parliament has a consultative role on the pillars. That does not include defence. However, the decisions are for the Governments. The European Parliament already has a consultative role under the Single European Act and European political co-operation of which, as my hon. Friend knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is so staunchly in favour.
      Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend is not being completely forthcoming to the Committee. He knows the treaty pretty well. He will find that the European Parliament is mentioned in many capacities in which it has not been mentioned before. It is mentioned to a far greater extent, and is given far more scope than previously, in foreign affairs, defence, home affairs and judicial affairs.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: It does not have scope in defence, but it has scope in common foreign and security policy, which builds on European political co-operation under the Single European Act. It does not have scope in home/interior/ justice affairs, because those matters have only just been included in the treaty. The European Parliament has the right to be consulted. That is precisely the same right as it has under European political co-operation in the Single European Act.
      Mr. Marlow: I do not want to bore the Committee, but article J.7 says:
      "The Presidency shall consult the European Parliament on the main aspects and the basic choices of the common foreign and security policy and it shall ensure that the views of the European Parliament are duly taken into consideration."
      So the European Parliament is to be consulted, and its views will be taken into account at central European level.
      It continues:
      "The European Parliament shall be kept regularly informed by the Presidency and the Commission of the development of the Union's foreign and security policy."
      That is not how it was written before. It is an extension of the competence of the European Parliament on those issues. People should be well aware of that.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: This is such an important point that it is important to clarify it. I know that my hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the Committee. First, the common foreign and security policy is not a common defence policy. The defence dimension of Europe is contained within the Western European Union, which is outside the European union and the treaty on European union. Secondly, the power to be consulted already exists under European political co-operation. I know that my hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the Committee on that matter.
      Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that security policy is not defence policy—it seems rather like defence policy to me.
      Mr. Cash: On the European Parliament and increasing its powers, has my hon. Friend seen the Maastricht referendum petition on page 9 of Saturday's edition of The Sun, which went out to 4 million people in towns and villages throughout the land? That gives them the opportunity, within the rules of the House, to sign a petition and to ensure that they express their views on the importance of a referendum.
      Mr. Marlow: I do not normally get beyond page 3 of The Sun, but it is appropriate that the public should be consulted again through a referendum, given the massive increase in powers to European institutions proposed by the treaty.
      The problem within the Conservative party, and the difference between my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself, is that the Government say—of the powers given to institutions in the treaty—that it will not happen: subsidiarity will rule, everything is under control and we should not worry, as things are moving in our
      712
      direction. When I read the treaty, I find that the powers that it gives to institutions are very real, and I am concerned that Community institutions will take advantage of them to reduce the powers available to the House.
      Instead of a group of sovereign nations co-operating at European level, the new powers given to European institutions—I am looking at you, Mr. Lofthouse, as I speak, because you are looking at me, so I keep saying the words "European institutions" in case you take the view that I am going off the track—will enable them to turn it from a free-standing group of sovereign and independent nation states into a European union and a unitary state. That is what many Conservative Members are concerned should not happen.
      I read the treaty and believe that it means what it says. My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench reads the treaty and says that it will not happen.
      Some years ago, there was a treaty called the Single European Act. At the time, we were told that the powers that it gave to Community institutions were nothing to worry about. We were told that the treaty was all about the single market and free trade with Europe, and we were all in favour of those. Since then, we have discovered—and been told continually during this debate—that the major powers available to be surrendered, were surrendered at the time of the Single European Act.
      Many years ago, at the time of the Single European Act, we were told that it was unimportant, whereas we are now told that it was vital and that the House conceded power through that Act. When debating powers to be passed to European institutions under the Maastricht treaty, we are told, "Relax, don't worry, things are coming in our direction—it will not happen."
      Yet, if one reads the detail and sees the vast areas in which powers are being potentially transferred to the Commission, the European Parliament and other European institutions, one is bound to be cautious. If one values the powers of this House and the ability of this country to govern itself, one can come only to the conclusion that one must oppose the transfers of power within the treaty.
      Another reason for opposing the treaty can be found by thinking back to the time of Maastricht, when the powers were negotiated. I am second to none in my admiration for my right hon. Friend, who was in a difficult situation. Everyone had come forward with proposals, which were not desired, suggested or required by the United Kingdom. In a way, he was ambushed by all the other European countries and by the European Commission: his action was defensive—damage limitation—and, in the circumstances, my right hon. Friend did a magnificent job.
      Mr. Cash: Which right hon. Friend?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
      However, 15 months later, we are faced with the reality. Europe has changed. The requirements and desires of Europe with regard to co-operation are different from the desires of 15 months ago. The French have had a referendum, and only one third of the French people voted in favour of the treaty. The Danes had a referendum and voted against the treaty. Surely that points to the fact that we should have our own referendum. It concerns me that the future of the treaty is dependent on what the Danes

      713
      decide in a referendum and not on what we in Britain decide in a referendum. Is that not a matter of some concern to you, Mr. Lofthouse?
      The other reason why we must be concerned about whether the powers given to European institutions will be used is because of the other countries in the European Community. Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg are not countries. They are provinces, but they want to be part of a country—for them, that country would be Europe. Italy is incapable of governing itself, and is desperate to have some form of government.
      Dr. John Cunningham rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:
      The Committee divided: Ayes 49, Noes 313.

      Division No. 173]

      [6.45 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Leighton, Ron

      Austin-Walker, John

      Lewis, Terry

      Barnes, Harry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Beggs, Roy

      Loyden, Eddie

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      McAllion, John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Madden, Max

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Mahon, Alice

      Boyes, Roland

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Cann, Jamie

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Cohen, Harry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Connarty, Michael

      Simpson, Alan

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Cryer, Bob

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Davidson, Ian

      Trimble, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Winnick, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Wise, Audrey

      Galloway, George

      Wray, Jimmy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Mr. Dennis Skinner and

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Alexander, Richard

      Booth, Hartley

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Boswell, Tim

      Alton, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Ancram, Michael

      Bowden, Andrew

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowis, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Brand reth, Gyles

      Ashby, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bright, Graham

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Atkins, Robert

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Baldry, Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Burt, Alistair

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Butler, Peter

      Bates, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      714

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hayes, Jerry

      Churchill, Mr

      Heald, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hendry, Charles

      Coe, Sebastian

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Hicks, Robert

      Congdon, David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Conway, Derek

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Horam, John

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Couchrnan, James

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

      Critchley, Julian

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jack, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dover, Den

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Duncan, Alan

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Dunn, Bob

      Key, Robert

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Dykes, Hugh

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Eggar, Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Elletson, Harold

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knapman, Roger

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Knox, David

      Evennett, David

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Faber, David

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lidington, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Forth, Eric

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Luff, Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Roger

      MacKay, Andrew

      French, Douglas

      Maclean, David

      Gale, Roger

      Maclennan, Robert

      Gallie, Phil

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Madel, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Malone, Gerald

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mans, Keith

      Gorst, John

      Marland, Paul

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hague, William

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Merchant, Piers

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Milligan, Stephen

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mills, Iain

      Hannam, Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Harris, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Harvey, Nick

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Moss, Malcolm

      715

      Nelson, Anthony

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stephen, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Stewart, Allan

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Streeter, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Sumberg, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Sykes, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Thomason, Roy

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Pickles, Eric

      Thurnham, Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Tredinnick, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Trend, Michael

      Redwood, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Richards, Rod

      Tyler, Paul

      Riddick, Graham

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Viggers, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wallace, James

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Waller, Gary

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Ward, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Watts, John

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Sackville, Tom

      Welsh, Andrew

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Salmond, Alex

      Whitney, Ray

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Willetts, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wilshire, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Sims, Roger

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wood, Timothy

      Soames, Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mr. Sydney Chapman

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Sproat, Iain

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 1, line 9, after 'II'. Insert
      '(provided that in the implementation of Articles 198(a), (b) and (c) on pages 54 and 55 of Cm 1934 concerning the Committee of the Regions, the 24 members and 24 alternate members of that Committee shall be drawn from elected local government representatives.)'.—[Dr. John Cunningham.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 314, Noes 292.

      Division No. 175]

      [10.06 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dover, Den

      Alexander, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Alton, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Amess, David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Ancram, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Arbuthnot, James

      Eggar, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Elletson, Harold

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Atkins, Robert

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evennett, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Faber, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Fabricant, Michael

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bates, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Forman, Nigel

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Forth, Eric

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Booth, Hartley

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Boswell, Tim

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Freeman, Roger

      Bowis, John

      French, Douglas

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gale, Roger

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Brazier, Julian

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bright, Graham

      Garnier, Edward

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gill, Christopher

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gorst, John

      Burns, Simon

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Butler, Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butterfill, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hague, William

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hannam, Sir John

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Colvin, Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Congdon, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Conway, Derek

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Heald, Oliver

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Couchman, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Cran, James

      Hicks, Robert

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

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Day, Stephen

      Horam, John

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Devlin, Tim

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      761

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

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Merchant, Piers

      Jack, Michael

      Milligan, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Jessel, Toby

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Key, Robert

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Norris, Steve

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Ottaway, Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Page, Richard

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Paice, James

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

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

      Patnick, Irvine

      Knox, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Pawsey, James

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Pickles, Eric

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Legg, Barry

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Redwood, John

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Lidington, David

      Richards, Rod

      Lightbown, David

      Riddick, Graham

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Lord, Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Luff, Peter

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Maclean, David

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Madel, David

      Sackville, Tom

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Malone, Gerald

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Mans, Keith

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Marland, Paul

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Marlow, Tony

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      762

      Shersby, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Sims, Roger

      Trend, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Trotter, Neville

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Walden, George

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Wallace, James

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waller, Gary

      Spring, Richard

      Ward, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Steen, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Stephen, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Stern, Michael

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Stewart, Allan

      Whitney, Ray

      Streeter, Gary

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Sykes, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thomason, Roy

      Yeo, Tim

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

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

      Mr. Timothy Wood.

      Tracey, Richard

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Hood, Jimmy

      Barnes, Harry

      Lewis, Terry

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Livingstone, Ken

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Canavan, Dennis

      McAllion, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Mahon, Alice

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Cummings, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Davidson, Ian

      Winnick, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Wise, Audrey

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Flynn, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Galloway, George

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mr. Dennis Skinner.

      Graham, Thomas

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Have you received any information about the grubby deal done by the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, who have sold out the interests of Wales and Scotland to support the Government on the amendment?
      The First Deputy Chairman: I have heard nothing about any deals.
      Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Will you confirm that, as the amendment has been passed, in due course there will be a Report stage?
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and knows the procedure as well as I do.
      Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. As the Prime Minister and nearly all leading Cabinet Ministers staked their position at Harrogate at the weekend and said that they would deliver the votes on Maastricht, would not the right and proper thing now be for the Government to resign? [Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Will hon. Members please take their seats?
      The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been in the House a long time and knows that that is not a matter for me.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it in order for a party that wishes us to make progress on the Maastricht Bill to provoke a long delay, which is what the Liberal party has done?
      7.15 pm
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must now proceed to the next group of amendments.
      Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 3(b) on page 10 of Cm 1934 relating to the principle of subsidiarity.)'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 77, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(other than Article 3b)'.
      No. 105, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 3b on page 10 of Cm 1934).'
      No. 126, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(excluding Article G B(5) on page 10 of Cm 1934).'.
      No. 340, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II, insert
      'except the second paragraph of Article 3b on page 10 of Cm 1934'.
      Mr. Robertson: I am seeking to—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quitely so that we can continue with the business.
      Mr. Robertson: As I was saying, and I may have to say again, amendment No. 29 is a probing amendment and we do not intend to push it to a Division.
      We are debating a group of amendments entitled "Subsidiarity", so the debate is of acute importance, not just to the Government, but to the country and the European Community as a whole. I understand that the Foreign Secretary will not be present for the beginning of the debate, and I have received his apologies for that. I am sure that he has business outside the Chamber as he attempts to explain the Government's humiliating defeat to the outside world. However, later in the debate he will undoubtedly show the Committee the importance that he attaches to the concept of subsidiarity, which is not an isolated concept.
      In this country, subsidiarity has much to do with the way in which we should take our own decisions. In that context, it is remarkable that this evening the Government have gone down to a stinging defeat on an issue of importance, both to the Bill and the treaty. They did so with the votes of the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties behind them. It says much about the Government that they were willing to do a deal—the details of which we do not yet know—with those who seek to break up the Union

      721
      of the United Kingdom itself. They did so when they knew that they would he defeated, and that those votes would not be their salvation.
      The incident tells us nothing new about the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, as we knew about their capabilities in that respect long before now. When the day comes, they will be judged in Scotland and Wales against their record of voting with the Government against an amendment that will make it possible for elected representatives of the people to represent this country on the European Committee of the Regions.
      Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee what benefit even more weeks of delay on the discussion of the—Bill which is the effect of the amendment—will have on this country's reputation in Europe?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite out of order.
      Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman was not only quite out of order, but made a pathetic response to what has happened. I do not intend to test your tolerance any further, Mr. Lofthouse. If anyone imagines that the vote was about delay, they are completely wrong.
      We are debating subsidiarity and coming to the kernel of the Government's contention that subsidiarity is important in Europe and that, as a concept in the Maastricht treaty, subsidiarity is of fundamental importance to the Government's achievements at Maastricht. The role of the Committee of the Regions will be a key part of the way that subsidiarity will be won. Therefore, there are no apologies from the Labour party for the decision that was taken.
      Dr. Godman: To me as a Scots Member, the squalid behaviour exhibited by the Scottish nationalists came as no surprise. However, it might have been a salutary lesson to English Members of Parliament. Does not my hon. Friend agree that, no matter how vigorously the concept of subsidiarity is applied, it cannot arrest the growing centralisation of decision making among the central institutions of the European Community?
      Mr. Robertson: I do not agree with my hon. Friend in that regard. Of course, I agree with him about the nationalists, and I agree that there could easily be a centralising influence in the European Community. I hope to deal with my hon. Friend's other points during my speech and to make the central part of my case the inability and unwillingness of the Government to deal with these serious matters.
      Mr. Dalyell: Surely the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), who is a pro-European, ought to understand that Opposition Members who are pro-European greatly resent the Government's attempt—this is part of their undoing—to have things a la carte. If they had agreed to the social chapter and to a proper regional policy they might not have suffered this humiliation. It is the idea of taking policy a la carte which creates such great resentment among those of us who have believed in Europe all our political lives.
      Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. It is regrettable, but it is hardly surprising. The Government preach one thing and practise another—that is what is at the root of their problems, as I said last Thursday. If there
      722
      were any willingness by the Government to seek consensus about this country's objectives in Europe—if there were anything more than an obsession with Conservative parry unity—this country might be able to move forward together at a time when critical decisions will be taken in the Community.
      The Government took nine months to look at the amendments on the Committee of the Regions and still had no positive proposals to put to the House, and that directly led to their humiliation this evening.
      Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman's European credentials, in Scotland or anywhere else, are not in doubt. Does he agree that the nationalists' credentials are in doubt, as was clearly shown this evening? Will he press Ministers on the legal definition of subsidiarity? Like me, he will remember the long debates that we had on the legal definition of a thing called devolution, which was all things to all people. Is he not concerned that this is another similar lovely word? He wants things to work in Europe, so he will want this matter clarified, and I hope that he will press the Government on it.
      Mr. Robertson: We are fortunate in this debate—we were unfortunate in the previous one in this respect—to have the Attorney General with us. The Lord Advocate, the equivalent Scottish Law Officer, is in the House of Lords, so he cannot join us at this stage, although I have a feeling that he may come under cross-examination when the Bill leaves this place.
      I will have a few words to say about the legal definition of subsidiarity in a few moments. The nationalists' credentials, which I never trusted in the first place, have yet again been highlighted as fraudulent. It will be interesting to hear what explanations they come up with for the act of treachery in which they indulged.
      The Foreign Secretary himself has said that the subsidiarity aspect of the treaty was a British achievement. That acheivement was one of the mechanisms whereby he and the Minister of State sought to buy off the rebellion which even then was going on in the Conservative party. It was the beads that were to be given to the Back-Bench natives, the totem around which they could all circle. It was the great victory for Thatcherism. It was the noble Lady herself who had set out on the mission to achieve subsidiarity, seeing it as a unique vehicle for bringing back the powers that she and others had given away to Brussels —bringing them firmly back to the heart of London, and no further.
      The secret Conservative party briefing document entitled, "European Communities (Amendment) Bill Departmental Brier, marked confidential, which was handed to Opposition Members—to our great delight—talks about entrenching subsidiarity, speaking of "a unique British initiative". With that sense of understatement that is so well known in the Conservative party, it calls this
      "a turning point in Community history".
      The briefing says:
      "subsidiarity's meaning, however, should be clear. Subsidiarity is the concept whereby action is only taken by the Community where objectives cannot be satisfactorily achieved by national Governments."
      Here we come to the key to the Government's internal inconsistency: their obsession with national Governments and their lack of concern for anything else. Their definition markedly differs from that adopted in the treaty and in all

      723
      the documentation from other Community countries. Indeed, it is contradicted by the Conservative central office briefing, which states:
      "Britain has led the campaign for decisions to be taken as close as possible to the people whose lives they affect."
      The Conservative party declares, therefore, that the concept was brought into the treaty for the very first time—legally justifiable, we are told, and designed to bring decisions right down to the people who will be affected by Community laws.
      What is this great British achievement? What was achieved at Maastricht on behalf of the British people? Was it the triumph of the Thatcherite philosophy that says that everything must be dragged back from Brussels to national level? Was it the triumph of this Administration seeking to make social measures and environmental and regional policies purely national issues, taken away from the Community? That was what we were told, during the British presidency, was to be the objective of the British Government.
      On the other hand, was the achievement something else entirely, something much deeper and more fundamental, as seen through the eyes of our Community partners?
      Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is not entirely correct? It was always envisaged that certain aspects of these policies, particularly environmental policies, would need Community action, because it was recognised that certain actions taken in certain countries affect the population of other countries. It was the petty areas of harmonisation of Community laws that were objected to, not the areas that naturally needed common decisions.
      Mr. Robertson: That is the common-sense position; it is not the position taken by the British Government, whose view of subsidiarity was that it would allow them to take back inconvenient policies—to repatriate them—but to leave other policies virtually untouched at European level. The Government made no secret of that. Ministers clearly said that they believed that environmental policy, especially majority voting on it, was to be opposed. They believed that it should be dealt with at national level, and their record on European environmental directives is so bad that it is evidence, if the hon. Gentleman wants evidence, for what I am saying. They made it clear, too, that social policy should be a matter for national Governments only—hence the absurd opt-out on social policy. Ministers also identified regional policy as suitable for repatriation to national level; they object to regional policy at home and violently oppose it in the European Community.
      All those are areas which, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) says, should logically and practically be subject to Europewide action, but the British Government decided that it was better to take them back home, where they could impose their own narrow, reactionary policies.
      Other people in the European Community held a view of subsidiarity wholly different from the British Government's. The Commission published a document in October 1992 in which it laid out its ideas about subsidiarity. They were, as Commission ideas usually are, enshrined in the thoughts published in the Edinburgh Council conclusions. It is interesting to note the
      724
      Commission's view of subsidiarity. Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends take the view that the Commission is the most centralising of all the European institutions.
      Paragraph 1 of the Commission's document states:
      "The subsidiarity principle as applied in the institutional context is based on a simple concept. The powers that a state or a federation of states wields in the common interests are only those which individuals, families, companies and local or regional authorities cannot exercise in isolation."
      No pro or anti-Maastricht Member would disagree with that basic principle. The document continues:
      "This common sense principle therefore dictates that decisions should be taken at the level closest to the ordinary citizen and that action taken by the upper echelons of the body politic should be limited."
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Robertson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend when I have completed my description of what the Commission says, because it is important and will let hon. Members see that the imagined threat from the Commission is not reflected in the Commission's view. The document continues:
      "The first application in law of this essentially political principle"—
      we should note the phrase "political principle"—
      "is to be found in the relationship between some of the Member states and their regions where it takes various forms depending on their constitutional traditions. In the Community context subsidiarity means that the functions handed over to the Community are those which the member states at the various levels of decision making"—
      sad to say, in this country that is represented by only one level—
      "can no longer discharge satisfactorily. Any tranfer of powers must have due regard for national identity and the powers of the regions."
      That is the Commission's definition of subsidiarity and how it should work in practice.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Donald Anderson: The debate on this cluster of amendments relates to the very nature of the Community, the extent to which it will be centralised and to which powers will be devolved as closely as possible to the people. It is about the essence of the distribution of power in the Community. Is my hon. Friend puzzled that no member of the nationalist parties of Wales and Scotland has thought fit to attend the debate? Are they smarting from their wounds because of the result of the Division? Is it not rather an abdication of responsibility in an area in which those parties are expected to have expertise that no one has bothered to turn up for this vital debate?
      Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend's point is extremely good. However, he should not be surprised, in view of how those parties have voted and the fuss that they made today about subsidiarity in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff. No wonder they are hiding. I cannot imagine how far they needed to go to hide, but they had to hide. Their absence from the debate should be a delight to us because it underlines the synthetic nature of their interest in the way in which the Community is developing and the central part that subsidiarity will play in the new relationships, not only between the member states after the Maastricht treaty comes into effect but between the regions of those states.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend is famous for his generosity. I understood from the first part of his speech that subsidiarity is rather like the Holy Roman Empire—a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense. However, he subsequently said that the Commission is not the centralising terrible beast that some of us think it to be. To refresh my memory, will he tell me the Opposition's stance on subsidiarity? Are we for it or agin it?
      Mr. Robertson: We are for it. We called for it even before the Government thought about it. We believe in it and think that it is a good concept. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend. The answer is as open and straightforward as the design on my hon. Friend's tie.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Robertson: Perhaps my hon. Friend would wait for a moment.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am not wearing a tie.
      Mr. Robertson: On the ground that my hon. Friend of long standing is not wearing a tie, I shall give way to her.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I have a simple question. Is my very good and hon. Friend standing by the Commission's definition of subsidiarity, which seems to suggest that only regional decisions will be delivered for individual states?
      Mr. Robertson: If I had to choose from the definitions of subsidiarity in all the documents that are before me, I should choose the one by the Commission. It does not state that all power should lie with the regions. It states, as do all the Labour party documents, that Community decisions should be taken at the most appropriate level, which is the lowest and closest to the individual citizen. My hon. Friend and I would not disagree on that, although we may disagree on many other issues in the debate.
      The real question is whether the Government pass any of the tests for the definition of subsidiarity, either in what they say, because they have claimed great enthusiasm for the concept of subsidiarity, or in practice, because, of course, the Government cannot simply be tested on heir reckoning about the future of Europe. However, they can be easily, simply and devastatingly tested on their record in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Barnes: A problem arises about the concept of decisions being taken at an appropriate level. Although we all agree that that should be so, when Mussolini was an anarcho-syndicalist, he would have had one view of the appropriate level, but when he was I1 Duce he would have had another view. We can all agree, but that tells us nothing.
      Mr. Robertson: It tells us little in terms of rhetoric, and that is precisely the problem with the Government. As the Community moves towards closer integration, it is attempting to put more flesh on the idea that we should test each decision and each potential law against the principle that the policy should be implemented at the lowest practical level. I see nothing wrong with that. It may fail because at times the centralising instincts of some of the institutions will overcome common sense. At times Governments, such as that of the United Kingdom, will try, as they have demonstrated over the years, to take back powers that are more properly and sensibly exercised at European level.
      726
      Through the Community as a flexible political institution, which it has been in the past and will continue to be, we must try to work out a flexible method by which subsidiarity can be taken out of the statute books and treaties and made to work in political practice.
      Mr. Peter Shore: My hon. Friend will agree that the attempts made so far to define subsidiarity do not clarify the matter at all. Surely we must return to specifics. Does my hon. Friend think that, for example, interest rate policy is best determined by the Bank of England in London or by a European central bank, wherever it may be?
      Mr. Robertson: I admire my right hon. Friend's sentimentality about the idea that interest rate policies are determined by the Bank of England in Threadneedle street. Do we imagine that the Chancellor telephones the Governor of the Bank of England and transmits crucial decisions and that the decision is not made by people sitting around a table at the Bundesbank at its fortnightly meeting in Frankfurt?
      The reality is that some of these decisions are taken out of our hands anyway. That will happen increasingly. I am the chairman of the British-German parliamentary group and I have a great admiration for Germany. If I have to choose between interest rates for the people I represent being set by German central bankers in Frankfurt or by European central bankers on whom there is a British influence, I have no doubt that I would choose to have them set at European level.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Robertson: I am beginning to learn that a debate such as this does not require one to prepare a speech. One has only to be prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box for three quarters of an hour answering everybody's questions. Again on the ground of sentimentality, I will give way.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman's last debating point indicated that one danger of subsidiarity —I agree with almost everything that he has said about it so far—is that the nation state can easily make it an excuse for a return of the veto under disguise.
      Mr. Robertson: There is that danger. There are dangers in centralisation and repatriation. As I said in last Thursday's debate, at this time in Europe's history there is the danger of beggar-my-neighbour policies—such as competing interest rates—being pursued by European countries in general, and the attitude towards the repatriation of individual policies that are not liked is not in the interests of the people whom we seek to represent.
      The greater interest must be regarded as important. That is why the concept of subsidiarity is so significant. I dare say I shall have the support of a member of the Government's Front Bench in that, when the Foreign Secretary eventually returns from explaining away the Government's defeat. When the Community eventually adopts policies and puts flesh on the concept, we shall see where the real balance lies.
      Mr. Dykes: As vice-chairman of the British-German parliamentary group, of which the hon. Gentleman is chairman, I believe that he was right in his comments about the German effect and the inevitability of accepting it. However, other factors were involved. The action of the

      727
      United States Federal Reserve is one of them, though perhaps that was less influential at the time in question. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was a pity that the Germans also did not consider themselves to be operating within the ERM framework, having regard to the whole group of member states and not just their own requirements? Even for internal purposes, the Germans needed lower interest rates at that particular time.
      Mr. Robertson: Countries are increasingly acting in their national interest. Some right hon. and hon. Members and others outside Parliament think that they should do so. However, that world of speculation and competition is not one that produces an ordered society at a domestic, European or world level. If there is to be a measure of economic and political stability in future, there must be management in the system. That is why the concept of subsidiarity must be seen in the broadest context. Decisions must be taken at a European level where they make sense, and we must integrate at a level and to a level that makes sense.
      At the same time, we must ensure that national identities and decision making are protected, where that is sensible and appropriate.
      Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Robertson: No.
      Mr. Wilkinson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am also a member of the British-German parliamentary group.
      Mr. Robertson: It is the largest in the House, apart from the British-American group, so almost everyone could intervene on that basis. There is a limit to my sentimental generosity. I want to make a little progress, so that other right hon. and hon. Members may have an opportunity to participate in this important debate. I can hardly complain of long speeches by the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who is not in his place, and for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), and then take up a large amount of the Committee's time on my own account.
      The question is whether the Government, who have made such a song and dance about subsidiarity, really believe in it at a European level, or simply see it as a way of taking back powers to a national and, in particular, to a London level. Are they willing to go along with Community partners in a move forward in decentralisation? Do the Government really believe that subsidiarity is an appropriate concept at European level, and does that have any implications for what happens nationally?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) produced a handy document for the Labour party that is most illuminating and which I commend to Conservative Members. It presents a list of legislation introduced by Conservative Governments since 1979 that altered local government responsibilities and functions. They range from the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 and Education Act 1980 to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act, Local Government Act and Local Government (Finance) Act of 1992—all of which had an impact on local government in Britain.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East performed a great service to the House and the country,
      728
      because his list of centralising measures shows that, since 1979, Conservative Governments have been responsible for 145 separate pieces of legislation that centralised power and diminished local government powers in every respect —that from a party which says that it is in favour of subsidiarity and which claims with pride that it favours decisions being taken as close as possible to the people whose lives those decisions affect. The evidence stands against the Government.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman confuses layers of bureaucratic government with democracy as such. Much of the legislation passed by Conservative Governments has given practical local power to local people, whether it be in relation to the administration of their schools or a whole range of other matters. Merely because some local councillors have rather less direct power whereas some school governors have more, for example, is not a sufficient basis for making a wholesale attack on the Government as a centralising Administration.
      Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man, so he just presents the party line, tongue firmly in cheek. There is a lot of inventiveness about that legislation. The poll tax was one piece of legislation buried deep in my hon. Friend's list. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) knows, and every Conservative councillor would admit—almost publicly, never mind privately—that more and more decisions have been taken away from local government and placed in the hands of central Government officials. The Government have followed that course since 1979.
      That list of 145 pieces of legislation is just one measurement of centralisation. The reality for local authorities, from the Shetlands to Kent, suggests that power has been taken from the local level and centralised in London, with the effect of reducing efficiency, effectiveness and democracy.
      If the Government could argue that their concept of subsidiarity in the United Kingdom has produced beneficial results, they might be able to make a presentable case for it. They might be able to argue that the economic miracle in this country was such as to suggest that Whitehall centralisation produces the best decision. They might be able to argue that running Scotland with a handful of Conservative Members of Parliament but the whole machinery of government working for them has produced an ideal relationship between Scotland, England and Wales. However, not one Conservative Member would have the brass neck to suggest that that is the case.
      Recession may be gripping the whole of Europe, but we still have the fastest rising unemployment rate. Growth levels throughout Europe may be down, but ours is still one of the longest-lived reduced growth records in the whole Community. Recession may be all about us, but it has certainly lasted longer and deeper in this country than anywhere else. Perhaps we can learn a few lessons from the way in which others have interpreted subsidiarity in their countries.
      The expansion and economic success achieved by France derived largely from its experimental move away from the centralisation of the old fourth and fifth republics. The French now admit that decentralisation played a major part in the renaissance of the economy. The

      729
      federal structure created, by and large, by the allies after the war has been at the root of German economic success; the fact that its economy is not dominated by one part of the country has given Germany an enormous advantage over other, more centralised nations.
      In Spain, a unique form of devolution has taken place. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) pays only fleeting visits to our debates, because I am sure that he would agree with me about the Spanish devolution to the autonomous regions. Of course, the Minister of State is a great expert on Spain—not just the language—but some of the economic renaissance, under a socialist Government, took place at the same time as devolution to administrative regions. Spain is not merely preaching subsidiarity to the outside world, and enshrining vague phrases; it is taking action on an internal basis, and trying to bring power and decision making closer to the people.
      The constitutional changes currently taking place in Belgium are designed specifically to relate to internal tensions in that country, but also to enshrine the concept of decentralisation in a country with a much more successful economy than ours. The hon Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is again absent for the second stage of this great debate. He was keen to attack Italy, but many of the problems facing the Italian republic derive from central domination of every part of the country's economy and society.
      Decentralisation works, at both European and national level. Only this country sems to interpret its economic failure in this way, assuming that it need do nothing about subsidiarity at home while wandering around the continent preaching it as a European Community perspective.
      Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Robertson: No; I have given way already.
      Mr. Butterfill: It is about my "brass neck".
      Mr. Robertson: I am sure that the glow of satisfaction experienced by the hon. Gentleman after polishing his brass neck will comfort him as he waits to be called to speak in the debate.
      My hon. Friends have asked whether subsidiarity is a definable legal concept, or a purely political one. There are mixed views about that. Madam Speaker's counsel, who gave evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation, has a special form of dry wit, which is reflected in the documents that he submits to Committees and to which the Attorney-General should perhaps aspire He tends—rightly—to stray beyond the strict legal brief, and to pass comment on the politics of European Community legislation. I think that we all gain considerably from his wise advice. In his evidence to the Select Committee, he said:
      "Lawyers, whether they are individually pro-Community or anti-Community, are showing a quite unusual degree of unity in categorising subsidiarity as a principle of policy which is far too imprecise to have any clear legal effect."
      Having said that from the lawyers' point of view, counsel went on:
      "Non-lawyers are having to make the best they can of proposed Article 3b"—
      as it then was—
      730
      "and the best is to contend that the definition (or description) of subsidiarity in that Article will operate essentially as a political restraint on the Commission when proposing and the Council when considering draft legislation."
      I think that those wise words should be taken on board, and I am sure that the Minister agrees with me. The European Community is a legal entity in one respect: it has a treaty base, a Court of Justice, laws, and—thanks to Baroness Thatcher—enforcement powers. Under the Maastricht treaty, it can impose huge levies on any recalcitrant nation state that chooses not to obey the European diktat. At the same time, it is made up of 12 independent, sovereign, self-confident nation states, which do not themselves agree that they are part of a rigid, centralising organisation, and which regularly assert themselves in order to prove that.
      Over the years, that has been the nature of the Community. It would therefore appear that—despite the encyclopaedic detail that has emerged from the conclusions of the Edinburgh summit, which is as dense as anything that the Community has produced—it will continue to be a political concept, implemented by politicians. Let us hope, however, that those politicians will agree to the basic tenets of the philosophy that they are pursuing.
      I was interested by the Minister's interpretation of subsidiarity in this quasi-legal context. On 13 January, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), he said:
      "Subsidiarity means distinguishing those areas which are the responsibility of nation states from areas that may be the Commission's responsibility."—[Official Report, 13 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 911.]
      I am sure that the Minister agrees that, even in the context of what Conservative central office says, that is a remarkably restrictive view. I am not certain whether he had resigned at that point—whether, that is, he had been liberated from the constraint of reading from other people's bits of paper. We shall wait for the Foreign Secretary to enlighten us later.
      I heartily commend the Library's briefing document on further developments in subsidiarity. In its conclusions, it makes the following sensible point:
      "As for the present, when the Commission submits proposals for legislation to the Council, these proposals are already accompanied by a justification for action in accordance with subsidiarity."
      That, then, will be the test. The Commission will have to explain every piece of legislation in the light of the developing concept of subsidiarity.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend has studied the matter far more than I have. He mentioned the Commission. He will have noticed that article 3b does not mention the Commission; it talks about the Community being subject to subsidiarity. Am I to take it that other Community institutions, as well as the Commission, are subject to subsidiarity rule?
      Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend understands that, and I understand it. It must be at the base of all decision making. I crave forgiveness if 1 have concentrated too much on the Commission, which is usually regarded—often wrongly—as the most centralising of the Community institutions, and whose view, like the view that we take of what it will do in future, may therefore be more relevant at present. The concept of reducing the level of decision making to the level closest to the citizen—the most

      731
      appropriate level—must apply to every Community institution if it is to work at all, and in that regard I am entirely in accord with my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the concept of subsidiarity need not be confined to the European Community? Some of us find it hard to understand why the Government appear to attach so much importance to it in this context, while setting their face against an extra-Community forum involving the protection of human rights in Europe. Why do they refuse to allow fundamental rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the European convention on human rights, to be enforced in our domestic courts? That is the reverse of subsidiarity. The Government persistently seek to ensure that our citizens must take the long, expensive route to Strasbourg.
      Mr. Robertson: That has been the thrust of my speech: the Government preach subsidiarity, but, at a domestic and EC level, they practise the opposite. I suppose that, after 14 years, we should hardly be surprised by that, but it is important that we do not allow the Tory party to get away with its propaganda that subsidiarity is a unique Tory achievement. It is nothing of the sort.
      8 pm
      The means of deciding subsidiarity is important. It is all very well to say that the Commission should have to pass a test for each piece of legislation that it proposes, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, the Council and Parliament must agree tests.
      I was impressed by the evidence that Professor Helen Wallace gave to the Foreigh Affairs Select Committee earlier this year, in which she dealt with that point. I know that the Minister favours a committee of wise men to decide subsidiarity. We shared a platform on International Women's Day, from which he enunciated that concept; it was as inappropriate then as it is today. Professor Wallace, who is the foremost authority on Community affairs in the United Kingdom, rightly says that the process must be more public than is being contemplated.
      The Government hid all decision making in the far recesses of the government machine, but there must be a much more public process to define subsidiarity and what tests will be applied to the legislation. She said in her evidence:
      "But there are some very important issues about the extent of detail of Community legislation, or the appropriateness of Community legislation, in those kinds of areas where one may have to rely much more on the normal legislative processes, plus whatever national parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms there may he, which clearly will have to be beefed up in all Member States, to try to sort out the ridiculous from the sensible."
      From a non-parliamentarian, who I believe has some connection with politics in her spare time, that is one of the best definitions:
      "sorting out the ridiculous from the sensible."
      Perhaps in this lengthy debate we might bear that in mind.
      Subsidiarity is a good concept and a valuable principle —but only if it works in practice. It is good for Europe and is a step forward for which the Labour party argued strongly and wanted even before the Conservative party discovered that it existed. It cannot be confined to a European ghetto—ideal for resolving Whitehall-Brussels
      732
      disputes but seen against a centralist closed British system inside our country. Subsidiarity—the principle, as the Birmingham declaration said, of nearness of decision making and decentralised decision taking—is right for Europe and essential for the United Kingdom.
      Mr. David Wilshire: Thank you, Dame Janet, for calling me so early in the debate. This is my first contribution to the debate on the Maastricht treaty. I hope that you will agree that variety adds interest; it remains to be seen whether it adds wisdom.
      It may help to explain where I stand and why I thought that it might be helpful to intervene. The Europhiles, if I may so call them, consider me unsound and the Eurphobes regard me as totally unreliable. That seems to me an ideal position from which to join the debate, as my central purpose is to warn both sides of the debate that subsidiarity does not help either cause. I must admit to having studied subsidiarity for a long time, academically outside the House and as a politician within it. It is invariably misunderstood or, more mischievously, deliberately misdefined. I conclude that subsidiarity is at best neutral and at worst downright dangerous.
      It is worth considering why subsidiarity has become an issue which so many people hold up as an answer to problems. It strikes me as yet another worthy attempt—I do not mean that disparagingly—to placate critics, who in this case are those who worry about the societal implications of the further development of an economic community. The trouble with the approach of trying to placate those at the margins is that it does not get one far. One is merely trying to smooth things over.
      The Euro-visionaries, if I may call them that without being unkind, have a classic economic model that they are seeking to develop—I accept much of what they say—in the belief that it will make all our lives better. And so it may, but like all economic models it keeps colliding with social reality—in this case, a deep-seated sense of who we are. That is a very powerful concept. The typical response of enthusiasts when reality bumps into their model is to try to make the real world fit their model, in the mistaken belief that if they blur the edges of the model often enough, all will be well. History teaches us otherwise.
      When people started to object to the impact of economic integration on their societal separation as nation states, the Euro-visionaries conjured up the concept of subsidiarity and said, "Here is a way of placating those people who are concerned."
      There are two snags to that: first, no one can agree what subsidiarity means; secondly, it is a means of papering over the cracks which keep appearing when we should be trying to fill the cracks and stop further cracks developing.
      The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to the Library research note. I did the same, but it seems that we have a difficulty agreeing what subsidiarity means. Page 16, rather nicely, says:
      "There is a plethora of literature on subsidiarity with few common strands except that no-one yet knows exactly how it will be applied in the context of European Union."
      That says it all. The document says that subsidiarity has a long history, starting, it suggests, with Aristotle, going on via Locke and Stuart Mill to Pope Pius XI.
      Mr. Robertson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about Government policy extends to railway privatisation, but there is much literature about privatisation and much about railways. There is no clear

      733
      idea, even inside Government, how on earth the privatisation of British Rail will fit in practice, but that does not seem to have deterred Transport Ministers from proceeding with that experiment.
      Mr. Wilshire: I would love to beat the hon. Gentleman about the head and tell him why rail privatisation is a splendid idea, but I have no doubt that you, Dame Janet, would rule me out of order, so the best that I can do is to stick with subsidiarity. The hon. Gentleman may then come to a different conclusion about my views on Government policy.
      I was trying to say that the only thing on which we can agree is that there is no definition on which we can agree. Subsidiarity has a long history; so does prostitution, but that does not make prostitution a particularly good idea.
      Mr. Barnes: Is it not the case that different arguments can produce different attitudes about whether or not we are in favour of privatisation? However, subsidiarity is presented to us as something with which we must all agree, whatever we want from it. It sounds like something compelling, when in fact it ends up being meaningless because there is nothing specific about it—unlike privatisation.
      Mr. Wilshire: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to finish my speech, because that is precisely the direction in which I am heading. We do not agree on very much, but perhaps tonight, or at breakfast tomorrow, he will reflect on the fact that for once he has agreed with a Conservative Member. I recommend that he does it more often.
      The hon. Gentleman rightly said that subsidiarity can be all things to all people, but if we are to pursue the concept of subsidiarity, we must understand it. There is no point in saying that we all have different definitions. We have to try to solve the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
      Having been told that the Maastricht treaty was a good idea, I naively thought that I had better consult it. I thought that if anything could help, surely the treaty could. Article A, which has already been mentioned, states that decisions must be
      "taken as closely as possible to the citizen."
      That is a splendid idea, but unless that article means that all decisions will be taken by parish councils—which heaven forbid—it takes us no further forward in deciding who takes what decision where.
      Article 3b deals with the justification for Community action. It states that the Community shall take action if
      "action cannot sufficiently be achieved by Member States"
      or if it is
      "better achieved by the Community."
      They are statements of the obvious. They tell us that different things are best done at different levels, but that is all. We knew that before we started.
      If one listens to the various definitions and reads the Library document, one theme emerges in all the attempts to define subsidiarity, however different the attempts may be. The common strand that lurks and which has been touched on already is that there is a sense of different levels of activity. We need to hang on to that idea and think about it to see whether we can use it to discover what subsidiarity really means.
      The issue of the sense of levels keeps bobbing up in the debate, but no one usually speaks about it logically. It is
      734
      an instinctive rather than a rational concept. The sense of different levels is deep inside each and every one of us, not merely in the mind of the occasional visionary or academic who will explain it to us. It is crucial that we try to understand what the deep sense of different levels inside us is; if we can understand that, we can begin to understand what the debate is really about rather than what some people would like us to think it is about.
      The instinctive sense inside us is a societal sense. It has nothing to do with economics. We have a sense of different levels out of a social rather than an economic view. We instinctively believe that this sense of different levels has something to do with organisation. In other words, we instinctively feel that it has something to do with government. More important, the sense of levels inside us is deeply territorial. Anyone who doubts that need only pop across to Bosnia and see what is happening in the name of controlling one's own territory.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting speech. As he is talking about the territorial nature of subsidiarity, will he risk agreeing with me that the federal represents entrenched subsidiarity?
      Mr. Wilshire: It might or it might not. It depends. If the hon. Gentleman asks me as an academic, he will get that type of answer. If he asks me as a politician, I shall later risk saying exactly what I think. However, if I am asked as an academic, I can only repeat my first answer. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be content with that and to wait. I understand what he means.
      The sense of levels is highly territorial and we have to get to grips with the fact that it is also instinctively hierarchical. We instinctively understand that the different levels are stacked one on top of the other.
      Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is making an interesting and thoughtful speech. I am fascinated—I am sure that the whole House is—by his definition of the epistemology of subsidiarity. However, on the subject of levels, is it not a fact that prima facie the Community will have competence in the areas set aside for Community action by the treaty itself and will have precedence over national parliaments in the pursuit of what the Community regards as Community objectives? Is it not a fact that the sole arbiter of the level at which decisions are to be taken will not be the supreme court of Parliament here at Westminster but the European Parliament in Brussels, over which we have no jurisdiction?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend touches beautifully on the point which exercises the minds of people as they argue the issue. In return, I am trying to make the point that understanding subsidiarity will not add or detract from that point of view but will tell us merely that things should be done at different levels. The question is at which level is the very political issue that my hon. Friend highlighted. I am inclined to agree that there is a problem.
      I return to the question of what subsidiarity might arise from. In a phrase, I believe that we are debating how society instinctively organises itself.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who is a distinguished classicist, used the word "epistemology". In my ignorance, I am unaware of the meaning of that word and

      735
      wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who clearly understood it, could enlighten me.
      Mr. Wilshire: I hoped that I had got away with that, but my right hon. Friend has now embarrassed me into saying that I ignored it because I did not know what my hon. Friend was talking about. Will my hon. Friend enlighten me?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Is it a new word?
      Mr. Wilshire: It was a new word to me, but as to whether it was a new word for the English, Greek or Latin dictionaries, for the moment I pass. No doubt my mailbag will tell me that I am an ignoramus and put me right in due course. We have to focus not on such words but on the emotional problem of what society thinks that it is.
      If we have a sense of hierarchy, with different things being done at different levels, we must decide what the levels are and what should be done at each level. The debate will then tend to focus on doing things at different levels and whether we have got the level right or wrong. Having thought the issue through at some length, I believe that society has seven levels and that we all belong to each of them. The debate on subsidiarity must then be about which of the seven levels particular things must be done at.
      Hon. Members may wonder what on earth an academic discourse about different levels has to do with subsidiarity. The answer is that each level is discrete. For example, one of the levels is a household. One cannot have a household inside a household: there is either a household or there is not. Another of the levels is the nation state. By definition, one cannot have a nation state inside a nation state. If we are to discuss issues which bear on a distinct level of society called the nation state, we must understand it. If we try to redefine it, we are striking at the instinctive sense of how people think about themselves.
      Another important aspect of the sense of levels is that, having worked through the way in which society structures itself instinctively, one quickly discovers that there is a distinct and different focus at each level.
      A couple of examples will make my point. I sense that there is a level in the structure which is instinctively about the delivery of local services. We argue at length about what local government is, but all hon. Members would agree that we sensibly leave the emptying of rubbish bins to whichever level is responsible for local services. Similarly, if we want to resolve the problem of the hole in the ozone layer, there is only one level that can do that—the whole world. There is no point in the EC Commission trying to solve the problem of the hole in the ozone layer because the rest of the world has something to do with it.
      In the structure of levels, there is very much a sense of doing things in the right place. What does that tell us about subsidiarity? If subsidiarity is used—the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made this point well—in the context in which we are discussing it, it is a political concept. Let us suppose that the Committee accepts my notion of a hierarchy of levels and accepts that each level has a distinct, separate and correct focus in the instinctive order of things.
      If, through political expediency, we try to fudge the edges of the problem and to make the real world fit the
      736
      model—and if as politicians we use a concept called subsidiarity to try to do things at the lowest level, to quote what many have said, when the lowest level is not the correct level according to the instinctive way in which society organises itself—we have a recipe for disaster. That is what concerns me about the whole concept.
      Within the concept of levels, by far the most powerful level is the nation state. There is no point in beating about the bush and we cannot alter that. The most deep-seated of all levels in society is the nation state. Anybody who does not believe me need only go to the nearest churchyard or war cemetery to discover that more people have been killed defending that sense of territory, which is what we are talking about, than for any other reason. The economic modellers of the EC might wish it otherwise—although I believe that that is why they started the EC in the first place—but the most powerful of all levels is that of the nation state.
      As I said when I was trying to draw out my point about that sense, the feeling is deeply territorial. Whether we like it or not, we have within us a concept of the nation state. The definition and the distinctive focus of the nation state is, above all else, to defend its territory and to protect the edges of it. Anything—even an economic model for the best of purposes, described as the economic betterment of the whole of Europe—which nibbles at that sense of national sovereignty is bound to cause trouble.
      I fear that subsidiarity is being used as a means of blurring the edges so that we can shuffle a few things about in the hope that the problem will go away. I do not mind if people want to try that. My message is simply that that sense will not go away. It can neither be legislated nor reasoned away. It is there and it is very powerful.
      I conclude at the end of this thought process that, although subsidiarity is an interesting subject and although it has a valid contribution, I fear that it offers no cure to my party if my party is using it as a way in which to prevent itself from tearing itself apart. Valid as the concept of subsidiarity is, all it does confirm that there is a hierarchy of levels, that different things happen at different levels, and that social harmony will be achieved only by doing the right thing at the right level. Subsidiarity will take us that far.
      It is most important to understand what subsidiarity does not do. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I point out that it does not help us to define the territories. If we agree on subsidiarity, on its definition and on this and that, we are still no further forward with the whole problem of the territories aspect of each level.
      We can say that we must do things at the right level or at the best level, but subsidiarity does not help us one iota in defining what is to be done where. The concept is silent on that. What is best done by the nation state, for example, does not define a nation state's territory. We can have a long argument about whether the United Kingdom ceases to be the nation state, but we shall still have no sense of the territory. Subsidiarity is neutral on that. If subsidiarity is used by politicians to force the doing of particular things at a level lower than the optimum level at which the thing is sensibly done, in the way in which society organises itself, the concept of subsidiarity becomes downright dangerous.
      Let us talk about subsidiarity by all means, but let us not be tempted to see it as a quick fix. If we see it as a quick fix, we do so at our peril. As was said earlier, subsidiarity

      737
      is essentially a political concept. If it is used to try to redefine how society sees itself, and if we are really trying to redefine the role of society, we shall live to rue the day.
      Dr. Godman: I too have difficulties with the concept of subsidiarity and with its application. With the treaty, we are experiencing the growing centralisation of decision making in the central institutions of the European Community. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I cannot believe that even the most vigorous application of article 3b can arrest that continuing centralising process.
      In its fourth report, the Select Committee on European Legislation said:
      "The key question is whether the Maastricht treaty does or does not make the Community more centralist".
      My argument is that the treaty encourages the process of centralisation. As such, it totally ignores the concept and process of federalism.
      "The Oxford English Dictionary" defines "centralise" as follows:
      "1…to come together at a centre; to form a centre; to concentrate…2…to bring to a centre, locate in a centre, make central; esp. to concentrate (administrative powers) in a single head or centre, instead of distributing them among local departments; to subject to centralisation."
      That is what the treaty will bring about. The same dictionary defines "federalise" as follows:
      "To decentralise; to take from the central authority and hand over to federal bodies in the state, or to federal states in a union."
      Hon. Members should give up the label of the "European Economic Community". We are talking about the European union. The treaty does nothing, even with the application of subsidiarity, to devolve power from the centre. No one can claim that with article 3b we shall move even surreptitiously along the path of federalisation of institutions and decision making.
      In our earlier debate on the institutions of the Commission, of the Parliament and of the Council, we acknowledged that under the treaty there will be a shift in the distribution of power among those central institutions. The Minister of State has acknowledged that, as has the Secretary of State on a number of occasions.
      The Select Committee on European Legislation also referred to the less than radical shift in the distribution of power among the central institutions. On page xxxiv of the fourth report, it states:
      "The main changes lie, patently—in the changes in procedure discussed in relation to the Commission: the Council is the principal loser in that wherever the co-decision procedure applies the Council cannot (even by unanimity as under the co-operative procedure) force through a measure to which the European Parliament will not assent."
      No one can deny that that is a shift in the power relations between those two institutions.
      8.30 pm
      The European Court of Justice is another central institution which must grow in power over the next few years. I appreciate that we will discuss the European Court of Justice under the group of amendments headed by amendment No. 32, but, there can be no genuine analysis of the concept of subsidiarity without passing reference to the European Court of Justice. As the concept of subsidiarity is in the treaty, it is potentially justiciable. The European Court of Justice must therefore be involved in determining what comes under the doctrine of subsidiarity.
      738
      The European Court of Justice is already a supreme court vis-a-vis the 13 legal systems in the 12 member states. In that respect, the Scottish system has equal status with the English and Welsh system. The European Court of Justice has overturned legislation passed by this Parliament in recent years. In that respect, I refer to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which contained a provision that was unacceptable to that supreme court. The House of Commons had to shift ground, not the European Court of Justice.
      The European Court of Justice is a powerful central institution. I submit that its power will grow over the next few years, particularly in terms of what is to be devolved to member states and what is to remain with the Commission. Although the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs may shake his head, I believe that I am right in saying that the Commission will be deeply reluctant to give up the areas of decision making that are now within its province or within the Community's province. I cannot see the Commission allowing that kind of devolution of decision making.
      Before I go any further, I must state that I am perfectly willing to refer to those central institutions and to use them as tactical conveniences. Indeed, I suggested that to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith), when he made a notable speech about the power of the European Court of Justice. In the near future, I hope to raise a case in the sheriff court in Greenock. I hope that the representatives of my constituent will be able to persuade the sheriff, by way of article 177, to refer the case to the European Court of Justice. That is an example of the power that that court possesses at the moment. That power must grow with the ratification of the treaty—if it is resuscitated by the Danes.
      I will leave my analysis of the role of the European Court of Justice to our debate on amendments that we will presumably reach later this week, when I hope to catch your eye, Dame Janet. However, that court will play an important role in respect of article 3b. No matter how vigorously and determinedly this Government or successive Governments apply article 3b, I do not believe that article 3b will arrest the alarming process of centralisation that we are witnessing.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has already quoted from the Select Committee on European Legislation, the members of which stated:
      "Unhappily a sharp division of opinion has now opened up between lawyers and others. Lawyers, whether they are individually pro-Community or anti-Community, are showing a quite unusual degree of unity in categorising subsidiarity as a principle of policy which is far too imprecise to have any clear legal effect."
      If that is the case, the only arbiters will be the 13 judges who comprise that august body—the European Court of Justice. The arbiter will not be a Scottish court, the Court of Session in Edinburgh or a court south of the border. Having to determine such questions will give the European Court of Justice an increasingly politicised role in decision making within the Community. I am sure that that gives those judges no satisfaction whatsoever.
      I am not a lawyer, and there are lawyers present in the Committee who may challenge what I am saying. However, as a layman, I must state that I genuinely believe that that supreme court will take those decisions and have sanctions to levy against recalcitrant member states. In terms of subsidiarity—this might be an advantageous implementation of subsidiarity—the treaty elsewhere

      739
      allows individuals who believe that their nation state is not protecting them in terms of European legislation, to go to a national court and bring their Government to that national court. No doubt that must cause Governments nightmares.
      A careful reading of the treaty and of the powers of the European Court of Justice shows that that kind of implementation of subsidiarity may arise. If an individual citizen believes that he or she is not being protected by the Government, state or Department of State, he or she can take that Government or Department of State to a national court. I welcome that degree of subsidiarity, although it has not been mentioned so far in our discussions.
      I believe that subsidiarity is potentially justiciable, because it is in the treaty and judges will have to take decisions. The elected representatives in the 16 länder in Germany may feel fairly relaxed about the treaty in general and about article 3b in particular because they have fairly powerful powers in relation to the Government in Bonn. That sense of ease may be shared by elected representatives in the regional assemblies in Spain.
      However, I cannot believe that the members of the Commission are relaxed about the prospect of the devolution of decision making to member states or regional governments. I cannot see how the concept of subsidiarity allows some areas of decision making to be taken away from the Community. Any such attempts would be vigorously rejected and opposed by the Commission.
      I believe that the Commissioners genuinely believe that the Community is best placed to attain Community objectives. They are international civil servants in every sense of the words. I believe that they do not have a great deal of sympathy for the devolution of decision making to member states and regional governments.
      I do not want to strain your patience, Dame Janet. I said that my speech would be fairly brief, but I am anxious to voice some of my concerns in my first speech in this debate. I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary is here and paying attention to me, although I am sure that he does not agree with me.
      In Scotland, there is widespread dissatisfaction with the so-called United Kingdom, given its highly centralised structure. Many times, I have been asked whether the rather strange idea of subsidiarity will, when put into effect, take us along the path to a Scottish Parliament or even a fairer share of decision making over people's lives. I have said plainly and bluntly that my answer must be, "No, under a Conservative Government." I see that the Foreign Secretary does not disagree with me.
      Tomorrow, the Secretary of State will offer my constituents—a growing number of all ages, but especially the young, are deeply dissatisfied with the present structure of the United Kingdom—a pathetically small concession towards the devolution of political power. It will not do. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) said at the weekend that this was a fatal mistake—it was making concessions to the secessionist movement in Scotland.
      Subsidiarity will not even satisfy those who seek a genuine devolution of power to Scotland. The application of subsidiarity—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman
      740
      continues, I should warn him that he is straying rather far from the substance of this debate. We cannot look at differing powers within the United Kingdom: we must look at subsidiarity in the European Community context.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful for that extremely courteous admonition. I was explaining that some people find it difficult to understand what it is in the treaty. They have asked me whether the implementation of article 3b will lead to a devolution of political decision making within the United Kingdom, and I have said no. At a meeting of the Select Committee on European Legislation, the Foreign Secretary said that the application of the document on subsidiarity is, to some extent, related to the devolution of decision making from Brussels to London and there it stays.
      The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, and I shall give him chapter and verse on that. It was discussed at the Birmingham summit last year and decided that the arrangements within each member state were for that member state. We can argue about the merits of the hon. Gentleman's proposals for Scotland or those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is correct in saying that it is not a matter for the Maastricht treaty or the Community.
      Dr. Godman: In the absence of a referendum and a campaign, which would allow these questions to be debated at public meetings and be met, we must examine the interpretation of those questions in a debate such as this one. There is a genuine demand, supported by the overwhelming majority of Scots, for the reconstitution of the United Kingdom.
      When my constituents have asked what the application of article 3b relating to subsidiarity can do in that regard, I have said that it can do nothing at all. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is absolutely right. This political doctrine is overwhelmingly concerned with the distribution of power between Brussels and the capitals of the 12 member nations. I do not want to run foul of you again, Dame Janet. All I am saying is that that is totally unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of people of Scotland. They want much more.
      We are extremely fortunate that the secessionist movement in Scotland is, thankfully, peaceable—and long may it remain so. However, there are genuine demands, concerns and anxieties about the governance of Scotland which are not met by the treaty. Over the next 10 to 15 years, we shall see a federalist United Kingdom. This place will be an English Parliament, and Scotland, thankfully, will have a Scottish Parliament.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have enjoyed an extremely able speech from the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) in which he said that subsidiarity is somehow not applied in the United Kingdom. It is interesting to see how subsidiarity is applied in the United Kingdom in that it is hon. Members in this House who decide what matters are decided nationally and what matters are delegated to a lower level. Today, we are discussing the ability to make such decisions. That ability will be handed partly or totally

      741
      to the Community. I also wish to refer to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and I shall come back to that later.
      On Second Reading on 20 May, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asserted that, for the Community, the Maastricht treaty marked
      "the point at which, for the first time, we have begun to reverse that centralising trend"
      by securing
      "a legally binding text on subsidiarity".—[Official Report, 20 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 265–66.]
      He then claimed that, if the Commission pursued an act which we considered did not comply with subsidiarity, we could take the issue to the European Court of Justice for adjudication. In his September speech on the presidency, he reiterated that Maastricht was "a turning point" in which
      "the very centralising tendency that many are so worried about was addressed and correct".
      Ministers frequently refer to subsidiarity when they make such claims. Indeed, subsidiarity was cited in exactly that way during the debate on the social chapter to demonstrate how the United Kingdom can expect, to protect itself from over-intrusive legislation.
      I wish to turn my attention to such claims and test their validity, because it is evident that subsidiarity has been oversold in an effort to gain support for the treaty. The first question must be whether subsidiarity represents a turning point—whether it will influence the way in which the Community works. What exactly does it change? That is where Ministers have always had a difficulty.
      My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister began to qualify the effectiveness of article 3b as soon as it was challenged. When he was pressed at Question Time on 16 June, he responded:
      "We should speedily qualify its practical applications. In the next few weeks that will most certainly be one of our priorities of our presidency"—[0fficial Report, 16 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 773.]
      When Parliament was recalled on 24 September 1992, he enlarged on that theme:
      "So we need a definition—a settled order—of what is for national action and what is for Community action. We need clear criteria by which Community proposals will be judged." —[Official Report, 24 September 1992; Vol. 212, c. 8.]
      By implication, article 3b and the Maastricht treaty on their own do not provide clear criteria.
      The Edinburgh declaration on subsidiarity is meant to be this clarification and is the clearest indication that we have of what article 3b is intended to mean in legal terms. The legal meaning is the only meaning which has any relevance. I heard with great interest the comments about the levels of hierarchy which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. It is not hon. Members in the House who will decide which activities are dealt with by which hierarchy, but the Community's institutions.
      Article 3b contains little or no reassurance that subsidiarity is a sign of a new direction. The declaration begins by restating article 3b in terms of three main elements which cover the three paragraphs of article 3b. The declaration says that these reflect
      "three distinct legal concepts which have historical antecedents in the existing Community Treaties or in the case law of the Court of Justice".
      Those concepts are spelt out. The first is:
      "The principle that the Community can only act where given the power to do so—implying that national powers are the rule and the Community's the exception—has always been a basic feature of the Community legal order, (the principle of attribution of powers)."
      742
      That strongly suggests that subsidiarity is nothing new.
      One of the standard legal text books of Community law is Lasok and Bridge. It explains the principle of attribution of powers. It says that the powers exercised by the Commuity originate from the member states but comprise a "common domain" which has been
      "sublimated to that of the Community."
      The key sentence is:
      "This domain, originally delimited in the founding Treaties, tends to expand through the combined effect of the preamble of the EEC Treaty which lists in general terms the political, economic and social objectives of the treaty."
      So—this is my first point—the starting point of article 3b, as defined by the Edinburgh declaration, is not about reversing the trend of Community competence. It is a stark restatement of it.
      Mr. Butterfill: Can my hon. Friend explain why, if subsidiarity has no new effect, the moment that we reached an agreement in Edinburgh on subsidiarity, the Commission withdrew several of its draft directives—even before subsidiarity passed into Community law? It also said that it was actively reconsidering a raft of other directives and would decide whether they could be implemented in the light of the decision taken at Edinburgh. It went on to say that subsidiarity would affect the whole way in which it approached its work as a Commission in future. It has spelt that out in some considerable detail since.
      Mr. Jenkin: In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" The Commission is a political institution which is anxious, like any other Community institution, to see that the Maastricht treaty is ratified. Therefore, it is doing all that it can to avoid rocking the boat in the member states while the treaty goes through. I do not believe that its current behaviour can be taken as a guide to its future behaviour once that process is completed.
      I was about to explain the principle of the attribution of powers which was restated in the Edinburgh declaration about subsidiarity. Lasok and Bridge continue their explanation of the principle of the attribution of powers thus:
      "Once delegated the power cannot be withdrawn…This is the doctrine of the 'occupied field'…Thus, the Community determines the extent of the legal integration and does not permit the member states to be out of step."
      So the Edinburgh declaration on subsidiarity contains no suggestion that subsidiarity is intended to be about reversing the centralising trend of the Community. As we read on through the declaration, no doubt is left how the second and third of the distinct legal concepts are to be interpreted and enforced. We can be under absolutely no illusion that the institutions of the Community will decide whether an action can be better attained at the level of the Community than at the level of the member states. The institutions of the Community will decide the means to be employed to achieve the objective pursued.
      The declaration goes on to describe how subsidiarity should respect the established basic principles; that subsidiarity
      "cannot call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty as interpreted by the Court…The application of the principle shall respect the general provisions of the Maastricht Treaty including the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire."
      Therefore, while subsidiarity may well encourage the Community institutions to ask themselves whether a

      743
      Community action is necessary, it will not provide member states with any additional protection from intrusive measures based upon the expanded objectives set out in article 2 or the enlarged areas of activity in article 3.
      Moreover, not only is nothing reversed but, in the maintenance of the acquis communautaire, here as elsewhere in the treaty, all the Community's gains in competence are consolidated. The declaration continues:
      "it shall not affect the primacy of community law."
      That seems finally to confirm that subsidiarity can only ever be an instrument by which the Community institutions themselves decide the extent of their own authority. It does not matter what we want it to mean as a concept: we shall not be in a position to decide. The Community will decide the levels of hierarchy to which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne referred.
      Later, the declaration reaffirms the obligation to comply with article 5 and abstain from any action which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the treaty. So it would be pointless for a member state to invoke subsidiarity if the court thought that a member state was trying to frustrate a treaty objective. That leads to my second point.
      Subsidiarity could represent an additional centralising threat. It empowers the Community to take action where, by reason of the scale of the effects of the proposed action, the action is better achieved by the Community. But the final paragraph of article 3b creates a new centralising force. It says:
      "Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty."
      That may sound harmless or even helpful to decentralisers but although it is phrased in the negative, it carries a positive corollary.
      Moreover, the reference to the "objectives of this treaty" is significant. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was at pains to point out during the debate on the social chapter that articles 2, 3 and 5 were non vires conferring. However, Lasok and Bridge confirm that it is a general principle of Community law that the objectives become doctrines to govern actions by the institutions. As well as indicating policy to legislators, articles 2, 3 and 5 are, to the court, pointers to interpretation and a formal source to complement inadequately expressed intentions to the makers of the treaty. The reference to the objectives of the treaty in article 3b therefore reinforces those centralising indications.
      The Edinburgh declaration explains:
      "Subsidiarity is a dynamic concept and should be applied in the light of the objectives set out in the Treaty. It allows Community action to be expanded where circumstances so require."
      Far from being a purely decentralising concept, therefore, it is explicitly stated there that subsidiarity can be used to widen Community powers; it therefore strengthens the centralising tendency of the Community.
      In any case, if it was to achieve the aim of limiting Community intrusion into the affairs of member states, the definition of subsidiarity in article 3b is fundamentally flawed because it does not demand any concrete Community interest to be at stake as a justification for taking action. Instead, it merely requires that the action be necessary in furtherance of an "objective"—for example, a social objective which can be entirely internal to the member states.
      744
      The Edinburgh guidelines exacerbate that weaknss of definition, by explicitly recognising that actions may be taken by the Community even when no transnational aspect is involved, in order to further treaty objectives, such as
      "economic and social cohesion and solidarity among the Member States"—
      to quote from the new article 2. Those new objectives will justify more extensive Community action in the social sphere and, because article 3b on subsidiarity defers to those objectives, it encourages rather than checks that tendency.
      When President Mitterrand accuses the United Kingdom of "lack of solidarity" over "le dumping social" he is consciously alluding to an objective of the treaty that will inform Community institutions in their actions.
      May I remind the Committee of the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith), during the debate on the social chapter, in which he argued that, far from securing the supremacy of Parliament in social affairs, the Maastricht treaty would further erode Parliament's ability to decide such matters independently of the Community, notwithstanding our so-called opt-out from the social chapter.
      9 pm
      In response, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office conceded the worth of those arguments and accepted that such issues would be entirely dependent on the ruling of the European Court of Justice. He accepted that the court has
      "traditionally been a centralising institution".
      As a counterweight, he offered his vision of a changed European Court of Justice which, as we pursue our policies in the Community, would no longer be centralising. He claimed:
      "it is not fair to assume that the court will necessarily and at all times make centralising judgments…I see clear signs of a change of emphasis, and I believe that that trend will be reinforced by the Maastricht Treaty."
      He later explained:
      "Through the courts and by introducing article 3b, we must seek to influence the way in which the Community works, not to despair about it."—[Official Report, 27 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1058–60.]
      However, when a majority in the Community are already to be carrying out action in the social field, if the Commission or another member state should seek to bring the United Kingdom into the purview of such actions, subsidiarity will be no defence. On the contrary, it strengthens the treaty basis for doing so.
      In practice, however, the court is only a backdrop against which the Commission will make its proposals to the Council of Ministers. That body, when it enacts legislation, will effectively decide how to implement subsidiarity. Again, Edinburgh confirms that subsidiarity shall apply
      "only to the extent that the Treaty gives to the institution concerned the choice whether to act".
      As we have so often found to our cost, where the Council has a will and a qualified majority, it will find a way. In the normal course of events, it will be inconceivable for a member state to invoke subsidiarity to stop a directive in the European Court, once a qualified majority had given its support to the measure. That flies in the face of earlier ministerial assertions. Once the Council has decided, there simply will be no case for a member state to make.

      745
      When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote, in a letter to The Sunday Times on 22 November that subsidiarity is
      "an important legally binding constraint on Community action",
      he should have explained that the only constraint that it provides is that which the Council is prepared to impose on itself. For example, there is no protection from the working time directive through subsidiarity. Therein lies the real weakness of the United Kingdom opt-out from the social chapter.
      The protocol on social policy provides that the 11 should enact their social chapter policies through the Council of Ministers. If the 11 are voting to impose their social costs upon themselves, subsidiarity will not prevent them from outvoting the 12th to ensure that we bear the same burden. If they have satisfied themselves that the proposed action passes the subsidiarity test, there is little reason to allow us to be an exception.
      Every time that Ministers have tangled with the concept of subsidiarity they have put themselves deeper in the mire.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend has obviously put a lot of thought into the interesting speech that he is delivering. If I understood him aright he has made the most extraordinary suggestion—that in practice the European Court of Justice would set aside the text of our protocol providing for an opt-out from the social chapter, to enforce on us the terms of a chapter from which we have explicitly been excluded by the text of the treaty as it stands. Is that what my hon. Friend is suggesting? Does he really believe that professional lawyers and judges of the European Court of Justice—men of integrity and intelligence—would for one moment impugn their profession by subverting the established text of the treaty in that way?
      Mr. Jenkin: The important point that my hon. Friend makes—or, rather, misses—is that there are plenty of other treaty bases upon which the provisions of the social chapter can be applied. Articles 2, 3, and 5 provide the basic context for Community objectives and activities. We see there recognition of such important objectives as economic and social cohesion and solidarity among member states. So it is simply a question of going to one of the majority-voting provisions, such as article 118a, and asking the court to stretch the meaning, as has happened in other areas of Community law.
      Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Another point in support of this case is that the protocol is clearly distanced from the main body of the text in one area: it says nothing that affects essentially the means by which people will import the social provisions. Actual words to that effect are not there, but that is what is meant. That cannot be a basis for saying that articles 2, 3 and 5 may not be used.
      Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The social protocol says:
      "without prejudice to the provisions of this Treaty, particularly those relating to social policy which constitute an integral part of the 'acquis communautaire'".
      We are not opting out of any social provisions already contained in the Single European Act or the treaty of Rome. Indeed, we are buying into additional social provisions by virtue of the expanded objectives set out in article 2 and the expanded areas of activity set out in article 3.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman has indeed raised a very important point. However, the matter could be resolved immediately. The Foreign Secretary, who negotiated the treaty, is on the Government Front Bench. Why does not the hon. Gentleman challenge his right hon. Friend to say whether he is right or wrong? The hon. Gentleman is saying that the protocol negotiated by the Government for the social chapter opt-out has no real effect or validity. In other words, the Government simply wanted a blanket to cover their nakedness following the negotiations.
      Surely the hon. Gentleman will want to press his right hon. Friend for an immediate answer. Thus we could resolve the confusion that seems to have crept into the debate. I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary is going to move. Perhaps he wants to wait for the return of the Attorney-General.
      Mr. Jenkin: I was getting on extremely well with my speech until the hon. Gentleman invited the great man himself to intervene. If my right hon. Friend wants to come in at this stage I shall very happily give way.
      Mr. Hurd: I am loth to yield to the mischief-making of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). However, as he is indeed making mischief, we might as well indulge in it. On the specific point on which he has issued his challenge, I do not think that there is any great disagreement. Of course we have had problems with the legal reach of the existing treaties in the social sphere. The working time directive is one example. However, the fact that there are problems with the existing arrangements does not mean that one should multiply—double, triple, quadruple—those problems by adopting a treaty base that would turn what is now an exception into an everyday affair. It simply does not make any sense to do that, and that is the purpose of the opt-out.
      My hon. Friend is making a fascinating and able speech. It is fascinating because it is outside the debate that has been taking place inside the Community for the past two years.
      Mr. Spearing: So what?
      Mr. Hurd: The point is that it is not so long ago that what my hon. Friend is challenging, objecting to and saying is inevitable was orthodox. People believed in the centralising tendency. Every advance made towards Community jurisdiction was judged a good thing in itself. That has changed. I accept that the change is not perfect and that there are people around who hold to the old view. However, it is a little out of date for my hon. Friend to look from outside the institutions of the Community and say that things cannot be challenged or changed by member states. Of course it is only member states who give power to the Community, as my hon. Friend acknowledged when he explained the first sentence of article 3b.
      What is happening now, however—I ask my hon. Friend to take my word for it—is that the different institutions are changing. That is reflected in article 3b, the Edinburgh declaration, the activities of the Commission and the sharp reduction in the number of legislative proposals coming forward. That is political fact before it is a legal obligation.
      We have the option to say that such changes are not any good, to be cynical and to say, "They would say that,

      747
      wouldn't they?" We have the option to reject the changes, but that would be a mistake, because our arguments are beginning to bear fruit, and here they are.
      Mr. Jenkin: I naturally take seriously everything that my right hon. Friend says. However, I recently visited the institutions of the Community, notably the Parliament and the Commission. I did not find anyone who supports our Government's view of the treaty and the direction of the Community. On the contrary, every other Government regards Maastricht as merely an interim step on the way to a federal Europe. My right hon. Friend may disagree, but where are all the people who support our view of the Community as one of nation states and our view that the treaty is reversing the centralising process? The only people I could find are those who are against the treaty, such as Mr. Philippe Séguin and the No Campaign of Denmark.
      Mr. Rogers: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to press his right hon. Friend a little further. If I could be even more mischievous, I would suggest that the Foreign Secretary has not given his hon. Friend an answer to the simple question that was posed to him. Is the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) right to say that parts of existing treaties or of this treaty will overrule the protocol that the Government negotiated on the social chapter when certain specific situations come up? If that is the case, why are we having all the fuss about the social chapter? Surely the hon. Member for Colchester, North would want to press his right hon. Friend for an answer on that precise question.
      Mr. Jenkin: I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers that were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford in an earlier debate. We were told that we must seek to influence the way in which the Community works through the courts and by the introduction of article 3. That was the reassurance we were given. We were told that we should not despair about it.
      I do not despair, but I require more than the requirement not to despair to reassure me that we shall not be included, eventually, in the purview of all social legislation. What exactly does the opt-out from the social chapter protect us from? What measures envisaged by the social chapter does the treaty not give a base to in its main body? If I received an answer to that question I might be reassured.
      Every time Ministers have tangled with the concept of subsidiarity they have got themselves deeper into the mire. Subsidiarity consolidates the existing legal order. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not seek to explain that somehow we are subverting the principle of the doctrine of the occupied field, the legal principle on which the Community is founded. Subsidiarity consolidates the existing legal order, increases the scope for expanding the Community's competence and provides little recourse for member states against Community actions.
      In the Second Reading debate on 21 May, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary claimed:
      "The treaty of Maastricht reinforces the position of national Parliaments".—[Official Report, 21 May 1992; Vol. 208, C. 517.]
      748
      However, Frank Vibert QC gave his opinion of subsidiarity, as defined in article 3b of the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. He said that the end result of Maastricht
      "would be the eventual reduction of national parliaments to performing essentially agency roles for the central authorities."
      9.15 pm
      The Government regularly claim that the inclusion of subsidiarity was a great British success at Maastricht. However, in March 1991—some months before the union treaty was agreed at Maastricht—Jacques Delors, speaking at the Jacques Delor colloquium entitled "Subsidiarity—guiding principles for the future of EC policy and responsibility", defined the concept of subsidiarity as follows:
      "Subsidiarity is not simply a limit to intervention by a higher authority vis-a-vis a person or a community in a position to act itself, it is an obligation for this authority to act vis-a-vis this person or this group to see that it is given the means to achieve its ends."
      That version of subsidiarity reminds us of Article A, which invokes
      "an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen."
      It suggests that subsidiarity will be used to circumvent national parliaments and strengthen the direct relationship between Community institutions and the citizen.
      Subsidiarity is to Delors the moral and legal basis for direct social intervention. Therefore, it was no surprise that we were able to persuade all his federalist allies to allow Britain to have subsidiarity as a face saver in the Maastricht treaty instead of "federal vocation". Subsidiarity is entirely consistent with a federal vocation for the Community. We were pushing at an open door. In summary, subsidiarity, far from confirming parliament as the supreme legislative authority in the land, will instead make it ever more subsidiary to the institutions in Brussels.
      Subsidiarity is summarised in the excellent paper produced by the House of Commons Library. It explains how subsidiarity has been invoked
      "as a guide to the means of limiting EC powers, just as federal states include a clause allocating and delimiting the powers of the state and its component parts. The US Constitution contains just such a clause in the Tenth Amendment …The German constitution, the basic law, has a similar clause in article 30".
      Subsidiarity—along with the establishment of the union, the single currency, common foreign policy leading to a common defence, the citizenship, the single institutional framework, the Council, the Parliament, the judges and the court presiding over a supreme body of law —is yet another manifestation of the centralised European superstate in the making. History will laugh at those who advocated the treaty in the name of the sovereignty of Parliament, or who said that it would strengthen the role of national Parliaments and was a step towards a Community of nation states. We are already in a legal federation.
      As Lasok and Bridge explain, the doctrine of the direct applicability and direct effect of Community law
      "unmistakably points to a federal character because in a federal system federal law bears directly upon the citizens of the component states".
      From this, subsidiarity not only provides no escape, but gives further impetus.
      Finally, I remind the Committee of the negotiating mandate that the House of Commons gave to the

      749
      Government before the final Maastricht negotiations. The Government were sent off to work for an agreement, in the words of the resolution,
      "which avoids a federal Europe."
      It stretches the meaning of the English language to insist that that mandate was delivered.
      I end with the words of Jacques Delors. Referring to subsidiarity at his colloquium the previous March, he said:
      "it only makes sense in a federal approach".
      Mr. Dalyell: I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary, who is present, a question to do with relations between Brussels and local authorities, and in particular about money.
      Our country's comparative economic decline in Europe was underscored on 24 February when the Commission in Brussels announced that parts of England and Scotland should, for the first time, be eligible for the maximum rate of EC development aid. Merseyside and the Highlands and Islands have joined regions such as Campagna in the south of Italy as deserving objective I funds from the EC's £15-billion-a-year cohesion budget.
      Our former colleague Bruce Millan—I had dealings with him when he was Secretary of State for Scotland and for a quarter of a century before that; we know that he is an extremely accurate man, not to mention an exceedingly careful accountant—is the Commissioner for regional funding. Mr. Millan has challenged the Treasury to spend about £1 billion more on the poorest regions in industrial decline, or Britain and the British Government will forfeit matching funds from Brussels.
      I heard Bruce Millan say that on the radio and I tried to contact him over the weekend. I failed to contact him, but I have no doubt that the report is accurate. Britain is certainly catching up in the poverty stakes, according to the regional spending department of the Community.
      After furious wrangling between civil servants of various nationalities, it seems that it was agreed that the English and Scottish regions were sufficiently economically disadvantaged. On Merseyside, the 1,400,000 inhabitants have incomes 78·9 per cent. of the EC average; the 277,000 people of the Highlands and Islands have incomes 78·7 per cent. of that average.
      To be fair to Bruce Millan, I should add that he announced that the Abruzzi region of Italy, a long-standing recipient of full EC funding, was to be taken off the list because of its increasing prosperity. The Secretary of State for the Environment pushed for south Yorkshire, rural Wales and Devon and Cornwall to be added to the list, but was turned down by the Commission.
      I want to ask whoever is to wind up about the warning that Bruce Millan gave the Government—that the Government risked forfeiting at least part of the £1 billion spent every year on Britain's industrially stricken regions with objective 2 status unless the Government backed down in the row over how the cash is spent.
      Brussels accused London of flouting the EC regional aid rules by taking the cash into the Treasury and not immediately given it to local authorities to spend on designated projects. Tonight I look for some sort of refutation of Mr. Millan's argument, or acceptance that it is factually correct.
      Local authorities in depressed areas in England and Wales strongly back the Commission in its row with the United Kingdom Government over the allocation of EC aid. I understand from the Minister responsible for
      750
      industry in Scotland that he does not know about the troubles that have arisen; but I also know that Strathclyde and Lothian have had good relations with the EC and are thus rather disturbed that there should be any potential source of friction.
      But anger and frustration are increasing in town halls because of the risk that up to £1 billion of EC aid could be lost to projects in our country's worst-hit regions because of a long-running conflict over the distribution of cash. At the heart of the dispute is whether the various EC funds are additional to the regional spending by member states or whether Governments, and especially the British Government, are using them to reduce the cost of capital programmes by curbing local authority spending. That is the root of the argument.
      The EC Commissioner, Bruce Millan, is becoming increasingly convinced, following protests from local authorities, that the legal conditions for the distribution of aid are still not being met by the London Government and that EC money should co-finance projects that would not otherwise go ahead and which would have a genuine additional impact in the regions concerned. It is the classic and long-running saga of additionality.
      In considering subsidiarity how does the Foreign Secretary hope to resolve the urgent problem of additionality? The director of economic development, Richard Davies, said:
      "We have had the silly situation where we have had to cram three-year projects into a few weeks because it has taken so long for the funding to come through."
      Davis added bitterly:
      "The bottom line is that the Treasury has been taking away the money from local authorities."
      I believe that that is true because I have spoken to the local authorities and, more important than my believing it, they believe it. I ask the Foreign Secretary: is it true that money to the tune of about £1 billion which would otherwise have come to the most hard-pressed local authorities in this country is not getting through? Well, I see that the right hon. Gentleman is not replying at this moment.
      Barbara Edwards, the deputy director of the project, said:
      "Everywhere else in Europe they're powering ahead—the government accepts that they have to pay up. But here nothing happened for over a year because the funds were blocked."
      Barbara Edwards believes that the continuing rows could also delay the stage of any project due to start next year.
      Apparently a similar saga of confusion unfolds in the midlands, where plans to develop a railway line backed by a 1992 EC grant were held up through lack of funds to match potential EC grants. Enough money has been put together to start the line running north from Nottingham, but not enough has been raised to take it to Mansfield and Worksop. Although the line is supported by the EC, the authorities involved are unable to match the potential EC grants.
      I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is responsible for industry in Scotland, has entered the Chamber. He will be aware of the special report on investing in Scotland, in which Eric Baird introduces a three-page analysis of current trends. Mr. Baird says that we are in good shape to embrace a new beginning but expresses concern about the transfer package made possible by support from the Scottish Office, the Glasgow

      751
      development agency and Strathclyde regional council's business development arm. Is it within the EC rules and is there any basis for the outcry that we are not getting funds that would otherwise come to us?
      There is criticism that we are simply funding foreign ownership of new industry and providing an entry to European markets. That is true, but such a premise ignores the benefits not only in direct employment but to many smaller businesses.
      Bruce Millan was closely questioned in "The World Tonight" radio programme and said that he was very sorry that he could not give a substantial amount of money to the most needy regions of our country. He explained that if there was much more delay and if he still believed that Britain was not accepting the EC rules, Britain had to be clear that the money will go to other Community countries and to their deserving regions.
      The purpose of my intervention is to ask three direct questions of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland or of the Foreign Secretary. First, are Bruce Millan's remarks true? Secondly, has Mr. Millan in any way misunderstood the position? Thirdly, if by any chance Mr. Millan has not misunderstood the position—I suspect that he has not—what will the Government do to enable the most hard-up, needy regions of our country to benefit from European funds which are there for the asking but, one can only assume, for the pig-headedness of the Treasury in not providing matching funds?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. John Butterfill: This debate illustrates the wholly cynical approach that the Labour party has taken to all the Maastricht debates. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that, although the Opposition had tabled an amendment that sought to delete the principle of subsidiarity from the treaty, he was nevertheless totally in favour of that principle. That shows the magnitude of the Labour party's "Alice in Wonderland" approach to all our debates on the Maastricht treaty, and the pure cynicism with which it pursues its entirely political objectives, which have nothing to do with treaty or with this country's well-being.
      The Labour party knows very well that prolonging the debate is damaging Britain's commercial interests, exports, and prospects of inward investment, yet by their amendment the Opposition make it clear that their prime objective is to delay the treaty's implementation and to give a minority of my right hon. and hon. Friends—whose position I entirely respect, because most of them have opposed the European Community from the outset—an opportunity to embarrass the Government. That is Labour's position today, and it is entirely disreputable.
      Mr. Jenkin: What does that have to do with subsidiarity?
      Mr. Butterfill: The subject of this debate is subsidiarity, and it is taking place not because subsidiarity is contentious across the Floor of the Committee but because Labour wants to delay the treaty's progress.
      Mr. George Robertson: It gets a bit wearisome at times continually to have to tell Conservative Members that the only way that the Committee can debate an important issue such as subsidiarity—the Foreign Secretary's
      752
      presence is testimony to its importance—is by tabling an amendment to delete subsidiarity from the treaty. That is not meant as a ploy to delay ratification of the treaty but is the only device available under parliamentary proceedures to allow debate. When will Conservative Back Benchers learn that fact of life?
      Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman's protestations would be rather more convincing if there had not already been many debates on the principle of subsidiarity. There was no need for tonight's debate, because, as the hon. Gentleman himself clearly said, Labour supports that principle. It is clear that tonight's debate is for the Labour party's political convenience, and has nothing to do with the treaty.
      Mr. Wilkinson: Does not my hon. Friend acknowledge that a number of the amendments in the group under discussion include several in the names of Conservative Members, for good and serious reasons? They believe that the issue merits serious political consideration and debate. My hon. Friend complains that certain hon. Members are unnecessarily extending the debate. Will he bear in mind the fact that many debates were peremptorily curtailed by the Government by means of closure motions, and that they have the wherewithal readily at their disposal to end the problem of extensive debate, by calling a referendum and letting our people decide?
      Mr. Butterfill: As my hon. Friend knows—because I said it earlier, and I am sure that he was listening carefully —I do not complain about what has been said by my hon. Friends who are opposed to European Community membership—
      Mr. Wilkinson: Or to the treaty?
      Mr. Butterfill: Indeed, they may be opposed only to the treaty. I do not complain about that; I am complaining about the sheer cynicism betrayed by the Labour party this evening.
      Let me now turn to the meaning of subsidiarity. A number of attempts have been made to define the concept—
      Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Butterfill: I should like to develop my argument a little; then I may give way. We have heard a number of Conservative Members expressing opinions similar to those of my hon. Friend, at great length; I think that mine is the first speech to give some support to what the Government are doing, and I should be grateful if I could continue for a while.
      We have heard what subsidiarity is. Let me deal with what it is not. Certainly, it is not what the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)—speaking for the Liberal Democrats—suggested it might be. He suggested that, to create subsidiarity, we should—among other things—incorporate in English law the European convention on human rights. Nothing would be less designed to uphold the principle of subsidiarity: We would take away from the House the right to decide the correct way to proceed on human rights, on behalf of our constituents, and give it to an unelected group of three judges.
      Mr. James Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Butterfill: I shall do so when I have finished the point that I am making. Let us see whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene when he has heard me out.
      If we incorporated the European convention in our law, we should give that right to three judges in Strasbourg who are unelected and not accountable to anyone. The House of Commons has decided to ratify the convention, and Parliament has never failed to uphold a decision by the European Court of Human Rights; but we reserve the right to take such action in the future, if it is in the interests of the nation. Opposition Members wish to take away the powers of the House, and to give them to an unelected court in Strasbourg by enacting in English law the whole panoply of the European convention. That is unnecessary, and would be an abuse of the House.
      Mr. Wallace: Perhaps it is as well that I waited before intervening. The hon. Gentleman has made clear his total lack of comprehension of the European convention on human rights. What he describes as an abuse is what happens now: any British citizen who wishes to pursue his case under the convention, to which we are a signatory, must go to the judges in Europe. We want to allow British citizens to vindicate their rights in a Scottish, English or Welsh court.
      When the hon. Gentleman said that the House might not uphold a decision by the European Court, did he mean that the House would willingly breach its international obligations? Is that his party's policy?
      Mr. Butterfill: I am afraid that it is the hon. Gentleman who is displaying his ignorance. Under the present system, the European Court of Human Rights will not even hear a case unless it has been taken to the highest authority in this country. Our courts must judge first; only if a citizen fails to obtain what he considers to be justice can he go to the European Court of Human Rights, which—because we are a signatory to the treaty—may then order us to comply. And, because we are a signatory, we have never yet failed to comply.
      The distinction that l am making is this. Under the present system, although we comply, we reserve our sovereignty; under the hon. Gentleman's system, we would give it away. The hon. Gentleman misses my point: the action that he proposes would negate subsidiarity rather than creating it. I challenge his suggestion—or that of his hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye —that we would create subsidiarity by adopting the approach they suggest.
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend says that it is vital that we hurry up, reject the amendment and pass the Bill, or investment will evaporate or melt like snow in mid-summer. What will happen to the single market if we do not pass the treaty?
      Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend has a long and respected position of not believing that Britain's best economic interests will be served by pursuing the Maastricht treaty and the union that is involved in ratifying it. I disagree with him. Most City opinion, every industrialist in my constituency and almost every industrialist throughout the country would disagree with him. He is entitled to his opinion, which he has expressed many times. I disagree with him, as so do most hon. Members, and most people in the country.
      754
      The Labour party has cynically used the debate on subsidiarity to promote devolution and giving power to the regions. It wanted the debate so that it could promote its views on the subject. It believes in uniform system of devolution to the regions, that we should all have lander like Germany and that it would be a wonderful panacea. It believes that that is subsidiarity. Again, it has got it wrong. Subsidiarity is about nation states taking decisions when it is appropriate for them to do so. It has nothing to do with imposing lander on Britain or giving independence to Scotland.
      Scotland is part of a Union. Some would say that it is over-represented in this place, but a disproportionate amount of state money is spent on it.
      Mr. Bill Walker: When Scotland and England united to form this United Kingdom unitary Parliament in 1707, we knew exactly what union meant. When the Government and others signed the Single European Act in 1986, I was given assurances in this Chamber that we were not signing up for the form of Union that I understood. Tonight, we have been told that we are creating a legal union, of which we shall become members. Is that not a sleight of hand?
      Mr. Butterfill: No. I would not wish to get involved in a debate on the intricacies of Scottish politics. Suffice it to say that the Scots are well represented in the House and we have the Union. The treaty does not propose to divide Britain into lander, and nor would I wish to do so. Interestingly, the party that stood for the Union and promoted it in Scotland was the only one to increase its share of the vote in Scotland.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) made an interesting and well thought out speech, but I do not agree with him about subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is not something to paper over the cracks between the demands of our national interest and those of the European interest. On the contrary, it defines what is the province of one and what is the province of the other. The definition that the Commission has put on subsidiarity—
      Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Butterfill: No. I have given way to colleagues who represent my hon. Friend's point of view, and I should like to develop my argument.
      On subsidiarity, there is an acceptance that the rules of the Community, which need to be made for its proper maintenance, should not go further than is needed for Community purposes. Many of us believed that many of the Commission's previous proposals went a good deal further than was necessary for the Community purpose which we had all agreed. Therefore, the first definition of subsidiarity is that the purpose should not be exceeded.
      The second definition is that action need not be—and should not be—taken at Community level if it can be taken more efficiently by the member state alone. Only if the member state cannot fulfil the purpose through its own legislation is there a need to introduce a Community rule.
      9.45 pm
      It is clear that much less needs to be done by regulation through the Commission, and far more by directives. Many people believe that Community directives are contrary to national legislation, but that is not so. They allow for the state to decide precisely how the Community's objectives should be put into national law.

      755
      That difference of principle is very important. The principle of subsidiarity is an extremely important part of the treaty. It protects the interests of member states.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) made a powerful speech, and I agreed with a great deal of what he said. However, I disagreed with the main thrust of his speech. He seemed to disagree with the Community's and the treaty's objectives. He said that subsidiarity would not protect us from those objectives. Of course, if he disagrees with the treaty's objectives, he is right not to vote for it. However, if he merely objects to something that will not protect us from those objectives, he is adopting an irrational position.
      Mr. Jenkin: I remind my hon. Friend that the treaty states that the Community shall have as its task the establishment of a common market and an economic and monetary union, and the implementation of common policies and activities referred to in articles 3 and 3a, including a common currency, a common foreign policy and other highly important emblems of statehood. The idea that we can use subsidiarity to protect our own statehood is the fallacy of the Government's argument.
      Mr. Butterfill: I understand that, if my hon. Friend objects to the treaty's objectives, he will naturally not want to support it. However, most hon. Members do not object to its objectives and, under those circumstances—
      Dr. John Cunningham: Before the hon. Gentleman continues his waffling argument, he should apologise to his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). He and all his colleagues oppose the treaty's objectives on the social chapter, they are now opposing those on subsidiarity and they have just voted against its objectives for the Committee of the Regions. What more does he want them to object to?
      Mr. Butterfill: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we object to the social chapter, which is why we had it removed from the treaty. His argument is complete nonsense. I was agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North that some of the Community's institutions currently have a federal character. Any treaty that creates a union of different countries must create a federal character for that union. He may object to going further down the federal road—that is his decision. I accept that the treaty as drafted will create an additional federal character, but it is not an argument for objecting to the treaty itself.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: We have heard some thoughtful speeches in this debate. I am not sure that the speech by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) quite rose to the occasion. I found it interesting to listen to Conservative Members railing against the treaty, against Ministers and against Opposition Front-Bench Members on the ground that the legislation was likely to lead to the centralisation of power within the European Community. Those remarks came from supporters of a Government who have ruthlessly imposed centralised power on every part of the United Kingdom with no consent from several parts of the United Kingdom, especially Scotland and Wales.
      I support the principles of the treaty and I look forward to voting for the Bill on Third Reading when, I hope, it will have been duly amended. I say that as one who represents a constituency in a country which has shared its
      756
      sovereignty with its big brother since 1707, so I do not have the fears of some Conservative Members about sharing sovereignty.
      I was intrigued by the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) about the prospect of the European Court of Justice imposing the social chapter on Britain despite the fact that it was not part of the treaty for us because we had an opt-out. That could be an even more bizarre prospect than the hon. Gentleman imagines. Not long from now, we could find that the House had voted to opt into the social chapter, but that, on the advice of lawyers, the British Government had been able to cling to the opt-out. Under the scenario painted by the hon. Member for Colchester, North, the European Court of Justice would be the only way in which to protect the right of the House to vote to opt into the social chapter. The hon. Gentleman should consider the logic of his position.
      The term "subsidiarity" is singularly inelegant, but it is important. I believe in that concept passionately. I also believe that it should apply not only within the EC, but within the United Kingdom. Subsidiarity should not stop at Westminster or at Whitehall. The principle should apply within the United Kingdom as well as within the European Community.
      That point is all the more important in view of the fact that the House has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to protect the interests of the nations within the United Kingdom. Over the past 14 or 15 years, the Government have been allowed to ride roughshod over the interests of the people of Wales, of the people of Scotland and of the people of the regions of England, with the consent of the House.
      Mr. William Ross: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has assiduously avoided mentioning Northern Ireland, where the rights of the people and the will of the people have been more rigorously overridden than is the case in any other part of the United Kingdom. Perhaps he will keep that point in mind in future.
      Mr. Home Robertson: That is why I did not cite the people of Northern Ireland. I am talking about Scotland, the country that I know best.
      In the Prime Minister's statement to the House following the Council meeting in Birmingham, he told us that the Birmingham declaration recognised the importance of national identities and that it called for a greater role for national Parliaments in the work of the Community. He also found that principle in the agreement which came out of Edinburgh—Edinburgh, of all places for such an agreement to be made. Edinburgh is the capital of a nation which does not yet have a parliament, despite the fact that the people of Scotland have voted again, again and again to have their own Parliament. That was a heavy irony.
      Mr. Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the speech that the Secretary of State for Scotland gave to the Tory Monday club at the most recent Conservative party conference? He said that, although Scotland had not had its own parliament for 286 years, we would be a centre of cultural and economic prosperity. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe that the same argument can apply to Europe and that if we had not had the Westminster Parliament for 280 years and had been governed from Brussels, we would have enjoyed the same cultural and economic prosperity?
      Mr. Home Robertson: The conclusion that I am trying to reach in my speech is perhaps a reverse of the phrase, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't". We have known this particular devil too long, and perhaps it is time that we had another to work with.
      Following the Prime Minister's statement on the Birmingham summit, I wrote to the Prime Minister. He replied that the summit recognised
      "that it is for each Member State to decide how its powers should be exercised domestically: … It is up to individual Member States to order their own constitutional affairs at a national and sub-national level."
      I suppose that that means that Wales and Scotland are sub-nations. I do not recognise that term. I do not accept it and I do not believe that the people of Scotland would accept it. We must consider what a nation is and how a nation or a group of nations can impose accountability on Governments who are supposed to be serving them.
      Conspicuously, the people of Scotland have not been able to secure that accountability from their Government in recent years. We should compare that situation with what applies in other large European countries with regions and historic nations within their borders. In that respect, I think of Germany and Spain. We must consider the democratic accountability in German lander such as Bavaria and Spanish provinces such as Catalonia. We must consider their direct input into European institutions. However, Scotland and Wales will be denied such an input.
      Any deal which denies Scotland and Wales the rights available to the people of Bavaria and Catalonia is not tolerable. The Government are simply offering stocktaking—something that I understand we shall hear more about tomorrow. The Tories received yet another fright in Scotland last year in the general election. As a result, the Prime Minister said that he would have to take stock of the constitutional situation there.
      That stockpot has been boiling away on the back burner for the past 12 months and I believe that we shall see some very dry bones tomorrow afternoon when the Prime Minister makes his announcement. There will be bits and pieces of Committees and more administrative and non-accountable devolution to officials in a Scottish Office which is accountable to only 11 of Scotland's 72 elected Members of Parliament.
      The Prime Minister declared that the principle of subsidiarity is a vital and important democratic principle that he has inserted in the European process. If subsidiarity is good for Europe, it must also be right for the United Kingdom. The House has dismally failed to protect the rights and liberties of our people and it deserves to be eclipsed by more democratic and effective institutions in Strasbourg, Edinburgh or Cardiff.
      The subsidiarity that the Government are offering the Committee in the Bill and the treaty is a charade arid a sham. If it were real, we would support it wholeheartedly. I hope to goodness that Ministers will be able to persuade us that they believe in the principle and that they will apply it not only to Europe, but to the historic nations of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I wish to follow the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) in what was a trip down a rather odd lane. He and I may take different views about what subsidiarity means, but I should make it clear to him that there is no doubt that the people of Scotland know what this Parliament represents for them and their
      758
      interests. They understand that. They know the position. There is no doubt about what happens when they elect hon. Members to this place, whether those hon. Members come from any party, no party or whatever. At least hon. Members represent the interests of Scottish people in this place. We do not know what subsidiarity will mean in effect for Members from Scotland if and when the legal definition is properly and clearly articulated.
      Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that application of the principle of subsidiarity will in no way arrest the growing centralisation of decision making within the European Community?
      Mr. Walker: I could not agree more wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman.
      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 tomorrow.
      10 pm
      Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to refer to the earlier Division on the Committee of the Regions, in which the Government were defeated. I wish to refer to "a deal"—I use not my words but those of the Secretary of State for Scotland—between the Government and the Scottish National party. I have a letter from the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) which concludes:
      "I hope therefore that we have the basis of a deal.
      Yours sincerely, Ian."
      Given that there was a clear deal between the Tory Government and the Scottish National party, is it not reasonable that this and any other correspondence should be placed in the Library and made available to both the House and the people of Scotland?
      In 1979, when the Scottish National party voted with Mrs. Thatcher to bring down the then Labour Government, Jim Callaghan referred to turkeys voting for an early Christmas. Is there evidence that Christmas will be even earlier this year?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that what has taken place in Committee is not a matter for the Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker cannot comment on it one way or another.
      Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it further to that point of order or a new point of order?
      Mr. Marlow: It is a new point of order. You and I share Northampton. How will you and I secure for our constituents representation on the Committee of the Regions equal to that which has been granted to the people of Scotland?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not need his help to look after my constituents.
      Dr. Lewis Moonie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate the ruling that you gave on a previous point of order. Is it within the Standing, Orders of the House for the leader of the Scottish National party to come to the House and make a statement outlining the reasons behind what he has done tonight?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that what happened in Committee has nothing to do with the Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that earlier today Madam Speaker said how much she would deplore the leaking of provisions that would be in a forthcoming Government announcement. Can we have an undertaking from the Government Front Bench that the so-called deal between the Government and the Scottish National party is a leak of what the Government will announce tomorrow?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard Madam Speaker's ruling.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Are these new points of order?
      Hon. Members: Yes.
      Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A few moments ago the Government Whip reported progress, as he put it—[Interruption.] That is the expression that he used. Have the Government said that, before we resume the Committee stage, they will make a statement about what they intend to do as a result of what occurred today? Is it not necessary for us to have a statement of the Government's intention instead of continuing day in, day out, with the Committee stage when no purpose is served—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you are familiar with the phrase "parcel of rogues" to which we now add the phrase "treacherous trio". It is an important point that all future discussion on the Committee of the Regions should be predicated on the basis of information that is before hon. Members. How can we continue to discuss the Committee of the Regions without knowing what deals have been agreed and whether they have any validity in the light of the splendid vote that occurred this evening?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not involved in deals with any party.
      Mr. Llew Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the Division this evening, the Welsh nationalists have disappeared. Could you direct the police to carry out the necessary investigations as to their whereabouts?
      Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not rather depressing that the leader of the Scottish National party took the Tory bribe but did not get the pay-off? In the circumstances, would it be a good idea if we asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to come along so that he can publicly wash his hands of this rather unsavoury affair?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that everyone feels better for that.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft British Gas plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Nos 25.
  Question accordingly agreed to.

Waddesdon (Bypass)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mackay.]
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It will take time out of the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Cryer: I would just like to ask whether you have received any notification of a Government statement, given that they have lost control of the House and cannot get their business through?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Walden.
10.19 pm
Mr. George Walden: It is with relief that we turn to the subject of the Waddesdon bypass in my constituency.
I should like to stress the concern about that bypass that is building up among the villagers of Waddesdon. I have a number of recent proofs of that concern, the most recent being now fewer than 500 letters—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly.
Mr. Walden: The most recent proof was the 500 letters that came from my constituents who live in that relatively small village. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is here, no doubt to demonstrate his solidarity on behalf of those villagers, even though the village is not within his constituency.
Further proof of the high feeling running in Waddesdon was a meeting of the villagers that I attended recently, which pulled in several hundred people. That was an unusual event in my constituency, because my constituents are cool-headed, but they are getting pretty excited and indignant about the traffic on the A41, on which the village lies. Mothers with young children in pushchairs attended that meeting because there is a strong feeling that increasing traffic on the road is becoming a danger to children.
The recent evidence of this increase in traffic is, of course, disputed by everyone concerned, as such evidence always is. I used the road quite a lot, and I have seen the evidence of that increase before my eyes. I have seen the evidence of recent figures that has been shown to me and that presented to me by the villagers.
There is also the evidence of common sense. Since the M40 extension was completed, the result has been, as a glance at the map will confirm, that the A41 through Waddesdon has become a very attractive route for people dodging between the M1 and the M40. Evidence of what can happen if things go wrong on that road, which has an extremely nasty bend, is often seen in crashes. Not so long ago, a particularly nastly crash involved a heavy articulated lorry, the effects of which on a semi-demolished house I remember witnessing.
My constituents in Waddesdon are also concerned about rail privatisation, because close to Waddesdon is the Calvert dumping site. Rubbish is transported by train from London, but my constituents fear that, should that line be in any way endangered by rail privatisation, that rubbish would then have to go by road, thereby increasing the traffic through Waddesdon.
764
It is worth noting that Waddesdon is the only major settlement on the A41 that has no bypass planned. At present, the well known Waddesdon manor stately home, which is normally open to the public, is closed. When it reopens, the flow of tourist traffic will add to the already enormous amounts of traffic build-up on that road.
In addition to the anxieties caused by that traffic problem, there are rumours and uncertainties about the Government's intentions for the east-west trunk route. There are different opinions in my constituency that naturally reflect the constituents' place of residence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury will know, some people believe that the bypass should take the southern route. Others believe that it should take a more northerly route.
Many of my constituents in Waddesdon—I cannot speak for all of them—are in favour of using the A41 for the east-west route, partly because that would improve their prospects of gaining a bypass. However, my role this evening is to stress that, whatever the Government's intention on the east-west route, the people of Waddesdon deserve a bypass. I would welcome it if my hon. Friend the Minister would take this opportunity to shed some light on the Government's plans for the east-west route—
Mr. David Lidington: Hear, hear.
Mr. Walden: I hear my hon. Friend voicing a quiet "Hear, hear".
The lack of clarity about the Government's plans is causing much confusion and apprehension in various parts of my constituency, not least Waddesdon. Only last week I talked to constituents in Aston Abbotts, a small village, who have similar fears and uncertainties. The issue of the route of the bypass in Wing is still unresolved, and will be affected by the Government's east-west plans. Therefore, there is a common thread running through the concern of my constituents, whether they be from Waddesdon, Aston Abbotts or Wing.
I want to leave my hon. Friend the Minister plenty of time to respond, but I do not want him to be under any misapprehension about the strong feelings of my constituents. As he knows, I have been in touch with the Department of Transport on the matter, and I do not want my hon. Friend to be under the illusion that, if the east-west route takes a certain path, my constituents' concerns will subside. I want to make it clear that, whatever the Government's broader strategic intentions, there is an urgent need for a bypass at Waddesdon.
10.27 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has secured tonight's debate, as, for many years, he has shown his great concern for his constituents and for the residents of Waddesdon as they have fought for a bypass. I congratulate him on raising the subject this evening. I am also glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) present. In his short time in the House, he has developed a tenacity for the subject of communications in Buckinghamshire that I greatly respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has written to me recently. This is a subject on which he has campaigned vigorously in the past with my predecessors.

765
I understand that there is currently considerable local speculation about the much wider issue of the possible line of the Department'as proposed east-west route in this area. My hon. Friend may have received some information or opinion about the Department's current thinking on that route, but I have to say at the outset that I am still considering this whole question. I shall deal with this issue later in my speech, but only in the broadest terms.
As this is something on which I am still taking advice within the Department, preparatory to a full public consultation exercise, it would be premature, and not in my view helpful, to pre-empt that very necessary public debate now. We intend to hold a full public debate on the east-west route. I shall therefore focus on the specific matter that my hon. Friend has put before the House: a bypass scheme for the A41 trunk road at Waddesdon.
There is a very long history to this case, on which I shall not dwell. Although a development line for a bypass was established as long ago as 1956—for planning purposes —it has never been proceeded with. Some further work was carried out in the late 1970s to investigate a possible more northerly route, but it was halted in 1980 when the scheme did not secure a place in the national roads programme.
Since then, the Department has kept the situation under review, but a Waddesdon bypass scheme has never been part of the roads programme. Indeed, in 1982 the Department decided that it would no longer seek to protect the original development line, given that it had become outdated and that the prospects for developing a scheme remained remote.
There was a wholesale review of the capacity of the trunk road network in the late 1980s in the light of revised national forecasts of traffic growth. This led to the major expansion of the roads programme in the 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity". Even this was not sufficient to propel the Waddesdon bypass into the programme. We now have the largest trunk road construction programme that we have ever had, with the prospect that it will take us many years to complete and we shall not be able to complete all of it by the turn of the century.
Despite my hon. Friend's eloquent and forceful presentation, the case for Waddesdon looked at in isolation is not strong. The latest traffic data do not support the contention that there has been a significant change since the opening of the M40 extension to Birmingham in January 1991. Traffic counts taken on three occasions since that date show flows within a range of 10,000 to 11,000 vehicles a day. Comparable counts in 1989 and 1990 showed flows within a range of 9,500 to 10,500.
Within that slight increase in overall traffic, there has actually been a reduction in the numbers of heavy goods vehicles over the same period. The proportion of heavy goods vehicles is not particularly high and has declined since the extension of the M40. Nor is there a bad accident record to lend weight to the argument for a bypass.
It is one of the central themes of the Department's national roads programme to provide relief for communities subjected to high levels of through traffic and, in particular, heavy goods traffic. We have in our programme a very large number of bypasses; it is our wish to build bypasses and to relieve communities wherever possible. All schemes have to be economically justified.
On the basis of current traffic flows through Waddesdon, and in the absence of any significant growth
766
as a specific effect of the extension of the M40, I do not believe that it would be easy to build and sustain an economically sound case for a Waddesdon bypass. As I made clear at the outset, that assessment is made on the merits of the case looked at in isolation, devoid of any more wide-ranging strategic issues that may have an impact on the area.
I have every sympathy with people who are affected by noise, disturbance and danger from traffic. As part of my job, I see many people who are so affected. Although prospects for a bypass are not good, that does not mean that nothing can be done to address those real local concerns about the effects of through traffic. I am certainly prepared to consider what other measures might be provided at lower cost to improve safety and enhance the local environment. My hon. Friend has pressed us on that count and has asked whether we can do anything else if we cannot provide a bypass.
The county council, as the Department's agent, has been invited to identify possible measures. That is a recent commission, following a local meeting in February. My hon. Friend attended that meeting which put a strong case for some measures. Until some detailed proposals have been made and considered by the Department, I am not able to say what measures might be introduced, but certainly we shall look at a range of traffic calming and environmental improvements. I know that my hon. Friend will carefully follow our progress on that.
Part of my hon. Friend's concern about the situation at Waddesdon is the future development of the Department's east-west route and the preferred corridor for completing the western section of the route to the M40. That matter also interests my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. It is no secret that the choice for corridor development lies between a northerly route along the existing A41 and a southerly route along the A418 or A329 hut, as I said, detailed comment would be premature and, I think, unhelpful at this stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, we have to make this choice.
None the less, it is fair comment to remind ourselves that two important segments of the east-west route have so far entailed development of the A418. I refer, of course, to the Leighton-Linslade bypass completed in 1991, and our present plans, as foreshadowed in the 1989 White Paper, for development of the A418 west of Aylesbury to Wing bypass. The decision on a route for the western end of the: east-west route will be taken in the context of the benefits available in strategic terms.
On any scenario for development of the A41, I under-. stand of course my hon. Friend's concern about the implications for further traffic growth. Equally, traffic growth would be a factor for the southerly route if it were chosen. I assure him that the selection process will take firmly into account the increased status of the road in strategic terms and, by association, the possible need to effect improvements to reflect that change.
We expect to go forward to public consultation on our west of Aylesbury to Wing bypass proposals in the summer. By that stage, we will be in a position to announce our findings on the corridor issue, which is, of course, central to the hopes of Waddesdon. I shall keep my hon. Friend advised of progress on our decisions about that important route. In the meantime, I am sorry that I cannot be more positive about a bypass for Waddesdon,

767
but I assure my hon. Friend that we will look very carefully to see what else can be done to bring about an improvement for the residents of that community.
I hope that that puts the case fairly to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. If he examines the facts, I am sure that he will, in all justice, accept that, in the context of a busy programme throughout the country, Waddesdon is not as hard-pressed as many other communities that are to have a bypass. Nevertheless, I accept that the community has a good case for a better
768
system, and we shall—having been pressed by my hon. Friend—carefully examine what improvements we can bring that community.
Overall, for the future the community will have to look for bigger improvements to our decision on the east-west corridor, which will come forward soon. I know that my hon. Friends will be anxious to see the decisions that are made in respect of that route.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for raising the issue, and I hope that my explanation will at least be helpful to him and to his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will subject his legal advisers to market testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have no plans to market test the work of the FCO legal advisers.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Governor Patten's proposals for current economic reforms in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Governor of Hong Kong made it clear in his address to the Legislative Council on 7 October 1992 that he would maintain the policies that have generated economic success in Hong Kong, including low predictable taxes, Government spending which does not outpace economic growth and the encouragement of competition. In his Budget on 3 March, Hong Kong's Financial Secretary confirmed that Hong Kong's economy continues to perform strongly. He proposed tax cuts, increased expenditure on priority areas, and measures to assist Hong Kong's most disadvantaged citizens. He also forecast an increase of HKD6.8 billion in Hong Kong's projected reserves in 1996–97.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on applications to enter the United Kingdom made to the post in Islamabad by Mrs. Salim Bi (born 2–1–1934) and her son, Shah Jehan (born 16–1–1976) (Ref: Imm/67849); when DNA test results concerning these applicants were received at the post; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of any information about this case, I have asked the High Commission in Islamabad for a full report. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Israel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of nuclear warheads in Israel's possession; and what are the implications of this for his foreign policy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no direct evidence that Israel has developed a nuclear weapons programme. However, we are well aware of reports that Israel has such 374
  a programme and we shall continue to call on the Israeli Government to allay suspicions categorically by acceding to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. We also call on Israel to work with her neighbours to create a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east.

  Employment Protection Regulations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of all circulars and other advice issued by his Department concerning the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not yet issued any circulars or other advice concerning the transfer of undertakings regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Rwandan authorities concerning human rights abuses in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The EC and its member states have repeatedly expressed their concern at the present situation in Rwanda and have appealed to all parties concerned to be flexible so that a peaceful solution can be found to their difficulties. The most recent EC statement was issued on 15 February and a copy has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his Department are monitoring the human rights situation in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no diplomatic mission in Rwanda. Other United Kingdom missions in the region follow closely developments in that country. We also have regular consultations with EC partners and other western countries who have resident representations in Rwanda.

  Malawi
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made for international observers to be present for the referendum in Malawi on a multi-party system.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In conjunction with other members of the international community we are prepared in principle to provide observers to the referendum process, subject to the Malawian Government and the Opposition pressure groups reaching a satisfactory agreement on the conduct of the referendum.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to provide assistance on request to the two main opposition political parties in Malawi for printing of leaflets and posters for the referendum on a multi-party system.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made it clear to both the Malawian Government and the political pressure groups that we shall not become involved in any way in the campaigning leading up to the referendum.
  375
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made by his Department to monitor the referendum in Malawi; and what assistance has been provided by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Malawi and the main opposition parties in connection with the referendum on a multi-party system.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer today on the arrangements for observers. We are ready to consider offering financial assistance through the United Nations to support the referendum process under the same conditions.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Malawi concerning the referendum on a multi-party system planned for 15 June 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The referendum in Malawi is scheduled to take place on 14 June. We have repeatedly made clear to the Malawian Government that the conditions under which it is held must be fair and in accordance with internationally accepted criteria if it is to have any credibility with the international community.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which he has responsibility to ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if he will make a statement on his policy on hours of staff working each week.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no plans to carry out such a survey.

  In common with civil servants generally, the conditioned working hours of most full-time staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department and its agencies are 41 gross per week in London and 42 gross per week elsewhere.

  Subject to the requirement for all staff to fulfil their conditioned hours, managers have discretion to vary the office hours of individual staff. Court offices are open to the public from 10 am to 4 pm Monday to Friday. Chief clerks ensure that sufficient staff are available at all times when courts are open to the public.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library copies of all circulars and other advice issued by his Department concerning the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has no plans to issue any circulars on general advice concerning either the regulations or the directive.

  Stipendiary Magistrates
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to work towards the appointment of stipendiary magistrates in every town with a population exceeding 70,000.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans to work towards the appointment of stipendiary magistrates in every town with a population exceeding 70,000. Stipendiary magistrate appointments are to commission areas and the Lord Chancellor will consider such appointments normally when he receives requests from those local areas and he considers that the workload warrants that course. The Lord Chancellor has full confidence in the ability of the lay magistracy to cope with the bulk of work. The purpose of stipendiary appointments is to support the lay magistracy.

  Law of Domiciles
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Government plan to introduce legislation based on the conclusions of the report of the Law Commission on the law of domiciles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor hopes to make an announcement about this subject in the near future.

  Committal Proceedings
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which magistrates are aware of, and use, their powers to hold full committal hearings in cases where there is genuine doubt as to whether the accused has a case to answer before a higher court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The provisions in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 in respect of committal proceedings place the onus on the accused's representative to request that the court consider a submission of no case to answer. For this reason it is not appropriate that I make any assessment of magistrates' awareness of the provisions of section 6 of the Act. The future of committal proceedings is one of many issues on which my Department has submitted views to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received regarding the accuracy of the statistics given in the leaflet "Legal Aid—How It Works", with particular reference to the average payments to solicitors under the duty solicitor schemes in 1992–93; and how the figure given was arrived at.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No formal representations have been made. However, it has since come to my attention that there is an inconsistency in the way in which the estimate of the average payment to solicitors in 1992–93 under the duty solicitor schemes was calculated. Average payments to solicitors in the years 1988–89 to 1991–92 were derived by dividing gross expenditure on the schemes by the total number of people helped under the schemes. The
  377
  estimate for 1992–93 was calculated by dividing estimated gross expenditure by the estimated number of bills that will be paid under the schemes. This resulted in an incorrect figure of £101 for 1992–93 because it is not unusual for claims to be aggregated, that is, a single claim may include a number of acts of assistance given to a number of people.

  It is estimated that 885,000 people will receive assistance under the schemes in 1992–93 and that gross expenditure will amount to £72 million. Therefore, the average payment to solicitors in 1992–93 will be £81.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many copies of the leaflet "Legal Aid—How it Works" were published by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Three thousand copies of the leaflet "Legal Aid—How it Works" were published by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Gross Expenditure—£ million

  543

  610

  715

  848

  1,097

  Solicitors—Per cent.

  71

  71

  69

  68

  68

  Barristers—Per cent.

  17

  19

  18

  18

  17

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average payment by the legal aid fund to(a) barristers and (b) solicitors in 1991–92.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The average payment made to barristers and solicitors from the legal aid fund in 1991–92 was as follows:

  Barristers

  Solicitors

  Legal Aid Fund

  £335·77

  £236·29

  For barristers this is an average of payments made in respect of civil legal aid and criminal legal aid in the magistrates' courts. For solicitors this figure is an average of payments made in respect of civil legal aid, criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts, assistance by way of representation, the green form scheme and the duty solicitor schemes. Payments in respect of criminal legal aid in the higher courts are not made from the legal aid fund administered by the Legal Aid Board. Average payments in those cases in 1991–92 were £677.64 for barristers and £741.68 for solicitors.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of the leaflet produced by the Lord Chancellor's Department entitled "Legal Aid—How it Works".

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of the leaflet "Legal Aid —How it Works" produced by the Lord Chancellor's Department was £3,557.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Street Collections
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be issuing guidelines to local authorities on street collections from 1 September.
  378
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to whom the leaflet, "Legal Aid —How it works" produced by the Lord Chancellor's Department, was distributed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Individual copies of the booklet were sent to legal journalists and to peers and Members of Parliament. Since publication in December 1992 copies have been supplied on demand to the Legal Aid Board, the Law Society, individual solicitors, branches of NACAB and members of the public.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the legal aid bill is accounted for by(a) solicitors' fees and (b) barristers' fees for each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The proportion of legal aid expenditure accounted for by solicitors' and barristers' fees for each of the last five years was as follows—

  Mr. Jack
  The current legislation governing street collections—the Police, Factories etc (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 and the Charitable Collections (Transitional Provisions) Order 1974—will remain in force until replaced by the new provisions in part III of the Charities Act 1992.

  The date for commencement of these provisions has not yet been finally settled, although we hope to make an announcement shortly. There will be full consultation on the new regulations before they are brought into force.

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many places at secure training centres will be provided to meet needs arising in Nottinghamshire; where these places will be available; when they will be provided; and how much they will cost in capital and revenue terms;

  (2) what consultations he intends to hold, and with whom, about his plans to establish secure training centres;

  (3) how many places at secure training centres will be necessary to meet needs in England and Wales; where these centres will be located; when they will be open; and how much they will cost in capital and revenue terms.

  Mr. Jack
  As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear in his statement to the House on 2 March, at columns 139–42, we are now preparing for the introduction of a new secure training order. In so doing, we are considering, inter alia, such matters as location, costs and numbers of places for the projected secure training centres. As part of this process, we will be seeking the views of representatives from a range of criminal justice agencies, voluntary agencies and interest groups.

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which he has responsibility to
  379
  ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if he will make a statement on his policy on hours of staff working each week.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Staff work the number of hours specified in their conditions of service, but there is flexibility on how that is achieved. Where there is a direct service to the public—for example, in passport offices or in the public inquiry office of the immigration and nationality department—public counters and telephone bureaux are manned for the advertised hours. If my hon. Friend has encountered a specific problem, I should be glad to have details.

  Operation Container
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 773, about the future of Operation Container, in how many cases in Greater Manchester police officers were involved in the operation other than on rest day working; how many worked on their rest days at the latest date for which figures are available; what information was obtained by the prison service area manager for the Trans-Pennine area at his meeting on 5 February about the implications of police cell usage on police operations in Greater Manchester; and if he will make a further statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is being obtained from the Greater Manchester police and I will write to the right hon. Member as soon as possible. As was explained in my answer of 11 February, the implications for the Greater Manchester police of the prisoners in police cells problem was discussed with senior head-quarters officers on 5 February. It was explained then that Operation Container had been run largely on the basis of rest day working.

  Baby Food, Styal Prison
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements currently exist for the supply of baby food to women with young children in Her Majesty's prison, Styal; and what changes have recently occurred in the arrangements.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Fresh raw materials are supplied by the main kitchen to the mother and baby unit at Her Majesty's prison Styal. Babies' meals are then prepared by the mothers in the unit kitchen. Pre-packaged baby food supplements are also available. Until 2 March, these

  Qualified nurses in each regional health authority September 1979 to 1991

  Whole-time equivalents

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Northern

  14,580

  14,880

  15,170

  —

  15,720

  16,040

  16,590

  16,910

  17,280

  17,410

  17,260

  16,950

  16,880

  Yorkshire

  15,180

  15,740

  16,250

  —

  16,810

  17,290

  17,880

  18,060

  18,530

  18,700

  18,670

  18,540

  18,480

  Trent

  18,180

  18,190

  18,830

  —

  19,800

  20,400

  21,370

  21,830

  22,540

  22,840

  22,720

  23,090

  23,290

  East Anglia

  7,220

  7,430

  7,580

  —

  8,020

  8,420

  8,820

  8,970

  9,280

  9,550

  9,720

  9,760

  9,810

  North West Thames

  15,390

  15,590

  16,490

  —

  16,250

  16,850

  16,870

  16,740

  16,040

  16,060

  15,850

  15,590

  16,280

  North East Thames

  16,690

  16,490

  16,420

  —

  19,180

  19,210

  19,580

  19,560

  19,850

  20,000

  19,570

  19,800

  20,050

  South East Thames

  16,560

  17,090

  17,040

  —

  17,780

  17,770

  18,030

  18,430

  18,520

  18,880

  19,070

  18,740

  16,620

  South West Thames

  13,730

  13,990

  13,970

  —

  14,160

  14,160

  14,260

  14,060

  13,860

  14,090

  14,150

  13,760

  14,120

  Wessex

  11,080

  11,330

  11,250

  —

  12,140

  12,430

  12,810

  12,990

  13,190

  13,660

  13,660

  13,970

  14,130

  Oxford

  8,580

  9,000

  9,070

  —

  9,320

  9,870

  10,110

  10,250

  10,540

  10,690

  10,680

  11,030

  11,320

  South Western

  13,200

  14,110

  14,550

  —

  14,560

  14,680

  15,220

  15,460

  15,770

  15,730

  15,870

  16,320

  16,130

  380
  supplements have been bought centrally wholesale. In order to be more sensitive to the individual needs and preferences of the children and offer a greater choice to mothers the unit, from 2 March local purchases of baby food supplements have been made. There is no extra cost to the food budget.

  Prevention of Terrorism Acts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) arrested or (b) stopped and questioned under the terms of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts in 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 4 March 1993]: The available information is contained in the Home Office statistical bulletin on the operation of the prevention of terrorism legislation—No. 5/93.

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

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 4 March 1993]: In considering each application for an extension of detention under the prevention of Terrorism Act, I have regard to the criteria set out by Lord Colville in paragraph 5.1.6. of his 1987 review of the Act—Cm. 246—which include the need for further forensic work. It is not possible to give statistics of the kind requested based on the specific relevant criteria that applied in each individual case.

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by regional health authority area, the number of qualified nurses in employment in the national health service for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the tables. All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents. Figures exclude agency staff. For 1989 to 1991, England totals include staff working in the London ambulance services and family health services authorities. In 1991, the special health authorities total include qualified nurses working in the special hospitals service authority—Broadmoor, Rampton and Ashworth. Figures for 1982 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  381

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  West Midlands

  19,850

  20,790

  21,360

  —

  22,560

  23,020

  23,820

  24,380

  25,090

  24,770

  25,140

  25,460

  25,210

  Mersey

  11,860

  12,130

  12,120

  —

  12,540

  12,570

  12,930

  13,040

  12,910

  13,130

  13,260

  12,930

  12,620

  North Western

  18,140

  19,270

  19,440

  —

  21,010

  21,810

  22,470

  22,810

  22,770

  22,960

  23,160

  22,920

  23,230

  London postgraduate SH As

  2,790

  2,930

  2,990

  —

  3,480

  3,200

  3,360

  3,310

  3,240

  3,450

  3,390

  3,390

  5,050

  TOTAL

  205,670

  212,500

  216,880

  219,300

  223,320

  227,720

  234,130

  236,770

  239,360

  241,920

  242,190

  242,340

  243,250

  Cancer Screening
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to make the national screening programme for breast and cervical cancer available to women aged over 65 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Breast and cervical screening is already available to women aged 65 and over. In respect of breast screening, it is available every three years on request. For cervical screening, women over 64 are no longer invited for screening under the call-recall programme but may ask to have a cervical smear at any time. Women aged 65 or over who have not had two consecutive negative smears in the last 10 years should continue to be recalled for screening as part of the national programme.

  Mobile Phones (Brain Cancer)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has currently commissioned as to whether non-ionising radiation in mobile telephones can cause brain cancer; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Radiological Protection Board advises the Government on risks to human health from non-ionising electromagnetic radiation, including emissions from mobile radiotelephones. The board's advice is that the radio frequency energy emitted by hand-held radiotelephones does not constitute a cancer hazard on the basis of available research evidence. The Department of Trade and Industry, together with the Science and Engineering Research Council and a number of industrial participants are funding a research study of the physical interaction of fields from hand-held radiotelephones and the human head. The results from this and other studies will enable a better assessment of the extent to which emissions from these devices comply with recommended restrictions on human exposure.

  Doctors
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number and percentage of female, male and ethnic minority doctors with A+, A, B and C merit awards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the ethnic origin of award holders is not held centrally. The breakdown requested by sex and level of award is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  All consultants

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  A+

  195

  1·3

  8

  0·3

  203

  1·1

  A

  655

  4·4

  48

  1·7

  703

  4·0

  B

  1,451

  9·8

  115

  4·0

  1,566

  8·9

  C

  3,184

  21·6

  402

  13·8

  3,586

  20·3

  5,485

  37·2

  573

  19·7

  6,058

  34·3

  382
  Note: Percentages relate to total of female, male and all consultants respectively. Figures for England and Wales.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make available details of the full-time equivalent numbers of(a) medical, (b) nursing, (c) professional and technical, (d) administration, (e) management and (f) other staff employed by health authorities and trusts in England on 30 September in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is given in the table.

  NHS staff by main staff group at 30 September—England

  Whole-time equivalent

  1990

  19911

  Medical and Dental

  45,390

  46,530

  Nursing and Midwifery

  395,360

  392,200

  Professional and Technical

  83,990

  86,890

  Administrative and Clerical

  120,040

  127,370

  General/Senior Managers

  9,680

  13,340

  Other

  133,740

  128,530

  1 Includes some redesignation between staff groups, for example Nursing and Midwifery to general/senior managers.

  Information for 30 September 1992 is not yet available.

  Source: Medical Manpower Census; Non Medical Workforce Census; Aggregate Form KM49).

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the actual time contribution of chairmen and non-executive directors of NHS trusts and the basis on which their emoluments are assessed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall be considering these matters in due course.

  Surcharges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce for health authority and trust chairmen and non-executive directors the same liability to surcharge as applies to local government councillors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have no plans to do so.

  NHS Chairmen and Directors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of (i) chairmen and (ii) non-executive directors in England in 1991–92 who declined to receive emoluments in respect of membership of(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, (c) family health service authorities and (d) hospital trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which she has responsibility to ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if she will make a statement on her policy on hours of staff working each work.

  Mr. Sackville
  We do not believe that such a survey is required and are not aware of any difficulties experienced

  Death rates (per 100,000 population) from (i) malignant neoplasm of the liver, ICD 155; (ii) chronic liver disease and cirrhosis of the liver, ICD 571 and (iii) other diseases of the liver, ICDs 570, 572 and 573

  (i) Death from malignant neoplasm of the liver

  (ii) Death from chronic liver disease and cirrhosis of the liver

  (iii) Death from other diseases of the liver

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1972

  1·4

  0·7

  3·6

  3·2

  0·6

  0·6

  1973

  1·4

  0·8

  3·9

  3·4

  0·7

  0·6

  1974

  1·4

  0·9

  3·8

  3·4

  0·7

  0·8

  1975

  1·5

  0·8

  3·8

  3·6

  0·6

  0·7

  1976

  1·5

  0·7

  4·3

  3·4

  0·7

  0·6

  1977

  1·5

  0·9

  4·1

  3·3

  0·7

  0·6

  1978

  1·6

  0·8

  4·3

  3·6

  0·8

  0·7

  1979

  2·4

  1·3

  5·0

  3·9

  0·8

  0·7

  1980

  2·2

  1·5

  4·8

  4·2

  0·9

  0·8

  1981

  2·6

  1·6

  4·8

  4·1

  1·0

  0·9

  1982

  2·5

  1·8

  4·7

  4·0

  0·9

  0·9

  1983

  2·5

  1·6

  4·6

  4·2

  0·7

  0·8

  1984

  2·9

  1·8

  5·0

  4·2

  0·6

  0·7

  1985

  2·8

  1·9

  5·7

  4·7

  0·8

  0·7

  1986

  3·1

  2·0

  5·7

  4·5

  0·8

  0·8

  1987

  3·0

  2·0

  6·1

  4·7

  0·7

  0·8

  1988

  3·4

  2·3

  6·1

  5·1

  0·8

  0·8

  1989

  3·3

  2·2

  6·5

  5·4

  0·9

  0·7

  1990

  3·3

  2·2

  6·8

  5·3

  0·7

  0·6

  1991

  3·5

  2·5

  7·0

  5·2

  0·7

  0·5

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of patients on the in-patient waiting list by health authority and trust in England on 31 March 1990, 1991 and 1992; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is given in "Hospital Waiting List, In-patients and Day Cases" published twice a year—information on trusts was first published for September 1991—copies of which are available in the Library. Provisional waiting time figures published recently show that in the 12 months to 31 December 1992 the number of people waiting over a year for in-patient treatment fell by over 51,000 to the lowest figure ever recorded.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage achievement rate in each health authority and which health authorities had not supplied monitoring information to her Department for the period April to September 1992, in respect of(a) waiting times for initial assessment in accidents and emergencies, (b) waiting times in out-patient clinics, (c) cancellation of operations on the day of admission and (d) re-admission of patients within one month of a second cancelled operation, indicating the patients charter targets in each case.
  384
  by members of the public on Friday afternoons. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind perhaps he will let me have the details.

  Liver Disease
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the death rates from (i) cancer of the liver, (ii) cirrhosis of the liver and (iii) other liver diseases for each year since 1972.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities, as purchasers of services, are required to publish annual reports giving details of the performance against all relevant patients charter rights and the standards achieved by their providers. They should have produced their first reports by the end of June. A commentary on overall performance will be included in the chief executive's annual report for 1992–93.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets have been set for each district health authority for waiting times between general practitioner referral and initial consultant appointments.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 4 March at column 219.

  Electrocution
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths by electrocution there were in the last year for which figures are available; and how many of these involved domestic users.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the tables.

  Table 1: Deaths by electrocution in England and Wales, 1991

  Males

  Females

  Accidents caused by electric current ICD E925

  51

  6

  Suicide and self-inflicted injury (leading to death) by electrocution

  385

  Males

  Females

  E958.4

  16

  3

  Injury (leading to death) by electrocution, undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  E988.4

  6

  —

  Total

  73

  9

  Table 2: Deaths by electrocution (occurring in the home in England and Wales), 1991

  Males

  Females

  Accidents caused by electric current and involving domestic wiring and appliances

  E925.0

  18

  3

  Suicide and self-inflicted injury (leading to death) by electrocution

  E958.4

  13

  2

  Injury (leading to death) by electrocution, undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  E988.4

  2

  —

  Total

  33

  5

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of all the submissions received to date in relation to the publication "Effect of Tobacco Advertising on Tobacco Consumption," a discussion document reviewing the evidence.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Comments on the discussion document were not invited on the basis that they would be made public. It would not be appropriate to place copies of the submissions received in the Library without the specific consent of the organisations or individuals concerned.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Teletext Subtitling
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the provision of teletext subtitling for the deaf by independent television companies since 1 January; and if he will seek to introduce arrangements to transfer to his Department responsibility for monitoring such provision.

  Mr. Brooke
  Both hon. Members and members of the public have written to me about the provision of subtitling services for the deaf. I understand that the problems at the beginning of the year have now been resolved. The Independent Television Commission is responsible for monitoring these services and I see no need to change this arrangement, which was established by the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all those services or functions that have been contracted out front his 386
  Department since November 1991 without market testing an in-house bid against external competition with, in each instance, the successful contractor and the reasons for the decision to exclude an in-house bid.

  Mr. Key
  My Department, which was formed in April 1992, has awarded a contract to Sema Group Ltd. for the supply of computer equipment and associated services. It is currently in the process of contracting out a range of central services, including mailroom services, minor maintenance, office cleaning, porterage, reprographics, security, central typing and secretarial cover. The Department has no in-house team to bid for the work and has decided to contract out these services so it can concentrate on its core policy tasks.

  The royal parks division contracted out grounds maintenance work in February 1992. The successful contractors were:
  Brophy Plc, Glendale Industries Limited, Serco Plc, Turfsoil Limited and Tyler Environmental Services Limited.
  The then Secretary of State for the Environment, who was responsible for royal parks at the time, decided that the work should be contracted out for policy reasons.

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future of(a) the English tourist board and (b) the British Tourist Authority.

  Mr. Key
  The English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority have strategic roles to play in the promotion and development of tourism in this country. I have arranged for the chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff were(a) employed arid (b) made redundant by (i) the British Tourist Authority and (ii) the English tourist board in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Key
  The staff of the British Tourist Authority arid the English tourist board are direct employees of the two bodies and all decisions relating to their employment are taken by the members of the boards. Therefore, this question should be addressed to the chief executive of each organisation.

  TV Licence Fee
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when regulations will be laid to bring into effect the television licence fee increases announced in December 1992 for 1 April.

  Mr. Brooke
  I announced on 9 December 1992,Official Report, column 683, that from 1 April 1993 the fee for a colour television licence would increase to £83 and the fee for a monochrome licence would rise to £27·50. On 5 March, I laid before the House the regulations necessary to bring these fees into force.

  Television Governing Bodies
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the emoluments he has approved or the basis on which they are calculated for each member of the governing body of the BBC and the Independent Television Commission.
  387
  Mr. Brooke
  Governors of the BBC and members of the ITC are remunerated as follows:

  £

  BBC

  Chairman

  57,360

  Vice Chairman

  14,715

  National Governors

  14,715

  Governors

  7,360

  ITC

  Chairman

  57,360

  Deputy Chairman

  14,715

  National Members

  11,040

  Members

  7,360

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which he has responsibility to ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if he will make a statement on his policy on hours of staff working each week.

  Mr. Key
  The staff of the Department and its agency work conditioned hours of 41 per week, including lunch breaks. Some operations in the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and the royal parks division are subject to seven days a week working and these are covered on a roster system. Friday afternoons are treated no differently from other days of the week.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the attendance figures for 1992 reported by the national museums and galleries in England for which he is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions, but including their outstations, with the figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1991.

  Mr. Key
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 January 1992, c. 133]: I am pleased to record that the 1992 admission figures for the natural history museum are higher than indicated in my earlier reply to the hon. Member. The estimated admission figure was 1,659,000 for 1992, which gives a change of 10 per cent. over the figures for 1991. This increase effects the estimated total figure for all the national museums and galleries, which should now be 22,813,985 with an overall percentage increase of 6·4 per cent. over 1991.

PRIME MINISTER

  Family Perspective and Life Cycle
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister how the Government co-ordinate the way Departments put the family perspective and the life cycle into social and economic policy.

  The Prime Minister
  The family is central to social and economic policy. The implications for the family are fully 388
  considered by each Department in developing and operating its policies. Where policies cross the boundaries of departmental responsibility, these matters are discussed either directly between Departments or through specific inter-departmental groups and committees.

  Privatised Companies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will amend "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" so as to advise Ministers responsible for future privatisations that they should not subsequently accept paid positions on the boards of the privatised companies.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Such guidance is neither necessary nor appropriate. Former Ministers should make their own judgments about potential conflicts of interest, as other Members of Parliament do.

  Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriffs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the qualifications for nomination as lord lieutenant or high sheriff.

  The Prime Minister
  The only formal qualification required of lord lieutenants and high sheriffs is that the latter must own land in the county in which they are to hold office, but by custom both lord lieutenants and high sheriffs are expected to be based in their counties.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that a co-ordinated response is made to areas where collieries are under threat of closure.

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Walker has been appointed to co-ordinate the regeneration effort in areas under threat of colliery closures. In all areas arrangements are in place to pull together the efforts of all relevant bodies: these include Government Departments, English Estates, training and enterprise councils, British Coal Enterprise, regional development organisations and local authorities.

  Full Employment
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 138, if he will define the full employment that he seeks to achieve.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government pursue policies designed to achieve high levels of employment, consistent with low inflation. Measures to make the labour market competitive, flexible and efficient are an essential part of this.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current situation with the implementation of the citizens charters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made good progress in implementing the charter—90 per cent. of the initial policy commitments set out in the original citizens charter White Paper have been met or are in hand.
  389
  Our principal task now is to ensure delivery of the standards and their regular improvement.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new citizens charters he plans to introduce.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  New charters in 1993 will cover child support; the environment; further and higher education. Other charters—like the parents charter—will be revised to reflect new, higher standards.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress made at the meeting on the citizens charter held in Downing street on 17 February.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We discussed some key areas of interest to citizens—transport, health and social security. We also discussed some important themes—complaints systems, inspectorates and league table of performance.

  New announcements included a new complaints adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, commitment to publishing league tables of performance in the national health service and commitment to including service standards in British Rail franchises.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the principal sectors of public service which have not yet been covered by the charter programme.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  All public services and regulated utilities are covered by the charter programme. They all aim to apply charter principles to the specific needs of their customers.

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to visit Scotland on departmental business to discuss progress there of the citizens charter programme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am visiting Scotland later this week. I keep in close touch with the citizens charter programme there, and am pleased with the progress being made.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to monitor the proper implementation of the charters introduced so far; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter requires all public service organisations to report regularly and publicly on their performance in meeting published service standards. We monitor overall progress in improving the delivery of public services through ministerial seminars chaired by the Prime Minister, and through formal reports on progress such as the "Citizen's Charter First Report"—Cm 2101 —published in November 1992.

  Research Students (Awards)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the members of the research students awards committees within each research council during each of the last five years, indicating the institution where each member is based.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information he has requested, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.
  390
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement outlining the criteria chosen by research councils to assess the quality of higher education institutions' departments when deciding upon the allocation of research student awards.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The criteria used by the research councils to assess the quality of higher education institutions' departments are as follows:

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  The council's postgraduate studentship scheme is project-based. Applications are individually assessed on the following criteria:

  1. the strength of the application to provide the student with a sound research education and training;

  2. the reputation and track-record of the supervisor, department and institution;

  3. the relevance to AFRC's scientific programme and priorities.

  The studentship panels also use personal knowledge, Universities Funding Council selectivity exercise ratings and the information provided on the application form to judge the quality of the department.
  The AFRC does not operate a quota system.

  Economic and Social Research Council
  The criteria which the ESRC employs for the recognition of HEI departments for research student awards were published in 1991 in the council's "Postgraduate Training Guidelines" (paragraph A3). They are:

  1. the adequacy of provision for formal training for students in research methods and related issues;

  2. the adequacy of the arrangements for the supervision of students;

  3. the presence of a good research environment so that the student is conducting research in an environment of other scholars and postgraduates actively researching in related areas;

  4. an adequate throughput of students so that the student is unlikely to become isolated from his or her peers;

  5. a satisfactory thesis submission rate for students which demonstrates that the majority complete their research within the expected time.

  The ESRC does not allocate research training awards to individual departments. Student applications are submitted to an annual competition. The criteria are published in the council's studentship handbook.

  Medical Research Council
  Criteria used by the MRC to assess the quality of higher education institutions' departments when deciding upon the allocation of research student awards are:

  1. the quality of the proposed projects and their suitability as phD Projects;

  2. the scientific track-record for the department and proposed supervisors. MRC asks for details of current grant funding and publications relevant to the proposed projects;

  3. the department's track-record for training ie. the number of students in the department and the submission/completion rates;

  4. the opportunities for a good broad-based training.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  The quality of the department is only one of the elements taken into consideration in deciding on research student awards. The NERC uses the total number of research students, and the total value of research grants in the departments as indicators of a vibrant research environment. Account is also taken of the excellence of the science involved, the training element within the programme, the track-record of the potential supervisor, and cooperation with industry.

  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Academic departments applying for quotas of SERC studentships need to give information on departmental complement (all staff, including vacant posts); the size of the postgraduate school (full-time and part-time PhD and Masters students); and the size of the undergraduate

  391
  school. Undergraduate degree results from the previous two years must be given. Sources of support for postgraduate students are summarised, as well as sources and scale of research grant/contract support. For each research studentship sought, a description of the research area must be provided, as well as details of the academic supervisor (number of students supervised, and number of relevant publications over the past two years), and any use required of SERC central or overseas facilities. Information is also sought on training programmes offered for research students.
  Based on this information, quota allocations are made on the quality and timeliness of proposed areas of research, the academic track-record of departments (especially at postgraduate level), previous records of take-up of awards, and such indicators as submissions rates (departments with poor submission rates are sanctioned).

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was(a) the total number and (b) the value in pounds sterling of (i) advanced course studentships, (ii) research studentships and (iii) research grants granted to each academic institution in the United Kingdom during each of the last five years by each research council.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Much of the information requested on research grants and studentships can be found, in most cases, in the research councils' annual reports or handbooks for the past five years. Copies of these publications are in the Library of the House. I am also obtaining some additional material which I propose to forward to the hon. Gentleman and place in the Library of the House as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what plans he has to examine the process by which research councils select membership of research student awards committees;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to publish guidelines to research councils to secure that members of research students awards committees who have a close connection with an academic institution or institutions make a declaration of interests and are prevented from taking direct decisions on the allocation of research studentships to such institutions.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to intervene in the procedures adopted by the research councils either for selecting the members of their awards committees, or to select suitable recipients of their postgraduate awards. Where there is a potential conflict of interest affecting anyone involved in the selection process for awards, there are established procedures at all the research councils for preventing this from happening. Under agreed resource management arrangements, postgraduate studentship award allocations are matters entirely within the competence of the councils themselves.

  Public Bodies (Chief Executives)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those public bodies headed by a chief executive on a freelance consultancy contract arrangement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  With the exception of the BBC, I am not aware of any instances as described by the hon. Member. The terms and conditions of employment of a chief executive of a public body are matters for the body concerned under the general direction of the sponsor Department and subject to the consent of the Treasury.

  Charter Marks
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the 1993 Charter Mark awards competition will be launched.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the 1993 Charter Mark scheme on 17 February at his seminar on the citizens charter. All public sector organisations providing a service directly to the public are eligible to apply. The closing date for the scheme is 30 June 1993. Up to 100 Charter Marks can be awarded this year. The response that we have had so far has been very encouraging and we are expecting a large number of applications.

  Charters (Compensation)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 14, which four charters in addition to the British Rail passengers charter and the London Underground customers charter contain provisions for financial compensation.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The following charters also contain provision for financial compensation.

  the Benefits Agency customers charter;

  the Contributions Agency employers and contributors charters;

  the Northern Ireland Railways passengers charter.

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which he has responsibility to ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if he will make a statement on his policy on hours of staff working each week.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The conditioned hours of all staff in the main grades are 41 hours gross a week in the London pay area and 42 hours gross a week elsewhere. The majority of staff in the agencies for which I am responsible work under flexible hours schemes to which core time rules apply. A condition of the flexible hours schemes is that they may be withdrawn if the system is abused or if the work needs make it impractical. There is no evidence of abuse of the system or that customers of the Department are not effectively serviced on Friday afternoons, so I see no reason to carry out a survey.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Witzemann v. Hauptzollamt München-Mitte
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the judgment in the case of Witzemann v. Hauptzollamt München-Mitte by the European Court of Justice on 2 and 25 October and 6 December 1990, case C-343/89; what information he has as to the costs falling to the Community of the case; and if he will outline how a judgment against the accused would be enforced in such a case, in respect of financial penalties.

  Sir John Cope
  I have noted the outcome. There are no new United Kingdom policy implications. Where an
  393
  action is brought under article 177 of the EC treaty for a preliminary ruling by the ECJ, the costs of the action are reserved to the national court. Any judgment in the national court will be enforced in accordance with the laws of that member state.

  Auditing
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to bring forward proposals for imposing a duty on auditors of firms in the regulated sector to report to the regulators.

  Mr. Nelson
  I am pleased to announce that a joint Treasury and Department of Trade and Industry consultation document is being published today. This includes draft regulations imposing a statutory duty on auditors to report to the Bank of England any information which they believe to be relevant to their client bank's fulfilment of the authorisation criteria in the Banking Act, in line with the recommendation made by Sir Thomas Bingham in his report of the inquiry into BCCI.

  The consultation document also includes draft instruments extending a similar duty to report to the relevant regulatory authority, for auditors of building societies, friendly societies, persons regulated under the Financial Services Act, and at the initiative of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, companies regulated under the Insurance Companies. Act.

  The instruments which would implement the statutory duty have been drafted in close consultation with the auditing profession, with bodies representing regulated firms, and with the regulators.

  Comments are requested on the consultation document by I June. When the Government have had time to consider these, we will prepare draft instruments to lay before the House. These should come into force before the end of 1993.

  Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the House Libraries.

WALES

  Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the net farm income in real terms of sheep farmers in severely disadvantaged areas in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The income figures in real terms—that is, deflated by the RPI 1991–92 = 100—are as follows:

  Severely disadvantaged sheep farms

  Year

  1979–80

  6,677

  1980–81

  11,524

  1981–82

  15,453

  1982–83

  10,233

  1983–84

  13,434

  1984–85

  14,537

  1985–86

  9,896

  1986–87

  13,414

  1987–88

  12,342

  1988–89

  19,104

  1989–90

  10,903

  1990–91

  11,373

  1991–92

  16,540

  Inmos
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the highest number of employees at the Inmos plant in Newport; and what is(a) the present total and (b) the planned number in 1994 at Newport Wafer Fab, under the programme of Government assistance.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Sheep Premium
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the European Community to date in the current year concerning prompt payment of the final instalments of the sheep annual premium.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The European Commission took the decision on the final rate of premium last month. Publication of the rate in the Official Journal is expected shortly. We hope to be able to make the payments in early April.

  Preseli Environmentally Sensitive Area
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farms could be included in the Preseli environmentally sensitive area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  About 2,300.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review annually payments made under the Preseli environmentally sensitive area; and if he will index link them.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Payment rates are currently reviewed every two years and there are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria his Department used for designating all of the Preseli, Pembrokeshire district an environmentally sensitive area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The environmentally sensitive area scheme was introduced to help conserve, through the maintenance or adoption of particular agricultural practices, areas of the countryside where the landscape, wildlife or historic interest is of national importance. Final decisions on the precise boundary of the Preseli ESA will be taken in the light of the forthcoming consultation exercise.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what organisation will set the conditions covering the environmentally sensitive area of Preseli; how its members will be appointed; and from what organisations they will be drawn.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The proposed management prescriptions for the Preseli ESA, which will form part of the consultation document that is to be issued shortly, have been drawn up by my Department in consultation with the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, the Countryside Council for Wales and other farming and environmental bodies.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the overall budget for the Preseli
  395
  environmentally sensitive area for 1993–94 and his estimate for 1994–95; and what will be the total acreage covered.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The overall budget for the proposed Preseli ESA will be dependent upon the rates of payment to farmers which will be decided in the light of the forthcoming consultation exercise. It is anticipated that the Preseli ESA will cover approximately 115,000 hectares.

  Cereal Growers
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many commercial cereal growers in Wales have completed yield data forms in each of the years from 1986; and how many of those grow winter wheat.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Holdings cannot be classified on the basis of whether they are commercial cereal producers. A close approximation to this group is the farm typology group "Specialist Cereal Holdings". The table gives the number of holdings in this group responding to the cereal production survey, and of those, how many grow wheat.

  Number of specialist cereal holdings1 in Wales responding to the April cereal production survey2 each year from 1987 to 1992

  Harvest year

  April survey Year

  Number of specialist cereal holdings

  Of which grow wheat3

  1986

  1987

  4

  0

  1987

  1988

  19

  7

  1988

  1989

  19

  7

  1989

  1990

  8

  3

  1990

  1991

  12

  7

  1991

  1992

  13

  6

  Divisional Offices

  Caernarfon £000s

  Carmarthen £000s

  Llandrindod Wells £000s

  (a) Subsidies

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  12,162

  7,043

  19,022

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  32,090

  19,784

  42,364

  Stickler Cow Premium Scheme

  3,552

  2,540

  6,246

  Oilseed Support Scheme 1992

  60

  53

  132

  Farm Woodland Scheme

  11

  10

  16

  (b) Grant Schemes

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme

  1,284

  2,733

  1,892

  Agriculture Improvement Scheme

  375

  832

  460

  Agriculture and Horticulture Development Scheme

  371

  318

  362

  Farm Diversification Grant Scheme

  69

  192

  116

  Farm Diversification Marketing and Feasibility Grant

  6

  4

  7

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  388

  547

  607

  Five year Set-Aside

  37

  217

  144

  One year Set-Aside

  0

  3

  8

  The number of agreements entered into in 1992 are as follows:

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme

  63

  46

  126

  Farm Diversification Grant Scheme

  1

  4

  1

  Farm Diversification Marketing and Feasibility Grants

  1

  5

  5

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  93

  15

  9

  Livestock Identification Scheme
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will include the livestock identification scheme in the Government's review of the scope for deregulation; and if he will make a statement.
  396
  1 The classification of holdings into farm types is based upon a system of estimating the dominant activity on each holding using standard gross margins (SGMs). Conceptually the SGM is the difference between the value of the output of each activity and the variable costs of the necessary inputs to the activity. Specialist cereal holdings are therefore characterised by cereals production being the dominant activity.
  2 There are normally three cereal production surveys in the course of a year. The first is around August-September towards the end of the harvest period which provides a first estimate of cereal production. The second survey is conducted during November which produces another provisional estimate of total production. The third and final survey is in April and the results of this survey are used as the final cereal production estimates. The table has therefore been produced using only the holdings responsible to the April survey.
  3 No distinction is made between winter and spring sown varieties of wheat in the cereal production survey.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his best estimate of the number of commercial cereal growers in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There were 250 specialist cereal growers in Wales according to the June 1992 agricultural census.

  Agricultural Grants and Subsidies
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums were paid out by each of his divisional offices for each(a) agricultural subsidy scheme and (b) grant scheme available to farmers in 1992; how many agreements were entered into for each grant scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. David Hunt
  The introduction of animal identification systems is a consequence of EC requirements.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the livestock identification scheme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Several.

  Farm Support Schemes
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what Government financial aid schemes are currently available to assist farm diversification and farm development and to support farm incomes in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  All the current agricultural support schemes, implemented under the common agricultural policy, contribute to a greater or lesser extent to the incomes of farm businesses. The most important to farmers in Wales in terms of overall expenditure include the sheep annual premium scheme, hill livestock compensatory allowances, suckler cow premium scheme, beef special premium scheme, farm and conservation grant scheme and the environmentally sensitive area scheme. The farm and conservation grant scheme is the only one of these schemes containing specific measures aimed at developing or improving the farm structure. Grants for farm diversification were available under this scheme, but were withdrawn on 18 January 1993.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, columns 340–41, what interviews he had with persons with a view to appointing them as chairman of the Welsh Development Agency; how many persons expressed an interest in the post prior to its being advertised; how many persons he approached for the post; and how many meetings with potential appointees took place.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Applications for and expressions of interest in the post of chairman are confidential. I will be making an announcement on the appointment in due course.

  Higher Education, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Welsh Higher Education Funding Council concerning the future of(a) academic teaching and research accommodation requirements of the Cardiff Business School, (b) the student residential accommodation requirements for the University of Wales College of Cardiff and (c) the proposed third campus proposal at Cardiff Bay.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Special Schools (Psychiatry Services)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has with the south Glamorgan health authority concerning the cessation of provision of child and adolescent psychiatry services to special schools.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Employment Protection Regulations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library copies of all circulars and other advice issued by his Department concerning the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the Acquired Rights directive.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A copy of my Department's letter of 9 November 1992 to health authorities in Wales has already been placed in the Library of the House; no other circulars or advice have been issued.

  Community Facilities
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of approvals for new schemes involving capital grants to village halls, voluntary youth services and community centres which will be given in 1993–94.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1993–94 the resources available for this programme will be fully utilised in meeting commitments arising from previous years. No new schemes have been approved, therefore.

  Disadvantaged Areas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what has been the rate of return on capital on cattle and sheep farms in severely disadvantaged areas in Wales in each year since 1979;

  (2) what has been the rate of return on capital on livestock farms in disadvantaged areas in Wales in each year since 1979;

  (3) what has been the rate of return on capital on specialist sheep farms in severely disadvantaged areas in Wales in each year since 1979;

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: The available information is as follows:

  Hill and Upland (SDA) Cattle and Sheep Farms

  Return on net worth Per cent.

  Return on tenant's capital Per cent.

  1986–87

  -0·06

  2·1

  1987–88

  2·00

  4·9

  1988–89

  2·83

  9·2

  1989–90

  -0·08

  4·4

  1990–91

  -0·70

  1·1

  1991–92

  0·70

  4·8

  Upland (DA) Livestock Farms

  Return on net worth Per cent.

  Return on tenant's capital Per cent.

  1986–87

  0·78

  n/a

  1987–88

  0·43

  n/a

  1988–89

  1·19

  n/a

  1989–90

  -1·26

  n/a

  1990–91

  -2·43

  n/a

  1991–92

  -1·44

  n/a

  n/a=not available.

  Hill and Upland (SDA) Sheep Farms

  Return on net worth Per cent.

  Return on tenant's capital Per cent.

  1986–87

  0·66

  3·7

  1987–88

  -0·15

  5·8

  1988–89

  2·84

  10·3

  1989–90

  0·42

  3·3

  1990–91

  0·23

  3·2

  1991–92

  1·96

  10·8

  399

  Hill and Upland (LFA) Livestock Farms

  Return on net worth Per cent.

  Return on tenant's capital Per cent.

  1986–87

  0·45

  2·1

  1987–88

  0·61

  4·7

  1988–89

  2·40

  8·8

  1989–90

  -0·09

  2·4

  1990–91

  -0·65

  —

  1991–92

  0·77

  4·9

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Leyland DAF
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigations have been made into the transfer pricing policies of Leyland DAF.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No investigations have been carried out by the DTI into the transfer pricing policies of Leyland DAF.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the 1991 accounts of Leyland DAF were laid at Companies house.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: I understand that the company accounts for Leyland DAF Ltd. for the calendar year 1991 have not been filed at Companies house. They were due by 31 October 1992 and a letter advising the company of this fact was issued six weeks before that date. The annual accounts were not received by then and as is normal in such cases Companies house initiated default procedures. A letter was issued on 16 November 1992 and in the absence of any response a further letter was issued on 8 January 1993. Notice of the appointment of an administrative receiver was received at Companies house on 5 February. As responsibility for the company's affairs now lies with the administrator, further action against the directors would be inappropriate.

  Foreign-domiciled Companies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has about the number of foreign-domiciled companies operating in Great Britain.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Comprehensive figures are not available on the total number of foreign owned companies which have invested in Great Britain. However, figures on manufacturing business published by the Central Statistical Office show 2,419 foreign-owned businesses in the United Kingdom in 1990.

  Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list his Department's published inspectors' reports which are critical of auditors for their failure to make a proper going concern evaluation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. Copies of published inspectors' reports are available in the Library for inspection.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what analysis his Department makes of his inspectors' reports; and to whom it is made available.
  400
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Reports of inspectors are considered carefully and information is disclosed, through the provisions of sections 451A and 449 of the Companies Act 1985, to prosecuting or regulatory bodies as appropriate. Relevant policy or legislative points are noted and considered within my Department.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 261, if he will publish in the Official Report a summary of the annual plutonium production figures.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Retailers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to prevent companies withdrawing supplies to retailers who offer their products at bargain prices to consumers.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Investigation of anti-competitive behaviour such as refusal to supply or withdrawing supplies is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading under the competition legislation. Where a refusal to supply is connected to resale price maintenance the Resale Prices Act 1976 has effect. Any evidence of such behaviour should be drawn to the Director General's attention.

  Insurance Companies
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to make it compulsory for insurance companies to belong to an arbitration scheme.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. I believe the present voluntary schemes offer a desirable degree of flexibility which could be lost if membership were made compulsory.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Minister for Energy intends to reply to the letter dated 8 December 1992 from the hon. Member for Sherwood.

  Mr. Eggar
  I replied to the hon. Member on 24 February.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made of the effect on London unemployment of the designation of assisted area status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The main grant schemes available in the assisted areas, regional selective assistance and regional enterprise grants, are both demand-led and depend on businesses bringing forward suitable, eligible applications. Forecasting the possible impact of assisted area status on unemployment levels of individual areas is therefore not possible.

  Coal Industry
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been paid in wages for not working to the work force involved in the 10 pits which are subject to the consultation process since the pits have ceased coaling.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Electricity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his views have been sought by the European Commission on the proposed electricity interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland; and what his response has been.

  Mr. Eggar
  The President's views have not been sought by the European Commission on the proposed electricity interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Electricity matters in Scotland and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which he has responsibility to ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if he will make a statement on his policy on hours of staff working each week.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department places a high priority on the service it offers to the public. Staff work a five-day

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  (a) Total reported spills from all sources

  500

  559

  764

  791

  705

  (b) Spills from offshore installation.

  254

  259

  291

  345

  234

  (c) Line (b) as a percentage of line (a)

  50·8

  46·3

  38·1

  43·6

  33·2

  In 1991 the 234 spills from offshore installations totalled 192 tonnes of oil. Within the 471 spills from other sources reported by ACOPS, the 34 largest totalled 1,864·4 tonnes and there were 275 for which the amount spilt was not known or not recorded.

  1 Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom: A Report to Parliament by the Minister of Energy.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his best estimate of the amount of oil discharged in oil-based drilling mud into the environment from offshore drilling rigs in the United Kingdom sector in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The discharge of oil-based drilling mud into the environment from offshore drilling rigs in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea is not permitted.

  Discharge of oil-contaminated cuttings produced when using oil-based drilling mud may be permitted under an exemption, granted by the Secretary of State, from section 3 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971.

  The Government publish annually in the "Brown Book", "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the
  402
  week and local managers are required to make suitable arrangements to ensure that the public are properly served. The attendance requirements in each office apply on Fridays as on any other day and no special provision whatsoever is made for it to be treated any differently.

  Bureaucracy
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he is making in cutting departmental and other bureaucracy for small and medium-sized businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  All the regulatory Departments have begun a review of the regulations for which they are responsible. In parallel, seven task forces of business men, organised on a sectoral basis, are being set up to advise Ministers on priorities for repeal and simplification with special reference to the needs of small and medium-sized businesses. The names of the chairman and members of the task forces will be announced shortly.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many oil spills have come from platforms operating in the United Kingdom sector in the last five years; and what proportion this number represents of the total number of spills.

  Mr. Eggar
  Numbers of oil spills from offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf are published annually in the "Brown Book"1. Total reported spills from all sources are also published annually by the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea in its survey of oil pollution around the coasts of the United Kingdom. The figures for 1987–91 are:

  United Kingdom: A Report to Parliament by the Minister for Energy", the quantities of oil discharged with cuttings. For the five years 1987–91 these were:

  Tonnes oil

  1987

  12,400

  1988

  18,500

  1989

  13,400

  1990

  12,310

  1991

  11,225

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to encourage further competition in the gas industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has referred the markets on gas supply, gas transportation and storage to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  We shall consider what steps should be taken to encourage further competition in the light of its report.

  EC Steel Industry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions have been reached in discussions between EC Ministers about the future of the EC steel industry; what recommendations he will be making to the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  EC Ministers have agreed a package of measures based on a voluntary programme of capacity reductions. The main elements are: additional ECSC financial support for the social costs of closures; internal market measures, including strict application of state aid rules, speedy consideration, within EC competition rules, of inter-company co-operation agreements, and non-mandatory guidance on production and deliveries within the Community; and external measures, including limited restrictions on certain steel imports from central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

  Since United Kingdom industry has already undergone substantial restructuring and rationalisation, I would expect future capacity reductions predominantly in other EC countries, particularly Spain, Italy and Germany.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the British Constructional Steelwork Association concerning the alleged subsidisation of Italian constructional steelwork imported into the United Kingdom for the second Severn bridge and other projects.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I wrote to the British Constructional Steelwork Association on 26 November. A copy of my letter has been sent to the hon. Member.

  Euroway Estate, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which edition of the Employment Gazette contained information on the grant and project for Spring Ram Ltd. on Euroway estate, Bradford.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Employment Gazette has not contained any information on the current Spring Ram project at Euroway estate, Bradford.

  Miners' Redundancies
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many miners have taken voluntary redundancy since 13 October 1992, both in total and on a pit-by-pit basis.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those coal mines and the number of coal miners and other staff made redundant in each year since 1977.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 March 1993]: This is a matter for British Coal.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received in relation to the guidelines for disqualification from future positions as 404
  directors of private companies, including any directors in their past or present responsibilities found not to have paid over personal pension plan contributions made by deduction from wages and salaries.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  While such representations have been received in relation to specific cases, none has been received in general terms.

  National Welsh Bus Company
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 739, on what date he expects that his insolvency service disqualification unit will complete its consideration of the administrative receivers' reports into the conduct of the directors of National Welsh Bus Company.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The insolvency service has asked the administrative receivers of the National Welsh Bus Company to clarify and amplify matters contained in their report on the conduct of the directors of the company. Until that information is received the Secretary of State is unable to say when a decision will be taken.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 739, what representations he has received concerning the failure of the directors of the National Welsh Bus Company during 1991 to pass on to the pension company, personal pension plan contributions deducted from the bus company's employees' wages and salaries.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Secretary of State has received representations from a beneficiary of the National Welsh Bus Company pension scheme concerning a failure to pay over pension contributions deducted from employees' wages.

  Shipbuilding
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy on implementation of the EC decision on the level of shipbuilding intervention funding.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Following the decision of the European Commission, notified to member states on 18 Janaury 1993, I have decided to maintain the maximum level of support for large merchant ships at 9 per cent. for 1993. I have similarly decided that maximum support for small ships will be maintained at 4·5 per cent. These levels, which are the maximum permitted by the European Commission, are inclusive of shipbuilder's relief at 2 per cent.

  Monopolies and Mergers
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to make a further reference of a public sector body to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under section 11 of the Competition Act 1980.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  As part of its regular programme of efficiency studies of publicly owned bodies, the Commission has been asked to look into the service provided by the British Waterways Board. The formal reference was made today. It asks the MMC to look at whether, in carrying out its functions under the relevant
  405
  legislation, the BWB could improve efficiency, reduce costs and improve the quality of service provided. The terms of reference will be laid in the House of Commons Library.

  Pension Funds
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage level of the employer's contribution to the pension funds of(a) British Telecom, (b) British Gas and (c) the electricity boards in the year prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]Percentage levels of the employer's contribution in these companies in the year prior to the privatisation of each were:

  British Telecommunications Staff Superannuation Scheme: 15·5 per cent. (FY 1983–1984).

  British Gas Corporation Pension Scheme (Industrial): 6 per cent. (FY 1986–1987).

  British Gas Staff Pension Scheme: 23·4 per cent. (FY 1986–1987).

  Electricity Supply Pension Scheme: 37 per cent. (FY 1989–1990).

  Energy Technology Support Unit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of research contracts administered by his Department's energy technology support unit in(a) 1980 to 1989 and (b) 1990 to 1993 have been contracted to researchers employed by ETSU; and if he will list the annual value to the ETSU for each year since 1980 of research contracts supported by external resources which have been undertaken in-house.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]As manager of research programmes, ETSU is precluded from contracting research work under those programmes to its own employees.

  Before 1989, the Department of Energy was ETSU's sole customer. Since 1989, ETSU has offered its programme management, technology transfer, and strategic studies capabilities to United Kingdom and overseas Government Departments and to the Commission of the European Communities. Income from these new sources was £78,000 in 1989–90, £511,000 in 1990–91, and £1·062 million in 1991–92.

  Regional Development Fund
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met EC Commissioner Millan; what plans he has to meet Commissioner Millan to discuss the United Kingdom's allocation under the European regional development fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]My right hon. Friend has had no formal meetings with Commissioner Milian.

  I last met Commissioner Millan on 14 December 1992. I have no definite plans for our next meeting.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pest Control
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) which Department of the House has responsibility for pest control in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster;
  406
  (2) what arrangements are currently in place for the prevention of mice infestation in the House; which company currently holds the contract; for how long that company has held the contract; and when it was last put out to tender.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  These are primarily matters for the Serjeant at Arms and I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what action he proposes to take in respect of the practice used by Ministers of submitting written answers, pursuant to earlier questions already answered.

  Mr. Newton
  This issue is addressed in the Third Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1990–91, paragraphs 128–130. I am considering the Committee's recommendations and will respond shortly.

  Oral Answers
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the names of hon. Members who have in this Parliament had a question to the Secretary of State for Employment for oral Answer listed on the Order Paper among the top 12 more than three times.

  Mr. Newton
  None.

SCOTLAND

  Prisoners' Ombudsman
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish a prisoners' ombudsman.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Consideration is at present being given to the comments received in response to publication in September 1992 of the Scottish prison service working group report "Right and Just" which made recommendations for reform of the procedures under which prisoners in Scotland are able to make requests and complaints and to air grievances. An announcement on the shape of new procedures will be made when that consideration is complete.

  Hospital Staff
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of nurses, doctors, administrative staff, senior managers and domestic staff employed in each hospital,(a) at the nearest available date and (b) three years ago.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Limited statistics for NHS employed staff are, however, shown by hospital in the 1991–92 edition of the "Scottish Health Service Costs", a copy of which is available in the Library. Comparable data for earlier years are not available in this published series.

  Police Interview Notes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many instances in each of the past three years criminal convictions have been referred back to the Court of Appeal following re-examination of the original police interview notes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]None.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests have been made to the police in each of the past three years for the disclosure of original interview notes in cases where criminal charges have been brought; in how many instances these requests have been denied; and for what reasons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]This information is not held in a readily retrievable form.

  Health Service (Employment Protection)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish all correspondence between the Scottish health service and(a) Tayside health board and (b) the Dundee hospital trust relating to (i) the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations and (ii) the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.

  Mr. Stewart
  Only two letters giving a legal view on the TUPE regulations 1981 have been issued from the central legal office of the NHS Scotland to Tayside health board. The advice given to the board was in general terms and did not involve the Dundee hospital trust.

ENVIRONMENT

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department made towards the report, "Environmental Auditing—an Introduction and Practical Guide", published by the British Library.

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year(a) at year-by-year prices and (b) at current prices the total amount of moneys made available to the travel-to-work areas included in the assisted areas map since it was last reviewed in 1984.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available. My Department does not make moneys available with reference to travel-to-work areas.

  Canada Geese Eggs
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licences he has issued in each of the last five years for the taking or destroying of Canada goose eggs; and how many eggs were reported as having been dealt with under those licences.
  408
  Mr. Maclean
  Information on licences issued to take or destroy Canada goose eggs in each of the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 is contained in the United Kingdom's annual derogation reports to the European Commission, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  During 1992, 27 licences to take or destroy eggs were issued. Returns for the number of eggs dealt with are still awaited from some licence holders.

  Child Protection, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the standard spending assessment component for services in Lambeth associated with child protection; and how that component compares with the standard spending assessments for the other Inner London boroughs expressed in the form which would be applicable to a standard population size.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Child protection is one of many aspects of social services for children covered by the children's element of the standard spending assessment for personal social services. The amount of this element expressed in pounds per child under 18 for all London authorities is given in the table.

  SSA for Social Services for children per child

  Local authority

  £ child

  Greater London

  City of London

  567

  Camden

  643

  Greenwich

  311

  Hackney

  828

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  736

  Islington

  711

  Kensington and Chelsea

  605

  Lambeth

  860

  Lewisham

  461

  Southwark

  620

  Tower Hamlets

  631

  Wandworth

  559

  Westminster

  627

  Barking and Dagenham

  230

  Barnet

  150

  Bexley

  107

  Brent

  416

  Bromley

  122

  Croydon

  206

  Ealing

  264

  Enfield

  148

  Haringey

  509

  Harrow

  104

  Havering

  103

  Hillingdon

  122

  Hounslow

  195

  Kingston upon Thames

  121

  Merton

  180

  Newham

  382

  Redbridge

  141

  Richmond upon Thames

  151

  Sutton

  127

  Waltham Forest

  299

  PM10 Particulates
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at how many sites in the United Kingdom he plans to monitor for PM10 particulates; and how many local authorities monitor for PM10.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department currently monitors PM10 particulates at eight sites in the United Kingdom, with a further four sites planned by the end of 1993. One local authority monitors PM10.

  Thames Water Extraction
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the impact of water extraction from the River Thames on salination levels in the upper reaches of the river.

  Mr. Maclean
  None: this is a matter for the National Rivers Authority to monitor.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in the Ordnance Survey since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  None of the projects in Ordnance Survey's market-testing programme since November 1991, which involves exposing in-house functions to competition, has yet reached the stage where a contract or service level agreement has been awarded. Functions and services which are currently being market tested are computer operations, printing and graphic reproduction, elements of office services, site security and catering.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those services or functions that have been contracted out from Ordnance Survey since November 1991 without market testing an in-house bid against external competition, with, in each instance, the successful contractor and the reasons for the decision to exclude an in-house bid.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since November 1992, Ordnance Survey has contracted out the following functions without market testing an in-house bid.

  (1) Part of the Internal Audit programme, particularly computer audit. The successful contractor was Ernst and Young. No in-house bid was sought since the work contracted out supplemented the continuing in-house programme and the intention was to assess the quality of contracted out audits prior to full market testing.

  (2) Bulk enveloping and despatch of invoices and publicity material. The successful contractor was the local Sheltered Workshop (SIT). The work was contracted out to meet peak demands and to make better use of directly employed staff.

  Ordnance Survey has contracted out a proportion of its large scale map digitising programme for a number of years and this has been ongoing since November 1991. The reason for contracting out is that the digitising programme has a finite life, it will be completed by 1995, and it was not economic to invest in recruitment and training of extra staff and the associated expensive equipment for such a short period. The contractors involved are
  410

  BKS Surveys

  Consult

  Gardline Surveys

  Geografix

  Glen Computing

  Graphical Data Capture

  Ground Modelling

  Grove Consultants

  JTC Computer Systems

  Laserscan

  Mason Land Surveys

  QC Data

  Summerside Associates

  Survey International

  Survey and Development Services

  Taywood Data Graphics

  In addition, a large part of the in-house task associated with warehousing materials and equipment has ceased as a result of the introduction of call-off contracts.

  Ordnance Survey (Market Testing)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the firms of consultants used by Ordnance Survey as part of the market-testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The firms of consultants used by Ordnance Survey for work relating to the market-testing programme since November 1991 are P. Bacon Consultancy, Grosvenor Consultancy Services Ltd. and Coopers and Lybrand. The total cost of consultancy advice is estimated to be of the order of £40,000.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff in Ordnance Survey are assigned to the market-testing programme; how much the programme has cost Ordnance Survey since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  One person controls Ordnance Survey's market-testing programme, in conjunction with other duties. A number of line managers are involved in individual market testing projects as part of their normal duties. The exact amount of time spent on these duties is not recorded and the cost of the programme could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reasons underlie the ineligibility of owners of residential mobile homes for disabled facilities grant aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, a property is eligible for disabled facilities grant only if it is a dwelling and the owner has an interest in the land on which it is located. Mobile home owners have difficulty in meeting these legal requirements. We are considering whether ways can be found of extending minor works assistance to mobile home owners for small repairs and adaptations.

  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were his reasons for(a) accepting report 665 of the Local Government Boundary Commission and (b) not giving detailed reasons for his decision when he announced it on 23 February.
  411
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The recommendations from the Local Government Boundary Commission were accepted because it was considered to be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to have the existing airport in one local government area. We carefully considered the commission's recommendations and all representations on them. We reached our conclusion on a balance of judgment and, as has been the consistent practice in such cases, we do not propose to set out our reasoning in greater detail.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to include an element based on the percentage of people with a long-term sickness or disability in SSA calculations in future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The need to incorporate in SSAs for 1994–95 information from the 1991 census provides an opportunity to take a more wide-ranging look at their composition. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he will consider any representations for changes which are made to him.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what impact the proposed new environmental protection agency will have on determining environmental policy towards wetlands.

  Mr. Maclean
  The proposed new Environment Agency will bring together all of the functions of the National Rivers Authority, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the waste regulation functions of local authorities to form an integrated body. It will have no responsibility for determining environmental policy towards wetlands, but may provide information on matters within its responsibilities. The Government are committed to the wise use of wetlands as part of their obligations under the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much English Nature spent on management agreements that involved the protection and management of wetland areas in the last financial year.

  Mr. Maclean
  English Nature spent £5,735,359 on management agreements in 1991–92. A breakdown of that expenditure for all 1,584 agreements by habitat type is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However £49,404 was spent on new agreements involving wetland or partial wetland sites concluded in 1992–93 where the annual payment exceeded £2,000 or where a lump sum payment in excess of £10,000 was made.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all important wetland sites designated under the Ramsar convention to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  I was pleased to announce the designation of Roydon Common, Gibraltar Point and the Nene Washes as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention, and the extension of the existing Ouse Washes Ramsar site, on 5 March 1993. The United Kingdom has now listed 62 Ramsar sites, including one site in a dependent territory, the Turks and Caicos Islands. Details of the sites are as follows.
  412

  United Kingdom sites listed as wetlands of international importance under the RAMSAR convention

  Name

  County/Region

  Dale designated

  1. Bridgwater Bay

  Somerset

  5 January 1976

  2. Bure Marshes

  Norfol

  5 January 1976

  3. Core Fochno and Dyfi

  Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys

  5 January 1976

  4. Hickling Broad and Horsey Mere

  Norfolk

  5 January 1976

  5. Lindafarne

  Northumberland

  5 January 1976 (1 11 March 1992)

  6. Loch Druidibcg, Loch a'Machair and Loch Slilligary

  Western Isles

  5 January 1976

  7. Loch Leven

  Tayside

  5 January 1976

  8. Loch Lomond

  Strathclyde and Central

  5 January 1976

  9. Lough Neagh and Lough Beg

  Antrim, Londonderry Tyrone, Armagh and Down

  5 January 1976

  10. Minsmere-Walberswick

  Suffolk

  5 January 1976 (1 19 May 1992)

  11. North Norfolk Coast

  Norfolk

  5 January 1976 (1 20 January 1989)

  12. Ouse Washes

  Cambridgeshire and Norfolk

  5 January 1976 (1 5 March 1993)

  13. Rannoch Moor

  Tayside

  5 January 1976

  14. Abberton Reservoir

  Essex

  24 July 1981

  15. Cairngorm Lochs

  Grampian and Highland

  24 July 1981

  16. Claish Moss

  Highland

  24 July 1981

  17. Loch Lintrathen

  Tayside

  24 July 1981

  18. Rostheme Mere

  Cheshire

  24 July 1981

  19. Silver Flowe

  Dumfries and Galloway

  24 July 1981

  20. Chesil Beach and the Fleet

  Dorset

  17 July 1985

  21. The Dee Estuary

  Merseyside, Cheshire and Clwyd

  17 July 1985

  22. Derwent Ings

  North Yorkshire and Humberside

  17 July 1985

  23. Holborn Moss

  Northumberland

  17 July 1985

  24. Irthinghead Mires

  Cumbria and Northumberland

  17 July 1985

  25. The Swale

  Kent

  17 July 1985

  26. Alt Estuary

  Merseyside

  28 November 1985

  27. Leighton Moss

  Lancashire

  29 November 1985

  28. Martin Mere

  Lancashire

  28 November 1985

  29. Loch Eye

  Highland

  23 September 1986

  30. Loch Skene

  Grampian

  23 September 1986

  31. Rokliffe Marshes (part of Upper Solway Flats and Marshes)

  Cumbria

  23 September 1986

  32. Chichester and Langstone Harbours

  Hampshire/West Sussex

  26 October 1987

  33. Upper Severn Estuary

  Gloucestershire

  5 February 1988

  34. The Wash

  Lincolnshire/Norfolk

  30 March 1988

  35. Pagham Harbour

  West Sussex

  30 March 1988

  36. Din Moss—Hoselaw Loch

  Borders

  14 July 1988

  37. Gladhouse Reservoir

  Lothian

  14 July 1988

  38. Bridgend Flats, Islay

  Strathclyde

  14 July 1988

  39. Duich Moss, Islay

  Strathclyde

  14 July 1988

  40. Gruinart Flats

  Strathclyde

  14 July 1988

  41. Fala Flow

  Midlothian

  25 April 1990

  42. Glac-na-Criche

  Islay

  25 April 1990

  43. Feur Lochain

  Islay

  25 April 1990

  44. Loch an Duin

  North Uist

  25 April 1990

  45. North, Middle and East Caicos Islands

  Turks and Caicos

  27 June 1990

  413

  Name

  County/Region

  Date designated

  46. Redgrave and South Lopham Fens

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  15 February 1991

  47. Rutland Water

  Leicestershire

  4 October 1991

  48. Llyn Idwal

  Gwynedd

  7 November 1991

  49. Llyn Tegid

  Gwynedd

  7 November 1991

  50. Esthwaite Water

  Cumbria

  7 November 1991

  51. Walmore Common

  Gloucester

  5 December 1991

  52. Exe Estuary

  Devon

  11 March 1992

  53. Old Hall Marshes

  Essex

  11 March 1992

  54. Chippenham Fen

  Cambridgeshire

  11 March 1992

  55. Burry Inlet

  Dyfed/West Glamorgan

  14 July 1992

  56. Loch Ken and Dee Marshes

  Dumfries and Galloway

  31 August 1992

  57. Loch Spynie

  Grampian

  31 August 1992

  58. Cors Caron

  Dyfed

  28 September 1992

  59. Upper Solway Flats and Marshes

  Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway

  30 November 1992

  60. Roydon Common

  Norfolk

  5 March 1993

  61. Nene Washes

  Cambridgeshire

  5 March 1993

  62. Gibraltar Point (Wash Phase II)

  Lincolnshire

  5 March 1993

  1 Extended.

  Employment Protection Regulations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of all circulars and other advice issued by his Department concerning the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No such circular has been issued to local authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State intends to make a statement on this matter shortly.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to enact for England and Wales provisions in respect of the authority for water companies or others to cause a disconnection of a domestic consumer's water supply along the lines of those in force in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 4 March 1993]: No. It is right that bills should be paid, but equally that companies should deal sympathetically with customers who are having difficulty meeting their bills. Significant safeguards exist to protect domestic customers of water companies in England and Wales who cannot pay, rather than will not pay, from the prospect of disconnection. In Scotland water supply is at present a local authority service.

  Radiation Leak, Sellafield
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring has been carried out of the areas affected by the radioactive contamination resulting from the recent leak at Sellafield with regard to possible dangers to health.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: I have been asked to reply.
  414
  This Department and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, as joint authorising Departments for the disposal of radioactive waste from licensed nuclear sites, place a statutory obligation on operators to carry out monitoring of discharges and environmental radioactivity as a condition of authorisations. When British Nuclear Fuel Ltd's monitoring at Sellafield indicated the recent enhanced discharges of radioactivity, the company carried out high-volume air sampling and extra sampling of milk and grass in the areas affected.

  This Department samples milk in the vicinity of the Sellafield site as part of our routine surveillance activity near all licensed nuclear sites. Following these incidents we have also analysed grass samples and our dry cloth deposition collectors located around the site which provide data on airborne activity.

  On the basis of the results of this sampling, our scientific assessment is that the radiological impact from these discharges to the most exposed members of the public is no more than 10 microSieverts. By contrast the dose to members of the public from normal background radioactivity is 2,200 microSieverts a year.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what implications, in terms of time and content, her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inquiry into the recent radiation leak at Sellafield will have for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution consultation into the proposed radioactive waste discharge authorisations from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Sellafield site; and if he will make it his policy that no decision will be made on the draft authorisations until the results of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution inquiry into the leak are known.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 3 March 1993]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution currently does not expect the investigations into the recent incidents at Sellafield to affect the timetable for assessing the results of the consultation exercise on the proposed new authorisations at Sellafield. HMIP and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food still currently expect to submit their report on the consultation process in early April 1993.

  Any decisions on the draft authorisations will take account of lessons arising from the investigations.

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which he has responsibility to ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if he will make a statement on his policy on hours of staff working each week.

  Mr. Howard
  The staff in my Department and its agencies are conditioned to work 41 hours per week in London and 42 hours per week outside London. Both include five hours per week for lunch. In addition, if local management agree, staff can join the flexible working hours scheme. Staff who join the scheme must start work between 7.30 am and 10.00 am and must leave between 4.00pm and 6.30pm. The scheme is shortly to be amended so that staff will have the flexibility to leave between 4.00pm and 8.30pm.
  415
  The hours worked by staff on any particular day is for local management to decide. This they will do taking into account the requirement, where necessary, to cater for the needs of the public. I see no need to undertake a survey.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail National Timetable
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about a British Rail national timetable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received a number of letters about future arrangements for a national rail timetable and have given a clear assurance that a national timetable will continue to be published.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his timetable for the establishment of freight terminals for channel tunnel traffic in the west midlands.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for British Rail. I understand that it expects the Birmingham Euroterminal, serving the whole of the midlands, to be ready when the channel tunnel opens.

  Cambridge (Southern Relief Road)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of Cambridgeshire county council's plans for a Cambridge southern relief road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This road would form part of the local road network which is the responsibility of the county council. My Department has had continuing discussions with the county council on its proposed Cambridge strategy, including the relief road.

  Young Drivers (Casualties)
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to introduce a package to reduce casualties among new and young drivers.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We are considering a number of possible measures to improve the safety of newly qualified drivers and hope to consult on proposals shortly.

  Cleethorpes-Newark Line
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to include the Cleethorpes-Newark line in his east coast franchising proposals.

  Mr. Freeman
  When my right hon. Friend announced on 2 February the first services to be prepared for franchising British Rail had already announced its decision to withdraw its direct inter-city service from London to Cleethorpes in May. The franchise announced for the inter-city east coast main line does not therefore include the line from Newark to Cleethorpes.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Shipping Accidents
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken at the International Maritime Organisation to improve the compensation arrangements appertaining to shipping accidents.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The United Kingdom took a leading role in the adoption at the IMO last year of protocols ensuring higher limits of liability in the event of an oil spill. We are also working at the IMO to develop a convention to ensure high levels of compensation in the event of a chemical spill.

  Waterloo-Exeter Line
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects new trains to be in service on the Waterloo-Exeter route.

  Mr. Freeman
  The first new train for the Waterloo-Exeter line was delivered to British Rail on 23 January. British Rail expects it to enter service later this month. The remaining trains should be in service by July.

  A550 Extension
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the cost of the proposed A550 extension.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The combined estimated cost of the two stages of the planned A550 improvement between Deeside park and the M53 is £49·2 million.

  Breathalyser Tests
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many breathalyser tests were carried out on motorists in England and Wales over the Christmas and new year period; how many of these were positive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A total of 59,069 tests were carried out, of which 4,248, or 7·2 per cent., were positive. The proportion of positive tests was slightly lower than for the previous Christmas. There has been a continuing downward trend in drink-drive accidents; the number of fatalities has more than halved in the last decade, to around 700 in 1991. We are determined to get this number even lower.

  Railways (Scotland)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Board of ScotRail to discuss railway matters in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have no plans to meet the board of ScotRail. At my regular meetings with the chairman of the British Railways Board we discuss a wide range of railway
  417
  matters including those involving Scotland. I plan to visit Scotland later this month when I hope to meet the ScotRail management team.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the most recent progress in the aim to reduce the numbers of road accidents by one third between the years 1985 and 2000.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The aim is to reduce road accident casualties by one third by the year 2000, compared with the annual average for 1981–85. The provisional figures for the 12 months ending in September 1992 show that fatalities are down by 21 per cent., serious injuries by 33 per cent. and all casualties by 3 per cent. on the target baseline.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses are planned to be started in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Nineteen of the 41 new national road programme starts announced by my right hon. Friend on 4 February are bypasses and most of the others will remove traffic from local communities. In addition, local authorities plan to start another 24 bypasses on their roads.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment plans for the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport gave to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) earlier today.

  Motorway Repairs (Land Rental Contracts)
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect that the introduction of lane rental contracts for contractors undertaking motorway repairs has had on the speed of repairs.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We estimate that lane rental contracts are completed some 30 per cent. faster than conventional contracts.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the impact of rail privatisation on the rail links to the north and the west of the Scottish highlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I met the hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), together with councillors and officials of the Highland regional council on 10 February to discuss the implications of passenger rail franchising for the highland lines.
  418
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 2 February, we intend to franchise ScotRail passenger services as a whole. The east coast main line InterCity services are also being prepared for franchising, and that includes services to Inverness. Fort William will continue to be served by the west coast main line InterCity services when they come to be franchised.

  Subsidy will be made available to support franchised ScotRail services as at present and InterCity services if necessary. Service levels, which will be based on the timetable being operated by British Rail immediately prior to franchising, will be written into legally binding contracts between the franchising director and the franchised passenger train operators.

  Road Programme
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the economic effects of his road programme in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The road programme aims as one of its objectives to assist economic growth by reducing transport costs. The programme of construction meets the needs of industry and other road users through the provision of a modern strategic road network. The benefit which roads generate for the economy is assessed by the use of cost-benefit techniques of economic appraisal.

  In his statement to the House on 4 February, the Secretary of State pointed out that the 41 schemes due to start next financial year will bring substantial economic, safety and environmental benefits to road users and the country as a whole. The benefits of these new schemes in terms of accidents avoided and time savings to road users has been assessed at £2·5 billion.

  Concessionary Bus Passes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to take to promote the availability of concessionary bus passes for pensioners.

  Mr. Freeman
  The promotion of concessionary bus passes for pensioners is a matter for local authorities.

  Public Transport (Women's Safety)
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve women's safety on public transport systems.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has a long-standing commitment to improve passenger safety on public transport.

  The remit of my Department's standing panel on assaults on bus staff has been extended to include the monitoring of data on assaults on bus passengers and possible remedial measures. The panel has recommended that bus operators install radios and video cameras in their vehicles to protect both employees and passengers.

  We have also co-sponsored the passenger guidance leaflet published by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, "Travel Safely by Public Transport". The leaflet contains practical safety advice for women using all forms of public transport.

  Concessionary Rail Travel
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 869, how many concessionary rail passes were issued to British Rail staff, their dependants and ex-British Rail staff in each of the last five years; and what is the number of British Rail staff dependants who receive concessionary rail travel.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of staff, including dependants, entitled to concessionary travel facilities, as at 9 January, were given to the hon. Member in my answer of 29 January, at column 869. Passes are issued to all those entitled on an annual basis and comparable figures for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  British Rail Employees
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are employed by British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figure reported to my Department on 11 February was 131,651.

  Red Route, West Wickham
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what traffic surveys were conducted in West Wickham high street before the formulation of the proposals to designate this stretch of the A232 as a red route.

  Mr. Norris
  None. As we made clear in our consultation document in January last year, the basis for the composition of the red route network was the existing primary route network, which consists of the best routes for traffic entering and leaving London and making longer distance journeys within it. The A232 West Wickham high street is a primary route.

  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the likely increase in traffic growth through West Wickham high street following its designation as part of the A232 red route.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the London borough of Bromley to consider in preparing the red route local plan. If it foresees any increase in traffic, the traffic director would expect the local plan to include offsetting benefits in terms of reduced congestion, improved road safety, or environmental improvements on nearby roads.

  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct the Traffic Director to pay an official visit to West Wickham high street before finalising his decision to designate this stretch of the A232 as a red route.

  Mr. Norris
  The A232 West Wickham high street was designated a red route by the Secretary of State on 11 June 1992.

  I understand that the traffic director and his assistant director south-east visited West Wickham high street prior to attending a meeting of the London borough of Bromley's technical services committee on 20 January. The assistant director has also visited West Wickham high
  420
  street on several previous occasions to inspect traffic conditions during the morning peak, lunchtime and early evening periods.

  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration has been given to a possible diversion of the proposed A232 red route from West Wickham high street in order to meet the objections raised by local residents.

  Mr. Norris
  We carefully considered the London borough of Bromley's alternative proposal that the red route should by-pass West Wickham high street. We concluded, however, that no change should be made to our original proposal.

  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received with regard to the proposed red route through West Wickham high street; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We have received 517 representations and in addition four petitions containing a total of 341 names.

  I am satisfied that the high street forms part of an existing strategic route through south London which will benefit from the introduction of red route measures.

  Road Building and Management
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on road building and management in real terms(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1992.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In 1991–92 prices, £1,035 million was spent in 1979–80 and £1,889 million in 1991–92 on new construction and capital and current maintenance of national roads in England.

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the ratio of road to public transport expenditure by his Department(a) nationally and (b) in London.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Comprehensive details of the Government's expenditure on transport for the three-year period 1993–94 to 1995–96 are contained in the Department of Transport report 1993, Cm 2206. In this period, planned spending on roads amounts to £8,181 million and on public transport £6,760 million, a ratio of 1.21 to 1. Expenditure on transport in London is not identified separately and it would be difficult to produce reliable and meaningful figures. However, it is clear that a much higher proportion of transport expenditure in London is on public transport than is the case nationally.

  Channel Tunnel (East Coast Link)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects passenger services via the channel tunnel to operate along the east coast main line; whether designs for power-cars and rolling stock for such services have been finalised; and when he expects orders for this rolling stock to be placed.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail expects to start operating international daytime services on the east coast main line towards the end of 1995. The dedicated trainsets for these services were ordered in December 1991.
  421
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a map showing the rail route, together with speed restrictions, to be followed from the east coast main line to Kensington Olympia for onward service to the channel tunnel; if he will outline all track and signalling works necessary for this route to be followed, stating in each case when such works are to be, or were started, and when they will be completed.

  Mr. Freeman
  These are operational matters for British Rail. The Department does not hold the information requested.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects freight services via the channel tunnel to operate along the east coast main line; whether locomotives for such services have been ordered; and when they are expected to begin service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The dedicated class 92 locomotives are on order and are due to be delivered from the autumn of 1994. The railways should, however, be in a position to run international freight trains from the time the tunnel opens by using other locomotives to provide traction through the tunnel.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the tender list for sections 102 to 112 of the Jubilee line extension.

  Mr. Norris
  No, this is a matter for London Underground Ltd. I understand that it is prepared to release such information in appropriate cases, but: only after the award of contracts.

  East Coast Line (Electrification)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sources of funding for the east coast line electrification.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail investment is funded by a mixture of Government grants and loans and its own internal resources. It is for BR to decide how these funds are allocated to particular projects. In addition, the east coast line electrification project received grant aid from the European regional development fund.

  Travelcards
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the future of travelcards in London; and what steps he is taking to ensure the continued availability of such cards after bus deregulation and rail privatisation.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about this. The Government are discussing with London public transport operators what developments in joint ticketing arrangements, such as travelcard, will best meet the future needs of passengers and operators. In the light of travelcard's popularity, private sector bus and rail operators will be keen for commercial reasons to offer such a facility.

  British Rail Pension Fund
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the restrictions applying to the purposes to which British Rail pensions fund assets may be applied; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is entirely a matter for the trustees of the British Rail pension schemes, acting in accordance with the powers within the various trust deeds and scheme rules.

  Helicopters, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the findings of the study into sites for a permanent helicopter base in London.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: The Secretary of State hopes to receive the report of i:he London heliport study working group in the summer and to publish the report as soon as possible thereafter.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  National Anthem
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which newspapers and magazines the Community Relations Commission advertised its research post on practice relating to the playing of the national anthem.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Northern Ireland Community Relations Council placed advertisements in the Belfast Telegraph and Fortnight magazine for an independent consultant(s) to carry out research on flags and emblems.

  Health and Social Services Trusts
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what financial basis property currently vested in the Department of Health and Social Services will be transferred to HSS trusts.

  Mr. Hanley
  When an HSS trust is set up, the assets it needs for its functions are transferred to it and it takes legal ownership of them. Land and buildings held for operational use are valued by the Valuation and Lands Office at open market value for existing use. This valuation, less the value of any liabilities transferred to the trust, constitute the trust's originating capital debt.

  Social Security
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available for the Asylum road, Derry, Lisnagelvin, Limavady and Strabane social security offices to indicate the numbers in receipt of income support, the respective numbers receiving each of the income support premiums and the numbers receiving unemployment benefit without income support.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  423
  Letter from Mr. A. Wylie to Mr. John Hume, dated 3 March 1993:
  As I am responsible for Social Security operational matters your recent Parliamentary Question on the numbers in receipt of Income Support, the respective numbers receiving each of the Income Support premiums and the numbers receiving

  Income support payments—premiums and unemployment benefit in Asylum Road, Lisnagelvin, Limavady and Strabane

  Name of office

  Asylum Road

  Lisnagelvin

  Limavady

  Strabane

  Number in receipt of Income Support

  12,092

  5,884

  3,667

  6,593

  Number in receipt of pensioner premium

  892

  562

  378

  816

  Number in receipt of enhanced pensioner premium

  229

  176

  100

  216

  Number in receipt of higher pensioner premium

  677

  509

  364

  674

  Number in receipt of disability premium

  1,037

  464

  303

  596

  Number in receipt of lone parent premium

  2,673

  935

  450

  749

  Number in receipt of family premium

  1,274

  701

  602

  889

  Number in receipt of Unemployment Benefit without Income Support

  494

  292

  315

  177

  Note: There are another three premiums i.e. disabled child premium, severe disability premium and the carer premium. Unfortunately, no statistical data is held on the number of customers in receipt of these premiums.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the processing of disability living allowance applications indicating average processing times per component, progress on the backlog of applications and any special measures taken.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. A. Wylie to Mr. John Hume, dated 3 March 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Social Security Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am replying, therefore, to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland concerning Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  As you know, we conducted a highly successful publicity campaign to launch the new disability benefits in Northern Ireland. In addition, we wrote to some 55,000 existing Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance recipients to invite them, where appropriate, to claim extra money under DLA. Take up campaigns were also run by other organisations to encourage claims to Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance before they were replaced. All of these activities attracted a much larger number of applications in the early stages than was expected. Although we had expected an increase in applications the response far exceeded our forecasts.
  The surge of applications meant that we were fully stretched to cope with the volume of work. When I wrote to you in July 1992, I explained that appropriate measures had been taken to tackle the situation, including the recruitment of additional staff and working extensive overtime. Significant inroads have been made into the number of new DLA claims on hand. During the period from February 1992 to February 1993, 28,000 new claims were received and of these 20,000 have been cleared. In addition, almost all of the 8,000 claims
  424
  Unemployment Benefit without Income Support at Asylum Road, Lisnagelvin, Limavady and Strabane has been passed to me for reply.
  The most recent information available is attached.
  I hope you find this information helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report and copies will be placed in the Library

  received from existing beneficiaries have been cleared. Some 3,300 applications for review have been received of which 1,500 have been cleared.
  You asked about the average processing times per component. A claim to DLA is a claim for the benefit as a whole and not for a specific component or level of component of the benefit. The primary target set for the clearance of DLA claims is 60 per cent. of claims to be cleared in 30 days. We met the target in November and December 1992 but the average performance since April 1992 to date works out at 25 per cent. cleared in 30 days. While we are still some way, therefore, from meeting the target on a full year basis, the situation is improving and action is being taken to further reduce the backlog and thereby significantly improve the clearance times.
  The phased introduction of computerisation from October 1992 has speeded up the payment process and will lead to much greater efficiency when the conversion from the clerical to the computer system is completed at the end of March. There will always be, some case of course, where further enquiries have to be made or medical examinations arranged. While these have been reduced to manageable proportions, there has been a recent rise of some 50 per cent. in new claims with around 800 claims being received each week. An additional 40 staff were recruited in January this year to deal with the work on hand and a dedicated telephone section has been set up to help deal with customers' enquiries.
  I very much regret that, despite our best efforts, the service to many of our disabled customers has fallen far short of what they should receive. Although the intake of new claims has risen substantially, I am monitoring the situation closely and I expect that, as a result of the measures being taken, all backlogs will be cleared by April.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to compare application rates for each component of disability living allowance with those for attendance allowance and mobility allowance, award ratios by rate and review/appeal ratios.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  425
  Letter from Mr. A Wylie to Mr. John Hume, dated 3 March 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Social Security Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am replying, therefore, to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland concerning application rates for Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance.
  Firstly, I should explain that a claim for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is a claim for benefit as a whole and not for a specific component or level of component. In addition, in comparing Attendance Allowance prior to April 1992 and DLA, it should be noted that Attendance Allowance was then also available to people aged under 65 years of age.
  Bearing this in mind, in 1991 there were 18,600 claims for Attendance Allowance and 7,800 claims for Mobility Allowance. From February 1992 to February 1993 there were 36,000 claims for DLA and between April 1992 and January 1993 there were 15,400 claims for Attendance Allowance which is now only available to people aged 65 or over.
  In terms of benefit awarded, the success rate for Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance in 1991 was 53 per cent. and 60 per cent. respectively. The success rate to date for new claims to DLA is 79 per cent. and for review applications 65 per cent.
  As regards reviews and appeals the details are as follows:

  Numbers

  1991

  Attendance Allowance

  3,116

  Mobility Allowance

  4,036

  426

  Numbers

  1992–93

  DLA

  3,500

  I hope this is helpful.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 98, if he will provide the figures for ERDF funding for each year at 1984–85 prices.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: The following amounts were received from the European regional development fund at 1984–85 prices:

  Financial year

  £ million 1984–85 prices

  1984–85

  17

  1985–86

  17

  1986–87

  21

  1987–88

  40

  1988–89

  39

  1989–90

  31

  1990–91

  34

  1991–92

  33

  1992–93

  178

  1 Estimated outturn.

  Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche-Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Chrichton Roberts Ltd., (f) KPMG management consultants and (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts with each contractor for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 24 February 1993]: The information requested is as follows:

  Consultant Coopers, Lybrand Deloitte

  CONTRACTS AWARDED 1991–92

  Calibration Report

  Generator Consultants

  Financial Services (Phase 1)

  Universities Press (NI) Ltd.

  Dungannon Meats

  Walter Alexander

  Salaries Information

  Preparation of SLCO Business Plan

  Telecoms and Electronics Components Strategy

  Sector Review (Recycling)

  Nectar Beauty Shops—Review of Core Business

  Overview of Producer Services Sector

  Full Business Appraisal of Munster Simms Engineering Ltd.

  IT Provision in the Greater Belfast Area

  Establishment of Labour Market Database

  Local Labour Market Supply Newry and Mourne

  Employment Service—Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Monitoring MMB (NI) Commercial Subsidiary—Dromona Quality Foods

  Financial Skills Training

  Project Management Course

  Internal Audit Course

  Crisp—Economic Appraisal Course

  Review of Government Legislation Course

  Economic Appraisal Course

  Project Sponsorship Course

  Junior Management Development Programme

  Investment Appraisal of Kircubbin Community Centre

  Financial Information and Systems Review

  Review of Single Terminal Access Point Implementation

  428

  HPSS Hospital In-Patient System

  Update of 1990 Social Security Benefits: Computerisation Strategy Study

  Investment Appraisal of Somme Heritage Centre

  Quality Review of NUBS2 Implementation Plan

  Project control Procedures—Training

  Review of Senior Management FAMIS System

  Management Support

  Mental Health

  Maternity

  Project Approval

  Community

  Evaluation of MENCAP (Efficiency Scrutiny)

  Development Work in Regional Information Strategy for HPSS

  Tailoring of NHS Performance Indicator Package

  Mental Health IT Evaluation Project

  Information Systems Strategy

  Land Registry Computerisation Project

  Market Testing

  Fintona Crisp

  Validation of Market Testing Bids

  IT Consultancy Information Systems Strategy

  IT Consultancy Geographical Information Systems

  Productivity Arrangements

  Activities Related to the Establishment of a Government-owned Company

  Project Management Assistance

  TOTAL COST—£2,124,953

  CONTRACTS AWARDED IN LAST 12 MONTHS

  Monitoring MMB (NI) commercial subsidiary—Dromona quality foods

  Five economic appraisals courses

  Investment appraisal on Ulster peoples college

  Strategic planning for implementation of operational strategy and non-operational strategy systems

  Confirmation of current VAT procedures in the HPSS

  Replacement mental health records system

  IS strategy for child support agency

  Mental health

  Maternity

  Project approval

  429

  Antrim area hospital

  Developmental work on regional information strategy for HPSS

  Review of senior management famis system

  Full study report for the proposed new water and sewerage charging regime

  Vehicle and plant accounting system

  Pricing study

  Donegall square appraisal

  Northside economic appraisal

  Full study report for financial systems

  Review of industrial incentive scheme

  IT consultancy information systems strategy

  IT consultancy payroll/personnel

  IT consultancy integrated computer system stage II

  IT consultancy customer billing

  IT consultancy commercial accounting

  Validation of market testing bids

  Development of management information systems

  Rathlin island ferry service 1992–93 subsidy computation

  Two junior financial management courses

  Total Cost £666,047

  Consultant—Touche Ross

  CONTRACTS AWARDED 1991–92

  Reporting Accountants

  Fenaghy House

  Lismona Wear

  Study of light metal fabrication sector

  Harland and Wolff appraisal of intervention aid claim capesize vessels

  Production of database for NI trade director 1992 and 1993

  Study/analysis NI perceived peripherality from european markets and effect on companies operating in NI

  Pharmaceutical industry study

  Aircraft management—search for alternative portfolio managers

  Monitoring of Lummus Mackie modernisation and relocation plan

  Sector review (plastics)

  Development of management information system and planning framework for accounts

  Info systems strategy study

  Debenham training project

  Development of a prototype client database

  430

  ICS project—central operations monitoring model

  Laboratories

  AMIS

  Information systems scoping study

  Information systems strategy for NI education service

  TOTAL COST £1,124,230

  CONTRACTS AWARDED IN LAST 12 MONTHS

  Investment appraisal on Dungiven community centre

  Investment appraisal on residential centre at St. Columb's nursing home

  Investment appraisal on Inverbrena community centre

  Commitment to quality

  Strategic planning exercise

  Benefit related study/projects

  Business planning (DIS)

  Laboratories

  Making best use of ward nursing resources

  Fintona Crisp

  NI airports privatisation lead advisers

  Water executive privatisation consultancy study

  TOTAL COST £724,690

  Consultant—Price Waterhouse

  CONTRACTS AWARDED 1991–92

  ISE Review

  Preliminary feasibility study—Craftworks/NI fashion and design centre joint retail outlet

  Review of costing and charging structures

  Henry Denny

  Presentation at association of economic reps

  Academy Lithoplates

  Company monitoring assignment Blackers Mill

  Company monitoring assignment Aitch Holdings Ltd

  Company appraisal—NIEX

  Monitoring assignment—Blackers Mill

  Development of industrial scholarship scheme

  Evaluation of CEA programme and jobclub programme

  Evaluation of NICD

  Evaluation of responses to NICS Telecoms services study

  Investment appraisal of provision of sports and leisure facilities at Brownlow Campus

  Investment appraisal on a community relations development for the New Enterprise Trust

  431

  Purchaser and provider arrangements (SSI)

  Business plan (DIS)

  Day surgery study

  Evaluation of NI association for mental health (efficiency scrutiny)

  Evaluation of age concern

  Evaluation of NICOD

  Review of community unit information systems strategy

  Evaluation of NI Association of Citizen's Advice Bureau and the Forum for Community Work Education

  TOTAL COST £226,310

  CONTRACTS AWARDED IN LAST 12 MONTHS

  Competency frameworks for DHSS

  Evaluation of CRC

  Pay and grading

  Regional finance—Training needs analysis

  Business plan (DIS)

  Bed management in acute hospitals study

  Making best use of ward nursing resources

  Efficiency scrutiny evaluation of the NI pre-school playgroups association

  TOTAL COST £160,979

  Consultants Ernest and Young

  Contracts Awarded 91–92

  Burrenddale Hotel

  Company Monitoring Assignment—Platform

  R. J. Hall

  Express Foods

  Foyle Meats

  Elwood and Co

  Securicor

  Agriplex

  Tayto/Pri-Sum

  Company Appraisal Clarence Clothing

  Company Appraisal Blackers Mill

  Company Assignment Moy Central Manufacturing

  Evaluation of Financial Implications of Relocating Clarence Clothing

  Financial Review of Scandinavian Hosiery 1982 Ltd

  Strategic Review of Platform Ltd

  Search for Buyer for Clarence Clothing Company

  Monitoring Assignment—Niex

  432

  Contracts (DIS)

  Hilltown Crisp

  Bannside Crisp

  Draperstown Crisp

  TOTAL COST £59,565

  Contracts Awarded in Last 12 Months

  Contracts (DIS)

  Hilltown Crisp

  Laganside Corporation Auditors

  Consultants Chrichton Roberts

  Contracts Awarded 91–92

  None

  TOTAL COST Nil

  Contracts awarded in the last 12 months

  None

  TOTAL COST Nil

  Consultant KPMG

  CONTRACTS AWARDED 1991–92

  Financial services, market intelligence and prospect management system study

  Financial services study

  Assessment of future direction of YTP

  Mackles

  Flexibox

  Treelinks

  Organisational review of T and E agency

  Forest service—options for change

  Investment appraisal on Kells and Connor community centre

  Investment appraisal on Corrymeela community centre

  Report on human resource development training needs analysis

  Grading seminar

  Human resource strategy review

  Contributions unit customer survey

  Personnel review

  Human resources development report

  Usel consultancy study

  Report on the impact on transport infrastructure and services on exporting companies in Northern Ireland

  TOTAL COST 255,951

  CONTRACTS AWARDED IN LAST 12 MONTHS

  Castlewellan Crisp

  Personnel review

  433

  Investment appraisal of residential centre at Ulster American Folk Park

  Investment appraisal of education centre for the National Trust

  TOTAL COST 16,797

  Consultant Leopold Joseph

  CONTRACTS AWARDED 1991–92 None

  TOTAL COST Nil

  CONTRACTS AWARDED IN LAST 12 MONTHS

  Information not available on grounds of commercial confidentiality

EDUCATION

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consultations he has had with representatives of parents concerning the parents charter.

  Mr. Forth
  Surveys commissioned by the Government have shown that most parents would welcome more information about schools. The parents charter explained parents' current rights, and promised improved access to information about the quality of information arid the standards achieved in schools. The first set of comparative school performance tables were published last November and have been widely welcomed by parents and others.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) to which of the teachers' professional associations the consultation paper on a common funding formula for grant-maintained schools has been sent;

  (2) to which of the teachers' professional associations he intends to send the rest of the series of consultation documents promised in the letter sent out on 18 December 1992 accompanying the consultation document on the common funding formula for grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The consultation paper which issued on 18 December, on a common funding formula for self-governing state—grant-maintained—schools, was addressed to local education authorities and self-governing schools. The teachers' professional associations were all sent the relevant press release. Copies of the paper were sent to any association on request. We are happy to add the name of any body or individual to the circulation list for further papers in the CFF series and to receive comments from them.

  Teachers
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers retired at the statutory age of 60 for women or 65 years for men in each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Forth
  The teachers' superannuation scheme provides for retirement benefits to be paid to both men and women once they reach age 60. The table shows the number of women aged 60 and men aged 65 who retired during the financial years 1989–90 to date.
  434

  Year to March

  Women

  Men

  1990

  1,346

  513

  1991

  1,348

  477

  1992

  1,188

  443

  11993

  1,236

  393

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many new teachers entered the profession in each year since 1989–90;

  (2) how many new teachers are expected to enter the profession in 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the number of new entrants to full-time teaching in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England and Wales during 1989–90 and 1990–91. Information for later years is not yet available.

  Year to March

  Number

  1990

  15,300

  11991

  16,900

  1 Provisional.

  The number of new teachers who enter the profession in future years will depend on the recruitment decisions of employers and governors of schools with delegated budgets.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Education how many teachers aged over 50 years in maintained schools left the teaching profession(a) with enhanced compensation for redundancy and (b) with basic compensation for redundancy in each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Forth
  A complete set of data is not held centrally, but our records indicate that the number of teachers over age 50 who retired prematurely from maintained nursery, primary and secondary and special schools and received enhanced benefits was as follows:

  Year to March

  Total

  1990

  1,365

  1991

  1,562

  1992

  1,549

  11993

  1,900

  1Provisional.

  Data relating to the number of teachers who left the profession with only basic compensation for redundancy are not collected centrally.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many teachers were employed in maintained schools in each year since 1988–89;

  (2) how many teachers are expected to be employed in maintained schools in 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the number of teachers employed in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England each January, including LEA-maintained and self-governing state schools.
  435

  Full-time equivalent teachers

  1989

  397,410

  1990

  398,542

  1991

  394,945

  1992

  394,874

  The number of teachers to be employed in LEA maintained and self-governing state schools in 1993–94 will depend on decisions taken by employers and by the governors of schools with delegated budgets.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers in maintained schools left the teaching profession with compensation for redundancy before reaching the age of 50 years in each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many teachers are expected to retire in 1992–93 having attained the age of 60 for women and 65 years for men.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1992–93, 400 men aged 65 and 1,300 women aged 60 are expected to retire from teaching.

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which he has responsibility to ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if he will make a statement on his policy on hours of staff working each week.

  Mr. Boswell
  Staff in the Department work a total of 41 hours each week in London and 42 hours in Darlington at times designed to enable the office to fulfil its service to the public and to its Ministers. There is no significant difference in hours of attendance between Fridays and other weekdays.

  Staff in the Teachers' Pensions Agency are conditioned to 42 hours. The agency has made public in the charterline the hours in which it is open for business. These are 8·30 am to 5 pm on Mondays to Thursdays, and 8·30 am to 4·30 pm on Fridays.

  My right hon. Friend is proud of the record of officers in the Department, many of whom voluntarily work long hours to carry out his policies.

  Hours of attendance in non-departmental public bodies are a matter for the individual body.

  Student Maintenance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what support will be given from public funds towards students' maintenance in the academic year 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend's plans for maintenance provision through mandatory awards and loans for students domiciled in England and Wales are set out in the departmental report (Cm 2210) published last month, a copy of which is in the Library. The rates of 436
  awards and loans for 1993–94 will be included in regulations to be laid before the House in due course. Support is also available through discretionary awards made by local education authorities and through the access funds.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research has been undertaken to investigate the extent of student financial hardship which has occurred during the current academic year.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has commissioned a survey of full-time undergraduate students' income and expenditure during the academic year 1992–93 including the 1992 summer vacation. The findings should be available later in 1993.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the value of the real level of the student grant for students living away from home and not studying in inner London for the year 1967–68, at 1993 prices, together with the current maximum basic grant.

  Mr. Boswell
  The basic mandatory grant for students living away from the parental home and studying outside London in the academic year 1992–93 is £2,265. Students in those circumstances will be able to take out loans of up to £715, making a total of £2,980. In 1967–68 the value of the corresponding mandatory grant was £2,964 at 1992–93 prices.

  Schools (Ministerial Visits)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which schools in Staffordshire he has visited since becoming Minister; and on what dates.

  Mr. Patten
  I have not yet had the opportunity of visiting schools in Staffordshire among the 31 that I have been to since becoming Secretary of State; however, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), visited the Maple Hayes Hall independent special school on 13 November 1992.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, with dates, all the visits he has made as Minister to(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools, identifying whether the school is local education authority maintained, voluntary aided or grant maintained.

  Mr. Patten
  The information requested is in the table:

  Schools visited

  Date

  Appleton CE Primary School, Abingdon, Oxfordshire—LEA

  2 October 1992

  Dunmore Infants School, Abingdon, Oxfordshire—LEA

  8 May 1992

  Greenvale Primary School, Croydon—LEA

  2 June 1992

  The Hague Primary, Tower Hamlets—VA

  8 March 1993

  Lyne and Longcross First School, Surrey—LEA

  30 June 1992

  St. Edmund's RC Primary, Abingdon, Oxfordshire—LEA

  1 May 1992

  St. Peter's CE Primary School, Wootton, Oxfordshire—LEA

  21 September 1992

  Thomas Reade Primary School, Abingdon, Oxfordshire—LEA

  10 July 1992

  Frideswide Middle School, Oxfordshire LEA

  8 May 1992

  437

  Schools visited

  Date

  Netherlands Avenue Special School, Bradford—LEA

  13 July 1992

  Archbishop Blanch CE High School, Liverpool—VA

  26 January 1993

  Archbishop Tennison's CE Secondary School, Croydon—VA

  2 June 1992

  Bishop David Brown Secondary School, Surrey—LEA

  30 June 1992

  Bishop Thomas RC School, Lambeth—VA

  5 March 1993

  Cardinal Newman School, Hove, East Sussex—VA

  October 1992

  Cockshut Hill Secondary School, Birmingham—LEA

  11 May 1992

  Compton Secondary School, Finchley— LEA

  21 October 1992

  Culham European School, Oxfordshire LEA

  7 December 1992

  Tesdale Special School, Abingdon, Oxfordshire—LEA

  5 February 1993

  Wimbledon College, Merton—VA

  4 November 1992

  Small Heath GM School, Birmingham—GM

  11 May 1992

  Marymount International School, Kingston—Independent

  14 September 1992

  Mayville High School, Portsmouth, Hampshire—Independent

  7 July 1992

  Mulberry School for Girls, Tower Hamlets—LEA

  8 March 1993

  Nottingham High School, Nottinghamshire—Independent

  11 November 1992

  Radley College, Oxfordshire—Independent

  1 May 1992

  School of St. Helan and St. Katherine, Oxfordshire—Independent

  2 October 1992

  Mary Hare Grammar School for the Deaf, Newbury, Berkshire—Non-Maintained

  Special School

  10 February 1993

  Bradford CTC, Bradford

  13 July 1992

  Djanogly CTC, Nottingham

  11 November 1992

  Leigh City CTC, Dartford, Kent

  17 February 1993

  Access Funds
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what level of access funds will be made available for the academic year 1993–94.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend's expenditure plans, as set out in the departmental report (Cm 2210) published last month, include access funds provision for institutions in England of £23·8 million in 1993–94. A copy of the report is in the Library.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the oral statement of 2 March,Official Report, columns 139–43, by the Home Secretary on juvenile offending, which Department or Departments will be responsible for funding the new statutory duty on local education authorities to educate pupils who are not attending school.

  Mr. Forth
  The new duty will replace existing powers exercisable by local education authorities under section 56 of the Education Act 1944 and section 3 of the Education Act 1981. The Government do not expect this to lead to a significant increase in the costs of local education authorities.

  Nursery Schools, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which five London boroughs currently have the highest percentage of children under five years registered as attending local authority funded nursery schools.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1992, the latest date for which information is available, nine of the 33 boroughs in Greater London had no maintained nursery schools. Of the 24 authorities which did, the five with the highest percentages of under-fives attending maintained nursery schools were: Hammersmith and Fulham, 16 per cent.; Newham, 12 per cent.; Tower Hamlets, 11 per cent.; Greenwich, 10 per cent.; and Kensington and Chelsea, 9 per cent.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what percentage of children aged under five years attended local authority funded nursery schools in London in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d) 1990;

  (2)what percentage of children aged under five years in London attend local authority funded nursery schools.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1992—the latest date for which information is available—approximately 5 per cent. of the local population aged three and four attended maintained nursery schools in Greater London. The equivalent figure for January 1975 was approximately 4 per cent.

  School Population
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average size of each school population for which each education authority in England is responsible.

  Mr. Forth
  The average sizes of LEA-maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1992 are shown in the table.

  Average number of pupils in LEA-maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England January 1992

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  City

  221

  —

  Camden

  256

  931

  Greenwich

  269

  930

  Hackney

  233

  779

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  227

  601

  Islington

  255

  859

  Kensington and Chelsea

  229

  773

  Lambeth

  240

  625

  Lewisham

  271

  752

  Southwark

  265

  620

  Tower Hamlets

  272

  774

  Wandsworth

  242

  764

  Westminster

  215

  905

  Barking

  285

  1,146

  Barnet

  263

  868

  Bexley

  270

  844

  Brent

  335

  823

  Bromley

  254

  907

  Croydon

  256

  701

  Ealing

  299

  854

  Enfield

  327

  985

  Haringey

  242

  975

  Harrow

  357

  739

  Havering

  261

  838

  Hillingdon

  269

  700

  Hounslow

  305

  956

  Kingston upon Thames

  286

  732

  439

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Merton

  302

  608

  Newham

  359

  1,004

  Redbridge

  327

  1,020

  Richmond upon Thames

  259

  896

  Sutton

  301

  747

  Waltham Forest

  315

  659

  Birmingham

  318

  753

  Coventry

  267

  957

  Dudley

  332

  795

  Sandwell

  281

  749

  Solihull

  272

  947

  Walsall

  262

  850

  Wolverhampton

  234

  768

  Knowsley

  287

  810

  Liverpool

  271

  798

  St. Helens

  240

  946

  Sefton

  286

  817

  Wirral

  292

  916

  Bolton

  251

  977

  Bury

  229

  691

  Manchester

  265

  771

  Oldham

  239

  1,056

  Rochdale

  276

  896

  Salford

  255

  621

  Stockport

  223

  1,002

  Tameside

  270

  700

  Trafford

  252

  689

  Wigan

  239

  855

  Barnsley

  217

  806

  Doncaster

  231

  608

  Rotherham

  210

  996

  Sheffield

  253

  746

  Bradford

  240

  511

  Calderdale

  205

  764

  Kirklees

  221

  699

  Leeds

  250

  527

  Wakefield

  219

  5e3

  Gateshead

  213

  889

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  262

  750

  North Tyneside

  261

  535

  South Tyneside

  253

  823

  Sunderland

  279

  1,092

  Isles of Scilly

  43

  112

  Avon

  211

  885

  Bedfordshire

  188

  616

  Berkshire

  218

  753

  Buckinghamshire

  212

  750

  Cambridgeshire

  218

  893

  Cheshire

  191

  892

  Cleveland

  320

  744

  Cornwall

  157

  904

  Cumbria

  136

  701

  Derbyshire

  184

  922

  Devon

  174

  831

  Dorset

  221

  651

  Durham

  187

  823

  East Sussex

  225

  910

  Essex

  208

  895

  Gloucestershire

  159

  764

  Hampshire

  219

  807

  Hereford and Worcester

  165

  611

  Hertfordshire

  185

  740

  Humberside

  233

  905

  Isle of Wight

  154

  485

  Kent

  215

  704

  Lancashire

  210

  757

  Leicestershire

  238

  732

  Lincolnshire

  162

  553

  Norfolk

  154

  742

  North Yorkshire

  144

  713

  Northamptonshire

  182

  682

  Northumberland

  147

  470

  440

  LEA

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nottinghamshire

  212

  723

  Oxfordshire

  164

  756

  Shropshire

  160

  684

  Somerset

  149

  701

  Staffordshire

  221

  793

  Suffolk

  167

  608

  Surrey

  201

  733

  Warwickshire

  185

  667

  West Sussex

  208

  918

  Wiltshire

  152

  753

  England

  216

  753

  Pupils (Religious Allegiance)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the results for each local education authority of the religious allegiance statistics for pupils in maintained schools collected under his Department's circular 16/89, including the religious allegiance figures for pupils aged five to 11 years at the beginning of the school year 1990–91 and the percentage of such pupils in each local education authority of each religious affiliation according to the said circular and those for whom no information is available; and if he will give the corresponding information for England as a whole.

  Mr. Forth
  The information supplied by many local education authorities and self-governing state schools in 1990–91 was incomplete and of poor quality. I do not intend to publish the results, but I will write separately to my hon. Friend on this matter.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list for each local education authority the number of determinations granted to schools by the standing advisory council on religious education under section 12 of the Education Reform Act 1988, the total number of county and controlled schools, and the percentage of such schools which have been granted exemption from daily Christian worship; and if he will give summary figures for England as a whole;

  (2)what percentage of schools have been granted exemption from daily Christian worship; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested. The following table lists for each local authority where a determination has been granted, and for England as a whole, the number of determinations granted, the number of county schools, and the number of determinations as a percentage of county schools.

  It is not possible to give the percentage of county schools with determinations since more than one determination may apply to a single school. Controlled schools cannot be granted determinations because they are not subject to the requirement that worship should be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. Controlled schools are not therefore included in the information. Information on which schools have been granted determinations is not held centrally.
  441

  London Education Authority

  Determinations granted

  County schools

  Determinations as percentage of county schools

  Bedfordshire

  6

  230

  2·6

  Berkshire

  13

  219

  5·9

  Birmingham

  6

  311

  1·9

  Bolton

  1

  68

  1·5

  Bradford

  69

  192

  35·9

  Brent

  59

  56

  105·0

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  240

  0·8

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  223

  0·4

  Coventry

  4

  95

  4·2

  Ealing

  23

  91

  25·3

  Gloucestershire

  2

  176

  1·1

  Harrow

  5

  53

  9·4

  Hertfordshire

  2

  384

  0·5

  Hounslow

  12

  63

  19·0

  Kirklees

  8

  136

  5·9

  Lancashire

  6

  311

  1·9

  Merton

  4

  46

  8·7

  Newham

  5

  66

  7·6

  Rochdale

  8

  53

  15·0

  Rotherham

  5

  112

  4·5

  Salford

  1

  59

  1·8

  Surrey

  2

  289

  0·7

  Tameside

  1

  67

  1·5

  Trafford

  3

  68

  4·4

  Waltham Forest

  1

  67

  1·5

  Westminster

  1

  18

  5·5

  Wirral

  1

  94

  1·1

  Wolverhampton

  2

  88

  2·3

  ENGLAND

  253

  15,313

  1·7

  Primary Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) when the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education was invited to consider the discussion paper "Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools" published by his Department; and if he will make a statement;

  (2)when the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education submitted its report to him on its consideration of the discussion paper "Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools"; and whether he will publish the report;

  (3)what recommendations were made to him by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education arising from its consideration of the discussion paper "Curriculum Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools".

  Mr. Forth
  The then Secretary of State wrote to the chairman of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education in February 1992 to seek the council's advice on the implications for the initial training of primary teachers of the report on curriculum organisation and classroom practice in primary schools. CATE submitted interim advice to my right hon. Friend in July 1992, emphasising the need for further work. Following the two recent reports on primary education from the National Curriculum Council and from Ofsted, my right hon. Friend has now requested further advice from CATE with a view to issuing in April, for consultation, proposals for the reform of training for primary teachers.

  Syllabuses
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which local education authorities have adopted new agreed syllabuses since 29 September 1988; whether in 442
  each case the syllabus is newly prepared or an adopted syllabus of another local education authority; and if in the latter case he will list the name of that syllabus and the date of preparation.

  Mr. Forth
  We understand that the local education authorities listed in the table have adopted new agreed syllabuses since 29 September 1988. Where an authority has adopted the agreed syllabus of another local education authority, the name of the authority and the date of the syllabus is included in brackets.

  Bolton

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Coventry

  Croydon

  Cumbria (Suffolk, 1991)

  Devon

  Dorset

  Ealing

  East Sussex

  Gateshead

  Gloucester

  Hampshire

  Harrow (Hampshire, 1978)

  Havering

  Hereford and Worcester (Hampshire, 1978)

  Hounslow

  Kent

  Kingston-upon-Thames (Surrey, 1987)

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Newcastle

  Newham

  North Tyneside

  North Yorkshire

  Nottingham

  Oldham

  Oxford

  Richmond (Hampshire, 1992)

  Rotherham

  St. Helens (Leeds, 1991)

  Sandwell

  Sefton

  443

  Shropshire

  Solihull

  South Tyneside

  Stafford

  Suffolk

  Sunderland (Salford, 1987)

  Trafford

  Wakefield

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the names of agreed syllabuses about which his Department has received complaints under section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988 since its passing; and what actions his Department has taken following these complaints and the subsequent action of the local education authority concerned.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has received complaints about the agreed syllabuses of Coventry, Ealing and Newham local education authorities. The first of these complaints is still under consideration. Following the other complaints, the Department wrote to the authorities setting out the Secretary of State's concern that their syllabuses were not detailed enough to meet the statutory requirements. The Department also wrote to chief education officers in England on 18 March 1991 with advice about the nature of agreed syllabuses. Newham LEA has subsequently adopted a statutory appendix to its syllabus. Ealing LEA has constituted an agreed syllabus conference to review its syllabus.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to seek to amend the Education Act 1981 to prohibit the exclusion from school of children with special educational needs while(a) the process of assessment or (b) an appeal by parents against their child's statement is ongoing.

  Mr. Forth
  No. While we look to schools to use exclusion sparingly and as a last resort, particularly where pupils with special educational needs are concerned, there will he instances where it is the most appropriate response to serious misbehaviour.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Ben Hamilton
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 316, whether, prior to the discontinuance of the proceedings against Mr. Hamilton, forensic reports had been received on all materials sent for examination in connection with the proceedings.

  The Attorney-General
  At the time the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against Mr. Hamilton was made, there were certain outstanding lines of inquiry being pursued by the police which included the results of forensic examinations. However, these lines of inquiry could not be assessed as likely to produce the required corroboration for the perjury charge and were unlikely to have been completed within a time scale which would have justified an application for a further remand.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the staff requirement for the warhead for the United Kingdom Trident system was formally endorsed by his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  August 1984.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the additional capabilities which would be available to the United Kingdom Trident system if the mark IV bus purchased from the United States of America was replaced with mark V bus from the same source.

  Mr. Aitken
  No such assessment has been made.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Trident missile service units are used in conjunction with the explosives handling jetty at Coulport.

  Mr. Aitken
  They will be.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to the purchase of the mark V bus for the United Kingdom Trident system from the United States of America.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  Defence Electronics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the press were prohibited from attending the conference on exporting defence electronics held by his Department's Defence Sales Export Organisation on 24 February.

  Mr. Aitken
  The conference was a private one providing members of the Electronics Equipment Association and Defence Export Services Organisation with the opportunity to exchange views in confidence on a wide range of issues. Requests from the media to attend the conference were therefore declined.

  Navy Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of(a) surface ships currently used by the Royal Navy and (b) serving officers of Admiral rank.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy currently has 98 surface ships of minesweeper size and above, excluding RFA vessels, and 42 serving officers at admiral rank, including those at rear and vice admiral, excluding those who are currently on terminal leave or undergoing pre-retirement vocational training.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the defence budget will be spent on armed helicopters in(a) 1993–94 and (b) each of the next five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  This information is derived from my Department's long-term costing. As explained by my right
  445
  hon. Friend in his answer of 13 May last year, Official Report, column 155, it is not our practice to provide such details.

  Submarines
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many submarines are deployed by the Royal Navy at present: and if he will list the different types.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy's submarine fleet currently consists of three Polaris, one Valiant, five Swiftsure, seven Trafalgar, three Oberon and three Upholder class submarines.

  Personnel Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of(a) officers and (b) other service personnel in (i) the British Army, (ii) the Royal Navy and (iii) the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The figures at 1 February 1993 are:

  Officers

  Other ranks

  Total

  Royal Navy

  9,907

  50,196

  60,103

  Army

  16,354

  120,608

  136,962

  Royal Air Force

  14,524

  67,264

  81,788

  TOTAL

  40,785

  238,068

  278,853

  Deployments
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average interval in months a United Kingdom soldier in the British Army can expect between(a) deployments and (b) deployments in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Sailing Clubs
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what orders have been given for yachts for sailing clubs in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force; if he will list in each case the type of yacht, its cost, where the order has been placed and when the yacht will be in service; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many sailing clubs operate in (a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force; what were the annual running costs for each over the last three years and the estimates for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All sailing clubs in the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are private clubs run for the benefit of their members. In the Army there are 62 such clubs in the United Kingdom and abroad ranging from windsurfing through dinghy to offshore sailing. A similar situation applies in the Royal Navy and the RAF, but information on the numbers of clubs is not readily available. Clubs purchase their yachts using their own non-public funds. It would not be appropriate for me to provide information on these private transactions or on the running costs and estimates of these clubs.

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which he has responsibility to ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if he will make a statement on his policy on hours of staff working each week.

  Mr. Aitken
  With the exception of the Meteorological Office, which provides a 24-hour service seven days a week, and the service careers/recruiting offices which have set opening hours and are manned to provide advice and assistance to the public during these hours, the Ministry of Defence provides little else in the way of a direct service to the general public,.

  Conditioned hours are 41 gross per week in the London pay area, and 42 gross per week elsewhere. Arrival and departure times of staff may be staggered in accordance with departmental regulations. The overriding principle, however, remains that flexibility should be achieved without adverse effect on the overall efficiency of the Department in general, and the establishment in particular.

  Naval Colleges (Vehicles)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy as regards buying trucks and cars of British manufacture for the use of naval colleges; what new vehicles have been bought by each naval college in the last three years; and if he will give the cost and country of origin in each case.

  Mr. Aitken
  Trucks and cars for the naval colleges are purchased as part of the defence wide procurement of vehicles by my Department's procurement executive. In accordance with Government policy best value for money is sought through competition, which under European Community rules must be open to companies of all EC member nations.

  The new vehicles issued to each of the naval colleges in the last three years are listed in the table:

  Britannia Royal Naval College—Dartmouth

  3 Rover Montego 2·0 DLX

  2 Rover Metro City 1·0 L

  1 Ford Escort Estate 1·8 D Popular

  1 Renault Traffic 1100 D Crewbus

  2 Leyland DAF 200 Minibus

  1 Land Rover Defender 90

  1 Land Rover Defender 110

  Plaxton 29 Seat Coach

  1 Leyland DAF 200 Dropside Truck

  2 Leyland DAF 4 Tonne Truck

  Royal Naval College—Greenwich

  1 Rover 825 D

  4 Rover Montego 2·0 DLX

  Royal Naval Engineering College—Manadon

  1 Rover Montego 2·0 DLX

  1 Leyland DAF 200 Dropside Truck

  All the above vehicles originated in the United Kingdom, with the exception of the Renault Traffic, which originated in France.

  The cost of the vehicles is commercially confidential.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the defence implications of the Chilean Government's stockpile of chemical weapons;

  (2)what assessment he has made of the defence implications of Egyptian research focusing on pathogenic micro-organisms and dangerous disease-bearing agents;

  (3)what assessment he has made of the defence implications of the Iranian sarin and mustard gas producing capability;

  (4)what assessment he has made of the defence implications of the development of biological weapons including anthrax, cholera, bubonic plague and smallpox by North Korea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Increased proliferation of chemical and biological weapons has both international and regional security implications. We continue to keep the situation under review and the United Kingdom is determined to play a full part, through existing international fora, in controlling the proliferation of such weapons.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the the level of Libyan stocks of sarin, mustard gas and phosgene.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are aware that Libya has had the capability to produce mustard and nerve agents since the late 1908s.

  RAF Hereford
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for the closure of RAF Hereford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on 6 November 1992,Official Report, cols. 536–37.

  Warrior Vehicles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Warrior vehicles are deployed with(a) the British forces in Bosnia Herzegovina and (b) the British Army of the Rhine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers are(a) 68 and (b)

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Warrior vehicles deployed with the British Army of the Rhine are in full working order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to disclose information of an operational nature.

  United Nations Military Planning
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 497, what plans have been made to provide British military personnel to strengthen the military component of the United Nations secretariat; and if he will make a statement;
  448
  (2)how many military personnel are currently attached to the United Nations secretariat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 47 military personnel from all nations attached to the United Nations secretariat. The United Kingdom provides one major and one lieutenant commander on secondment to the field operations division of the United Nations secretariat. These officers deal with finance and logistics respectively. We would consider favourably any request by the United Nations to provide further military personnel for service in the secretariat.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 497, what is the current status of the discussions relating to strengthening the military component of the United Nations secretariat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The military adviser's office of the United Nations secretariat has already been reinforced to deal with specific subjects such as earmarking and training. More general strengthening and restructuring of the secretariat's military component is under consideration as part of the follow-up to the Secretary-General's report, "An Agenda for Peace", and the United Kingdom mission to the United Nations is playing an active role in these discussions.

  Long-term Costings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now prepared to change his policy regarding the release of information on the long-term costings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 13 May 1992,Official Report, column 155.

  Departmental Accommodation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the sale of MOD accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Surplus married quarters which are suitable for individual sale are offered for sale to service personnel at a discount. Any which are not suitable for individual sale would normally be offered for sale in bulk on the open market to the highest bidder. In line with the recommendations of the Ministry of Defence's housing task force, all bulk sales of surplus married quarters are now offered in the first instance to housing associations at a discount in return for nomination rights on a proportion of the properties for a period of five years; the size of the discount and the number of nominations are determined on a case-by-case basis. Surplus civilian houses are sold on the open market, but any which are occupied are first offered for sale to the sitting tenant at a discount. If they do not wish to purchase, the property is sold on the open market as an investment sale and the occupant is given a protected tenancy.

  RAF Hereford
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the new Meridian telephone system at RAF Hereford will be installed;
  449
  (2)how much it will cost to install the new Meridian telephone system at RAF Hereford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Installation costs, including minor works services, will amount to some £5,000. Work is under way with a view to the system becoming operational on 1 April.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) housing associations and (b) local authorities relating to the housing located at RAF Hereford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been provided to relevant local authorities on the reasons for the closure of RAF Hereford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Letters were sent to the Hereford and Worcester county council and to the South Hereford district council on 5 November 1992 explaining the background to the ground training rationalisation study and its recommendations. The local defence land agent has since met both councils to confirm that the closure will proceed and to discuss the future of the site.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates have been made of the costs involved in removing the Meridian telephone system that is due to be installed at RAF Hereford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. It is not expected that removal costs would exceed installation costs.

  Spare Parts
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, column 497, which part of the annual supply estimates contains information on expenditure on spare parts.

  Mr. Aitken
  Proposed expenditure by the Ministry of Defence on spare parts is included within the aggregate figures of expenditure given in the supply estimates, the most recent being 1992–93 summer supplementary estimates and new estimates, pages 25–32.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect to receive a reply to his letter dated 10 February addressed to the Minister of State concerning the holding of a fatal accident inquiry into the death of Fusilier Anthony McAnally.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member very shortly.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Know-how Projects
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the total amount spent by the Government to date on know-how projects.
  450
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Expenditure under the fund is as follows:

  £1,000

  1989–90

  2,117

  1990–91

  13,668

  1991–92

  49,364

  Total spending for 1992–93 will not be available until later this year.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in each standard planning region have been seconded to work on know-how projects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Nine civil servants from south-east region, four from north-west region and one from east midlands region have been seconded to work on know-how projects.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many know-how projects have been supported to date; if he will list these with the names of the agencies or companies responsible for undertaking them; and in each case what proportion of the total cost was met by Government.

  Mr. Lennon-Boyd
  The know-how fund has supported more than 650 projects to date. A list of our activities by country, cost, purpose and project status is available from the libraries of the House. To break this down further to include details on each agency or company participating in the projects and what proportion of the total cost was met by the Government would involve disproportionate staff costs.

  Crown Agents
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the Coopers and Lybrand report on the Crown Agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennon-Boyd
  There are no plans to publish Coopers and Lybrand management consultants' report, as it will contain commercially sensitive information on Crown Agents' business activities. However, a full statement will be made to the House about the future status of the Crown Agents following the completion of the review.

  Chandrapur Project
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if appraisal procedures on social, environmental and economic costs and benefits of the Chandrapur project in India have now been completed; and whether the United Kingdom Government's developmental as well as commercial criteria have now been met.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration has not yet completed its appraisal of the Chandrapur project in India.

  Africa
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the reasons for the United Kingdom's refusal to provide
  451
  funding for the International Fund for Agricultural Development's special programme for Africa for poverty alleviation through environmental rehabilitation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We consider that IFAD's work in Africa, as for other poor regions, should now be financed from its regular resources.

  Mongolia
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what development assistance is given to Mongolia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1992 we established a bilateral aid programme for Mongolia and pledged £2·7 million over three years from 1992–93. Of this sum £2 million is allocated for balance of payments assistance in the form of critical imports—industrial lubricants, and £0·7 million for technical co-operation—principally English language teaching and policy consultancy to support the World bank lending programme.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department gives to Mongolia for English language tuition.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under the bilateral aid programme an English language project is under discussion with the Government of Mongolia which is planned to focus on (i) intensive business English courses for officials in key economic Ministries and financial institutions and (ii) teacher training in business English. The project is expected to begin in mid-1993.

  Under the cultural exchange programme we are funding, with the British Council, the final stage of an English syllabus and teaching materials project for secondary schools. This project, which began in 1990, will produce a first-year textbook, and includes training for Mongolian textbook writers.

  Kenya
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British aid to Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to make a significant contribution to Kenya's development. Our aid programme amounted to £29 million in 1991–92. We also provided over £9 million humanitarian assistance in 1992, including our share of EC activities. However, in common with other donors, we have withheld consideration of new balance of payments assistance pending economic and political reforms. There has been progress on the political front. We now await the outcome of a recent review of economic progress by the International Monetary Fund.

  Zaire
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of British aid to Zaire for each year since 1989; and if he will list the purposes for which aid was used.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Gross British bilateral aid, for each financial year from 1989, was as follows:
  452

  £

  1989–90

  513,000

  1990–91

  432,000

  1991–92

  397,000

  The aid has been mainly for training Zairean teachers of English and help for Oxfam activities.

  Forest Preservation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British contributions to the tropical forestry action plan for each year since 1989; and what assessment he has made of its effectiveness in protecting tropical and other forestry resources.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Bilateral aid expenditure under agreed tropical forestry action plans by financial year since 1989 was:

  £

  1989–90

  1,688,454

  1990–91

  2,586,218

  1991–92

  4,767,103

  We also contributed £121,493 in 1990–91, and £92,473 in 1991–92, towards the costs of personnel working in the tropical forest action programme co-ordinating unit and in the Food and Agriculture Organisation investment centre on TFAP-related work.

  We assess the effectiveness of our contributions to the TFAP through regular monitoring and review of our projects. We believe they are effective in helping recipient countries manage their forests sustainably.

  We also assess the progress of the TFAP generally through attendance at international meetings such as the tropical forestry advisers' group. We have worked hard in recent years to improve the TFAP's overall performance.

  Uganda
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British aid to Uganda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are maintaining a substantial programme of development assistance for Uganda. In 1991–92 gross British bilateral aid amounted to £26 million.

  Angola
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commowealth Affairs what was the level of British aid to Angola for each year since 1989; and if Her Majesty's Government will provide assistance to the Angolan Government in the current year to entrench democracy in Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The level of United Kingdom gross bilateral aid to Angola for each financial year since 1989 was as follows:

  £million

  1989–90

  0·731

  1990–91

  1·530

  1991–92

  1·278

  453
  In 1992–93, in addition to our regular programme, we provided landrovers and paid for two election observers at a cost of £273,000, as part of the international effort towards the election process. We also provided accommodation and training for the new unified army at a cost of £3 million from non-ODA votes.

  The widespread hostilities which followed the elections has made it difficult to make plans for future aid to the country. We will however consider appropriate assistance when the security situation improves.

EMPLOYMENT

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list all those services or functions that have been contracted out from her Department since November 1991 without market testing an in-house bid against external competition, with, in each instance, the successful contractor and the reasons for the decision to exclude an in-house bid.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department has always used contracting out as the most effective way of providing certain services, for example, where there is no suitable in-house provision available. In such cases, there is

  All persons with second job as employee or self-employed, by sex, whether full/part-time, etc.: Great Britain

  Thousands

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  All with 2nd job as employee1

  Males

  Full-time2

  184

  206

  202

  195

  223

  227

  248

  244

  208

  Part-time

  27

  26

  26

  24

  37

  32

  31

  41

  36

  Females

  Full-time

  82

  107

  103

  120

  138

  150

  176

  156

  154

  Part-time

  151

  178

  193

  223

  253

  283

  254

  278

  264

  Self-employed1 in main job

  Males

  24

  26

  27

  24

  36

  38

  37

  48

  42

  Females

  17

  24

  24

  27

  31

  31

  26

  25

  27

  All with 2nd job as self-employed

  Males

  Full-time2

  137

  146

  159

  148

  168

  182

  196

  184

  163

  Part-time

  24

  18

  19

  22

  21

  23

  24

  24

  24

  Females

  Full-time

  27

  35

  35

  39

  46

  56

  53

  57

  39

  Part-time

  59

  61

  72

  61

  70

  84

  74

  69

  61

  Self-employed in main job

  Males

  54

  53

  59

  60

  72

  70

  75

  73

  60

  Females

  20

  24

  18

  18

  24

  32

  28

  25

  17

  1 Excludes those who did not state their status or no answer to second job.

  2 Excludes those who did not state whether full/part-time in second job.

  Source: Labour Force Survey (not seasonally adjusted) spring each year.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women had a second job working from home in each year since 1980.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information from the spring, March to May, 1992 labour force survey shows that there were 139,000 men and 121,000 women, not seasonally adjusted, who were working from home in a second job. No comparable information is available for earlier years.
  454
  normally no scope for an in-house bid. Details of such contracts are not kept centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  To date, the Department has not completed a market test without an in-house bid, nor are any anticipated.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) male full-time workers, (b) male part-time workers, (c) female full-time workers, (d) female part-time workers, (e) self-employed males and (f) self-employed females had a second job as (i) an employee or (ii) self-employed in each year since 1980 in each region.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information could be provided from the labour force survey only at a disproportionate cost. Some data may be obtained via the quantime link in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) male full-time workers, (b) male part-time workers, (c) female full-time workers, (d) female part-time workers, (e) self-employed males and (f) self-employed females had a second job as (i) an employee or (ii) self-employed in each year since 1980.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information from the labour force survey is given in the following table for 1984–1992. Comparable information is not available for earlier years.

  Employment Protection Regulations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will place in the Library copies of all circulars and other advice issued by her Department concerning the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has advised the Standing Committee considering the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, House of Commons,Official Report, Standing Committee F, 21 January 1993, beginning at column 504,

  455
  on aspects of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired rights directive. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is considering what further guidance might be helpful.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Claimants, Lewisham
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in the London borough of Lewisham were refused benefits because they either carried out more than 24 hours voluntary work each week or studied for more than 21 hours per week in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no legislation limiting the amount of hours an unemployed person may spend working in the voluntary sector. An unemployed person who undertakes unpaid voluntary work in this country may continue to receive benefit provided they satisfy the conditions of entitlement. These are that a person must be available for, and actively seeking, work.

  An unemployed person who studies part-time for up to 21 hours a week may be treated as available for work in order to receive income support. An unemployed person who undertakes part-time study for more than 21 hours a week may also continue to receive benefit if they can demonstrate that they are available for work and so satisfy the availability condition. All unemployed people who study part time must continue to actively seek work.

  Lodgers
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the speed with which housing benefit is paid to lodgers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Full statutory responsibility for the administration of the housing benefit scheme rests with local authorities. Regulations prescribe that all claims should be processed within 14 days of receipt of the necessary information, or as soon as possible thereafter. Many authorities achieve this target in full. Nationally, in 1991–92, 70 per cent. of claims from private tenants were processed within 14 days. Where, through no fault of the applicant, a claim cannot be settled within 14 days, interim payments should be made. Guidance issued to local authorities by the Department reflects these provisions.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give his best estimate of the amount of housing benefit paid to lodgers which is not then paid to their landlords;

  (2) what review he is undertaking of the arrangement whereby a lodger who has given authority for his housing benefit to be paid to his landlord may revoke that authority without the landlord being informed.

  Mr. Burt
  The Department does not collect information about the levels of debts owed to landlords. Representations received from landlords and their organisations indicate that the number of housing benefit recipients who persistently default on rent payments is relatively small.

  Regulations already give local authorities wide-ranging powers to pay housing benefit direct to landlords where
  456
  they consider that tenants may otherwise default. Benefit must normally be paid direct automatically without any requirement to seek the tenant's consent where there are arrears equal to eight times the weekly rent or more and may be paid direct earlier where an authority considers it would be in the tenant's best interests to do so.

  Where a person who has requested direct payment subsequently withdraws his consent, the local authority should consider the individual circumstances of the case. The authority may continue to make direct payments if it considers it is in the tenant's interests, for example to prevent rent arrears accruing. If it is decided to stop direct payments the local authority is required to notify the landlord of the date from which payments will cease. We have no current plans to conduct a review of these arrangements.

  Winter
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce additional aid in winter for all households in receipt of means-tested benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no plans to change the current regulations.

  Availability for Work
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's practice on the number of hours per day and the number of days in any one week that a person needs to be available for work in order to claim benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  Decisions on whether a person is available for work are made by the independent adjudicating authorities.

  Generally, in order to be entitled to income support, which is a weekly benefit, a person should be available for at least 24 hours per week.

  Unemployment benefit is a daily benefit and, therefore, a person should be available for work on each day claimed.

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which he has responsibility to ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if he will make a statement on his policy on hours of staff working each week.

  Mr. Burt
  No. Fridays are treated no differently from any other working day. Full-time administrative staff in the Department work 37 hours a week outside London, 36 hours a week in London, in keeping with civil service-wide rules. Working patterns can vary, but consideration is always given to customers' views on the level of service provided.

  Unregistered Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 46, in what circumstances he would deem it appropriate for registration authorities to be advised of the fact that income support and residential allowance were being paid towards the costs of care in an unregistered home.
  457
  Mr. Burt
  There are no circumstances in which registration officers would require such information.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to review the mandatory link between income support benefit eligibility and willingness to take a youth training place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Subject to the normal rules, income support is payable to those who are not required to be available for work. We also provide the safety net of income support for those seeking work or training who are at risk of hardship. We have no plans to change this policy although we continue to monitor closely the delivery of benefit.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the administrative costs of the social fund in cash terms for 1992–93 and as a proportion of the social fund budget.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not yet available. The latest estimated administrative costs of the social fund as a percentage of social fund expenditure are for 1991–92. Details are provided in the Social Security departmental report: the Government's expenditure plans 1993–94 to 1995–96, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's target response time for the Benefits Agency to respond to requests for medical evidence to unsuccessful applicants for disability living allowance; what data he has on actual average response times; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Part-time Study
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants are currently studying on part-time courses under the 21-hour rule.

  Mr. Burt
  This information is not available. The 21-hour rule enables unemployed claimants in receipt of income support to follow part-time education courses while continuing their search for work. The Department's annual statistical enquiry contains no record of the numbers who take advantage of this rule.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly payment of invalidity benefit at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  On 30 March 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, the average weekly payment of invalidity benefit was £67.40.Note: Information from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  Housing Benefit (Students)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider reintroducing eligibility to housing benefit for students who have to pay for accommodation over the long summer vacation, particularly for mature students who may own their own homes.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so. In general it is the educational maintenance system which is designed to provide support for full-time students; mature students are likely to be entitled to additional allowances such as the older students allowance and dependency allowances. Housing benefit, which helps with rent, is available to vulnerable group students throughout their course, including the summer vacations. Income support which can provide help with mortgage interest payments, is available to lone parents and disabled students throughout their course and to student couples with dependent children during the summer vaction. In addition non-student partners can claim income support and housing benefit on behalf of the couple if they satisfy the normal qualifying conditions.

  Portuguese Scheme
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken to deal with an application for sickness benefit by residents in the United Kingdom who have paid contributions into the Portuguese scheme; what difficulties have been encountered in receiving information from the Portuguese authorities on request for confirmation of payments into these schemes; and how long the Portuguese authorities take to reply to such requests.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of sickness benefit, including liaison with a country overseas in which a person has paid contributions, is a matter for Mr Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 5 March 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what is the average time taken to deal with an application for sickness benefit by residents in the United Kingdom who have paid contributions into the Portuguese scheme; what difficulties have been encountered in receiving information from the Portuguese authorities on request for confirmation of payments into these schemes; and how long the Portuguese authorities take to reply to such requests.
  I should first of all explain that the European Community regulations on social security enable contributions paid in two or more Member States to be added together to assist in the satisfaction of the contribution conditions for Sickness Benefit. Generally, however, only one country actually pays the benefit and this is the country in which the person was lastly insured.
  Where a person is residing in the UK, any claim to Sickness Benefit will normally be made to the District Office of the Benefits Agency in the area in which that person is living. If the contribution conditions are not satisfied on the: UK National Insurance record alone, but the claimant has recently returned from abroad, the Agency's Overseas Branch will become involved.

  459
  The customer will be asked to provide details of employment and contributions abroad, and Overseas Branch will liaise, as necessary, with the foreign authority concerned. The actual procedures vary according to whether the person, before falling sick, had contributed to the UK scheme since their return to this country or whether they had been lastly insured abroad.
  Where the person was most recently insured in the UK, Overseas Branch will ask the foreign authority to provide a record of contributions to their scheme to see whether they can assist towards satisfaction of the UK contribution conditions for Sickness Benefit. In such cases it is impossible to say precisely how long it will take for any individual foreign authority to respond. This varies considerably from country to country and even from office to office within a particular country. It should be borne in mind that legal requirements and administrative practices often differ from our own. For example, records may not be held centrally, particularly if a person has been subject to legislation which provides for affiliation to an occupational scheme. In such instances retrieval of remote contribution records can take longer than centrally held information.
  Conversely, where a person was most recently insured in another European Community country, Overseas Branch does not need to obtain the foreign contribution record. They are responsible for obtaining all relevant information about the period abroad from the customer, all claim documents from the District Office and information about contributions paid to the UK scheme. The claim is then transferred to the other Member State concerned. It is for them to decide entitlement to Sickness Benefit under their scheme, taking into account any UK contributions as necessary. The foreign authority will notify the customer of their decision, and consider redress if the person is dissatisfied.
  With regard to the Portuguese authorities, we have not experienced any particular problems in our dealings with them. In keeping with many other foreign authorities response times for requests for their contribution records vary considerably from case to case. Because of such variations, it would be unrealistic, and indeed unfair, to attempt to give an average figure. Similarly, I am unable to comment on the time it takes for them to process a claim for which they are responsible for determining.
  I am sorry that I am unable to be more precise in my reply. However, every effort is made to clear cases involving foreign authorities as quickly as possible, and procedures are kept under constant review and improvements introduced wherever possible.

  Local Office, Northfield
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 694, what is the policy of the Northfield benefits agency office on paying benefit temporarily by girocheques on a weekly basis pending the replacement of a lost benefit book; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr Lynne Jones, dated 5 March 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his Answer 10 February, Official Report, column 694, asking what is the policy of the Northfield Benefits Agency office on paying benefit temporarily by girocheque on a weekly basis pending the replacement of a lost benefit book; and if he will make a statement.
  460
  As stated in my letter of 9 February, when a customer reports that an order book has been lost, he is asked about the circumstances surrounding the loss. The interview to obtain this information is carried out by trained officers, experienced in dealing with this type of situation. The officer must be satisfied that reasonable efforts have been taken to recover the order book.
  The decision to replace or refuse replacement is made by an officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. If that officer has reason to doubt the validity of the reported loss, a replacement may not be made pending further investigation.
  In the case of Northfield Benefits Agency office, there have been 474 reported lost Income Support order books in the period 2 March 1992 to 24 February 1993, of which 393 have been replaced. Of these 393, a proportion will have received payment by weekly girocheque pending the outcome of investigations.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. Copies of this letter will be placed in the library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC Surplus Food
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the amount of EC surplus foods distributed in the Greater London area in each of the last five years.

  Mr Curry
  The following amounts of butter and beef have been distributed in the Greater London area under the EC surplus food scheme.

  Year

  Butter (tonnes)

  Beef (tonnes)

  1988–89

  93

  96

  1989–90

  131

  154·5

  1990–91

  235

  162

  1991–92

  483

  118

  1992–93

  228

  130

  Hillsdown Holdings
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what services have been provided to Ministers or their officials by Hillsdown Holdings or any of its related companies in the last five years.

  Mr. Curry
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the sponsoring Department for the food and drink industry. It is therefore necessary for Ministers and officials to have contacts with a very wide range of companies in that sector, including Hillsdown Holdings.

  Poultry Inspections
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received as to the independence from poultry-producing companies of on-line inspectors of poultry meat; (2) what proposals he has for the meat inspection service as it relates to poultry products; (3) which poultry producers are represented on the working committee charged with responsibility for developing new arrangements for the inspection of poultry meat; (4) what further consideration is being given by his Department to on-line inspection by employees of poultry producers under a spotter system; (5) on what occasions in the last year he has discussed with the chairman of Hillsdown Holdings
  461
  the question of poultry meat inspection manning revels; and where the meetings took place; (6) what discussions he has had with representatives of the poultry trade as to a modified regime for the inspection of poultry on poultry plants; (7) what representations he has received from poultry producers in favour of changes in the arrangements for the inspection of poultry; and if he will list the companies involved; (8) what proposals he has as to responsibility for training on-line inspectors of poultry products.

  Mr Soames
  The Government are currently preparing to implement EC Council directive 92/116/EEC amending and updating directive 71/118/EEC on poultry meat hygiene. This directive was agreed in December 1992 and is due for implementation in member states by 1 January 1994.

  The new directive takes into account developments in this area over the last 20 years, including a series of studies carried out on behalf of the European Commission in the 1980s, into alternative methods of poultry meat inspection. These studies demonstrated that information on the health status of the flock from which birds were taken can aid inspection at the slaughterhouse and that company employees could carry out inspection with the same effectiveness as official inspectors, given adequate training. Under the new directive, member states are authorised to permit individual companies to utilise their own staff to carry out on-line inspection at the slaughterhouse, under supervision and control by the official veterinary surgeon with responsibility for the slaughterhouse.

  The new directive also makes extensive provisions for poultry meat inspectors to assist the official veterinary surgeon in the day-to-day supervision of poultry processing, and it is likely that these staff will increasingly take on a supervisory role.

  The Government support the principle that companies may be eligible to carry out poultry meat inspection under the supervision of enforcement bodies. This is consistent with the principle embodied in the Food Safety Act 1990 that the food industry has the main responsibility for ensuring the protection of its customers. The directive lays down detailed requirements for the monitoring and supervision of the inspection function, and requires that detailed guidance on training shall be laid down by the Commission.

  The Government have invited representative organisations, including the British Poultry Meat Federation, British Retail Consortium, and meat inspector, training, veterinary and local authority interests to join a working group set up to discuss the detailed requirements, including training, which will apply under the new system. The poultry industry representation on this group has yet to be agreed.

  Since the Department first consulted interested parties on the Commission's proposals in 1990. it has received eight representations on the independence from poultry producing companies of the poultry inspection system, from a range of individuals and organisations. Representations from poultry companies on the Commission's proposals were received through trade associations including the British Poultry Meat Federation. In addition the Scottish Office and Northern Ireland Office have received separate representations from individual companies. My right hon. Friend the Minister
  462
  of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discussed the EC poultry meat market, with industry representatives, including, Hillsdown Holdings, Northern Foods, Bernard Matthews, Cherry Valley and Favour Parker Ltd. on a number of occasions in 1992. He has also visited Sun Valley and Lloyd Maunder for discussions.

  The Department will issue for public consultation in due course its detailed proposals on guidance and legislation to implement the new Directive. Guidance was issued to local authorities on 3 November on the use of trained plant staff to assist in poultry meat inspection, as a measure to ease the transition to the new arrangements.

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will undertake a survey of all offices and agencies for which he has responsibility to ascertain to what extent staff supplying a service to the public are curtailing their work on a Friday afternoon earlier than other days of the week; and if he will make a statement on his policy on hours of staff working each week.

  Mr. Curry
  It is the responsibility of local managers to set hours of work for their staff which take account, among other things, of the needs of the public they serve.

  Livestock Identification Scheme
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will include the livestock identification scheme in the Government's deregulation initiative.

  Mr. Soames
  All the Department's activities are conditioned by the need to minimise the regulatory burden on those affected. In the case of animal identification this is of course subject to the need for measures to protect public and animal health and to safeguard taxpayers' money.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the livestock identification scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Representatives of the livestock industry and enforcement bodies are being fully consulted on the implementation of new Community rules on animal identification and registration. Helpful and constructive contributions have been received from the farming unions, breeding organisations, auctioneers, local authorities and others.

  Grants and Subsidies
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sums were paid out by each of his divisional offices for each(a) agricultural subsidy scheme and (b) grant scheme available to farmers in 1992; how many agreements were entered into for each grant scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Curry
  A restructured regional organisation for the Ministry came into effect on 1 April 1992, when the existing five regional offices and 19 divisional offices were replaced by nine regional service centres. Information in the form required for 1992 cannot therefore be provided.
  463
  However, the number of plans approved under the farm and conservation grant scheme in England is shown in the table.

  Some data on agreements under other schemes and sums paid out in England should become available shortly. I will pass on this information shortly. Aggregate summaries of grants and subsidy expenditure are included in the Ministry's February 1993 departmental report (Cm 2203), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Farm and conservation grant scheme: Plans approved in 1992

  Number

  1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992

  Regional Office

  Eastern

  14

  Midlands and West

  21

  Northern

  15

  South East

  14

  South West

  20

  1 April 1992 to 31 December 1992

  Regional Service Centre

  Bristol

  5

  Cambridge

  29

  Carlisle

  73

  Crewe

  26

  Exeter (with outstation at Truro)

  33

  Northallerton

  25

  Nottingham

  35

  Reading

  28

  Worcester

  13

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the budget for 1993–94 and the estimate for 1994–95, the number of acres covered and the number of farms that could be included in(a) the Somerset Levels environmentally sensitive area and (b) the Broads environmentally sensitive area.

  Mr. Curry
  The budget for the ESA scheme is £30·2 million in 1993–94 rising to £42·6 million in 1994–95. The scheme is managed as a whole and we do not allocate individual budgets to ESAs. The total area of the Somerset levels and moors ESA is 27,717 hectares, 68,488 acres, and the total area of the Broads ESA is 35,820 hectares, 88,510 acres. It is not possible to determine accurately the number of farmers in each area because the ESA boundaries do not coincide with parish boundaries in respect of which such data might be obtained from the agricultural census.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those environmentally sensitive areas where payments are being made to manage water levels; and if he will list the total payments made under such schemes to date.

  Mr. Curry
  A requirement to manage water levels is included in all ESAs where field wetness is critical to the ecological interest of river valley grassland. In the Somerset levels and moors, Broads, North Kent marshes, Suffolk river valley and Avon valley ESAs there is a specific payment to encourage farmers to raise water levels in order to enhance the habitat for birds. This is the first year in which such conditions are being met in the Somerset levels and moors and Broads ESAs. It involves maintaining the water table at field level to create surface 464
  pools between 1 January and 30 April. Full payment will not be made until we are satisfied that the conditions can be maintained on the affected land.

  Agriculture Support
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount spent in each of the last 10 years in direct support to British agriculture in cash and real terms; what is his estimate of future costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The table provides figures on public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies for the last 10 years, expressed as actual expenditure and in real terms. Figures for future years on a broadly comparable basis are provided in tables 8 and 23 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/Intervention Board departmental report 1993, which has been lodged in the House of Commons Library. Both this publication and "Agriculture in the UK" provide background details concerning trends in expenditure.

  Public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Financial Year

  Actual

  In 1992 Prices

  1982–83

  1,432·8

  2,417·3

  1983–84

  1,728·5

  2,785·6

  1984–85

  1,712·0

  2,620·2

  1985–86

  2,164·6

  3,143·0

  1986–87

  1,449·0

  2,031·5

  1987–88

  1,630·0

  2,189·6

  1988–89

  1,379·7

  1,755·2

  1989–90

  1,258·0

  1,479·6

  1990–91

  1,909·7

  2,068·4

  11991–92

  2,086·0

  2,144·4

  1Forecast

  Sources: Annual Review of Agriculture—1987. Agriculture in the United Kingdom—1988–91.

  Note: Expenditure in 1992 prices has been calculated with reference to the General Retail Price Index.

  Floods and Drainage
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responsibilities the proposed new Environmental Protection Agency will have in relation to flood and drainage.

  Mr. Curry
  It is envisaged that the proposed new Environment Agency will assume the responsibilities for flood defence and land drainage that the National Rivers Authority currently has.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what has been the total amount of expenditure on flood defence and drainage in each of the last three financial years to date; and what estimates there are for such expenditure in the 1993–94 budget;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of flood defence and drainage expenditure in the last financial year on a county basis.

  Mr. Curry
  MAFF expenditure on grant aid in support of capital works on flood defence, including sea defence, and arterial drainage, excluding coast protection works against erosion, is as follows:
  465

  £ million

  1990–91

  25·5

  1991–92

  36·4

  11992–93

  41·6

  1Estimated.

  On the same basis, provision for 1993–94 is £46·2 million.

  A breakdown of expenditure on a county basis is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has as to whether feeding pigs with material containing the infectious agent for BSE can result in a spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) on 17 February,Official Report, column 223.

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

Middle East Peace Negotiations
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek to initiate a debate in the United Nations on the Middle East peace negotiations.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the peace process launched at Madrid under US and Russian co-sponsorship offers the best chance of reaching a just, lasting and comprehensive solution to the problem of the Middle East on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The United Nations Security Council may have a role to play in endorsing agreements reached.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He is replying on behalf of his noble friend who represents the Foreign Office and he carries out good work on behalf of two departments. I remind the Minister that Mr. Warren Christopher, the United States Secretary of State, has said recently that there now seems to be a good chance for peace between Israel and many of the Arab states, particularly the Syrians. There is still bitterness on the part of the Arabs who were ejected from Israel when that state was created by the United Nations. Those Arabs still regard the land from which they were ejected as their land. I am quite sure that, if we had lost the Second World War and this island had been declared German, I would have objected to that. I ask the Minister to accept that the United Nations is a strong ally of ours but that the United Kingdom also has an important role to play in this matter.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to remind the House that Secretary of State Christopher made a visit to the region. As a result of that he met his Russian counterpart and the co-sponsors have now announced that they will issue invitations to a further round of talks in Washington in April. We are urging all the parties to accept the invitations. We are playing an important part in that matter.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, given that one of the major stumbling blocks to the progress of the peace talks is the deplorable action of the Government of Israel in deporting 400 men, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking, with their EC partners and in the context of the UN, to secure the return of the 400 deportees?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we welcome the Israeli recognition last month of the need to address the Security Council's concern, that is Security Council Resolution 799. We hope that the Israelis will build on what they have achieved towards compliance with that resolution and that the peace process will continue.

Salman Rushdie: Dr. Siddiqui's Remarks
2.39 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the statements attributed to Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, the leader of the "Moslem Parliament", in The Times of 15th February, involving threats directed at Mr. Salman Rushdie, will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Crown Prosecution Service has carefully considered a transcript of the interview with Dr. Siddiqui on LBC Radio to which the article in The Times refers and has concluded that the contents taken as a whole are not such as would afford a realistic prospect of conviction for incitement to murder or any other offence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord for that slightly surprising Answer, is he aware that, according to The Times, Dr. Siddiqui said of Mr. Rushdie:
"I do not want to kill him. We will just break every bone in his body"?
Is it not clear that threats of that kind made against a British citizen who has been sentenced to death by a foreign government are wholly unacceptable? If we allow this situation to continue, it will raise' serious questions about the safety .of not only Mr. Rushdie but also of other people in this country.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said in the first Answer, it is important, in considering whether or not a conviction would be obtained, to look at the contents of the interview as a whole. The interview started with Dr. Siddiqui being asked why he still wanted to kill Salman Rushdie. Dr. Siddiqui replied:
"I do not want to kill Salman Rushdie. I do not believe that anyone in this country wants to kill Salman Rushdie".
Dr. Siddiqui replied to other questions, and stated:
"We don't want to kill him".
The interviewer said:
"You just said you might have to come and get him".
Dr. Siddiqui replied:
"Absolutely, if we have to come we will break every bone in his body, if this man does not leave centre stage and doesn't stop insulting and abusing. If he really wants to get off the hook, he should withdraw the book".
As I said, one has to consider the whole interview to decide what inference a jury might properly take from it. One has to consider the various parts of the interview which indicate that the speaker did not wish the death of Salman Rushdie.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, quite apart from any potential criminality about the utterance, can nothing be done to bring home to Dr.

815
Siddiqui the appalling damage he is doing to Moslems and to Islam in this country from the point of view of public opinion by intemperate remarks of this kind? Can we not remind him that in the Koran the three great world religions, the theistic religions, are referred to as the peoples of the book—'Ahl el Kitab? Should he not remember that?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that he would be very well advised to take account of the wise advice proffered by my noble and learned friend. The prosecuting authorities, for whom I am speaking this afternoon, and the Question are concerned with prosecution, and it is that matter alone that I have sought to address.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had to say, and I am sure that the House will also have listened carefully to the extracts from the interview. Does he not believe that those words of Mr. Siddiqui were an incitement to violence? Are we not at this very moment trying to reduce the amount of violence in this country, and is the Prime Minister not asking the television companies to reduce the amount of violence that is shown? Yet here we have a case where there is to be no prosecution of a man who is inciting people to break the bones of someone else. I hope that the authorities will have more guts and will do something about that awful man.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord would like the prosecution authorities to have more guts. I have to draw attention to the fact that the prosecution authorities must be guided by the law in exercising that authority and by the prospects of obtaining a successful conviction. It must be right that in considering what was said in the interview one takes account of everything that was said. I have no doubt that in such a context the hypothetical and provisional nature of the observations to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred would be heavily emphasised.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that in this House there are a number of noble Lords who have had the duty of advising prosecution authorities? The noble and learned Lord read out some words from the interview. There are further words. For example, the fatwa is "binding and irrevocable"; and,
"it is the duty of all Moslems … to remove this harmful being".
It cannot be a question of reading those words in context. Is the noble and learned Lord really saying that those words by themselves do not amount to a clear and unequivocal offence under Section 4 of the relevant Act? Why has that man not been brought before the court and bound over to keep the peace and behave properly? Is not the role of the noble and learned Lord in this affair robustly to support the rule of law and the historic role of the law in supporting and defending Her Majesty's subjects against persecution and threats and not to come forward with intellectual arguments for taking no action whatever?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope that none of your Lordships will think that an argument is any the worse for being intellectual. I have informed your Lordships of the view of the prosecuting authorities in this country. As the noble Lord said, some Members of your Lordships' House have had experience of advising prosecuting authorities. I myself have experience as a law officer of instituting prosecutions. I am convinced that it is extremely unwise to institute a prosecution unless one has reasonable grounds for believing that the prosecution will be successful. There may be other ways of reaching the result which the noble Lord suggests, and the gentleman concerned taking the advice of my noble and learned friend may be one of them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, reminded the noble and learned Lord that a court can require a person to be bound over to keep the peace. Why has that not been done in this case?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I take it that the reason is that no prosecution has been instituted. The reason no prosecution has been instituted is the one that I sought to give.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, to take the matter one step further, is it not possible to convey to Mr. Siddiqui that if a Christian behaved in a Moslem country as he is behaving in this country he would find himself in serious trouble?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that that is also a consideration which the gentleman would be wise to have in mind.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, in view of the fact that the fatwa remains open and there is a large sum of money to be earned by anybody who obeys it—and kills—and probably something to be earned on account by breaking some of Mr. Rushdie's bones, I find it incredible that we should receive such a complacent reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Will the noble and learned Lord consider whether there is any way in which he can ensure that some action is taken, despite the view of the prosecuting authorities?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not conscious of being complacent in any way in this matter: I have to inform your Lordships of the realities of the situation. In the interview Dr. Siddiqui said:
"I had nothing to do with the fatwa".
That is also part of the interview. It is true that I have not read out the whole of the interview. I do not believe that your Lordships would welcome it if I did. However, I am endeavouring to point out that there are many different parts of the interview which have to be taken into account in considering the contents as a whole.

Nuclear Policy: Rosyth and Devonport
2.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as they have accepted the requirement under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate away all nuclear weapons at an early date, they will re-equip both Rosyth and Devonport Royal Dockyards for longer-term purposes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, for as long as our security depends on the possession of nuclear weapons, the Government are committed to maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent, properly and responsibly supported. That is entirely consistent with our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as I believe I advised the noble Lord in your Lordships' House on 28th January last.
On the future of the Royal dockyards, I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux on 10th February: that it is not yet possible to make an announcement on where the refitting of our nuclear-powered submarines will be concentrated.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that Answer. But how does he reconcile the Government's obligation under the non-proliferation treaty to negotiate away all nuclear weapons at an early date with his statement that the Government propose to keep them for apparently as long as they think fit? Which of those two statements do the Government stand by; or do they stand by both? If so, which has priority? Which statement are they serious about and which do they regard as of no consequence?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if it were at all possible to read the appropriate clause in the treaty in the way the noble Lord suggests, then the conclusion that he draws from his premise would be perfectly sustainable. The difficulty is that Article VI, to which he refers, is clear in another way. It talks about effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. I suggest that that is rather different from what the noble Lord suggests. There is a difference between the nuclear disarmament referred to in the treaty's preamble and general and complete disarmament.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, although my noble friend may be slightly surprised, is he aware that I agree at least in part with the Question on the Order Paper from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney? I agree that we should re-equip Rosyth for longer-term purposes. Is he further aware that the longer-term purpose ought to be the defence of the realm, brought about by re-equipping Rosyth to service the nuclear Trident fleet?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am not in the least surprised at my noble friend's continued and eloquent advocacy of the claims of Rosyth in that
818
respect. Equally, he will not be surprised if I feel unable to be drawn as to what decision my right honourable friend and other colleagues will make in this important matter.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it is hard to argue that refitting nuclear submarines is a form of proliferation? However, increasing the number of warheads, developing a new surface-to-air missile system and, above all, obstructing a comprehensive test ban treaty are all obstacles to non-proliferation. They are isolating us not only from our allies but from the world community.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I sometimes feel that the noble Lord and I are going down the same lane together at regular intervals. He knows as well as I do that on frequent occasions I have endeavoured to give him an adequate answer to his questions. He poses them again today. I am sorry that I am unable to add in any way to the answers that I have given him previously. I should make it plain that the study continues on the future of a sub-strategic replacement for our present replacement. He knows as well as I do that we are wholly in conformity with the non-proliferation treaty in pursuing our present policy.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea if Questions in your Lordships' House were based upon an accurate representation of the facts? As one who was largely instrumental in drafting Article VI of the nonproliferation treaty, I ask him whether he is aware that it makes no reference whatsoever to negotiating away all nuclear weapons at an early date. It commits Her Majesty's Government and all other signatories to the treaty in good faith to pursue negotiations to control the nuclear arms race. Would not the debate tie much better informed if it were based upon facts and not upon fantasy?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is entirely correct in what he states. The reference is very clear, as I tried to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, a moment ago. The words are,
"on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date".
The noble Lord makes the point far more eloquently and clearly than I have been able to do.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister stated that he could not possibly give an answer on what Rosyth would be asked to do. However, can he state that Rosyth will not be forsaken?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I would hate to feel that Rosyth would be forsaken. One thing is perfectly clear. We are aware of all the great issues that are at stake in terms of skills and employment both at Rosyth and at Devonport. However, your Lordships, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in particular, will be aware of the importance of resources with regard to the defence budget. Resources devoted to too great a support would merely detract from the

819
amount of money that we were able to apply to the sharp end, which is the purpose of the defence budget in the first place.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Scotland we very much hope that when making the decision he and his right honourable friends will keep their hearts in the Highlands, or at least north of the Forth at Rosyth?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend is well known for her laudable addiction to matters Scottish and the support of the Scottish nation. But I fear that even her charm will not prevail upon me to go further than I have done already in your Lordships' House today.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is there still not a long-term problem for Rosyth and Devonport, even if the Trident submarine refitting programme is awarded in whatever way the Government think fit? As I understand it, there are many people in both areas with major skills. Is it not easier to refit surface vessels at Devonport than at Rosyth? If the submarine refitting contract does not go to Rosyth the future for the dockyard is grim. Would it not be sensible for the Government to have contingency plans in the long term, if and when the objective of my noble friend is reached and we can start to negotiate away nuclear arms? Is it not a good idea for the Government to have long-term plans on how to develop the areas of Rosyth and Devonport to make use of the skills available?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friends in the Ministry of Defence and I are as aware as anyone of what is at stake and of the great concentration of skills at both Devonport and Rosyth. We are also aware that they will be able to compete for surface ship refitting, no matter which way the decision goes. Already efforts are being made, in particular at Rosyth, to diversify out of shipbuilding in certain areas. However, even at the insistence of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I do not wish to be drawn further down that path than I have been already. I hope that he will forgive me for kicking his question slightly into touch.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it is impossible to put the whole article into a Question? I prefer the selection made by the noble Viscount to that of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. The noble Viscount and I appear to agree on what the article is about. It is about getting rid of nuclear weapons. It seems to me that the Government are reasonably serious about disposing of chemical weapons. Why do they not bring that same seriousness to bear upon nuclear weapons?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am afraid that I have to say to the noble Lord that he and I disagree fundamentally about what is crucial for the future defence of this country. So long as there is the kind of threat which existed and still exists to this country, whether from nuclear proliferation or targeting from the former Soviet Union, it would be most unwise of
820
us not to continue to depend for our ultimate deterrent on the minimum number of missiles that we have predicated.

Ashford Bridge Widening: BR Intentions
3 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have refused to authorise funds, or have refused the expenditure by British Rail of funds, for the widening of a bridge over the railway east of Ashford, Kent, in order to provide adequate crossing for vehicles, as promised by British Rail to the House of Commons on 12th June 1991, when the closure of Willesborough level crossing will be necessary due to the increase in trains following the opening of the Channel Tunnel.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is for British Rail to determine its own spending priorities within the external financing limit set by Her Majesty's Government. Expenditure on bridge widening does not require the Government's consent.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer. Is he aware that it makes quite clear where the responsibility lies for what I consider to be a breach of undertaking?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it always has been clear where responsibility for expenditure by British Rail lies. I do not believe that I need remind my noble friend that we shall debate the subject again tomorrow evening. One cannot force a promoter to put into a Bill what he does not wish to put into it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the British Railways Board has stated that in the event of increased international traffic arising from the Channel Tunnel—which we all hope will be the case—the board will stand by its original commitment for the reconstruction of the Crow Corner bridge. Will the Government give an assurance that in the event of traffic increasing fast enough to become a real problem, they will give the necessary clearance for expenditure to British. Rail? Finally, tomorrow we shall debate the matter. Under the amended Bill that we shall discuss, will it be permissible for the Government to give the permission and the money, if necessary? Alternatively, will amendments be possible to the Bill tomorrow?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, it is for British Rail to determine its own spending requirements; it does not need government approval. As concerns the subject of the Question, I understand that British Rail believes that the situation has changed. It feels that it no longer wants the powers it originally required. I contend that it is quite wrong to ask a promoter to request powers in a Bill which he does not need.

Business: Written Answer, 4th March
3.3 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to raise a question relating to our Business and our procedures. I gave the noble Lord the Leader of the House advance notice that I proposed to raise the question. It relates to a Written Answer which I received, and which appears at col. WA 42, of Hansard on 4th March, from the chief executive of the Employment Service Agency. I do so as a member of the Procedure Committee and also as someone who is jealous to safeguard the rights of Members of the House.
The House will be aware that the Second Report of the Procedure Committee dealt with the subject of Written Answers from executive agencies. Last Thursday I received a letter from the chief executive of the Employment Service Agency, Mr. Fogden, on the subject of jobclubs on political party premises.
The final paragraph of the letter seems to suggest that Mr. Fogden believes that decisions on matters concerning this House are determined by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons. I find that slightly surprising. If, however, I may come to the point of substance, it is that the letter from Mr. Fogden discloses that five jobclubs —that is, clubs financed by public money—are operating on the premises of party political clubs: four Conservative and one Labour. My view would be exactly the same if my own party were involved in the matter.
It is said by Mr. Fogden that that has been done as a result of decisions by contractors appointed by his service. The question which I wish to raise with the noble Lord is this. It seems to me that it is not an operational matter, as suggested by Mr. Fogden. It is a matter of propriety in terms of the expenditure of public money. That is a question for the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Employment as the accounting officer of that department. I am more than mildly surprised that such a letter, sent by a chief executive of one of the executive agencies, takes no account of the responsibilities of the accounting officer of his own department. That is the first matter.
Secondly, there is a refusal in the letter to say how much public money is involved. It is suggested that that is "commercial in confidence". If it is commercial in confidence, that implies that there is a whole range of organisations desperately eager to have jobclubs operating on their premises. In that case, why are party political clubs chosen?
The House has indicated on a number of occasions its concern about standards of public life in this country. It seems to me astonishing that public money is being spent in this way and that no Minister of the Crown is accepting direct personal responsibility for it.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. Perhaps I may begin by agreeing with him wholeheartedly on his first point. It was the decision of your Lordships' Procedure
822
Committee, subsequently endorsed by the House, that enabled such Written Answers to Parliamentary Questions to be published in Hansard. I can only apologise to the House that this message evidently has not been conveyed to the executive agency concerned. I shall certainly take steps to remedy that.
As to the noble Lord's substantive point about whether the Question is correctly a matter for the agency or for a ministerial reply on behalf of the Government, I understand the points made by the noble Lord. I prefer, probably wisely, to take advice on those points and I shall write to him as soon as possible. I shall also make sure that the matter is placed on the agenda for the Procedure Committee's next meeting, as the noble Lord suggested.

Education Bill
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48; read a first time.

Fraud: ECC Report
3.8 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on The Fight against Fraud [13th Report, HL Paper 44].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by saying how much I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I hope that he will not find my speech too much like a curate's egg for him to follow and also that noble Lords who will be anxious to hear him will bear with me while I draw the House's attention to the report and to the context in which it was made.
For a number of years your Lordships' House has taken a leading position in calling for vigorous steps to be taken by the Community against fraud, in suggesting how this should be done and in emphasising the importance to the Community itself that the fight against fraud should be seen to be efficient, energetic and successful. The report, I hope, makes a worthy contribution to the role of the Select Committee.
The fraud to which it refers reduces the amount of the Community's own resources, as the principal revenues are called, and leads to waste, misuse or misappropriation of funds expended by the Community, particularly in the support of agriculture and regional development. The amounts of the frauds which have come to light and the nature of them have been seen by many as a scandal which damaged the reputation of the Community in public opinion in the Community as a whole and certainly in Britain. There is, moreover, a widespread assumption that the detected fraud, which is all that we can know of, is but the tip of a large iceberg.
Much of the responsibility has lain, and is bound to lie, with member states. None has been without fault. Britain is not without fault. We in Britain cannot claim, either in our public sector or in the private sector, to be in a glass house from which we can safely

823
throw stones at others on the subject of fraud. We can, however, claim to have an ability to detect fraud and to report it, as we are bound to do, which not all other members of the Community match. But the Commission and the Council have a responsibility. They collect the money, they make the rules and they authorise the grants. The Select Committee of this House has over the past four years analysed the problem, scrutinised voluminous documents, taken evidence and published a number of important conclusions in various reports. The report we debate today is not the first and has to be considered in the light of what has gone before.
There is one very strong link in the chain that connects all the activities of the House in the fight against fraud. That is the name of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, whom I am so glad to see here. His experience, skills and unmitigated perseverance have energised and moulded all our reports, all our debates on the Floor of the House and quite often Question Time as well. Who dares in this place to say that advancing years exhaust the passion for truth and the distaste for waffle? I know all about the noble Lord, whom I regard as one of my friends—so do my colleagues on Sub-Committee A—in the give and take of discussion. We know that the smile of that noble Lord always returns. We are very fortunate that he will have more to say today and, I hope, for a very long time to come. I want to make clear to your Lordships how greatly indebted I and the whole sub-committee are to the noble Lord, Lord Benson.
The Select Committee report of 1989, drawn up by an ad hoc sub-committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson—who I am glad to see is to reply to the debate later—remains the basic textbook for those who study this urgent and difficult problem. Between that report and the 1992 report Sub-Committee A, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, when she was chairman of the Select Committee, has sought to keep Treasury Ministers up to the mark. It has stressed the importance of sound financial administration in several reports, such as that in 1991 on regional development and the report at the end of last year on Community finances. In the wide-ranging report in 1990 on economic, monetary and political union, we called for stronger powers for the Court of Auditors and more effective treatment of its reports. In our general conclusions at paragraph 87, we said:
"While the Community continues to lose billions through fraud — the public's response to the Community is likely to be tinged with cynicism. Ultimately the strength of the Community lies as much in the support of the peoples of Europe as it does in the quality of the decisions it takes".
I remind the House of that report because its subject matter was the subject matter of Maastricht and among the many good things which I believe were achieved for Britain and for the Community was the agreement to do a number of things to help in the fight against fraud: first, to sharpen up the financial control and administration of Community funds; secondly, to enhance the status and effectiveness of the Court of Auditors; thirdly, to specify the role of the European
824
Parliament as well as that of the Commission and the Council in firmer budgetary procedure; fourthly—and perhaps the most important of all—in Article 209a:
"Member states shall take the same measures … affecting the financial interests of the Community as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests".
Close and regular co-operation for that purpose is required by that article between national administrations with the help of the Commission.
I am well aware that Her Majesty's Government played an important part in getting agreement to those helpful provisions in the Maastricht Treaty. There is also no doubt that during the United Kingdom presidency a further lead was given in the fight against fraud both by the earlier emphasis given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sound financial administration in all the Community's activities and also in the setting up of what was called the high level group of officials to examine what needs to be done to comply with the articles and provisions in the Maastricht Treaty, to which I have just referred. In other ways too, I have detected a much improved effectiveness by Her Majesty's Government in the past two years in securing the support of other member states to a change in outlook against fraud.
There never has been in my mind nor, I believe, in the mind of any of my colleagues on the Select Committee, any doubt about the vigorous approach which Ministers in this House wanted pursued. For example, my noble friend Lord Caithness, who will reply, shared with us in 1990, when we saw him and badgered him a little, support for the measures recommended in the 1989 report. But he was not able to secure much progress in ECOFIN. Things have improved recently. I cannot be the only one who wonders whether the British Government's manifest desire to be at the heart of the Community has not made progress in the discussions easier for Ministers.
The official government response to our report was given in a letter from the Paymaster General, my right honourable friend Sir John Cope. The letter was dated 1st March. I believe it is to be found in the Library. It was addressed to myself and to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who succeeded me on the sub-committee. Clearly, there is little in dispute between the committee and the Paymaster General. I thank him for his help in our inquiry and for his helpful attitude to any other questions we asked after he had given evidence. However, there remain some points on which I wish to champion the conclusions in the report and draw a response from my noble friend when he replies. I guess—in fact I am fairly sure—that Sub-Committee A will think it right to keep up the pressure on him and his colleagues in future years.
In the opinion section of the report we start and end by emphasising the vital importance of political will. The Government agree with us and have shown their will at Maastricht and in the presidency. But I do not know what their feelings are about an important recommendation we made in paragraph 72, which was:
"As further evidence of that political will, the Council and the Parliament should ensure that both the Court of Auditors and the Commission have adequate funds for their fight against fraud".
I should add that the Select Committee has commented before on the need to give the European Court of Justice as well as the Court of Auditors adequate resources. In the great arguments about the size of the structural funds and the amounts spent on agricultural support, it does not seem sensible to skimp on the courts or the anti-fraud unit of the Commission, where money can be very well spent in the fight to ensure that the Community's purposes are achieved.
I dealt first with political will. Secondly, there is the question of clear action programmes. The Government share with the committee the importance it attaches to those action programmes having precise goals and target dates. That also was stressed in the 1989 report. I am glad to know, from some documents that I read earlier this year, that the Council and the Commission are implementing that idea, at least in part. We shall need to watch how early programmes work and that new ones are introduced when necessary. It is one thing to accept the principle of action programmes with all their precise goals and target dates, but more difficult to make a real success of them. They will take time to bear full fruit.
While we welcome the training arrangements already made by the Commission, we doubt that they will be sufficient. And it will be vital to ensure that, throughout the Community, staff and members are constantly made aware of the latest fraud devices and of counteractions devised by anyone, anywhere.
The Commission's role embraces legislation, procedures for grants and procedures for control and for co-ordination of best practices throughout the Community. We were in no doubt either that there had been substantial improvements in recent years in the form of legislation and procedures, or that there is still much more that ought to be done, can be done and we believe will be done.
The work of the Lachaux group, set up by the Commission to look for ways of simplifying legislation, will be important. The responsibility for the control of Community funds rest squarely on the Commission. No question of subsidiarity arises to relieve it of that responsibility. But it must ask for and receive the co-operation of member states where the money granted is expended. It must use the final check of the audit by the Court of Auditors and obtain its assistance in improving its own systems and avoiding known risks of misappropriation. I welcome the stress now laid on targeting risks to make the best use of the resources in the Commission and in member states.
The agreements at Maastricht show that the political will exists and provide member states with it if it does not. But that will must be reinforced by sound systems of control. The Commission must be able to satisfy itself that the systems are efficient and reliable. Member states must share their knowledge and experience. I express the hope that our own Treasury will not be too humble in advocating its systems, which it knows work well, despite a proper sensitivity not to interfere with other nations. I am sure that in its turn the Treasury will take full note of the good practices of others.
The Court of Auditors issues reports each year, as well as making special reports. Those reports are illuminating, but also frightening. The newly agreed importance to be given to following them up is extremely welcome. The committee was disturbed by the reply of the Commission to the court's Special Report 2/92, not only on the cost point which we set out in paragraph 67, but also because it seemed to us that the Commission resented the advice being given by the Court of Auditors regarding legislation and other procedures. The Commission should recognise —and most of its members do recognise—the importance of the work of auditors, including the advice and help that they can give.
The audits in member states are just as important. The court must be satisfied that audit procedures are properly carried out; in certain cases referred to in the report they most certainly were not. If national government audit bodies cannot carry out the work needed by the court, then the court should be able to call upon private audit firms to help it. I do not know what the Government feel about that recommendation.
Finally, I turn to publicity and sanctions. Clearly, nothing must get in the way of the judicial process, of proving guilt and recovering misappropriated moneys. But, as we say in paragraph 69, once fraud has been established the names of those responsible —individuals or companies —should be widely publicised with their punishments and sufficient details to deter others and to warn all authorities. It is important also that national parliaments are made aware of the cases of fraud in their own countries. They must be told of successes in detection as well as the reasons why the fraud was possible. Now that the Council, the Commission and member states have joined together in the fight against fraud, national parliaments should exert themselves also. I hope that the media will report the details of detected frauds with the dates when they were committed and perhaps an explanation of how that kind of fraud will not be so easy in the future.
Sanctions and penalties must be available, and are available, for much of what is detected. We were concerned more with the control systems in some countries, which may not seem to the Commission to be effective enough. The government reply gives reassuring information as to what can be done in disallowing agricultural grants. We had in mind also the general principle that should apply in every recipient state; that a financial control system must ensure that grants received from the Commission are used for the agreed purposes and no other. Where such a system does not exist, no grants should be made. That seems to be sound and sensible, but much discussion and persuasion must first take place. It is not as though the Commission has been coy in ensuring that Structural Fund grants for Britain are used for the purposes specified. I have not seen evidence that it has treated other countries to the same discipline.
In commending the Motion to the House, I should like to leave the thought that progress towards effective financial control in the fight against fraud is

827
not only essential to the success of any enlargement of the Community and Union—when it takes place—but will also play an important part in reinvigorating and restoring the confidence of the existing Community. The report is aimed at the future and did not seek to concentrate attention on the censure of the past, except as it furnished lessons for the future. I humbly hope that the debate will follow the same line. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on The Fight against Fraud [13th Report, HL Paper 44].—(Lord Aldington.)
3.28 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to be able to make my maiden speech in this House on an aspect of the workings of the European Community on which I think there is very broad agreement and, indeed, on which there is some virtue to be found in the Treaty on European Union.
First, I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed by my noble friend Lord Aldington to all noble Lords on the Select Committee on the European Communities who performed such useful work. In that connection I should say to my noble friend that, having been a Minister for some eight years and in the other place for some 20 years, I am well used to a diet of curate's eggs; his I found quite good in almost every part.
There are certain matters concerning fraud which are well established wherever it occurs. Fraudsters will be attracted to operate wherever there are large sums of money being paid without goods being required to be delivered to the person who authorised the payment. Fraudsters are attracted to operate where accounting procedures are complex; where audit procedures are weak and where agencies handling money have a vested interest in ignoring, collaborating with or evert assisting fraud. And if there is a seemingly inexhaustible supply of money so that an organisation may be fleeced by fraud indefinitely with no danger that it will collapse, well, my Lords, it will attract fraudsters by the thousand.
The European Community, and in particular its agricultural support system and its structural fund provisions, could hardly have been better designed to encourage fraud. The exposure of the extent of corruption in government in Italy reminds us, if we need reminding, that it is naive in the extreme to believe that law or public regulation are treated in the same way in all parts of the Community. Observance of the law by government and its agencies is a matter where a little more social cohesion would do a great deal of good. Indeed, I noted the suggestion that has been made and indeed embodied in the treaty of union that member states should care for the money of the Community in the way that they care for their own taxpayers' money. I should like it to be a little better than that. We should remember that it is British taxpayers' money which is being defrauded and stolen. We have a responsibility for that money even when it passes out of our direct reach and goes through
828
Brussels. Certainly it is unacceptable to me that hard-pressed British and, indeed, hard-pressed German taxpayers' money should be used to contribute to the Mafia via Brussels and Rome. However, it does little good to rail at these evils without offering some remedies.
One remedy would be for the Commission to take a firm line that it would not authorise payment of moneys unless it and the Court of Auditors were fully satisfied that there were in place the systems, the machinery and the people to combat the defrauding of the moneys which were being granted. But my preferred remedy is to strike at the very heart of this problem. If less money was subject to this great churning process, whereby the citizens of Europe are taxed in order to raise the price of food, to damage the economies of our trading partners and indeed to provide electoral backsheesh for governments unwilling to reform or to allow market forces to reform inefficient agricultural systems, there would be a lot less room for fraud.
The problem of corruption has become deeply entrenched and is scarcely recognised as being corruption by some of those who are engaged in it. I do not know whether there is a tobacco fraud quite like the olive tree fraud, but when southern European farmers are paid a subsidy to grow tobacco by the same organisation which campaigns against the use of tobacco, it seems to me that it would not be surprising if they concluded that there could be little wrong with fiddling their accounts to obtain subsidy for an ungrown harvest of an unwanted and unsaleable product.
Whatever palliatives against fraud are put in place —and I would certainly support most of those proposed—we will not really begin even to scratch at the surface of this problem until there is honest government across the Community; and we will not make any substantial impact upon the problem until the Community taxes less, regulates less and subsidises less. In the meantime—and I fear that it may be a very long meantime—I again express my thanks to the Select Committee for holding up a candle of light in the wicked world of European corruption.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I know that I speak for every quarter of the House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, not only on making his maiden speech but on the rather adroit way in which he has done so. The noble Lord comes to the House with a very formidable reputation. I think I can say, as a member of a party that has taken the lash of his tongue on many occasions, that never have we heard him speak with a forked tongue. We have always understood his meaning and the point that he was making. For those who speak without the forked tongue, who speak with that clarity for which the noble Lord is now so well known, there will always be respect in this House, in Parliament and throughout the country. I am sure that we shall hear from the noble Lord on many other occasions.
I hope I may be forgiven if I refer to the very sad death last week of Lord Ridley of Liddesdale. He was

829
a great parliamentarian, as is the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He was always in controversy but he was always a gentleman and, to those who knew him, a friend. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will see that our sympathy is conveyed to Lady Ridley.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on introducing the report. It is the last report of the sub-committee which he chaired with great distinction. I hope that the report will be helpful to the Government and to the Commission in their battle with fraud. I am not sure yet whether it is a fight against fraud. At the present moment I believe that we are merely skirmishing at the very edges of it, because if the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is correct what we have perceived or what we know of the degree of fraud is but a tip of the iceberg.
I rather share the noble Lord's view that fraud is a major threat to the Community. Unless it is under a degree of control—it cannot be eradicated completely —it threatens the very stability of our societies within the Community. The Commission has the ultimate responsibility. It is the administrator of the Community. Like other members of other subcommittees, I have wondered from time to time whether the Commission itself has the resources to deal with all the problems and threats that confront the distribution of aid through the structural funds. I wonder whether we should not be looking at strengthening the administrative arm—I shall not use the word "bureaucracy" —of the Community. The Council of Ministers cannot avoid its own responsibility. I remember the letter written by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on 21st February 1990 in which he said that the fight against fraud was administration and legislation, not rhetoric. The noble Earl was quite right. But unless we are prepared to provide the machinery for dealing with fraud we shall not make many inroads into it.
The noble Earl will be aware that the Court of Auditors has produced its annual reports and that the Commission has not exactly harmonised with it. The Court of Auditors questions the cost of the Commission's work in a particular field and makes it very clear that unless it is given further funds it will not be able to carry out its operations. Can the noble Earl say whether the Commission and the Court of Auditors have now been provided by the Council of Ministers or by the European Parliament with funds sufficient for them to be able to conduct their various operations in the detection of fraud?
I am sure that the noble Earl will also appreciate that the Community, although it is now a single market, still has its national boundaries, certainly in terms of law enforcement and reports. I suspect that a great deal of the fraud is now across borders and not necessarily within them. That raises the question whether national governments or the law enforcement authorities of those respective countries, or the Commission, have now the resources for being able to trace fraud where it crosses borders.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, referred to sanctions. They are all right provided one can detect the crime and bring the people to book. There is fraud across borders, but are we entirely satisfied that we
830
have the right machinery? It is very clear that the Court of Auditors is not seen in that light. It does not have the power or the resources to undertake that kind of investigation. This is an area where in due course the Community will have to make a decision.
I hope that the Government will be quite explicit as regards member states. Having given undertakings, as the noble Lord stated, unless they put their own house in order and arrange their own administration in such a way that these matters can be dealt with, I hope that the Government will agree that the only sanction we have is that the measures will be implemented as proposed in the report.
I have one final comment on this matter. We are not dealing only with fraud within the Community. Quite rightly the Community is giving aid and support throughout the world to the less privileged countries and peoples where the risk is just as great. I wonder whether the noble Earl would think it right that the Commission—which at present has no offices or representation as such in the overseas countries receiving aid—should create a system by which the aid remitted to those countries can be properly monitored. Will the noble Earl go further—because I believe that this is central to the proper accounting of money—and say that the final sums allocated to the various countries could be dispersed by the agency of the Commission in a similar way as for the ODA?
I hope that the Government will respond favourably to the sub-committee's report. I believe that progress has been made but it is perhaps slower than some of us would like. I hope that in two or three years' time, or at a time which is convenient, Sub-Committee A will have another look at this matter because I believe that it is central to the life and spirit of the Community.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee, I would also like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, for so skilfully steering us—with the invaluable help of my noble friend Lord Benson—to what I believe is an agreed and practical report. It is also a great pleasure for me to be the first person from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on his maiden speech.
The report gives a somewhat dismal story of fraud. Even since it was published in December we have had three things: the Commission's report for 1990–91 which it has to make on checking the procedures for payments made under the guarantee section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund; another annual report from the Court of Auditors; and the council's recommendation, which it has to make annually, to the European Parliament on the discharge of the Community budget for 1990–91.
All three of those factors reinforce the subcommittee's message that while a good deal of progress is at last—I say "at last"—being made, there is still a very long way to go in the fight against fraud. The latest report of the Court of Auditors in particular reinforces what the sub-committee said about badly-drafted legislation coming out of Brussels and

831
other failures of administration in the Commission, besides the failure to ensure that control procedures in member states are properly understood and implemented.
The main responsibility for countering fraud must of course lie with the member states. But they will not treat Community funds with the care that they ought to unless the procedures are clear and monitored. That means that the Commission must have the powers, the staff and also the political spur from the Council and the European Parliament to ensure sound financial management of Community funds. I do not believe that that is any way inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity. I believe that many of us feel that it is one thing to argue that we want a decentralist Community with less power being given to Brussels, but where something has been put within the competence of the Community and the Commission, it needs to be properly administered, efficiently and energetically, and the Commission staffed to do that.
As regards member states, we probably all have our favourite stone that we would like to cast at individual countries. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that we need to be careful about pillorying because the fact remains that our own record is not good enough, even though one trusts that the number of detected cases here reflects efficient monitoring and policing rather than an above-average level of fraud. We all have a part to play and it is very difficult and highly subjective to try to measure the size of the iceberg which is below the water.
That brings me to the question of political will which the sub-committee has stressed very strongly, which we are glad to see the Government's response agrees with. I am afraid that it is not a matter on which the Council of Ministers or the European Council can take a nice clean decision and say, "We shall have no more fraud". It is going to be a hard slog. That political will needs to be a continuing commitment.
I believe it was Thomas More who once said that governments must,
"so order what is bad so that it may not be very bad, for it is not possible for all things to be good unless all men are good".
I fear that that may be an appropriate text for the fight against fraud.
However, the present level of fraud in the Community is quite unacceptable and in the view of the sub-committee it is reducible. The sub-committee's report has listed some practical steps, which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, outlined, which can be taken to reduce fraud to a level which I will not say is acceptable but which is not quite so unacceptable as it is now. I very much hope that your Lordships' House will continue to take an interest in this matter and give the political encouragement that we all believe is necessary.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I too should like to join in the congratulations extended to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on his maiden speech this afternoon. In the past there have been certain domestic issues on which the views of the noble Lord
832
and myself have sharply diverged, although I have never had the opportunity of expressing them to him personally. But on this issue, as indeed on others which affect our country as distinct from our party and Great Britain as distinct from Europe, I find myself in warm agreement with what the noble Lord has said.
I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, for having extended to me the hospitality of his sub-committee. I sometimes feel that many of my interventions may have been inconvenient, but I thank him for the courtesy. Although I cannot take responsibility in any way for the report that we are discussing, I warmly endorse the sentiments that it expresses.
I must confess to a certain sense of déjà vu in all this. I hope that I shall not offend the House by reminding your Lordships that in June 1979, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, I was entrusted with the task of monitoring its budget and eventually seeking to obtain its discharge. I produced a report which for reference purposes —in case any noble Lord may wish to look it up—was number PE57(176) Revised No. 3 of 15th June 1979. Almost everything that is contained in the noble Lord's report reproduces (in quite a sharp form) the contents of that report of almost 14 years ago. The depressing thing about it is that we all agree that fraud has been taking place for a very long time and with undiminished intensity.
In his report the noble Lord was good enough to extend "fraud" to irregularities and in his speech this afternoon to waste and misuse. Nobody would query the political will of member states or of Community institutions to eliminate fraud, misuse, waste and the extravagant use of funds. Indeed, the Community has published many works about this and a lot of things have been said, but nothing really seems to improve. Whatever the noble Lord's report or the committee may say, I am afraid that they must face up to that fact. Indeed, there is a degree of resignation in the current report because, whereas the one that we reproduced and sent out in 1989 referred to a "public scandal", the current report abandons that concept. Despite the energetic interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, to whom I also wish to pay tribute, the fact of the matter is that, although the current report is full of hope and enunciates the most impeccable of principles, nevertheless in itself it cannot produce what is required.
The first difficulty is that when the reports are eventually made available, they are already far too old. A good part of the report which we are discussing this afternoon deals with the Court of Auditors' report on the accounts for the year ended 31st December 1991. That was a long time ago. If we have another report it will be mid-1994 before we start to discuss what happened in the year 1992. That means that although news about fraud is published in the press, nothing is done. Indeed, there have been some lurid examples of fraud with which I shall not weary your Lordships this afternoon, such as the moving olive trees and the various other items which were mentioned in Der Spiegel. Despite such reports, the

833
fact of the matter is that the Court of Auditors and the Commission will not catch up with the frauds until next year, by which time the horse will have bolted.
We have to face up to the fact that the way in which the accounts are drawn up and the financial disciplines which exist within the Community institutions themselves are not adequate to the task, bearing in mind the nature of the payments out of the funds which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
I have with me the Court of Auditors' report. It is a very thick document indeed, but what does it really consist or? The first thing to note is that there is no balance sheet with it. It is a discussion of the revenues and the expenditure of the Community. It goes into terrific detail, with diagrams, but there is no balance sheet in it at all. The first time that we hear of any balance sheet is in connection with the report of the Budget Control Committee of the European Parliament and the discharge when there is a summary balance sheet which is about three inches long and conveys very little. The Court of Auditors' report is really just a long, detailed and tortuous explanation of matters that have come to its attention during the audit. It has to be delivered to Parliament and to the Court of Auditors by the Commission by 1st May every year, whereupon the Commission then spends months and months putting in its replies, and the whole thing is delayed until December before being published. That is entirely the wrong procedure.
The procedure should be that the Community institutions and in particular the Commission, should present the proper accounts to Parliament and the Court of Auditors, amplified if necessary by explanatory notes, in very much the same way as ordinary public companies publish their accounts today. They should be complete accounts in their own right and should contain whatever explanations are required in order to present what we in the United Kingdom would say was a true and correct view. The accounts should be signed and authenticated by the financial officers concerned who, as very well-paid officials, should have to take personal responsibility for their accuracy. The accounts should then go to the Court of Auditors which should then carry out its audit. That would be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the accounts. It would mean that at least we had the accounts some three months earlier and that they bore some relation to the facts as they were reasonably seen.
That procedure would, however, require considerable amendment to the regulations. Your Lordships may not be aware that the financial regulations were revised in 1979 by Sir Michael Shaw, MP, and myself as Members of the Budget Committee of the European Parliament. We laid down certain conditions, many of which have since been modified. However, what must be rammed home and enforced in the regulations is the responsibility of the Commission's officers (the financial controllers and those who have authorisation over the funds) to withhold payments of any sums to countries which cannot properly authenticate the transactions for which money has already been provided.
834
As I ventured to point out to your Lordships previously, one of the weaknesses of the financial system in operation throughout the European Community is the excessive regard that is had to the proper authorisation of expenditure as distinct from the verification that that expenditure has in fact taken place for the things for which it was originally granted. Such a system operates in the United Kingdom and Holland but not throughout the Community. I am sure that I carry with me the noble Lord, Lord Benson, when I say that officials who depart from that procedure—who make advances of money, however authorised by the budget resolutions—to countries without knowing whether it will be spent properly should be sacked from the Commission. There should be some disciplinary procedure to ensure that that is done.
Those matters go back to the whole question of consensus politics. I regret that there is some tendency to mutual back-scratching throughout the Community. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, expresses the hope—it has been expressed by other noble Lords that the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty in that regard will somehow cure it. No amount of legislation or exercises of so-called political will at Council level will cure it. Everyone knows that it is not the members of the Council (ECOFIN) who arrive at those hard-and-fast decisions and ensure their performance. In fact, most members of ECOFIN have ministerial positions within their own countries and do not have the time even to consider the detail. Such measures as are worked out are worked out by the Committee of Permanent Representatives, with the attendance of the Commission the whole time that they are there. It means that action within the officialdom (bureaucracy) of the Commission as a whole tends to lack the finite decisiveness which the exercise of true political will would make imperative.
I shall lay down a marker, if I may, for a possible comment by the Court of Auditors in the year 1994 or 1995. I wish to refer the House and, indeed, the Court of Auditors itself, to the draft budget, as approved by ECOFIN, of the European Parliament. I wish to read out certain items to discover whether noble Lords will agree that some more detailed explanation, including receipts and other documentation, should be supplied by the European Commission and the European Parliament. If noble Lords will turn, as I am sure they have already, to the Draft General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1993 Volume 2, entitled "European Parliament", they will find under Title 3 the following budget provisions. While I read them, I want your Lordships to bear in mind the words, "waste", "misuse", "irregularity" and "fraud".
Item 3705 relates to contribution to the secretarial expenses of the political groups and expenses of the non-attached members. It amounts to 9,555,000 ecu or £7,700,000. Item 3706 relates to other political activities. The figure is 4,938,000 ecu or £3,980,000. For information work the figure is £9,672,000. That is aside from the salaries, expenses and travelling expenses of Members of Parliament. It is apart from all matters relating to the running of the European

835
Parliament and its movement between Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Brussels. It is outside all maintenance costs. It is the direct contribution by the Community, of which the United Kingdom bears one eighth of all contributions and makes a net contribution per annum of £1,750 million. That expenditure totals some £32 million and is devoted to political groups.
Each political group has its own independent audit. It is for consideration as to whether, on the basis of those independent audits of political groups—I speak without regard to party; I know that the Socialist group is the largest of the lot, but I am not deterred by that—there should be a suggestion as to how that money is spent: what it goes on. It has nothing to do with the salaries of European Members of Parliament and their expenses, which, incidentally, are higher than those of any Cabinet Minister in the United Kingdom. It is not that; it is money for the groups which they spend as they like.
There is scope for waste, there is scope for misuse and there is scope for irregularity in that—because of course it will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that all the political groups in the European Parliament are steadfastly agreed on putting more power to the centre in Brussels. They are resolutely agreed upon increasing the powers of the European Parliament at the expense of the powers of national parliaments, including our own. Therefore, the possibility—nay, probability—of funds from the political groups going in their respective countries towards the promotion of, among other things, Maastricht and federal union cannot be excluded.
It is high time that such matters were brought under control and were revealed to the public at large. The time has gone —indeed, it went many years ago—when we confused the passing of resolutions in Parliament with the putting forward of amendments to the European budget or questioning the Commission. The time has passed when we regard purely the words we write, the documents we bring into operation—whether they be censorious or approving—as reaching the problem. The problem lies fundamentally in the institutions of the Community, including in particular the Commission and the Committee of Permanent Representatives. It is there that the problem has to be solved. Not until the rights of individual parliaments have been reasserted, not by words but by firm action, will the problem of irregularity and fraud be solved.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. His knowledge of the byways of the Community is without parallel, and the fascinating journey along which he took us today has at least saved us from having to concentrate on more serious matters. However, there is one part of his speech with which I am entirely in agreement; that is, in the tribute that he paid to my noble friend Lord Tebbit on a most distinguished maiden speech. It was not only
836
interesting in itself; it had two other great merits. It was brief, and it was uncontroversial. I do not expect that we shall ever hear the same again.
I propose to talk about something that is not in the report produced by my noble friend Lord Aldington and the sub-committee. That is in no way a criticism of the report: in the area with which the report deals, it deals with it thoroughly and convincingly. What my noble friend himself said—namely, that what matters now is putting into effect the recommendations the committee has made—is of course the correct approach. But the report deals with the expenditure side of the account; it hardly touches at all on the revenue side. Again this is no criticism of my noble friend nor indeed of the sub-committee, because the report of the Court of Auditors did not deal with it at any length either. The comments of the Commission in the document before the Select Committee on the subject are also brief.
However, the expenditure side, I suspect, occupies a high profile. The revenue side does not, but in terms of revenue I suspect that fraud on the revenue side may be even more important than fraud on the expenditure side. I shall illustrate that in a moment. The revenue of the Community is derived from four main sources: the customs duties; the agricultural levy; the contribution based upon the VAT, which was introduced by General de Gaulle to ensure that if the Community were ever foolish enough to allow in the United Kingdom as a member, the United Kingdom would have to pay through the nose for the privilege, in which respect his intention has proved to be entirely fulfilled; and, finally, a contribution based upon national income or gross national product.
The Court of Auditors, the Commission and the Select Committee's report deal briefly with the first two sources of revenue, but they are of minor importance out of the total of the own resources. Interestingly enough, in view of what my noble friend Lord Tebbit said, the whistle was blown by the Italian government in July 1988. The incident, if anything, throws credit on the Italian government and not the opposite. There are some uncharitable people who would say that it was by accident and not by design, but I leave that on one side.
In February 1988 the heads of governments agreed to introduce what was called the fourth resource; that is, the contribution based upon national income. As the finishing touches were being put to the regulations to give effect to it, the statistical office of the Italian government suddenly announced that it had underestimated the national income of Italy by 15 per cent. This was due, it said, to a failure to estimate the full size of the unofficial economy.
To give your Lordships an idea of how important the figure is—I want to stress that this is not said in specific criticism of Italy, nor when I make the comparisons am I suggesting that the same is true elsewhere—if you apply the figure of 15 per cent. to the GNP of the United Kingdom, the figure would be £100 billion. If you take 1.2 per cent., which is the level of own resources, that means that if the figure applied to the United Kingdom you are talking about £1.2 billion. As the United Kingdom accounts for about

837
one-seventh of the GNP of the Community the figure we are talking about may be of the order of £8 billion. I mention those figures only to illustrate that we are talking about something of real substance.
I want to go back in history a little. As I have said to your Lordships before, I attempted to deal with the question of fraud back in 1986 when I was promoting a directive to give the Commission the power, in association with the member states, to deal with fraud within the common agricultural policy and other expenditure. The move was blocked by the government of the United Kingdom which, at that time, held the presidency of the Community. However, in January 1989, after I had left the Commission, the then Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, blew her top and there was immediately a smart about-turn on the part of the United Kingdom government. These are the circumstances in which we now head the fight against fraud. Of course nobody told her what part her own Ministers had been playing behind her back. It was probably more than their life was worth.
The importance of this story is exactly the point that my noble friend Lord Aldington makes; namely, that nothing will be done effectively on this other side of the account until somebody of importance, stature and determination is prepared to blow their top. My noble friend used the much more elegant phrase, political impetus. But effectively the two things are the same.
Why has nothing effective ever been done on the revenue side of the account? First, one has to face the argument, as I did back in 1988—and it has been put forward since—that the national income is merely a question of statistics. It is not. That is a total misunderstanding of the situation. As the Italian government admitted, the understatement of national income goes hack to the hidden economy, and the hidden economy goes back to fraud. When all this started, it was the black market, based upon a shortage of goods. It was later called the grey market, then the hidden economy, and finally the unofficial economy. But ultimately it goes back to fraud, because the present driving force of the unofficial economy is a desire on the part of the participants not to be involved with government and in particular not to be involved with the disagreeable necessity of paying taxes. So we are again in the area of fraud. That is the immediate link with the VAT. When you have an unofficial economy, you have extensive fraud on the VAT as well.
There is another important fact. It is well known that some countries—the United Kingdom, Holland, Denmark and Germany—have a high standard of fiscal administration, and indeed of fiscal honesty. Other countries—and I am not singling them out specially, I give them only as examples—such as France, Italy and Greece have much lower standards. When .I was at the Treasury figures were bruited about —I put it like that deliberately—on the question of the efficiency of collection of taxes of this kind. It was thought that while in the United Kingdom we might
838
garner something like 90 to 95 per cent. of the tax due, in other countries the yield might be as low as 60 or 65 per cent. We are not dealing with small figures.
Apart from the question of the impact on the revenues of the Community, there is also the point about the distribution of the burden as between member states. That in turn is underlined by something else; namely, that, increasingly, expenditure outside the CAP—although some CAP expenditure is involved—is dependent upon the income of the state or of the region concerned. That is seen clearly in the cohesion fund where a figure of 75 per cent. of average Community GNP is set as the trigger point for participation in the new fund. The probability is that the four countries involved will qualify whether the figure is 75 per cent. and whether the figures are right or wrong. Nevertheless, the problem exists.
The reluctance to deal with the problem rests, first, on the argument that we are dealing with statistics. I say that we are not; we are dealing with fraud. Secondly, it rests on the argument that if the member state has not collected the money why should it pay money over to the Community? That argument is also fallacious because what is being paid to the Community is not a share of the VAT. What is being paid is a contribution which happens to be calculated by reference to the VAT. If for one reason or another a member state does not collect the VAT due, there is no reason why the Community revenues should suffer as a result. The third argument—my noble friend dealt with it—is that undoubtedly we shall see the old grey mare of subsidiarity trotted out on this occasion too. It will need much more than the application of the whip to the hindquarters of that animal to get it to run.
The issue is one of crucial importance equally to the Community as a whole and to the member states. I am in no way criticising what has been done. What has been done has been done admirably. My noble friend and the committee have set out the lines upon which the existing problem ought to be tackled. I suggest that there is another and equally important problem, and it is about time that that was tackled too.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on his maiden speech. I was.struck in particular by the moderation of his language, which I am sure will endear him to the House. The reputation of the committee and its reports is high, as are the speeches with which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, introduces them. However, the House owes the committee a special debt of gratitude for the report that we are debating today. It is detailed, factual and candid and it makes practical proposals for attacking what we all know to be a major scandal.
There are two profoundly unsatisfactory aspects of the whole business of CAP fraud and other fraud. The first is that even now we do not know accurately the magnitude of the amount involved. We know that as a whole the common agricultural policy costs the EC taxpayers and consumers at least £25 billion a year. The Minister will tell me whether I am out of date but

839
the sum is substantial, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. It is raised in part by import taxes on food, which are levied on all the consumers in the Community. Therefore, very large magnitudes are at risk. The committee gives figures for the detected cases of fraud but we do not know how many undetected cases there are or how great are the losses.
The second aspect is that, although the existence of the scandal is so well known, so discreditable and so often deplored, nothing effective appears to be done —or we have no assurance that anything effective has been done. The report indicates that,
"at present detected fraud is likely to be the tip of the iceberg".
That is not encouraging. The report also states that in member states,
"some individuals and companies deliberately set out to line their pockets by improper use and application of funds"
and that the,
"Community's funds are purloined on a large scale".
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, spoke about the revenue of the Commission and about the frauds in expenditure. I am sure that he was right to do so but I am not clear whether he explained what we should do about that. It is true that a large part of the fault lies not with the central organisation but with the states themselves. On the other hand, surely it is also true that the central organisation has some responsibility if it is conducting a system which it does not believe to be honestly administered at the fringes.
I congratulate the committee on its main proposals. In particular, I welcome the fact that it has gone to the heart of the scandal and has proposed what appears to be a far more effective remedy than those which have so far failed. The committee recommends that the Community should,
"not authorise any increase in allocation of grants to any member state unless they are satisfied"
that an effective control system is in force. It also recommends that,
"relevant grants should be withdrawn following a finding by the European Court that control deficiencies had not been corrected".
All the evidence in the report, together with what we have heard today and previously, leads me to the conclusion that unless and until that is done no effective end to the abuses will be achieved.
In a reply to my Question tabled on 4th March I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that the EC Council has at last established a high-level group to pursue the audit of export refunds and other matters. I hope that that high-level group will not hesitate to withdraw grants if all else fails. Incidentally, I also hope that the high-level group in the UK Government will ensure that the EC high-level group is doing its job. If the relevant authorities cannot or will not properly control the use of funds surely the remedy is to cut off those funds at source.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to add my sincere congratulations to those which have been offered to my noble friend Lord Tebbit on his maiden speech. I must confess that I was a little nervous that my noble friend might not be able to make his maiden speech on any subject connected
840
with the Treaty on European Union without being just a tiny bit controversial. Well, he did so, and I submit that it is a measure of just how serious is the subject we are discussing and just how grave is the extent of the fraud that he was able to say what he said and that none of it was in the least bit controversial.
I hope it will be helpful if I spend a moment or two considering some of the historical background against which the European Economic Community came into being. I hope that it will go a little way to explain why it is now an institution which lives comfortably with so much fraud, malpractice and incompetence. As I understand it, the progenitors of the European Common Market were really more interested in creating a political animal which would prevent another war in Europe and which would be able to stand up to the evil Soviet empire than they were in creating a common market as such. So the European Common Market, the European Economic Community and, if the union treaty is ratified, the European Community is an animal which has been and is to be largely the creation of political, bureaucratic and legal minds. I remind your Lordships that the description "economic" is not dropped from this metamorphosing animal's name until the union treaty is ratified.
I was quite close to the start of this process when I lived and worked in insurance in Italy in the early 1960s. I could see clearly that the political aspirations for the creation of a single market had not much chance of coming to fruition in Italy or anywhere else, and I was puzzled that the politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers in Brussels could really think that it might. Eventually of course insurance was not the only field where the common market did not materialise as the politicians hoped it would. Indeed, it was not until 1st January this year that the single market has actually come into being. Even now I suspect that it is inherently unhealthy and that the massive fraud which we are considering this afternoon, entrenched like cancer in its blood and through all its limbs, is merely one symptom of that fundamental sickness.
It seems to me that, if the common market had developed gradually over many years, perhaps along the lines of a European free trade association, and if the political structures of Europe had grown up to reflect and support a healthy free trading market, they would in turn have been healthy political structures. Instead, the political, bureaucratic and legalistic cart has been put firmly in front of the commercial and industrial horse; and so I for one am not in the least surprised that it is now so bogged down in the mire of corruption and fraud which we see before us.
Having said that, I hope I shall not be accused of being an anti-marketeer, as I and other noble Lords were by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in our recent debate on 17th February. I have always been in favour of a common market in which we could participate, but I am not in favour of the political union which is being forced upon us to justify what is turning out to be a corrupt and unhealthy market. Nevertheless, I have to accept that

841
we are where we are and that many people in our industry and commerce believe we need the single market, warts, cancer and all, very much.
I am aware, too, that your Lordships' report sees some hope in Articles 188C, 201A, 205 and 209A of the Treaty on European Union. I am afraid I am not much impressed by those articles. Article 188C would give greater power to the Court of Auditors and greater involvement to the European Parliament and the Council in exposing and discussing fraud. But it does not appear to contain any teeth as such, and I do not see how it is going to help. But I suppose that it would be nonetheless welcome.
Article 201A should be an insult to any self-respecting body because it merely requires the Commission to stay within the Community's resources. It says much about the behaviour of the Commission that such an instruction should be deemed necessary now. Article 205 is in the same vein and requires the Commission to spend the Community budget:
"having regard to the principles of sound financial management".
Is it not disturbing that that should have to be spelt out in that way after all these years? Perhaps it merely confirms what I was saying earlier.
Article 209A contains what I imagine are supposed to be the teeth to enforce the fight against fraud:
"Member states shall take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the Community as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests".
I join my noble friend Lord Tebbit in saying that, in view of recent events in at least one Community country which is a major recipient of our munificence, I would not have thought that this article can give us much confidence.
Article 209A goes on to ordain that member states shall work together with the Commission and the competent departments of their administrations to combat fraud. Quite apart from one's doubts about the intentions of a number of member states in this regard, it would not appear that any co-operation with the Commission would necessarily do much good. I say this because I have been looking at the Commission's draft programme of work for 1993–94, dated 26th January 1993, and I regret to say that the fight against fraud does not appear even to be mentioned among the 34 priorities which the Commission has set itself. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can comment on this omission and say whether it gives the Government much comfort in their claim that the Community is taking fraud seriously.
The Commission's programme seems pretty full, and it is worrying that no room can be found for tackling fraud, let alone making it a priority. The programme is deeply depressing in its lack of realism, as one would expect, and in its relentless drive for federalism. For instance, the Commission wants to make the single market a success, which suggests that even the Commission realises that it may not yet be so. To achieve that, among various irrelevancies such as the harmonisation of European company statute, the Commission intends to tackle what it calls its
842
"thorniest problem" in this area, being the—presumably our—delay in abolishing controls on people at the Community's internal frontiers. The Commission will:
"contribute to an overall strategy to be put in place in 1993 to remedy the situation".
I hope that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has taken note of this somewhat threatening little statement.
The Commission then sets out its priorities for implementing the union treaty, which it has assumed will be ratified. Still blithely ignoring fraud, and indeed the realities of the foreign exchange markets, the Commission makes its first priority to be stage II of economic and monetary union. It states that this:
"is made more necessary than ever by the slowdown in economic growth, and the recent turmoil on foreign exchange markets. Neither of these factors should be allowed to disrupt or delay progress in laying this vital foundation for the economy of the future Union".
It is statements like that which make many of us wonder whether the Community's sickness has not already degenerated into delirium.
Be that as it may, it would not be appropriate in this debate to bore your Lordships with all the other priorities which the Commission has set itself instead of tackling the massive scandal which we are debating. They represent all the socialist federalist paraphernalia which are embodied in the union treaty. The Commission looks forward with relish:
"to the doubling of assistance to the least prosperous member states and a substantial increase in other structural operations".
I thought I had detected a glimmer of hope when I read,
"Proposals for revision of the regulations governing structural funds will be made in the very near future";
but the hope was snuffed out when I went on to read that this is merely,
"to avoid any hiatus between current programming and that covering 1994–99".
And so it goes on. The social dimension is to be developed; environmental policies are to be integrated into other common policies; the Commission is to have a hopeless shot at making subsidiarity mean something by producing a paper on relations with those whom it arrogantly describes as the "general public". It has much to do in extending its federal union over transport policy, including a "master plan" for railways, air traffic and ports; and over agriculture and fisheries, where it,
"will continue to defend the Community's interests in the final stages of the GATT negotiations".
It looks forward to establishing a common foreign and security policy and to improving inter-institutional relations. Finally, the Commission has presented proposals to make sure that it has what it regards as the necessary financial resources to carry all this out.
I am sure it is obvious that in all these fields of activity the opportunity for fraud and mismanagement exists, and will be taken, on a very large scale. It is not encouraging that the Commission does not appear to wish to confront what is going on.
So I wonder whether I may end by asking my noble friend or one of his colleagues in government to put a straight question to M. Jacques Delors, the Commission President. The background to the

843
question is that when she was Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady Thatcher attempted to have fraud in the EEC put at the top of the agenda for the EEC Summit in June 1989. She was reprimanded by an indignant M. Delors, who said that fraud in the Community was a "phoney controversy" and a "distraction" from more important matters like the "real" issue of economic and monetary union. The question is simply this: does M. Delors still agree with what he said then, and, if not, what precisely do he and his Commission propose to do about it?
4.40 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, for chairing this sub-committee and for putting the issues so clearly before the House this afternoon. I am particularly grateful for his kind remarks about my membership. I can only say it was a pleasure to serve under his chairmanship.
Fraud usually comprises two types. The first is management fraud when the directors of a company set out to rob the company which they control, usually in collusion between themselves. That type of fraud is not prevalent in the Community. The second type of fraud is what I shall call institutional fraud, when an institution has the responsibility for receiving and paying large sums of money and it conducts its affairs so inefficiently that the public are very quick to see the defects and set about employing fraud and irregularity to line their own pockets. That form of fraud is rampant in the Community.
The frauds which actually take place occur in the member states and not in the Commission. One might think from that that the Commission is free from blame. That is very far from the case. The frauds committed in the member states are facilitated by loose and inefficient administration which originates in the Commission itself. The policies initiated by the Commission and 'the rules and regulations laid down are confused and complex; the instructions issued are not clear; there is a mass of product classifications; internal controls are not built into the procedures; the audit coverage is wholly inadequate. For those reasons fraud in the Community begins in the Commission.
Happily there is one infallible remedy for institutional fraud which has been tested in the hot fires of experience; that is, to identify the officials at the head of the institution who are responsible for the inefficiency, to get rid of them and to replace them with persons of greater quality and experience. The Commission is unlikely to cleanse its own stable in this respect and it rests with the Council of Ministers to have the courage to require the Commission to appoint persons of much senior quality in its senior positions so that the inefficiency can be eradicated. That is the need for political will which is stressed so emphatically in paragraphs 47 and 71 of the committee's report.
Institutional fraud in the member states is more complex. In each of the member states the administrative procedures for dealing with
844
Community funds are different and, in varying degrees, they are unco-ordinated and manifestly inept. The procedures can never be identical in all the member states but at least some basic administrative principles should be followed in each member state and the Council of Ministers should have the courage to define what they are. One of the most important is that each member state should nominate one institution which has the overall responsibility for administering the receipt and payment of the Community funds.
Of course, the nominated institution may wish to delegate some part of the functions to bodies below it. There is no objection to that provided the structure makes it quite clear that the power to delegate carries with it a responsibility to monitor. That structure is stressed in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the report before the House. In an administrative structure of that type it is possible in the member states to contain fraud because the same infallible remedy can be employed; that is, to get rid of the people who are incompetent and to replace them with people of quality and experience.
The control of fraud in the member states would be enormously enhanced if the recommendation in paragraph 70 of the committee's report were to be adopted; that is, where any member state is consistently in default, Community funds should be withheld. That would do more than anything else to stop the perpetration of fraud very quickly in the member states.
This is not the time or the place to consider the defects in the United Kingdom's control of Community funds. Pages 34 to 39 of the committee's report set out the procedures but a careful study will show that those procedures fall a long way short of the recommendations in this report or in its predecessor. I merely make the comment that it is time the United Kingdom looked at its own procedures and brought them up to date.
There is one series of facts which might be of interest to the House. The Community's budget is not large. It is relatively small. In this country and in a great many overseas countries there are large industrial and commercial groups whose budgets are equivalent in size, or materially greater than the Community's budget. Those groups do not operate only in 12 states. They usually operate in 40 or 50 different territories. They produce half-yearly and yearly accounts. Their results are usually announced within two to three months of the end of the financial year. The accounts are put before the shareholders and approved two or three months later. The audit reports are usually clean. None of the operations of those groups is riddled with fraud and if it was they would soon be bankrupt.
Let us contrast that with the position in the Community which operates in only 12 member states. Its financial year is December but the accounts are not made available to the public for 11 months; that is, in the succeeding December. They are then laid before the European Parliament some months later; altogether perhaps some 16 months after the year end by which time the accounts are hopelessly stale and

845
quite useless for any practical purposes. Year after year the audit reports have contained savage criticisms which have never been properly resolved. The operations underlying the accounts are riddled with fraud.
The result of all that comes down to a very small and narrow issue. For a great many years neither the Commission nor the 12 sovereign governments have shown themselves capable of dealing efficiently with Community funds. For a great many years the Council of Ministers has been fully aware of that situation and it has not had the courage or the character to stop it. It is a grim augury for the future.
If fraud in the Community is to be contained within tolerable limits, the Council of Ministers must exercise its political will by applying the remedies which are set out clearly in the report and which I have attempted to highlight this afternoon. Above all, the Council of Ministers must demand from the Commission and from the 12 member states a standard of work and the programmes of work specified in paragraph 56 of the report before the House.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in the batting list for today's debate. If any part of the debate in your Lordships' House today is reported, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, on proper accounting and auditing should be heard in the Commission. If any of the good sense of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, concerning the need for the political will, which is stressed throughout the report, can be conveyed to Brussels, all the hard work of my noble friend Lord Aldington and his committee will have been well worthwhile.
We owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Aldington for allowing us to debate this subject, which goes to the heart of many of our discussions concerning the Community. I am delighted to share the notable occasion of the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I remember his great strictures nine years ago, from just down the road at No. 1 Victoria Street, on fraud in tobacco. I am delighted that he has lost none of his wit, perspicacity and accuracy. We are delighted to see him here today.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield tried to bring us back to a sense of reality in suggesting that we might look at the income side of the equation of the Community accounts. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow us in all humility—especially accountants like myself and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—to look at the expenditure, even though we understand that the full and proper audit that is carried out at present costs only 72 million ecus. That is the sum which is spent on auditing and trying to catch up with some of the figures we see in the report.
In paragraph 11, on pages 7 and 8 of the report, for the first time we find a hint of a topic which concerned me for five and a half years—the great subject of agriculture. The table on page 9 shows that in 1991 the United Kingdom reported 131 cases of fraud, totalling 5.1 million ecus. About one third of that was recovered. In Italy there were 56 cases of fraud
846
totalling nearly 42 million ecus. However, only 2 million ecus were recovered. Ireland and Greece submitted nil returns. It seems that Denmark carried out a very efficient audit and recovered a great deal. Fraud totalled just over 1.3 million ecus and 1.12 million ecus were recovered. Even the noble Lord, Lord Benson, would regard that as a very efficient audit.
With the opinion of the Court of Auditors in paragraph 19 the report begins to look at agriculture more deeply and examines how it impinges upon expenditure by the Commission. Paragraphs 19(i) and 19(ii) refer to stabilisers and structural funds, two items which involve even greater sums under the common agricultural policy. I am sure that those are aspects to which my noble friend Lord Aldington and the committee, and indeed the Court of Auditors, will direct their attention.
Still on page 11, paragraph 20 relates—surprise surprise —to milk exports. I understand that the Court of Auditors' work on that particular aspect began in 1987 and is continuing. I am not necessarily surprised since I seem to recall that in 1984 fairly stringent milk quotas were imposed by the Community, supposedly on a Community-wide basis. One member state still claims, after nearly nine years, that it is not sure how many milk producers it has in its territory let alone how much milk is being produced. However, it is sure that there is definitely a need for further milk production this year and next year.
With that in mind I am not surprised by further contributions in paragraph 20 which indicate that when the Court of Auditors looked into one particular aspect of milk exports it found that two companies in two different countries were responsible for 10 per cent. of the Community-wide refunds in milk trading. That may well be the case since large companies may be involved in that line of business. As the noble Lord, Lord Benson, pointed out, multinational companies have large sums of money. I am astonished by the moderation of the committee in paragraph 21 in describing some of the findings as "shocking". I would have used considerably stronger language. In paragraph 22 it is pointed out that neither of those two beneficiary companies had been audited by the authorities in their member states since 1986. However, we might accept the caveat in paragraph 20 that each member state does not have the full capacity to carry out a proper audit, and therefore we ought to bear in mind the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Benson.
So far as concerns the witnesses who appeared before the committee, I note the excellent comments of the Paymaster General in paragraph 44. I hope that that was not my noble friend on the Front Bench, but from the date I think that he was probably not then the Paymaster General. I was intrigued by the remarks of the Paymaster General and would be most interested to discover one day the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, let alone the thoughts of my noble friend Lord Aldington concerning the remarks of my right honourable friend the Paymaster General. It seems to me that his remarks amounted to a classic

847
defensive strategy in the limitation of fraud. It was a splendid holding position. Your Lordships' committee will certainly be able to come down hard on any merely defensive strategy.
The highlight of my study of the report concerned paragraph 46. I enjoyed the comments of Mr. Trojan, who said that fraud and refunds were most prevalent and caused most trouble where different refunds were available in adjacent member states with a common border. Your Lordships will appreciate that, having had the honour to serve in Northern Ireland for five and a half years, that brought home to me the example of the vast agriculture trade in both directions between County Armagh and County Louth. My noble friend Lord Pearson used wonderful words such as "fraud", "malpractice" and "incompetence". Those are words which were hurled at me, as they have been at my successors in Northern Ireland, by practitioners of the agricultural arts because we did not manage to obtain even more funds from our member state government for investment in milk, pigs, cattle, or whatever. That might provide a valuable background to Mr. Trojan's remarks.
I agree very much with the committee when it says in paragraph 55 of the report that full responsibility cannot lie with each member state and that there is a task for the Commission to improve the audit procedure on a Community-wide basis. The committee rightly points out that that may be a three to five-year process. We may have heard that a number of years ago; nevertheless there is merit in heaven for every sinner who attempts to repent.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Aldington and the committee on the sharpness with which they have brought this matter before your Lordships and, I hope, before the Commission and into the open. They stress once again that it is political will which is at the base of what needs to be done to carry on the fight against fraud. I hope that today's debate and the report of my noble friend Lord Aldington will contribute to that process.
5 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am particularly delighted to be able to take part in the debate today. I wish to add welcoming words from these Benches to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and to thank him for his contribution. Like many other Members of your Lordships' House, I look forward to an occasion when we may not agree with each other quite so much. It is always slightly more fun if one can have a little argument.
I am delighted to read the report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee for what they have achieved. I consider the report a follow-up to the 1989 report. Paragraph 1 lists the 13 recommendations made in the 1989 report in which we suggested that the time limit for the implementation of those recommendations was three to five years. We are almost at the five year limit. Therefore it is appropriate that we consider the problem again.
On page 17 there is an analysis of the extent to which matters have improved with reference to the
848
recommendations in the 1989 report. It is true that certain factors have improved. There is a reduction in the number of classifications of commodities within the Community. Some of the instructions and operating controls have been strengthened and modified. I believe that the passing of information between nations in the Community has improved to a certain extent. The factor that I most welcome is that the advance payments for the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Funds have been stopped. They were one of the great problems; they laid themselves wide open to fraud.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested that fraud would always exist when instructions and regulations were so complicated that there were plenty of loopholes. One of the loopholes which still exists to which the Community must turn its mind is the differentiation between re-export refunds, depending on the country to which one is exporting. Some efforts have been made to streamline the problem, but it has by no means gone away. It leaves the Community open to a tremendous number of frauds in that area.
The report also fails in one aspect, as did the 1989 report. We suggested that the recommendations should be implemented within a period of three to five years. We left it open at that. The present report goes further. It suggests that the Council of Ministers should formally call on the Commission to submit for its consideration a specific action programme for the fight against fraud throughout the Community, setting out the time by which each element is to be completed. Each one of those elements is to be the responsibility of one particular person within the Court of Auditors. That is a tremendously important recommendation because it stands a greater chance of ensuring that some action will be taken.
What worries me and makes me sad is that there does not seem to have been a great improvement in publicising fraud when it is discovered. We now happen to know which countries were involved in the latest milk fraud. But the information was not published originally. So far as I am aware, we do not know the companies or people within those countries responsible for that enormous fraud. While there is no publicity it will not be possible to stop people committing fraud. It has to be publicised throughout the Community. People who commit fraud must not be able simply to move to another country and start again. With a Europe without frontiers it will be much easier for such people to go somewhere else and start the same business for which they were convicted in another country. It is necessary for publicity to go beyond national frontiers.
I agree, too, with the committee's recommendation that we must have sanctions against Community countries which more than once do not fulfil their administrative duties. Unless we have sanctions we shall not stop attempts to benefit unreasonably from Community funds.
The Maastricht Treaty, in so far as it is relevant to the fight against fraud, seems to point to a greater political will than we may have seen in the past. I seek to be more optimistic than most speakers today. I believe that Her Majesty's Government have been

849
most diligent in encouraging the Community to accept the fact that fraud within the Community is not acceptable. Other noble Lords have referred to a point which worries me too—the danger that subsidiarity will be given as an excuse for not allowing the Community to investigate. Under no circumstances must we allow that to happen.
I am delighted that the report appears reasonably positive. There seems to be slightly increased political will compared with 1989. I hope that matters will proceed in that manner.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate, not least because of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, with whom I served on opposite sides in another place over a long period of time. The House will be strengthened by his presence, although I suspect that the slightly veiled controversial air which attached to his speech today is not really a fair augury of what is to come, in particular when we deal with Maastricht.
It is right for me to echo the words of many noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his Select Committee on the latest in a series of reports on fraud against the European Community. The important word to emphasise in that regard is "against". May I also join with noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, for the indefatigable work that he has done over the years.
Perhaps I may say this in parenthesis to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. I believe that the three to five-year limitation to which she referred was to operate from the time that the machinery began to be put into place rather than from the date to which she alluded.
I also wish to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. He has been perceptive about a number of matters affecting the issue of fraud. There are those of us who perhaps have a greater affection for the Community than he has, but nonetheless, the criticisms that he has made from time to time are worth listening to.
I also wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. The work that he did in the Commission, in which we both had the privilege to serve, in this area and many others is something that I shall always hold in the highest esteem. I was proud to work with him as a colleague and as a friend.
There is one point I wish to make, before I embark upon other matters, on what the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said when I made a faint intervention. He said that he had not had evidence that the same discipline was applied by the Commission to other member states as to the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is a fair reflection, on the evidence of which I am aware. I do not believe that the Minister would assert that there has been unfair discrimination against the United Kingdom in the field to which the noble Lord alluded. If he was referring to the area of additionality, the reason that the United Kingdom has been selected for attention is that the other 11 member states apply the principles of additionality whereas the United Kingdom has been embattled with the
850
Commission on the issue. However, in a sense that is a peripheral matter and I do not wish to go into it any further.
The House has been rightly indignant about the extent of the fraud and irregularity which afflict so many areas of the Community's activities which have been the subject of this debate. No one can doubt the significance of the issue. It impacts upon the credibility of the Community. The opportunities which are offered for organised crime and irregularities are almost unique. The trouble is that the problems are likely to burgeon, particularly with the new regime on value added tax and the switch from price subsidies to direct payments to farmers which depends unrealistically on the European Commission knowing what a million farmers produce and own. That is a titanic task.
The enlargement of the Community, particularly as concerns Eastern and Central Europe in the future —and perhaps not even the enlargement, but the association agreements—will bring a huge scale of potential difficulties in terms of crime and irregularity.
I believe that the vast majority of fraud is rooted in the fact that the Community pays people to export agricultural goods out of Community territory, with relatively few checks on traders to see whether they are exporting what they claim to be exporting and in the quantities that they claim. The profits made by passing one export off as another are simply enormous, while the risks of being discovered are relatively small. Therein lies so much of the difficulty that confronts the member states, particularly the Commission, in dealing with those issues.
The difficulties of investigation, detection and procuring sufficient evidence to be able to prosecute make it even more remarkable that over a number of years the member states were so reluctant to invest the Commission with the enhanced powers that it sought, through the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, speaking on behalf of his fellow commissioners, to investigate and take actions which were necessary to combat fraud. Article 209a of the Maastricht Treaty should be seen in the context of Community responsibility, not in terms of the responsibility of individual member states. That is one of the most important points that needs to be emphasised in this debate.
I believe that, as paragraph 39 points out, the effects of the Maastricht Treaty on the fight against fraud are not to be underestimated. I do not wish to refer to it in any great detail, but the Court of Auditors will become a full institution within the Community. It will have additional powers. The European Parliament will have additional powers to set up a temporary committee of inquiry into alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Community law. It will have the power to appoint an ombudsman. A court of justice will have powers to impose a fine. I have some reservations about that, but it is an improvement on the current position where such sanctions as exist are clearly ineffective.
The Commission has repeatedly sought to emphasise that the reticence on the part of member states, to which I referred earlier, was thoroughly

851
undesirable. Indeed, I believe that it compounded the activities of the fraudsters and that valuable time was certainly lost in being able to set about undertaking the kind of tasks that your Lordships' House recommended back in 1989. That was not the fault of the Commission. Whatever else may be imposed by way of blame on the Commission, that was not its fault. It was the 12 member states who vetoed the proposal put forward by the Commission to strengthen its powers, but those powers were always to be exercised in collaboration with the member states. It could not have been otherwise. Member states had to collaborate—it was not a question of the Commission seeking to impose itself upon the other member states—if fraud was to be detected.
Yet the United Kingdom Government in the presidency back in 1987 sought to adduce arguments based upon the kind of rhetoric of the Commission wanting to lead the investigations and assuming to itself additional powers. That was simply an excuse for inaction, and it is precisely what occurred until 1989.
One of the criticisms that has been made in the debate by a number of your Lordships such as the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Benson, and others was to the effect that effectively nothing seemed to be happening on the part of the Commission. I think it is because the report was based upon events that occurred a significant time ago that that criticism is unfair. A great deal has been happening. I have taken the trouble to find out, and it is inaccurate to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asserted, that the Commission was not dealing with the matter at all.
The report itself indicates that a considerable amount of progress had been made: the simplification of regulations, a reduction in the number of product classifications, the strengthening of internal controls and instructions and so on. Those are all set out in the report, so it is quite unfair to say that even at the time of writing the report the criticism was properly made out.
However, I suggest that a great deal more has happened since and much more is promised for the future. Perhaps I may allude to that at this stage. In order to be able to combat fraud effectively, it is important that the Commission and member states improve their databases and information systems because this is critical in the fight to eliminate fraud.
The Commission has set up a number of systems such as SCENT. Why it has to use acronyms of that kind I am not sure, but to refer to aromatic acronyms in this context seems to be unwise. SCENT (System Customs Enforcement Network) was created in 1987. It is now being considerably improved. A Customs information system has just become operational and will replace SCENT. It will enable direct contact to be set up between Customs offices at border posts, ports and airports and between those offices and the Commission. Approximately 150 terminals are to be installed initially and a further 200 during 1993. I believe that that will be a vital element in fighting fraud. It will be used for communications covering all areas of Customs activity, from fraud involving the
852
budget to drug smuggling. The second phase of that system involves the storage of the information exchanged in a central database. That will require a specific legal base to be undertaken and I shall not enlarge on that.
There is another important database known as IRENE 3 on frauds and irregularities which has just become operational within the Commission. That contains details of all frauds and irregularities to the detriment of the Community budget. That was advised by the council and implemented by the Commission. It brings together all information on frauds and irregularities provided by member states to the Commission in the areas of agriculture, traditional own resources and the structural funds. It will enable that information to be used by the Commission services to help prevent and detect fraud and to monitor the progress towards recovery of the sums involved in those specific cases. I could enlarge on it, but time does not permit. It will add to the armoury available to the Commission, which I believe is extremely important. Other steps are also being implemented. So it is unfair to say that the Commission is not reacting to the problem.
A view was expressed in the report that the Commission was being complacent. I wonder whether that criticism is fair. I believe that the Commission's response has been erroneously interpreted in paragraph 64 and again in paragraph 67. I believe that the Commission sought not to criticise the cost of the audit work that was being undertaken so far as the court was concerned, but to observe that the audit was of a long-term nature and covered a limited area, and that it sought to emphasise that implementation of the court's recommendations on increasing controls would require additional resources to be made so far as the budget authorities—namely the council and the parliament—were concerned.
Of course one needs' to have additional resources. That goes without saying. A comparison was made between the cost of the operational work of the court's report, which was 200,000 ecu, and the Community's budget for anti-fraud actions in 1991, which was 72 million ecu. It should be borne in mind that, of that 72 million ecu, 90 per cent. was designed to strengthen the structures within the member states, permitting the rest to be used by the Commission's own anti-fraud services. Therefore the criticism that was suggested was perhaps slightly wrong. But I support fully the suggestion at paragraph 68 about the potential obstacles posed by data protection laws in certain member states regarding the exchange of information. That matter needs to be tackled urgently.
The question of publicity is a difficult one. But the case is made out for individuals and companies convicted of fraud to have their names publicised. The Commission evidently feels that that presents certain difficulties in terms of the appeal procedures and so on. But I do not see why one should have to wait for an appeal to publicise a name. That is not how it is done in this country. Publicity attaches to the trial and to the conviction in the first place. If the appeal is

853
successful publicity attaches to that as well. Therefore I believe that the Commission needs to think again on that point.
On the question of sanctions, there is something of an inconsistency between the position adopted in this report and that adopted at paragraph 133 of the Select Committee's report on the implementation and enforcement of environmental legislation. In that report it was said that:
"Objections to the withholding of structural fund grants"
—because of breaches of the law—
"are similarly strong; it is unreasonable to impose a penalty on bodies in one region of a Member State, by definition a poor one, for an act or omission committed in another region or by another body".
That point needed to be taken more fully into account in the criticism that was made. The court will have the power to impose fines for breaches of the law in the future under Maastricht. My problem with that is that in the final analysis it is the poor old taxpayer who will have to bear the burden. Nonetheless, I believe that it has some value in that attention will perhaps be more vividly directed towards breaches of the law than under the situation at present.
Those are just mild criticisms. Overall this report, like its predecessors, is extremely important. I happened to speak to the Secretary-General of the Commission last week and I can assure your Lordships that the reports are given a very considerable amount of weight, as indeed they are entitled to be. This report will be given the same weight. What I have tried to do is to correct the impression that the Commission was standing idly by in the face of criticisms made about its activities in 1991 and subsequently. I believe that that impression is false. On the other hand, I do not suggest for one moment that the Commission is capable of curing all such matters even within the time limit expressed in the 1989 report. A massive amount needs to be done. Helmut Schmidt once said that the largest room in the world is the room for improvement. That remark applies more particularly in this area than in almost any other I can think of.
5.28 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Aldington for raising the important issue of fraud against the Community budget. The Government welcome the close interest that the committee has taken on this important issue, thank it for its work and are in agreement with most of its recommendations.
I am also grateful to your Lordships for the many constructive comments that have been offered during today's debate. It has been a debate of the highest quality, as is usual on this subject in this House. It has been marked by the very brilliant maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Tebbit, which we all enjoyed so much. We had the benefit of a distinguished former MEP putting a slightly different emphasis to that of the two former Commissioners on the subject. So we have had a useful covering of the ground. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for what he said about the late Lord Ridley of Liddesdale. My noble
854
friend Lord Tebbit and I have lost a valued and trusted friend in Lord Ridley. I shall certainly pass on the thoughts of the House to Lady Ridley.
As the 1989 report from the committee indicated, the problem of fraud and irregularity has to be addressed in a systematic and patient way. My noble friend Lord Aldington said that the committee had urged the Government to take a leading role. That is exactly what the Government have sought to do, both nationally and in close co-operation with the Commission, the European Court of Auditors and our Community partners.
I listened with great care to what was said by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I thought that he was rather downbeat about the situation. I hope that he will recognise that we have come a long way since 1989. Indeed, I am glad that the committee acknowledges that fact and I am grateful for the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. Let me assure my noble friend, however, that the Government will not become complacent. First, we cannot afford to and, secondly, we are not blameless. At this point I wanted to say something to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth: I am sorry that he is not in his place. It is clear that more needs to be done and after today's debate I am left in no doubt that the House shares that view.
In many respects the key issue that had to be addressed was the perceived absence of the political will to combat fraud and irregularity, both by detection and prevention. The importance of political will was rightly emphasised by the committee. The Government now believe that political will has been firmly established both in the Commission and with our Community partners. My noble friend Lord Aldington was right to say that that in itself was not enough. He raised the question of resources. The budget contains significant amounts to combat fraud, but money is not the real answer. My noble friend Lord Tebbit was right to say that the first point of call should be prevention, which means effective systems of control. Steps are being, and have been, taken to amend legislation. In addition, procedures exist and are being enhanced to ensure that information is exchanged so that the lessons of past mistakes can be taken on board.
What has happened that permits a move from the previous pessimistic view to the rather more optimistic message that I put to your Lordships today? First, the Government were able to use the recommendations in the committee's 1989 report to press the case for the formulation of an effective action plan against fraud. Such a plan was established in 1989 and has been kept under annual review. The centrepiece of that action plan is a 45-point programme covering all aspects of Community expenditure and revenue. The Commission's fourth annual report on the fight against fraud covering 1992 is expected to be published later this month. It should detail the progress made over the past year on the 45-point programme as well as priorities for the future. Those will now form part of a rolling action programme.
That is a useful start. But more important changes have followed. The financial regulations were

855
amended in 1990 to include specific reference to the need for economy and cost-effectiveness of Community spending. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was right, as he so often is on these matters, when he stressed that it was not just fraud and irregularity that concerned the Government and your Lordships, but also waste. Therefore, steps were needed to introduce the concept of "value for money" into the Community's budget jargon.
The Maastricht Treaty builds on that theme, with amendments to Article 205 which make explicit the Commission's responsibility for the sound financial management of the Community's finances. The Maastricht Treaty would also give enhanced powers to the European Court of Auditors and the European Parliament to examine the Commission's implementation of the budget. The importance of sound financial management of the Community budget was emphasised again in the conclusions of the European Council at Edinburgh under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I noted what my noble friend Lord Aldington said in welcoming those moves.
Specifically on combating Community budget fraud, important extra steps were agreed at Maastricht and during the recent UK presidency. As the committee's report notes, the Maastricht Treaty will impose an explicit duty on member states to treat fraud against the Community budget with the same vigour as they treat fraud against national budgets. Constructive steps were also taken under the UK presidency. The economic and finance Ministers established a high level group to consider ways of continuing to improve the Community's performance and, following the report of the group, agreed important extra steps in the fight against fraud. As many of those steps are in tune with the committee's recommendations and the comments made today, I was a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, did not give them more than just a warm welcome. For example, regulations still need to be simplified to reduce the scope for fraud. The Government therefore welcome the Commission's commitment to extend the life of its internal working group, the so-called Lachaux group, which will now look at new as well as existing legislation and take full account of anti-fraud issues. Those changes will be important when the group examines the key CAP arrangements. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. Can he explain the reason why, in all the discussions that have taken place in regard to the reforms to which he referred, nobody yet, not even in the Maastricht Treaty draft, has explained what would happen if the European Parliament declined to give the Commission discharge of the budget? Would he not agree that the threat of not giving a discharge is an empty one, but one that should have been tackled a long time ago?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is fair to say that many things on fraud should have been tackled a long time ago. I hope that the noble Lord will agree
856
that there has been a substantial improvement in the position since we debated the issue together three or four years ago. He will be pleased at the extra powers given in the Maastricht Treaty to the Court of Auditors and to the European Parliament to make sure that the Commission carries out its work in the proper manner.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I can make a point to my noble friend. He talks about the powers in the Maastricht Treaty. Does not the Treaty of Rome have the same powers? Maastricht gives nothing new in terms of powers to deal with the matters we are discussing today.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will welcome what the Maastricht Treaty has to say. It clarifies beyond peradventure some of the issues that have been hotly debated as to whether they were in the Treaty of Rome or not. But we shall be discussing that matter on more than one occasion in the long hot summer to come.
The committee emphasised the need for increased exchanges of information. That was highlighted in the consideration of the Court of Auditors' report on export refunds where the high level group concluded that co-operation was the key to overcoming difficulties of that kind. I am glad that that was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The Commission has an important role to play and accepts the need to take on a more positive co-ordinating role, including promoting co-operation between member states, facilitating the exchange of information on transnational activities, and promoting mutual assistance arrangements with non-members states. Those changes will be particularly relevant to the problem of export refunds, which the committee's report highlights. In that connection also, your Lordships will be pleased to note that the Commission agreed to bring forward proposals for an audit package to cover multinational companies.
It is important also that officials, both in the Commission and the member states, are well trained and aware of the situation in other members states. The Government agree with your Lordships on that. Following discussions in the high level group, the Commission agreed to draw up an improved fraud awareness programme; that will give greater emphasis to training those administering the reformed CAP.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made a number of observations in regard to the budgetary procedures and provisions. The Government believe that Community accounts should be transparent and widely available. While the existing procedures can appear cumbersome, they ensure that the expenditure in question is properly examined. The Commission has a key responsibility, under the treaty for the implementation of the budget, to examine closely all expenditure prior to examination by the court. The Commission is obliged to ensure that expenditure in member states has been properly undertaken.
The Commission rightly emphasised the importance of the audit function and the role of the Court of Auditors. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the Government attach considerable

857
importance to the work of the court and welcome the enhanced role it was given under Maastricht. As the Government's reply states, careful consideration will be given to any proposals from the court. However, it is important to keep in mind that the court's main role is to deter and prevent fraud rather than to detect it; and to identify failures in the Commission's and the member states' arrangements for financial control so that they can be corrected. The commitment made at Maastricht and the importance ECOFIN Ministers attach to fighting fraud indicate that positive steps are, and will be, taken to detect and prevent fraud. Regulations have been adopted requiring member states to implement anti-fraud measures, including reporting irregularities and fraud to the Commission.
However, that is not enough in itself, and the committee wished to see further publicity given to cases of fraud and irregularity. Subject to the need to avoid prejudicing the judicial process, the Government agree. However, the real value of publicity is not when a fraud is uncovered, although it may be helpful in so far as it shows that financial control is effective, but when the amounts are recovered and the fraudsters are successfully prosecuted. Unfortunately, that is not what interests the media, which choose to highlight the fraud but fail to emphasise the success of detection and, if appropriate, prosecution of the fraudster. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with and share the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, with regard to the point that she made on the media. I know she will agree that we cannot tell the media what to print, what to show on television or what to put over on the radio, but I hope that they will take note that the more they can highlight the results at the end of the day, the more effective will be the message that we want to convey.
As regards sanctions, a subject mentioned by many noble Lords, the Government share the committee's concerns about the efficient administration of Community funds. I take the opportunity to remind the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who has enormous expertise in this matter and who indeed raised the debate in 1989, that there are penalties and sanctions in place, although, as the committee noted, they may not be widely known. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that they include the possible disallowance of agricultural expenditure or a requirement to repay structural fund grants. The amounts could be significant and would fall on the member state government, as recommended by the committee. For example, disallowance would mean that the national authority would not be reimbursed for expenditure which it had incurred. However, it is necessary to ensure that financial control and sanctions are applied in a way which encourages better administration.
In a wider context, the Commission has responsibility under the treaty to implement the budget and to ensure that member states meet their obligations. It must therefore satisfy itself that member states have taken appropriate steps to safeguard Community funds. As the Government's evidence to the committee made clear, it is important to ensure that subsidiarity is not used as an excuse for inaction. That
858
point was well made by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who also paid a handsome and well-deserved tribute to my noble friend Lady Thatcher for her work in connection with this subject. I am glad that your Lordships agree. It is also important to note that the responsibilities of the Commission will be bolstered by the explicit requirement of the Maastricht Treaty for the Commission to ensure the sound financial management of the Community's finances.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised the subject of how to ensure that money gets to the true beneficiaries in the third world. I shall skip that by, as the noble Lord does not appear to be in his place, and turn instead to what my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch had to say. He referred in particular to the absence in the draft programme by the Commission of a will to fight fraud. I gather that the absence of a fight against fraud in the Commission's draft work programme appears to be inconsistent with recent steps. If that were to be the case it would be of great concern to the Government. I can reassure my noble friend on that point. However, we believe that it is not the case. I understand that the Commission's anti-fraud unit is currently drawing up a revised work programme to ensure that the fight against fraud is taken forward. The Commission made very clear in discussions during the autumn its commitment to the fight, and in drawing up responsibilities for the new Commission the responsibility for fraud was explicitly allocated to the budget Commissioner. I know that the whole House will have listened with care to my noble friend Lord Lyell. He is a formidable accountant in his own right and has great experience from his time as a Minister in Northern Ireland. He told the House of the kind of discussions that he got into on this matter.
As to the future, the Government will continue to press the views of the committee and your Lordships when considering reports from the Commission and the Court of Auditors, both in formulating the Council's response to those reports and the direction the Community should take in continuing the fight against fraud. In addition the Government will seek to ensure that the "good words" that I have outlined are put into practice. I believe that your Lordships and the Government are at one on the importance of continuing the fight against fraud and irregularity and securing better management of the Community's finances. I am very grateful for the supportive words that have been expressed both in the committee's report and during today's debate.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has rightly been described by several noble Lords, including my noble friend, as a high quality debate. The exciting part was the speech of my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I am so glad that he took part and I look forward to hearing his contributions in the future. I am happy that he found my "egg" not too unacceptable. I found his speech extremely helpful and bracing: it was lucid, short and uncontroversial.
Once again I extend my thanks to my colleagues on the committee for their help and support. They will

859
have been pleased with the general acceptance of the line we have taken in the report as they will have been pleased with the Government's reply which very much follows the line taken by my noble friend Lord Caithness today. We have had some warnings. I was particularly impressed with the reminder given by my noble friend Lord Cockfield of the importance of avoiding fraud on the revenues and of reducing the revenues and the warning that he gave about the future. We must all think about that. I was impressed, because I felt it strongly myself. It was the warning that while all that we say and all that people undertake to do is fine, what we really need is performance. We have to watch performance.
I do not share the view of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that the Commission is doing nothing. I know that to be quite wrong, even over the past few years. I know that it is obligated to carrying through a whole number of new procedures and alterations in the course of this year. Nor do I feel any doubts about the value of the Maastricht provisions. They are of enormous importance, particularly the agreement of the member states. I admit to being a little more optimistic than some of my colleagues about the future because I detected in the reports and in the evidence which we received that things really are changing. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, leapt to the defence of the Commission. He did not need to do that for my sake, although I believe that it made an error in its reply on the Court of Auditors' report. I shall go on speaking of that, but I do not now believe that it will stand by what it wrote at the time.
I thank your Lordships. We are all agreed, I hope, that fraud against the Community is not acceptable and that we should do our duty as part of our national Parliament to help those who are fighting against it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1993
5.49 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may also, with the leave of the House, speak to the second Motion standing in my name; namely, the Council Tax Benefit (Permitted Total) Order 1993.
The regulations amend in a minor, mostly beneficial, way the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 which came before this House last July. The Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations have been fully consulted. I shall not trouble your Lordships with a blow by blow account of each and every change; many are simply to correct printing errors or are of a technical nature. Rather I shall deal with those changes of somewhat greater interest.
We are protecting the incomes of foster parents. Foster payments are already fully ignored as an income in council tax benefit. However, certain payments are intended as a reward and could be taken into account as earnings with a consequent reduction in benefit. This amendment will ensure that this cannot happen.
Another beneficial change which I am sure that the House will welcome is the introduction of a new earnings disregard for carers. From April 1993, all carers who are entitled to the carer premium in any of the income-related benefits will be entitled to receive the higher £15 disregard on their earnings. It will help over 2,000 carers who are also currently working and will provide a further incentive to those who may be thinking about combining their caring commitment with employment. This help is in addition to the carer premium, worth £11.95 a week from next month.
These regulations will also remove the disregard of maintenance payments made by people on council tax benefit; a similar change is being made in housing benefit. The removal of the so-called outgoing maintenance disregard will bring council tax benefit and housing benefit into line with the other income-related benefits. I believe that the House will agree that it is very difficult to defend a concession, paid for by the taxpayer, which assists the maintenance recipient irrespective of that person's financial position. The change is timed to coincide with the introduction of the Child Support Agency which will gradually take over responsibility for assessing people's ability to support their children.
As the House will be aware, the assessment by the Child Support Agency will ensure that an adequate level of maintenance is provided, subject to the means and requirement of the absent parent and the family needing support. Until this involvement by the Child Support Agency, local authorities have been asked to write to every affected claimant to explain the change and to invite them to consider whether they wish to vary their maintenance payments after April and to inform the recipient. These arrangements ensure that claimants need not be worse off as a result of the change and that maintenance recipients can claim benefits should the need arise.
We are also amending the regulations to ensure a full disregard of payments made to non-dependants and second adults from the Macfarlane trusts and the special fund. These were set up to help haemophiliacs and other people who have tragically contracted the HIV virus through NHS infected blood products. We will also protect the confidentiality of beneficiaries by providing that payments do not have to be declared to the local authority.
Other changes which we are making include the complete disregard of £10.95 a week guardian's allowance. That will be warmly welcomed by those people on benefit who are bringing up an orphan.
I turn now to the Council Tax Benefit (Permitted Total) Order. The Council Tax Benefit Regulations provide local authorities with the power to make discretionary payments of council tax benefit where claimants' circumstances are exceptional. Under this provision local authorities are able to respond to

861
unusual circumstances by increasing the amount of benefit paid in particular cases but not so as to exceed the maximum benefit.
The Secretary of State is required to set a limit, or permitted total, on the amount of discretionary payments that an authority may make. This order sets the limit for discretionary payments at 0.1 per cent. of the total amount of council tax benefit that the authority pays out in a year. The same limit currently applies in community charge benefit. It has been agreed with local authority associations.
This order will enable local authorities to respond sensitively in special circumstances and is of course in addition to the discretion authorities have to ignore all or part of a person's war pension.
These regulations and the order make minor changes, most of which are entirely beneficial. They will assist thousands of people who will be liable to pay council tax. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side of the House broadly welcome these amendment regulations and the order and in particular, as the Minister has said, the gains to foster parents, the guardian's allowance and the payments disregard for carers and for HIV patients. We accept the need for some tidying up. We welcome the fact that consultation has taken place. But they raise issues of interrelation between the DSS and local authority benefits which were explored during the Local Government Finance Bill. They are issues which we feared then would be problematic and which evidence around the country suggests have indeed proved problematic.
Therefore, we wish to raise four issues. In part they are matters which have already been raised in another place in debates on these self-same changes. The first is to remind the. House yet again of the problems presented by the steep taper of the council tax benefits system. It is an important issue because perhaps 25 per cent. of all households will be receiving council tax benefit.
With the poll tax families paid first 20 per cent. and then they enjoyed a taper of only 15 per cent. We welcome the abolition of that 20 per cent. minimum contribution, but it has been in part offset by a much steeper taper of a withdrawal of benefit of 20p in the pound for each pound earned or acquired. What does that mean? It sounds very technical. But what it means is that for somebody in part-time work thinking of going on to full-time work, for every pound extra that they will earn, they will lose 20p of it in lost council tax benefit, 65p in lost housing benefit, 25p in income tax, 9p in national insurance and, quite likely, 7p in family credit. That means that they are facing a 97p in the pound marginal tax rate. What incentive is that for people to enter low-paid work or to move from part-time to full-time work if the opportunity presents itself? If 50 per cent. tax is thought too high on £50,000 per year, why is 97 per cent. tax not acceptable on £5,000 per year?
862
Secondly, the effect of the taper means that, although the very poorest households (for example, those on income support) are indeed better off than under the poll tax scheme, those who are only a little better off (for example, people enjoying occupational pensions or those in low-paid work) will actually be worse off because they will be hurt by the sharp taper. For example, a single parent in work with one child under 11 is better off under the council tax rebate scheme than under the poll tax if they earn less than £92 a week. If they earn a pound more than that they begin to be worse off. For them the situation has worsened as a result of the Government's new benefit scheme. In other words, the nearly poor are losing benefit to help the very poor or the rest of us are not paying our proper contribution in general taxation. It would have cost about £150 million to elongate the taper. We urge the Minister even now to reconsider if we are not now to continue to place people in the poverty trap.
Another issue which the Minister has raised is the 0.1 per cent. discretion. That must be welcome. Certainly we on this side of the House would support anything which adds to local authorities' discretion, ability and flexibility to respond to local need. Can the Minister describe situations in which that discretion is likely to be brought into play? Perhaps he can enlarge on the comments he made about the situation with war pensions. For example, will the change affect the position of the Ealing judgment and the additional payments for sheltered housing tenants? Will it be applicable to some of the more worrying difficulties that hang over from the Local Government Finance Act?
For example, will the discretion apply where under the operation of joint and several liability a wife is faced with unpaid council tax bills on the husband's death, with no means of paying the bills and not being eligible for rebate? Will the discretion apply, for example, where there is joint and several liability between a mother and a handicapped son who are co-tenants and where the mother deserts him and he is left with 100 per cent. of the bill but eligible for only 50 per cent. of the rebate?
The matter is particularly urgent because the Government rejected an Opposition amendment during the passage of the Local Government Finance Bill to allow local authorities to write off debts on grounds of hardship because they said that the benefit scheme was sufficiently comprehensive. Everything that we argued then and what we know now show that it is not. As some very vulnerable people will now be stranded, can local authorities use that discretion, welcome as it is, to apply to such hardship situations?
Thirdly, I turn to an issue that was discussed in the other place in connection with these regulations. I refer to second adult rebates. Given that the council tax assumes a two-person household, a rebate can be based on the income of the second person where it would be more generous than if it were based on the income of the liable person. That is fine and we accept the principle of what that is meant to do. But it will

863
often be unfair. The divorced millionaire father will get a 25 per cent. discount if his unemployed son is living with him; at least he can afford his bill.
Having talked to local authority treasurers around the country, I know that they are already experiencing, as we warned the Minister at the time they would, a real "better-off" problem. I refer, for example, to somebody in low-paid work living with a sister on invalidity benefit for whom the local authority is trying to make a daily calculation of what is the best buy—a rebate on the liable person or on the second adult in the household. That is particularly a problem if the person on invalidity benefit has additional income. Local authority treasurers said to me yesterday and today that the "better-off" scheme is very difficult for people to comprehend and very hard to administer, just as we forecast.
The final area of concern still remaining, which we had hoped might have been recognised in the changed regulations, is that of non-dependants' deductions. That is where the benefit that somebody would have enjoyed is reduced because another adult in the family is assumed to be contributing to the rent and household costs. We do not object to that in principle, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that as presently constructed under the Act those provisions will cause real hardship. A citizens advice bureau in north London has already reported the case of a 79 year-old client whose total income is income support plus the retirement pension out of which she has to pay some of her rent following a non-dependant deduction for her 51 year-old severely disabled daughter.
Does the Minister recognise that non-dependant deductions are especially punitive in non-white families? Whereas only 6 per cent. of non-white households have more than three adults and therefore come within the workings of the more extended scheme of non-dependant deductions, 17 per cent. of Caribbean families and 22 per cent. of Asian families come within that category? Multiple non-dependant deductions can produce real hardship in extended families on very low incomes, especially for those on income support, but over 25, who are expected to contribute. I have a question for the Minister. It is a question that was asked in the Commons but not answered. If someone is over 18, not in work, not in school, and without income, is that person too supposed to contribute to the council tax via a non-dependant deduction?
So there are four issues: first, the taper; secondly, the cases in which the 1 per cent. discretion will apply (especially those where otherwise debt would be incurred which the local authority has no power to write off); thirdly, the "better-off" problems associated with second adult rebates; and fourthly, the hardship generated by non-dependant deductions.
To conclude, what we are seeing already in evidence from local government is the emergence of precisely the problems that we feared when we debated the legislation a year ago and about which we warned the Minister. Every debate about grafting rebates on to discounts shows the problems of grafting a personal
864
tax on to a property tax. Having said that, however, we broadly welcome the amended regulations and hope the Minister will answer our questions. I hope also that the Minister will allow me to congratulate him on demonstrating the political will to cap Wandsworth's transitional relief. I hope that the Minister will in turn join me in congratulating Labour authorities on producing council tax bills for next year that will, on average, be £22 per household lower in Labour authorities than in Conservative authorities. Labour will represent better value for money.
6 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend has been given a whole string of complicated questions to answer by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I am sure that your Lordships will listen to his answers with great attention. My questions, on the other hand, are perfectly simple. Can my noble friend state—as is normally done when discussing these matters—what will be the cost to public funds of the regulations and the order? In particular, can he distinguish in that cost between the elements which will fall on central funds and the elements which will fall on local funds? In other words, I should like four figures: the net increase in each case on public funds and the net increase, if there be one, on local authority funds.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention and I dare say that in due course I shall be able to answer him. I welcome, as always, the degree of gratitude from the noble Baroness for these orders. I was quite interested in her speech, most of which actually had very little to do with the regulations in front of me, but I shall answer the points—or those of them that I can—in due course.
First, turning to the question of the taper, I think that the noble Baroness will accept that there has to be a taper with any income-related benefit. I think that she will also accept that the taper should not be considered in isolation but in the context of other considerable changes to the benefit system which the Government have announced. First, the 100 per cent. maximum rebate will benefit all claimants including those with incomes above income support levels. In addition, all claimants will gain from the Government's decision not to claw back any of the amounts included in income support levels to help the 20 per cent. contribution under the community charge. That is worth £750 million at 1992–93 levels, and is despite the fact that there will be no minimum contribution under the council tax. Overall, benefit entitlement under the new tax will extend to claimants with broadly the same levels of income as those helped by community charge benefit.
The noble Baroness argued that this would lead to higher marginal deduction rates of some 97 per cent. I would accept that, but I have to say to the noble Baroness that even under community charge benefit—where we have a taper of 15 per cent.—the highest marginal deduction rate can also rise to some 96 per cent. I have to say to the noble Baroness that to reduce the absolute maximum possible at the top marginal deduction rate from 97 per cent. to 96 per cent. would

865
cost some £85 million a year—and not, I think, the £150 million a year that the noble Baroness quoted—but even so, an amount of money that really is excessive.
Referring to the second order, the noble Baroness asked just when local authorities can exercise their discretion. I have to say that they do have a complete discretion on how to exercise their judgment—and I emphasise the word "complete". They may, for example, pay higher benefits in recognition of urgent expenditure; such as travelling costs to visit a sick relative, to give just one example.
The noble Baroness also asked me to expand a little on the disregards available for war pensions. What happens is that all war pensions are statutorily disregarded up to a maximum of £10, which local authorities have to recognise. Thereafter, it is a matter for the individual local authority, and although I cannot remember off-hand the exact figures I think that about three-quarters of all local authorities operate either a total or partial disregard in respect of war pensions, war widows' pensions, and the special payment to war widows.
I do not accept what the noble Baroness had to say about second adult rebates being too complicated to cope with, but I shall certainly take note of what she said about representations from local authorities. I am sure that my right honourable and honourable friends in other departments will be looking at that. We are determined to keep the benefit scheme—and in particular the second adult rebate —as straightforward as possible. The system of second adult rebates will work on a similar basis to the non-dependant deductions which local authorities have operated for many years in both housing benefit and rate rebate schemes. To put these matters into context we estimate that, based on the published assumptions of council tax levels, some 190,000 tax payers in Great Britain will receive a second adult rebate—nearly half of them will be pensioners. We also estimate that, based on the 1.991–92 benefit levels and prices, expenditure on second adult rebates will be about £10 million.
The noble Baroness also argued that non-dependant deductions would cause hardship. There have been arguments that there should be no non-dependant deductions in council tax benefits. I think that I should say that they have been part of the benefit scheme for a very long time and they reflect the principle that adult non-dependants, sharing a liable person's dwelling, should contribute to the council tax.
Similar rules apply in the other income-related benefits, including housing benefit, and applied in the rate rebate scheme. There are no deductions for non-dependants in the community charge benefit scheme since the charge is of course a personal liability. I should add that the level of non-dependant deduction in council tax benefit will be modest. It is surely reasonable to expect a contribution of a mere £1 a week from non-dependants with incomes of up to £105 a week, and £2 per week from non-dependants in full-time work with higher incomes. No non-dependant deductions will be made in respect of
866
people on income support or certain other people such as full-time students. It also has to be remembered that non-dependants will, of course, no longer be liable for the community charge. They will be likely to be better off and able to afford such a contribution.
The noble Baroness also raised the position of the wife with the unpaid council tax bills when her husband deserts.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, dies.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I presume that the same advice would apply whether he died or deserted. If it is the death of a husband, I think that I should prefer to write to the noble Baroness on that issue as the answer I have is in the case of a desertion.
Lastly, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked about costs to public funds of these orders and are they from local funds or central funds. The amending regulations are not expected to cost in excess of £1 million. The cost of the permitted total order (the second order) falls entirely upon the local authorities to bear, and in 1991–92 local authorities expended around £200,000 on discretionary payments. I imagine that the figure will remain much the same. I hope that I have dealt with all the points made by the noble Baroness and my noble friend. With that, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Council Tax Benefit (Permitted Total) Order 1993
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee] —(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1993
6.13 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the draft order is made under the powers in Schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It affects the liability for non-domestic rates of water companies which merge under the provision in the Water Industry Act 1991 and whose property is assessed according to prescribed rules—sometimes known as formula rating.
The draft order provides that, subject to two small points which I shall explain, statutory water companies which merge shall have their rateable values aggregated. Each water company is a monopoly in its area, so it is fair and reasonable to regard the value of the parts of the property as unchanged in the event of a merger. The two small adjustments are, first, to the annual updating factor:

867
this is changed to ignore bulk transfers of water between the companies concerned before they merged; and, secondly, that any entitlement transitional phasing is removed when a merger takes place.
We have consulted the water industry and North East Water about the proposals in the order. The draft was agreed without amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th February be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Goschen.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My, Lords, we on this side have no objection to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
6.14 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It would be surprising if many of your Lordships did not know something about the Malvern Hills. They are a feature that can be seen from a considerable distance. Together with the musical association with the composer Elgar, they form one of the main attractions of that part of the county of Hereford and Worcester.
Towards the end of the last century much parliamentary time was spent in regulating and preserving common land and old manorial wastes. In 1884, a Private Act created a body of conservators with responsibility to preserve the common and other land described in a schedule and on a map, partly in what was then Herefordshire and partly in Worcestershire. That was the beginning of the statutory definition of the Malvern Hills.
The job of the conservators was to prohibit encroachments; to prevent nuisances; to preserve order; and generally to manage the land. At that time 510 acres were put in their care. There was set up a system of appointing the conservators by the parish vestries—at that time the only method of local government—and they raised money by precepts on the parishes. The hills became a major attraction to visitors. They are also a source of stone and much quarrying took place, leaving what seemed to me from my knowledge of the area ugly scars with in some cases dangerous cliffs and deep water at the bottom.
That quarrying was the subject matter of a case called Pyx Granite Company v. The Minister of Housing and Local Government. It was a seminal case in the development of the law on town and country planning. It was finally decided by the Judicial Committee of the House in 1959. In that case interesting issues were discussed about the relationship between consents for quarrying granted under the 1924 local Act and the general planning legislation. The 1924 local Act was not the only one. The pressures of visitors and quarrying led to three Private Acts. There was one in 1909, one in 1924 and one in 1930.
Changes in local government and increasing demand for amenity works were reflected in later constitutional and electoral arrangements. The
868
conservators were, in 1924, empowered to buy land, if necessary by compulsory purchase, and quarrying was increasingly brought under control. As is normal in all such legislation, special sections were inserted to protect private interests and the interests of statutory undertakers. By the time of the 1930 Act, the conservators were looking after 1,534 acres. Sixty years later the area is about 3,000 acres, much of it subject to common rights and almost all, if not all, open to public access as open space for public recreation.
A Second Reading is an occasion to examine the principle of a Bill. The only real principle in this one is to bring up to date the powers and duties of the conservators to reflect today's needs. The passing of 60 years has brought huge changes in society. Common land with public access always tends to create stresses between those who, in ever increasing numbers, want to enjoy the facility of the open space and those with various proprietary interests. Celebrated as the hills are, they are now easily accessible via, for instance, the M.5 and M.50. Evidence is appearing, in a manner all too familiar in the Pennines and Lake District, that public access is wearing out the foot and bridle paths. There is an obvious demand for refreshment and for lavatories. While ready access to the countryside is now both claimed and acclaimed, so too is an insistence on proper conservation of the landscape, of flora and fauna, and every aspect of natural beauty. Reconciliation of these conflicting pressures is increasingly difficult.
I certainly do not wish to overemphasise last year's invasion of part of the hills at Castlemorton by a large group of people who did damage and proved difficult to remove. Indeed, I am told by those who are promoting this Bill that much of its provisions had already been thought about and drafted before that event occurred. That was only one occasion. Other emergencies arise, such as in recent years very dry weather when the fire authority wanted the hills closed because of fire risk. I expect that the Select Committee, to which I hope the Bill will go, will look carefully at Clause 17 in this respect. Any temporary and limited closure of any part of the hills under that clause is already set about with multiple safeguards written into the Bill.
All this leads to a reappraisal of the resources needed by the conservators. The time has come when they should be empowered to have offices other than in their clerk's private office; when their employees may have to live on the spot; and when modern facilities may have to be provided or permitted as much for those who live within the area as for those who come to visit it as members of the wider public. Stray dogs are not welcome among free grazing stock. Abandoned cars are at least as unattractive in the Malvern Hills as they are to those of your Lordships who see them in the countryside elsewhere.
Of course all these functions must be financed. The precept on what is now the Malvern Hills District Council will continue, but in the Bill there are sought limited powers to borrow, as well as the ability to carry over a modest fund for land acquisition from

869
year to year and to precept a small amount for contingencies. There are other detailed provisions. I would suggest to the House—and I have studied this matter with great care—that, taken together, they amount to a reasonable modernisation of the conservators' powers and duties to equate them with contemporary need and, I hope, carry the conservators successfully into the next century.
There are a number of petitions against the Bill, and I have read them all with great care and interest. It would be wrong for me to go into any sort of detail about them, but I want to say two things. First of all, there has been much negotiation already with the petitioners and more is arranged, some indeed this very week. After a discussion with the promoters I decided to seek to accomplish the stage of a Second Reading of the Bill today in the knowledge that, if that is given, it will do nothing to halt the process of contact and accommodation with the petitioners, much of which has already been achieved.
The other thing I wish to say about the petitions is that I have great sympathy with one of the petitioners, who would like to see this private legislation consolidated. I am sure that everybody would. The trouble about it is that it would be a fairly expensive exercise, and the cost would fall upon the council tax payers in the Malvern Hills District Council area.
Of course I shall attempt to answer any questions that your Lordships may have about this Bill when I come to my right of reply, but there is one thing that I ought to deal with at any rate in a preliminary way, and that is the Instruction placed on the Order Paper by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve. I have looked again with great care at the wording of this Instruction and, as I said, I am extremely familiar with what is in the petitions. So far as I can see, if your Lordships were to direct the Select Committee to take special regard of the three points in this instruction, they would have drawn to their attention many points that are already in the petitions, and which they will have to take account of anyway. But I know that there is some public apprehension in the area of the Malvern Hills about this Bill and I appreciate that what my noble friend Lady Macleod is trying to do is to concentrate the minds of the Select Committee on these three particular points and to emphasise, if your Lordships were to give a Second Reading to the Bill and then to pass the instruction, that those are matters that should be at the forefront of their consideration.
Neither those who are promoting the Bill nor I can see any difficulty should your Lordships see fit to pass this instruction. We think that it would probably help the Select Committee to do what I have just said, and therefore I am not going to suggest to your Lordships that you should oppose it. But what I do say is that, on the basis of the principle that I have tried to describe and for the reasons that I have given, the Bill should at any rate be given a Second Reading this afternoon. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, on behalf of the Members here tonight I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for his excellent speech in introducing this Bill, and for kindly in advance saying that if it is mooted by this House he would accept my Instruction. I am grateful to him for that. He is a well-known Queen's Counsel, and I am not in the law or well versed in it, although I have practised it, and I appreciate the fact that he has put so much time and effort into this important Bill. We listened with great interest to all that he said.
However, my noble friend will know that if the Bill goes through in its present form it is possible, and even probable, that the Malvern Hills will be ruined forever. That is one of my reasons for putting down the Instruction to the Committee. Worcestershire is the most lovely county and the Malvern Hills the most beautiful range of hills in the country. I admit to being a lover of the county. I was brought up there and went to school in Malvern. Indeed, my ancestors and those of my noble kinsman Lord Hampton have lived in the same house in that county for over 400 years.
Although I must criticise the Bill, I hope that no conservators will think that I am criticising them. There are 26 members and, as my noble friend said, they look after about 3,000 acres. Luckily we have several speakers tonight so I shall deal with some of the clauses and perhaps later speakers will deal with the others. I start with Clause 3, which is the first clause that matters. It would empower the conservators to change the face of the Malvern Hills forever. They would have the power to build a McDonald's, a Little Chef, and fish and chip shops. All of those eating places are welcome in the right place, but not on the Malvern Hills. The Bill provides that there must be road access, parking places, shelters and lavatory accommodation, not to mention postcard shops and information centres. All of those can be had at the base of the hills and need not be on the hills.
Clause 4 gives powers to erect up to six mobile stalls for purveying food and refreshment to the public. The licence to sell hot dogs, ice creams, burgers of various kinds and drinks in cartons or bottles would be available to anyone for not more than one year. What eyesores such stalls would create.
Clause 5 provides the power to erect temporary lavatories. They will be temporary because the Bill stipulates that the lavatories should not remain on the same site for more than 14 days. Therefore, it will be no use having a glass of beer or Malvern water at the bottom of the Beacon believing that a convenience is within a reasonable distance because it will have been moved since the last visit. As my noble friend said, there are disused quarries: nature's needs can and should be met there.
Clause 8 makes it possible to grant rights to erect cables, pipes and so forth above as well as below the ground for services relating to water, electricity, gas, oil, telecommunications, drainage and sewerage. Electricity cables on the Malvern Hills are unthinkable but they would be allowed under the Bill.
Clause 9 gives powers to any person to construct roads with the authority of the conservators. Will the

871
roads be single track or two way? What will the speed limit be? It would be difficult for one car to drive along the narrow ridge of the Malvern Hills let alone two-way traffic moving up and down the Hills, as is envisaged. Surely the point is that all of those money-making ventures are not in keeping with the hills.
Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the building of office accommodation. That is to include residential space and the Bill gives powers to rent off any surplus accommodation. One wonders why people want to acquire so much and too much in the first place. Malvern Wells, Malvern Link, Great Malvern, West Malvern, Colwall at the foot of the hills all have suitable buildings for offices or houses. However, if the Bill as drafted becomes an Act it will enable the building of large houses and large blocks of offices anywhere, including on the Malvern Hills.
Clause 17 deals with access by pedestrians and equestrians. The clause needs tidying up so that the public is aware of the decisions of the conservators and other bodies. I understand that the Severn Trent Water company has several times asked the conservators to fence the land above its three reservoirs. So far permission has been refused but perhaps there is room for that to be given under the new clause. I hope that that will be reconsidered.
Clauses 18, 19 and 20 deal with horse riding on the hills and they seem to me to be adequate. As a lover of horses and a former rider I can think of nothing that would give people more pleasure than a hand canter along the hills. The whole of Worcestershire to the east, across the Evesham-Pershore valley to the Cotswolds, Shropshire to the north and beautiful Herefordshire and Wales to the west are visible from the Malvern Hills on a clear day.
Page 2 of the Bill describes the hills as being widely known for their natural beauty. I should add the word "historic". Legend has it that on the British camp site on the south side of the Wytch cutting, which most noble Lords will know takes one from Worcestershire to Herefordshire, there are trenches which were made and used by Caractacus in his last stand against the Romans. On that I base the use of the word "history". Malvern's famous son, Sir Edward Elgar, wrote a march which he called "Caractacus March" so that is probably more fact than fiction.
I shall not comment further on the Bill. However, I hope that I and other noble Lords will persuade the House to accept the Instruction. I believe that a Select Committee and an Instruction to it is the best way of dealing with the Bill.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for the manner in which he introduced the Bill. I hope to put to him one or two questions which he left unanswered. I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for the inspiring way in which she introduced her Instruction. She left little unsaid.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, did not mention the fact that the conservators are seeking an extension
872
of service from three to four years. The request is unusual and I believe that there must be a good reason for making it. It would be helpful to know what that is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, mentioned Severn Trent Water, from which I have received correspondence. It is anxious to protect its three reservoirs from pollution, caused in particular by sheep grazing nearby. It believes that there is a danger of contamination by the cryptosporidium parasite, which can be a hazard to human health. The authority is therefore anxious to fence off the areas concerned but its applications have been refused a number of times. However, the provisions of the Bill would make it easier for the conservators to grant the application if they were so minded. Although I have the greatest sympathy with the water company in its desire to ensure the safety of its supplies, I hope that in view of the potential conflict of interest the Select Committee will pay particular attention to the means of protecting the water supply. No doubt fencing is the cheapest and most direct option but in the special circumstances we need to be assured that there is no other way of achieving safety.
The Malvern Hills are part of our natural heritage and their importance is far greater than their size. Their vulnerability to people pressure led to the original 1884 Act. The increasing pressure has almost 100 years later made the conservators seek greater powers for the protection of those same hills. There is a precarious balance between conservation and exploitation. We all understand the pressures with which the conservators are trying to cope. However, the petitioners against the Bill are of the view that the powers now being sought are greater than are necessary for conservation and could lead to more exploitation.
It was to protect the hills from enclosure and encroachment during the period when Malvern was a growing spa town that the conservators were established by the Act of 1884. Their powers, we are told, and have been added to since then, but the powers were always to enable the conservators to pursue their original purpose to safeguard common rights and to maintain the hills for public enjoyment. As late as the 1930 Act, Section 3 spelt out conservators' duties as,
"to keep the Malvern Hills unenclosed and unbuilt on as open spaces for the recreation and enjoyment of the public".
This is the first time that the conservators have sought power to exclude the public and to perform certain other acts which are a negation of their original aims. They seek powers, as we have heard, to restrict public access, to erect fences, to build offices and other buildings, to make roads and to build public car parks. They also seek powers to let buildings, perhaps the most difficult of all their requests. In fact, under the Bill they would be able to engage in a number of commercial activities which would be completely alien to the thinking of the founding conservators.
The conservators also seek powers to make trespass a criminal offence. Trespass in this country has always been a civil offence, and I feel that this is not the right

873
vehicle under which to seek to change that attitude. I hope that that clause can be deleted, whatever else may remain.
Most alarmingly of all, in Clauses 6 and 7—the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, did not mention this matter in his introduction—the conservators may sell off land and may apply the proceeds of the sale of that land as income. On the face of it, that is an outrageous suggestion. We need considerably more explanation than we have had about how that particular request came about.
I am quite sure that our heritage is safe in the hands of the present conservators: I have no reason at all to distrust them or their possible actions. But the conservators, even with the new clause if they succeed in getting it, will only be there for a maximum of four years. Who knows what future conservators may consider a reasonable action to take? We must act with that in mind. We are told that the conservators have acquired more land since the original Act, but there does not appear to be a map available to show those acquisitions. Perhaps it is this land that is the target of many of the suggestions and the original holdings are unaffected. If so, the Bill should be specific and put beyond question the inviolability of the original holdings.
I am disturbed that commoners' rights may be at risk. The failure of the Government to introduce legislation to protect common land, despite manifesto promises, means that year by year our stocks of common land are dwindling. Most of the erosion takes place surreptitiously, and we must make sure that in this case it is resisted. As our population grows, what remains of our open spaces becomes ever more precious. With the privatisation of water and electricity, much land to which the public enjoyed access has been transferred to private hands. Week by week I hear of other pieces of land which are no longer available to the public who once enjoyed them. The Forestry Commission is being sold off piecemeal and woodland walks are being closed. We must be ever more vigilant to protect what is left. I hope that the Committee will have that need in mind when it examines the case for the Bill.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I was glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and a former Dean of Worcester read Psalm 121 at Prayers today:
"I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my help".
I was discouraged a little time back to be told that sentiment must not be allowed influence in planning decisions. It was not because of planning procedure that I joined the CPRE, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, many years ago but a desire taught me by my father to help protect the beauty of the English countryside and the marvellous variety of so many of its villages. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, my good friend, though on the other side of the Chamber, is president of the Worcestershire branch of the CPRE. He knows more of planning procedure than I
874
do, but I do not believe that it makes sense to allow people by law to take certain actions that you later hope to stop.
I listened to the three previous speakers with interest and, although I am not really on his side, I was grateful to the noble Viscount for what he said. I was particularly interested in his comment on travellers on Castlemorton Common, because during the same week we could hear from our window the steady thumping going on through the night. I just wonder how this Bill could help to stop that sort of thing.
If the House will bear with me, I shall be sentimental and subjective for a short time; I shall seek to be more objective before I close. For almost 30 years I have lived in south Worcestershire, some five miles due east of the Herefordshire Beacon, alias the British Camp. From my study I look out on the Malvern Hills and they have been an endless source of pleasure, both visually and for physical recreation. On two occasions I have walked their length with great enjoyment. I should like to claim it as 10 miles, but I think it is nearer eight. The second occasion was last year when a friend and I counted that we had been to the top of 14 peaks, small but beautiful. My noble friend Lord Hunt, conqueror of Everest, charmed me by saying that he would like to have done the same.
I love the hills as they are and I do not anticipate with pleasure any major change. I have not followed the arguments in the Malvern Gazette as carefully as perhaps I should have done. I was first alerted to the proposals by someone who said that the Malvern Hills conservators were seeking considerable extra powers to build houses, offices and warehouses, to make roads and to fence areas off. I was also informed that conservators' meetings are not normally open to the public. Since then I have received briefs from a number of organisations who feel that the conservators are seeking powers well beyond those needed to carry out their prime functions: that is, to safeguard the Malvern Hills environmentally and to provide facilities and resources for local residents and visitors to enjoy all that the hills and the surrounding countryside have to offer.
It has been said that the Bill will allow the conservators to accumulate money and other assets well beyond those needed to carry out the functions I have mentioned. It is not understood why there seems to be the urgency with which the conservators are seeking to press ahead, how little time they have given to the bodies concerned to consider the draft Bill and how little notice they have taken of suggested alterations.
It is tempting to support rejection of the Bill on Second Reading, but I am persuaded that it would be better to let it go to a Select Committee. However, I shall need to know much more precisely just why the conservators need these extra powers and just what they want to do before I shall be happy to see the Bill enacted. Meanwhile I support my noble kinswoman Lady Macleod enthusiastically in her Instruction to the Select Committee and the reference to the status of the hills as a valuable part of the national heritage, also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.

875
Before I turn to details of the Bill, let me pay tribute to the excellent job the conservators have done over the last 109 years. The two people on the board I know personally are highly respected, and I must consult them more closely. But even now the Malvern Hills District Council points out that there are some anomalies in the representation. Some parish councils, such as Malvern Wells, are not represented and some areas such as Powick are represented but do not contribute to costs.
As to the Bill itself, I find lines five to nine of the Explanatory Memorandum a somewhat unconvincing euphemism. I quote:
"The powers the Bill would grant are intended to enable the Conservators to manage and deal with the land within their jurisdiction more efficiently and appropriately in the light of present day circumstances, in the interests of preservation of the character and amenities of the Hills".
I am not very clear as to what it is about the present day circumstances that they have so changed, although the noble Viscount touched upon them to some extent, and how they can be dealt with more effectively.
There is much in the Bill to be argued about, but I shall restrict my remarks to a few clauses. I shall be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, my kinswoman, in a moving and effective speech, touched on Clause 3. Why do we want so many refreshment and information centres on the hills? Until it was burnt down a little time back, there was a perfectly adequate cafeteria on the top of the Worcestershire Beacon. Why cannot that simply be replaced? We do not want a chain of restaurants that would change the nature of the hills.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, touched on Clause 10 which concerns the building of offices. Apparently, if offices are surplus to requirement they can be let. But why build them in the first place? Clause 17 has been mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Macleod and Lady Nicol. The Open Spaces Society has a good case when it strongly opposes subsection (11) of that clause which would change trespass from a civil offence into a criminal offence. The noble Viscount will understand that matter more clearly than I. The society holds that for innocent members of the public that would be outrageous. On the other hand, as has also been mentioned, there are three grass covered reservoirs which the conservators have not agreed to fence off. I do not know why that is so. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said, Clause 25 and Schedule 1 are designed to lengthen the term of office of the board from three years to four. As she said, the present conservators may all be saints. But will that be the case in the future?
I am interested in Clause 22 because it gives the conservators the power to remove bills, placards and signs placed on the hills and generally to keep the area tidy. I would have assumed that they did that anyway, but I do not know whether that is the case. It must be clear by now that there is much in the Bill that worries me. I come back to the Instruction that the Select Committee should,
876
"consider to what extent if any the powers proposed to be granted by the Bill go beyond what is necessary for the conservators properly to manage the land within their jurisdiction".
6.52 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his clear and helpful introduction of this Bill. We are talking about a beautiful and unique open space, of which I believe some 95 per cent. is registered common land. First, I wish to say a few words about consultation which the noble Viscount mentioned in his speech. I know that there has been full consultation with the Countryside Commission. I believe that the conservators have responded helpfully and constructively to what it has said. I believe that there has also been consultation with the Department of the Environment.
However, I believe the consultation with the non-governmental organisations has been inadequate. The Open Spaces Society says that, along with other organisations, it was given only five weeks to comment —that is short enough—and that when it submitted its views its objections were not discussed before this Second Reading. I have received a letter from the Ramblers Association of which I shall read an extract as I believe it is relevant to this Bill. It states:
"As far as we are aware this is the first time that a Second Reading in the House of Lords has been sought before pre-arranged discussions with petitioners have taken place. The Bill was presented to Parliament with a minimum of consultation. If the promoters had consulted adequately we believe that many of the contentious issues could have been resolved. As it is we have arranged for a meeting with the promoters on Wednesday 10th March. We were astonished to learn last week that a Second Reading debate had been set for Monday 8th March, the Second Reading having been arranged apparently after the date was set to sit down and discuss the contents of our petition. The RA strongly believes that consultation should take place and agreement sought prior to a Private Bill's attempted passage through Parliament. Only if irreconcilable differences persist, should Parliament be asked to decide".
That seems to me to be essentially reasonable. We in this House had little background on this matter before we heard the helpful speech of the noble Viscount. We have had no map and above all no explanation of why the conservators thought that they required these comparatively sweeping powers.
Mention has been made of the previous Acts. I remind your Lordships that the original Act of 1884 provided that:
"From and ever after the passing of this Act no enclosure shall be made or building erected on the lands subject to this Act".
It empowered the conservators to take all necessary measures to keep the lands as open spaces, free from enclosure and building, to maintain rights of common and commonable rights and to prevent injury to the lands. That seems to me plain enough.
The third Act of 1924 also imposes a duty upon the conservators to preserve the natural aspect of the hills and to protect both the soils and the rocks of the hills and all that grows on the hills. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has mentioned the 1930 Act which requires that the conservators should keep the hills unenclosed and unbuilt on. We should think carefully before we go against the provisions of those Acts

877
which seem to me clear and right. I believe that what our predecessors did was right and has preserved the hills. It would be a mistake if we were to bring about a profound change of the kind that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, warned us against in her eloquent speech.
When the committee comes to consider this Bill, it should consider carefully whether it should contain any provisions for the erection of buildings and other structures such as lavatories on the hills themselves. If buildings are required, surely they could be built elsewhere, in Malvern or in the vicinity. If the committee should decide that it is wrong to maintain the provisions in the earlier legislation as regards not constructing any buildings, the next fall-back position would be the application of Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. That Act is referred to in the third paragraph of the explanatory memorandum which noble Lords will have seen. As far as I can see, however, it does not appear in the text of the Bill itself. I believe that the explanatory memorandum has no force in law. That is not a satisfactory position. If we are to rely on Section 194, the effect of which is to require the Secretary of State's authority for the erection of, say, a hotel on the hills, that would in practice involve a public inquiry. Therefore that provides a measure of protection against any inappropriate structure being built.
I believe it is important that the Bill should establish the connection with Section 194 of that Act beyond any possible legal doubt. Unless it can be clearly shown and established that Section 194 covers all the common land, there should be a declaratory provision in the Bill—a clause—making it absolutely clear that nothing in the Bill overturns that provision. I understand that this has been proposed by the Countryside Commission. I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, whether he agrees that if the committee decides that some buildings should be allowed, there should be a new clause of the type I have referred to.
I do not care at all for Clauses 3 and 10, which would allow building on the hills. Clause 11 seems to me to be even worse because, unless I am wrong, it opens the door to development with one eye on the potential for letting office space. That would be quite inappropriate in such an area.
I believe that as far as possible roads should be resisted. If they have to be established, then I agree with paragraph 7 of the petition from the Malvern Hills Friends of the Earth that there should be provision in the Bill for such roads to be designed, sited and constructed from materials such that their impact on the visual amenity and natural value of the hills is no more than can reasonably be avoided. The petition also mentions that such authority as is there mentioned should not be granted if there is a reasonable and practicable alternative.
In relation to access I agree with the view of the Open Spaces Society that there should be consultation with the appropriate bodies and that that requirement should be written into the Bill. In relation to Clause 18 and the subject of riding, it was my understanding that the conservators had agreed to insert the word
878
"reasonably" before "necessary" in the first lines of Clause 18(1). Perhaps the noble Viscount can say whether that word will be inserted because it is not there at present.
In relation to the clause concerning easements, I see strong objection to the putting of cables and pipes above ground on the hills. Again, unless an overwhelming need can be shown I do not believe that that should be permitted.
The noble Viscount mentioned the problem of the New Age travellers, which is a serious problem in many parts of the countryside. However, I believe that it would be inappropriate for that problem to be covered in a Private Bill of this kind. It should be, and I believe that it is to be, dealt with in general legislation.
If the provisions of the Bill as it stands are approved, affecting such a large area of common land, it would create a bad precedent for other areas which we might be asked to consider in due course.
Finally, I welcome the Instruction of the noble Baroness which I believe is appropriate. We should certainly ask the Committee to look at the points which she rightly made.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships in this Second Reading debate I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for introducing this important measure and the interesting way in which he did so. I should also like to thank the other speakers.
I must declare an interest as president of the Worcestershire branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. Our county is very much indebted to the late Lord Hampton, who established the branch more than 35 years ago. It was an enormous pleasure this evening to listen to his son speak on the very same subject of the protection of the most important feature in the Worcestershire landscape.
One of the most important activities of the Worcestershire branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England is to monitor every stage of the planning process in the county. Every planning application which is relevant to the important rural area of the county is examined by a team of volunteers scattered the length and breadth of the county. As the county is more than 70 miles wide, that is a considerable task. On the Worcestershire side of the old county of Worcestershire we are able to fulfil our task, as Herefordshire does on the other side. In a week in which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Howard, has approved the Hereford and Worcester county structure plan—with 28 amendments—with words of commendation for the way in which the county planners and the county planning process operates, we should take note of that, because the context of the Malvern Hills in the planning scene is very important.
There is nothing in the Explanatory Memorandum which indicates the very exalted status of the Malvern Hills in statutory terms. One can only imagine that the author felt that it was self evident, but perhaps I may

879
be permitted to fill that gap. I hold in my hand the Hereford and Worcester county landscape study of 1990, which sets out in Appendix I the details of the designation of the Malvern Hills as an area of outstanding natural beauty. The year of designation was 1959, and the area concerned is very substantial. It is 104 square kilometres, which I believe is 65 square miles. The document also reminds us of the object of establishing areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is: to conserve the natural beauty of such areas; to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the areas; and to meet the demand for recreation so far as it is consistent with the conservation of natural beauty and the needs of agriculture, forestry and other users.
Only 11 per cent., or some 3,000 acres, of that large area of land is in the hands of the Malvern Hills conservators. The conservators are, in a sense, guardians acting on behalf not only of the county but also responsible to the planning authority for their own management plan for the part of the Malvern Hills within their administration.
Perhaps I may dwell here on the presentation of the Bill because the fact that the Bill empowers the conservators to act without authority and outside the planning Acts is easily misunderstood. I assure your Lordships that every inch of the Malvern Hills forms part of the area of outstanding natural beauty. In addition, the whole of the hills is a site of special scientific interest of earth science importance. It is also an area of great landscape value and designated a full conservation area. Putting all those statutory provisions together, one has an official recognition which is almost without equal in the United Kingdom. Therefore, in planning terms the Malvern Hills have a very exalted status.
Let us look, therefore, at the relationship between the conservators as a conservation body and the planning authorities. I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Colville reminded us that the conservators were forerunners and pioneers. A full five years before the Local Government Act reached the statute book in 1889 they were responsible for the second important conservation Act, the Epping Forest Act 1878, which was the first in the United Kingdom and an important Act in its own right. Therefore the Malvern Hills conservators, in promoting their actions 109 years ago, accomplished an astonishing pioneering job. They are warmly to be commended for their achievements in that period.
Perhaps I may consider the period in which they made such achievements. It is important to realise what was going on at that time. One of the most important events for the Malvern Hills was the arrival of the railway. My noble friend Lord Colville may be able to tell us about it in more detail. Land was acquired under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, and a tunnel was driven through the hills. Compensation was duly applied.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, it was called the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I accept entirely that correction. That event gave a warning to all those anxious to preserve the hills. The noble Baroness told us of the ancient and historic importance of the hills. A large number of fossils came to light in the railway cutting. That is most significant. We have not yet heard the whole story of the Malvern Hills by any manner of means. As an archaeological relic from the millennia it still has much to tell us through its water resources, rocks and many other features.
It would be valuable to dwell on another aspect of conservation which the conservators promote in the Bill. It is a matter of land acquisition and land disposal. I entirely understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said about land disposal under the proposed Clause 6. Once again it is probably a matter of presentation. The word "exchange" appears, and reference is made to better management. But the provision opens the field widely. Future conservators might be constrained by pressures to sell a substantial area. The Bill will permit them to do so. That might be done in circumstances about which we have no knowledge at present. Such a power is one of the most important provisions in the Bill. Clause 6 is the clause to which I object most strongly. With regard to the remainder, the conservators are warmly to be supported in their aim better to manage the hills in conjunction both with the local authorities and with other conservation bodies.
I was dismayed to hear that certain bodies had had insufficient time allotted to them to consult prior to the Second Reading. I have no further knowledge about that matter. I am not a conservator. However, examination of the clauses at Second Reading has brought out many factors. If noble Lords permit it later, the noble Baroness's instruction will empower the Select Committee to look closely at the matters concerned.
Finally, it is so easy to say with hindsight that many of the matters could have been picked up in earlier acts which the conservators promoted. It could be said that they have done extraordinarily well in preventing the further quarrying of the hills and the removal of valuable features. The noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, referred to unfortunate scars which are extraordinarily difficult to erase. It is difficult to return the land to its original contours. Nevertheless, the conservators in 1884 set that aim in motion. I believe that it deserves the support of your Lordships and a wide range of the public.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, it is a private Bill and I therefore do not speak on behalf of the Labour Party. However, it is the view of many of my colleagues that open spaces should be preserved for public access and that the Bill would jeopardise that important principle.
Several noble Lords and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, have made cogent criticisms of the Bill, which seeks sweeping new powers for the conservators. In my view the Bill appears to be defective in two major respects, both of which have already been referred to by several noble Lords. As my

881
noble friend Lady Nicol said, the Malvern Hills Act 1930 laid down that the conservators should keep the Malvern Hills "unenclosed and un built on". The proposals in the current Bill fail on both those counts.
First, Clause 17 would give the conservators power to regulate or prohibit access to any part of the Malvern Hills and to fence and enclose those parts. Moreover, they would have the power to erect notices prohibiting access and anyone contravening such a notice would be guilty of a criminal offence. As several noble Lords have already said, trespass on the Malvern Hills would thus be criminalised.
The second respect in which the Bill appears to fail is with regard to not building on the hills. Under Clauses 3 and 10 the conservators seek powers to build refreshment facilities, information centres, offices and residential accommodation for their staff. Moreover, under Clause 11 they would be able to let premises which were surplus to their own requirements, as has already been said. There is clear temptation to build larger offices than the conservators need and thus to earn income by letting out the surplus space.
We are short of open spaces in this country and those that we have are increasingly tamed and sanitized. The chief pleasure of those who like to walk or ride in the hills is that they are areas of natural beauty unencumbered with roads, buildings, fences or notices. I therefore urge the House to agree with the Instruction of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, to the Select Committee.
7.17 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may be helpful if at this point I give the House the Government's view on the Bill.
We have considered the proposals in the Bill and are broadly content with the purpose of the Bill. Some points of detail have been taken up with the agents for the promoters, as have some points of greater substance on Clauses 16 and 22 relating to by-laws and abandoned vehicles. Apart from those matters, the Government are taking their usual neutral stance on Private Bills.
The committee will be in a better position to consider points of detail and hear expert evidence on them. I hope therefore that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed to Committee for detailed consideration.
7.19 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, although I could answer all the points that have been raised, I suspect that I should try the patience of your Lordships if I went into too much detail. However, there are a number of matters which I ought to touch upon. First, all noble Lords who have spoken may be assured that the Members of the Select Committee will have a copy of the debate on Second Reading; it follows automatically with an instruction. They will therefore be able to read and pay attention to points that your Lordships have made.
Secondly, I do not believe that one single point that was raised during the debate by way of criticism of the
882
Bill has not already been raised in a number of petitions. Those issues will therefore automatically be considered by the Select Committee.
There are two major themes which run throughout the speeches of noble Lords. One turns upon the phrase "the Malvern Hills". For statutory purposes, the Malvern Hills are more than the geographical feature that noble Lords evidently know so well. For the purposes of the legislation, the term "Malvern Hills" covers all land within the jurisdiction of the conservators. Therefore it is quite fanciful to consider that there is any proposition to build tower blocks halfway up the side of the mountain. What is possible is that, if there is land within the jurisdiction of the conservators within an urban area, they should be able to build, to buy or to lease offices there for their own purposes. As I see it, the present offices are in the offices of the firm of private solicitors of the clerk to the conservators.
If Clause 11 states that the conservators can build and let, it is certainly not intended to do so. I have been assured that that is not what the draftsman proposed, nor is it the intention of the promoters to do any such thing. What the conservators envisage is that they might acquire a building in order to use it for offices, find that it is larger than they need and be able to dispose by lease of whatever is surplus.
That brings me to a point which is echoed in many of the petitions, particularly that by the Open Spaces Society, the ramblers and others aligned with them. They all applaud—as a number of noble Lords have done today, including the noble Lord, Lord Moran —the existing conservators. I find it difficult to believe that your Lordships envisage that the electoral process, which I think will be carried out at the end of the year, will produce a new breed of conservators with horns and a tail which is quite different from the kind that previously existed.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, why the conservators will be elected for four years instead of three. The answer is that seven of them at the moment are district councillors of the Malvern Hills District Council who are now elected for four years apiece. It is therefore thought entirely sensible to bring into line all the rest of the conservators with the electoral arrangements of the large local authority representation which exists now and which it is proposed should continue. I suggest that one must not be too fearful of the way in which future conservators will carry out their duties.
My noble friend Lord Sandys was good enough to explain the substantial planning constraints which would prevail in case of some absurd suggestion about development by the conservators. All the developments that have been spoken about would require planning permission; nothing in the Bill interferes with that. Indeed, I can tell noble Lords who raised the point that nothing in the Bill interferes with Section 194, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Nothing can be done to infringe the rights given under that section without the consent of the Secretary of State. The matter is also included in one of the petitions.

883
I am sorry that there are those who think that the Bill has been rushed. As noble Lords have been told, consultations will take place on Wednesday and they are certainly not the end of it. I was hoping—and I believe that noble Lords are prepared to do this—that your Lordships would at any rate get the Bill on its way through Parliament so that we can make progress in parliamentary terms with what will inevitably be a fairly long and complicated procedure.
Excluding the public and turning the ignoring of notices which are posted into a criminal offence are points raised in petitions. This is not just for New Age Travellers. Is it really to be supposed that when the fire authorities say that the hills have become a fire risk there is no duty upon the conservators to try to keep the public out for their own safety? If they try to do that, is it not conceivable that they may need powers to enforce the notices that they have posted? At any rate, the Select Committee will look at all that too.
The only other points on which I have time to touch are, first, that the sale of land will not affect any land which is held as common. There is already power to deal with something in the order of a quarter of an acre and exchange land in its place. The main thing in the Bill is that any sale will require the Secretary of State's consent. I can tell noble Lords that in affairs of local government that consent is not lightly given unless there is a very good reason. I am told that only 2 per cent. of the land could be affected by Clause 6 of the Bill. Clause 7 does not allow capital to be used as income. On the contrary, it makes sure that the two forms of money are kept separate.
The conservators cannot remove placards and fly-posting at the moment: they have no powers to do so. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, yes, "reasonably" in Clause 18 would be acceptable. However, once the Bill has been published, no amendments to the text can be made until the matter goes to a Select Committee. Therefore, that will be the stage at which it will be done.
I believe that I have dealt with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and I hope that I have dealt with all those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I certainly tried to do so and to cope with most of those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
One point which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised is something to which I should return in conclusion. The legislation which ended with the 1930 Act has served the conservators and the area pretty well. I should have thought that your Lordships would have appreciated what some of us can remember: what has happened by way of changes from the 1930s to the present day. The changes, in terms of mobility and attitudes, the desire of people to enjoy open countryside—as many noble Lords have said—and to enjoy fossils, flowers and the wildlife have increased out of all recognition since the 1930s. So, of course, has the intense interest of commoners in their own rights. The pressures and conflicts on a piece of land of this nature are quite different from what they were 60 years ago. I should have thought that your Lordships would see that, as a matter of principle, it
884
was wholly reasonable to try to bring the legislation up to date, subject, of course, to getting it right. That is the point of the Select Committee procedure. It is the point of the petitions and the point of my noble friend's instruction. If your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading today, that is what will happen. I do not see my noble friend Lady Macleod acting in a rearguard capacity like Caractacus. I take her intervention to be a much more constructive one, to try to get it all right. She nods in agreement with me.
That is what I should like to see happen, I believe that we have all the mechanisms in place to ensure that it will happen. I hope that noble Lords will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Moran: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, does he agree that, in this Bill and any Bill proceeding from this House, we ought not to assume that those who will exercise power under it will always, far into the future, be balanced and reasonable? Therefore, we ought only to give the conservators powers in the Bill that they could reasonably need.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Yes, my Lords, I entirely accept that. The difficulty about making a Second Reading speech, particularly by way of reply in the face of a large number of extremely detailed points, is that I cannot go into the detailed drafting of the clauses as they stand. If noble Lords have not been convinced by the way in which it was put, perhaps I may respectfully suggest that it could be because they have not seen some of the subtleties by which safeguards have been introduced.
The petitions have concentrated on many of those matters and upon the ability of conservators, under the Bill, to do far more than people think they ought. To deal with that is the job of the Select Committee, but not of your Lordships on Second Reading. I have tried to explain that, while there are many safeguards of which I have given examples, there are many more in the Bill which will make sure that the conservators do not overstep a reasonable mark.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Select Committee.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve rose to move, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill is committed that—

(a) they consider to what extent if any the powers proposed to be granted by the Bill go beyond what is necessary for the conservators properly to manage the land within their jurisdiction;

(b) they pay particular attention to the provisions which would impede or restrict public access; and

(c) they satisfy themselves that any commercial developments which might result from the Bill's passing into law would be consistent with the status of the Hills as a valuable part of the national heritage.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the instruction in my name be agreed to.—(Baroness Macleod of Borve.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Animals: Protection during Transport
7.30 p.m.
Lord Harvington Lord Harvington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made to complete the Council Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport and what representations are the Government making to ensure proper and uniform enforcement of transport regulations throughout the Community.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the problems of the live transport of farm animals throughout Europe. I thought that noble Lords would not think it superfluous on my part if I gave a brief account of why I felt called upon to ask this Question.
I took up farming in the Cotswolds just after the war. Part of the ingoing was to take on a herd of pedigree Southdown sheep. It was rather a nice flock. I became very fond of the sheep and sought every possible way to improve them. During that time I had the honour to be four times elected president of the Southdown Sheep Society and also president of the National Sheep Breeders of Great Britain. I was also president of the Royal Smithfield Club. I was proud to take the supreme champion award for the Southdown breed on six occasions at the Royal Show. I supplied the enthusiasm and paid the bills, but it was my two shepherds, providing the genius and the artistry, who turned the sheep out to perfection on the day and brought me the success which I had.
Thanks to our dear friend and colleague, the late Lord Winterbottom, whom many noble, Lords will remember, a reciprocal scheme was set up between New Zealand and this country to send every year two MPs from here to New Zealand, while two came from New Zealand to this country. I was fortunate enough to be chosen by him, when I was president of the National Sheep Breeders, to go to New Zealand and visit various flocks there. By chance, I came across one of my own pedigree rams which I had exported a long time before to New Zealand. I am delighted to tell your Lordships that he was dedicated to his work even then and was earning as vigorous a livelihood as on the day he left these shores nine years earlier—a splendid example of the potency of the Southdown breed!
When I exported such valuable breeding stock it invariably travelled first class. My concern today is not with those prima donnas of the show ring. It is motivated by the enormous increase that we have seen in the export of lamb—live animals on the whole—to Europe. I intend to deal principally with the export of sheep. Other Members of your Lordships' House may want to mention other important linked matters which we have to take into account. Quite by accident this debate achieved perfect timing. Within a few weeks the European Commission will issue its new rules and regulations which cover this matter in particular. It is an excellent time for my right honourable friend to have some ammunition with which to ensure that he gets a good result from the Commission.
While a thriving demand for quality British lamb is a welcome reflection on the success of British farming, it is my great concern that the enormous rise in the live export trade is neither in the best long-term interests of the British meat and livestock industry nor, indeed, in the best interests of animal welfare.
To illustrate exactly what is happening we must look at the figures. They speak for themselves. In 1986 Britain exported 187,000 live sheep to the Continent. Last year that figure reached record levels, having risen to almost 1.4 million—a sevenfold increase in six years. The vast majority of the exports go to France, with most of the lambs caught up in this trade being slaughtered within a few days of arrival.
The economics of the trade are far from simple. The contraction of the French sheep industry has resulted in increasing demand by French abattoirs. But what saddens me most is to see our quality Scottish, English and Welsh lamb labelled "home killed" when it has been there for just a few days. The whole idea is that there is a premium on home killed lamb when it is so described in France. I believe that that is quite wrong. The trade is also growing with Italy and Spain. Do not noble Lords agree with me that we should slaughter British livestock in British abattoirs and promote British lamb for what it is—the finest in the world?
Last summer, at the sheep industry's premier trade event, the senior agricultural manager of the National Westminster Bank, Mr. Montgomery, said that he could see no economic, welfare or promotional benefit from the export of live animals. He said that the volume of live exports threatened the closure of British abattoirs and warned that their loss could put Britain's aim of being the prime producer of lamb in Europe at risk. He challenged the sheep industry to produce an improved marketing structure to ensure that carcass meat replaced live exports.
I note with interest that last year the expanding live sheep export trade resulted in a fall in the supply of lamb to the British markets for consumption here, with an increase in imported lamb carcasses from New Zealand to compensate. I say with a degree of guilt, since I fear it is boasting, that the strength and virility of my own rams taken to New Zealand many years ago may have helped to produce that country's export success.
What causes me gravest concern, however, are the conditions under which many of the animals travel. Journeys of up to 50 hours without food, rest or water are quite common. Animals leave our country in prime condition and arrive at slaughterhouses in Europe—in countries such as Italy and Spain—bruised, battered, exhausted and, I am sorry to say, not always alive.
The RSPCA has for many years monitored that trade. I have met their inspectors who told me of the utter frustration they feel as they trail consignments of animals for days on end across Europe—consignments which may cross the Alps at sub-zero temperatures and descend into Italy to the searing heat of that plain below the Alps, probably unshorn. While the driver has a few hours' rest they are left absolutely untended.
Last October the British public saw a Channel 4 documentary entitled "RSPCA Animal Squad Undercover", which recorded such journeys. A consignment of 700 sheep crammed on a three-deck transporter was followed from Dover to an abattoir in Italy—4l hours in the heat without food, rest or water. I saw the programme on video and was told about it by the man who was travelling behind the sheep.
While not all journeys are as bad as that, they are all too common. I am sure that all noble Lords who saw the film will have thought it appalling. How can we sit here and not protest in the strongest possible terms about such abuses of animal welfare? I believe as a matter of faith that what we call farm animals were put on this earth by Almighty God for the service of mankind. But that privilege brings with it the responsibility to treat those animals with proper respect.
On numerous occasions the RSPCA has has submitted detailed evidence of such journeys to the Ministry and the European Commission to demonstrate that even existing laws on the welfare of animals are routinely ignored throughout much of Europe. There is an urgent need for proper safeguards to ensure that when the animals are transported it is done with care and respect and that the welfare standards are properly and uniformly policed throughout the European Community. That is one of the difficulties that will arise in whatever the Commission decides to do. I hope my right honourable friend will be extremely strict with the Commission in that respect.
In saying that, I am aware that, the British Government and many of your Lordships support high standards of animal welfare. Many laws have passed through this House in this century that have set British standards among the best in the world. Our laws cover every aspect of livestock transportation, from vehicle construction to the manner in which the animals are cared for. Not only has the legislation stood the test of time, but it is effectively enforced by local authorities and the state veterinary service—that is, of course, in England; we cannot do it anywhere else.
Unfortunately, that level of concern for the protection of livestock during transport is not shared by a number of our European Community partners. Other member states have neither a comparable body of law nor the same desire to enforce properly those laws which exist. My fear, therefore, is that harmonisation of transport regulations may well result in a considerable lowering of our own high standards. It is now all the more imperative that the new European Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport, which is about to be completed and will replace virtually all our domestic legislation, embodies the principle that adequate standards of animal welfare are an integral part of the rules governing the movement of live animals. I hope that we will not settle for standards that will not work as well as our own. Above all, I hope that we shall not be penalised for carrying out our own good standards.
For the UK, the prospect of EC regulations must not pose a threat to our own tried and tested body of welfare law; and the requirement for free trade without frontiers within Europe demands uniform enforcement of those standards.
Finally, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to bring the matter to the attention of the House. I thank all those who are to take part and am grateful to my right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer for his encouragement in raising the Question. Perhaps I may take the opportunity also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who helped me at the beginning of my studies by putting me on what I hope is the right road.
I feel most strongly that we have a responsibility not to turn our backs on the suffering endured by animals caught up in this trade. It is our duty to speak out for the highest standards of animal welfare and to ensure that the horrendous scenes recorded in recent months are brought to an end.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, has my personal gratitude for raising this Question. He has provided the House with an urgently needed opportunity to debate live animal transport to Europe. For me his Question taps a personal well of strong feelings on the subject which I sometimes find hard to control. I hope that he and other noble Lords will forgive me if the criticisms I make are in some respects sterner and perhaps more strident than his.
The current position in relation to those animals on occasions is appalling. Whenever I see one of those large transporters heading down the motorways of Britain towards our Channel ports, as a small farmer I confess to a feeling of shame. I wonder whether the invariably anxious eyes that look out of the side slats belong to animals which will have to travel for 47 hours without food, water or rest, like the sheep which left Calais on 24th September 1991 for Pianella in Italy; or for 47 hours without food or water like the calves from Holland which left for Treviso in Italy from Calais on 23rd June 1992; or for 45 hours without food, water or rest like the pigs from Holland which travelled to Sardinia on 24th June 1992. Some of those journeys were made under Britain's presidency of the EC.
Those were journeys which the dedicated inspectorate of the RSPCA managed to trace. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, said, over 1½ million animals make that journey to the Continent each year —a five-fold increase in five years. It goes on day in and day out, yet it is only when the RSPCA, the Observer newspaper or an investigative television journalist manages to uncover what is taking place that we learn anything about the abuses of that trade. Those who are involved in the trade have made great efforts to put their house in order. But I for one am not reassured. As the trade is growing, so it seems to me are the abuses.
Experience over the past year has shown that we seem to have a government whose capacity for lip-service to a desire to improve standards of animal welfare here and in the Community is matched only by

889
their inaction in reality. When that is combined, as I am afraid it is, with a powerful and vociferous farming lobby which too often is apparently too ready to put agricultural incomes before animal welfare, it is a recipe for deteriorating conditions in the trade, which I believe we are now seeing.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me that I have got it wrong. On the evidence of what the Government have done as opposed to what they said that they would do in this field, I have no confidence in their commitment to improve standards. I speak from personal involvement. As I have already said, I am a small farmer. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that I am a smallholder, not with the rolling acres that are controlled by my noble friend Lord Carter or with the vast experience of livestock of the noble Lord, Lord Harvington. But when I left the House at night last October and November I went home to the lambing shed where I spent a good part of far too many nights trying to bring Poll Dorset sheep into this world.
Those lambs are now ready for slaughter, but I cannot and will not bring myself to sell them through any livestock market in this country. The Government have not satisfied me that their welfare will be safeguarded adequately thereafter. If I sold them in the open market, there would be a danger that they may find their way on to one of the transporters travelling to who knows where and to who knows what unsatisfactory end. So they will go, at some financial loss, direct from the farm to the nearest good abattoir that remains open where I live.
I had hoped that the British presidency of the EC would see this directive completed and ratified by 1st January 1993 when the single market came into being. Instead, it is a matter of shame to the presidency that by 1st January the final details of the directives had not even been published, despite the publication as far back as May 1992 of the EC scientific veterinary committee's report recommending maximum journey times. Worse, the export trade was reopened to Spain, a country where investigation has shown slaughter methods in some abattoirs to be a disgrace to humanity. They involve animals being slaughtered in front of one another, often with no, or wholly inadequate, pre-stunning, and in dreadful conditions. What safeguards, if any, were obtained before the Government allowed that to happen? I wonder.
The 1975 order in relation to the transit of animals has been repealod and replaced with one which actually increases, not decreases, the time limits for feeding and watering during journeys. The period is now up to 15 hours, and this despite the British Veterinary Association's recommendation that it should be reduced to eight hours, a recommendation which had the support of the RSPCA and even of the European Parliament. I know that one should be wary of attributing human feelings to animals, but it must be an experience which is in some ways on a par with standing on the Underground during the rush hour, where 15 minutes is bad enough, let alone 15 hours.
No steps appear to have been taken during our presidency—I hope that I shall be corrected by the Minister on these matters—to set up an EC inspectorate in order to monitor the live transport of
890
animals between states which will be needed when the directive is completed. If and when it is introduced, without enforcement, it will be useless. Despite what the Government have said about wanting to see higher standards of welfare spread across Europe, when this animal loving nation had the presidency of the EC little or nothing appears to have been done, and I am ashamed to say that the position appears to have markedly worsened under our lead.
Whenever this subject is raised I am aware of a vast body of ordinary members of the public who want to see both their Government and the major farming organisations working towards an end to live transport instead of apparently promoting it. People constantly ask, "What can we do about this traffic?" Livestock are surely not mere commodities to be moved over great distances as market prices dictate without regard for their inevitable stress.
It makes sense both commercially and in common humanity for farm animals to be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm on which they are reared, and ideally on the farm itself. Yet in my own area of Buckinghamshire, not far from where the Minister lives, the abattoirs at Long Crendon, Marlow and Thame have all closed and the abattoir at Reading is about to close. Animals have to travel further and further for slaughter. Up to a half of Britain's abattoirs face closure. I find it outrageous that Marlow, which was a small family abattoir where animals were well handled, with minimum stress, should have to close yet sheep be permitted to travel to Spain with all that is entailed there. That is not progress in my book or, I suspect, in the eyes of the British public.
Is it true, can the Minister tell us, as was recently alleged in the press, that because of these closures animals are now being exported to France for slaughter and the carcasses then reimported to this country? If so, what is being done to ensure the continuation of an adequate network of abattoirs nationwide to cope with demand? The Humane Slaughter Society has recently obtained approval for a prototype mobile abattoir. I would use it and so, I know, would many small livestock farmers if one existed in my area. What plans do the Government have to encourage such facilities? And if there are none, why not? What plans also do the Government have to promote the export of frozen carcasses to the Continent so that our abattoirs can stay open, jobs can remain here and animals do not suffer by unnecessary travel? And if there are none, why not?
I understand—I hope not incorrectly—that the National Farmers' Union considers the proposals in the draft directive to be too restrictive, too expensive and too complicated and says that continued live exports are vital. Many of its members make money from this trade and they are a powerful lobby. Farmers have often had a bad press recently. So long as farming organisations continue to misjudge and fail to respond to the mood of the public, who are their customers and whose attitudes towards animal welfare have changed, especially that towards farm animals which provide our meat, and so long as they fail to accord a higher priority to raising the

891
conditions in which our meat animals live and die, they deserve a bad press and they deserve to create a nation of vegetarians. Our politicians who allow these things to happen and to continue to happen deserve a bad press too.
Aspects of this trade shame us all. I hope that the Minister can tell us that the completion of the implementation of the Council directive is seen by this Government only as a first step towards the ultimate phasing out of this form of export and its replacement with a carcass trade. Until it is, I am afraid that every time I see one of those lorries trundling through the night I shall remember the words of Robert Frost's poem:
"I have promises to keep,
and miles to go before I sleep".
Too many of our animals have far too many miles to go, and we look to the Government to tell us what they are doing to keep their promises about their welfare.
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harvington for raising this Question. I cannot compete with his expert knowledge or with the knowledge of other noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Carter. However, as a Scottish farmer, I am concerned with some of the issues that the Question raises, especially in regard to the enforcement of EC law, the future of the UK livestock and meat processing industries and the importance of the latter to our rural economy.
In a different context, namely environmental practice, I do have expert knowledge of the difficulties of ensuring proper and uniform enforcement of Community-wide regulations. I have seen at first hand the extent to which such enforcement can become hopelessly erratic and prone to abuse on a regional basis. The optimism of Directive 91/628 is therefore familiar, though perhaps misplaced, when it states that,
"the rules proposed must ensure more effective protection of animals during transport".
If their implementation and enforcement are not complete, such rules cannot ensure anything except perhaps inequality.
A debate in the House in January on the implementation and enforcement of EC environmental legislation established a number of conclusions that would apply to today's Question. They were, first, that legislation and regulations, however well intentioned and well drafted, are a waste of time and paper unless they can be properly enforced; secondly, that even where they are correctly implemented, actually enforcing compliance remains the most serious problem; and thirdly, that with uneven patterns of enforcement and compliance between different EC countries and regions, a very bumpy playing field develops. This can disadvantage those countries, such as the UK, which are more law abiding and unfairly indulge those which have a long and often proud tradition of ignoring officialdom where vested interests are at stake.
892
Articles 8 and 18 of Directive 91/628 suggest that member states will ensure compliance and institute the appropriate specific penalties for non-compliance. Britain and Germany will probably take the commitments seriously, but others, notably some to whom we send live exports, will not. Non-compliance with this and similar directives can lead to appalling suffering for animals. But in southern Europe, many accept a mortality rate of 15 per cent. in consignments of live British lambs as a norm. Such an acceptance, and the philosophy that goes with it, mocks Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/628, not to mention the general provisions outlined in chapter one of the annex. These include such requirements as,
"animals that fall ill or are injured during transport shall receive first aid treatment as soon as possible",
and those transporting animals for profit do not do so,
"in a way which may cause injury or unnecessary suffering".
The spirit of Directive 91/628 and its hopes of uniform and effective enforcement also strike an incongruous note with the often well-publicised inaction of the French authorities. We have all read of them standing by and watching, but not intervening, as British lambs are harassed or burned alive, or as other agricultural or fish produce from this country is destroyed in transit.
Article 10 states that Commission experts may carry out on-the-spot checks in order to gain uniform application of the directive. That is certainly the only hope for uniform compliance: how effective it will be remains to be seen. However, I would ask my noble friend the Minister whether an EC Commission inspectorate has been established and, if so, whether it has any track record to reassure those who doubt effective and uniform enforcement being possible, and whether it ought not to pay especial attention to those exports of British lambs where 15 per cent. mortality during the journey is seen as normal and acceptable by the importer.
Given the history and prevalence of malpractice in this field, the suffering that is caused, and the difficulties faced by some EC national authorities in enforcing compliance at the expense of vested interests, the most significant assertion in Directive 91/628—it appears on the first page—must be that,
"for reasons of animal welfare the transport over long distances of animals, including animals for slaughter, should be reduced as far as possible".
Reducing, or at the very least strictly controlling, the live export of animals for slaughter could benefit more than just animal welfare. It could also be of benefit to the rural economies of such areas as Scotland and Wales and, ultimately, to the interests of our livestock farmers. My noble friend explored that point.
Malpractice and low standards in the live export for slaughter trade, and the difficulties of enforcing directives, help to generate inequitable advantage and profits for the importer abroad who is avoiding costs through non-compliance. In doing so, receipts are diverted away from British carcass exporters who have invested in the necessary plant and procedures that a successful and legal pursuit of the meat export trade demands.
I would add that profiting through non-compliance is not confined to transport. Abattoirs in southern

893
Europe, for instance—this was mentioned by the noble Baroness—often employ cheaper and less humane methods and have not invested to comply with EC standards to the extent that British abattoirs have.
A consignment of Scottish or Welsh lambs, for instance, which might otherwise be processed by the British meat industry and exported as carcasses, can bypass our own facilities and instead travel live to Spain in conditions that the importer knows to produce a mortality rate of up to 15 per cent. The lambs are then slaughtered by the Spanish abattoir industry in what may be sub-standard conditions; and some are then likely to be sold, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, as "home grown" Spanish lambs to fetch a market premium. The added value element that our own industry could have provided to such exports, and the jobs that go with it, are being transferred through questionable practice and noncompliance to the end-user's country, which in this case is Spain.
Such a trade, with its attendant illegal practices, is therefore threatening the British abattoir and processing industry, with all its jobs and associated services and its heavy investment in quality and compliance. Exports of British farmed meat, moreover, amounted to £850 million during 1992 of which carcass exports contributed some £650 million. That is over 76 per cent. of the whole and has been a valuable contribution.
Some of the Welsh and Scottish enterprises, as well as investing in good practice, have made a considerable commitment to the logistics involved in moving British carcass exports at speed to their foreign markets. A significant part of that £650 million of exports, for instance, consists of lamb carcasses taking just 36 hours between Welsh abattoirs and the market in northern Spain, the total journey from the Welsh hill to the Spanish oven therefore being just three days.
It is, however, increasingly difficult for those abattoirs which have geared themselves for such an enterprise if their export market is being undermined by the illegal cost-cutting practices that arise from flouting transport, slaughter and trades descriptions regulations. Quite simply, too few authorities en route and at the destination properly enforce regulations and the penalty is paid at the law-abiding end in terms of lost business.
According to the Meat and Livestock Commission the number employed in the slaughtering and processing sector is estimated to have been about 250,000 in the past year, many of them in rural areas. A threat to the livelihood of that sector is therefore more than just a threat to their turnover and the final value of our exports. Jobs within that industry and within the supporting services are placed in jeopardy.
Rural, non-agricultural employment is a precious and often fragile feature of our countryside. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, initiated an interesting debate on the social and economic needs of rural areas. He drew attention to the 100,000 farming jobs that have disappeared over the past 10 years and the further 100,000 farming jobs that may disappear
894
over the next 10 years. The noble Lord and others also pointed out that crucial local services such as shops, schools, hospitals and transport are threatened where the rural job base declines.
It is therefore in the wider interest that the 250,000 employed in the abattoir and processing industry, all those in their support services, and the investment and expenditure they generate in rural areas, are not unjustly threatened by the sharp practices of middle-men and end-users when exporting live animals for slaughter.
On a similarly broad perspective, I believe that it is also in the farmer's longer term interest that this trade is effectively controlled and is kept in balance with the needs of our own local industries. Low-cost transport systems for live animal exports may sporadically help to lift auction prices and this can tempt some of us to ignore the subsequent welfare of the animals we are selling and the extent to which directives and good slaughter practices abroad are being honoured. I suggest that where it undermines our own abattoir and processing industry, we ignore this at our peril. For livestock producers, the industry constitutes an important buyer, especially where guaranteed prices are offered for certain quantities at a pre-agreed quality. Such a service is a vital and complementary alternative to selling at auctions with their fluctuating prices.
If the commercial viability of this industry is eroded, farmers risk losing a major component of the purchasing market to whom they sell, and any reduction in the choice available will mean our having to rely more heavily on fewer options.
None of us wants to pass up export opportunities. But none of us, if we think it through, should want our export trade to become reliant on those artful dodgers whose sympathies are fickle and whose profits derive from poor practice. Their success will too easily be at the expense of a longer established and more integral sector of our own markets; a sector moreover which has a firm vested interest in the health and success of future livestock production in this country.
In conclusion, ensuring that directives such as Directive 91/628 are properly implemented and are uniformly and rigorously enforced, is of over-riding importance, but not just for the animals. The ease with which compliance, and therefore costs, can be ignored in the export of animals for foreign slaughter is creating unfair and dangerous competition for a heavily invested, large-payrolled, rurally based, export-oriented and law-abiding industry of our own. I do not want an unscrupulous trade to deprive our animals of welfare, our rural industries of jobs, and ultimately our farmers of choice.
Whether compliance can ever be enforced with sufficient effect by some of our EC partners I have to doubt from my own experience of compliance within environmental practice on the Continent. Hence, I once again stress to my noble friend the Minister the assertion in Directive 91/628 which appears in the preamble and which states that,
"the transport over long distances of animals, including animals for slaughter, should be reduced as far as possible".

895
I would ask the Minister whether he agrees with that, and what steps the Government are taking to implement reductions.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I agree with other speakers that the ultimate aim must be an end to the long distance transport of animals for slaughter. If I go on to talk about more practical matters which apply at the moment, it does not mean that I have lost sight of that aim. It simply means that for the moment we have to start from where we are and do the best with what we have at hand. In the meantime, therefore, we must have much stricter rules controlling the length of journey and the intervals between feeding and watering. For example, the RSPCA, the BVA and the European Parliament, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu has said, all agree on the maximum eight-hour journey limit for slaughter animals. We should be working for that as a beginning.
But no matter how humane the rules may be, they will not be effective without real enforcement. The United Kingdom has a good (although not perfect) history of enforcement but, as we have heard, many of the other member states have little or none. That can only work to the disadvantage of the well behaved trader, so it is absolutely vital that enforcement is not only adequate but is also uniformly applied, as the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, has said.
Will the Government take up the case for an EC inspectorate that can travel between member states and work to the same standards? If we take a lead in this we may be able to make some headway, given our present record on animal welfare. I understand that that happens at the moment for abattoirs, although from what I have heard this evening it does not sound as if it is too successful. However, that is what we should be aiming for.
The noble Lord, Lord Harvington, covered many of the points that I was going to raise, so I shall not go over them a second time but instead develop the discussion on lairages, which have not been mentioned so far. Before January this year it was compulsory to rest animals at a lairage near a port for at least 10 hours before a journey. That is no longer compulsory and hauliers will undoubtedly save time by reduced or no use of lairages. Since the lairages are private businesses, they will be adversely affected and may go out of business. This would mean that they were not available for emergencies such as bad weather which could delay the ferries or for good hauliers who wish to treat animals humanely. Keeping animals in their transporters is not resting them even if the transporter is no longer moving. Have the Government given any thought to how lairages will remain viable? Have they had discussions with the industry or with the hauliers to see what effect making the use of lairages optional has had on the business so far?
The new United Kingdom 15-hour rule could cause problems. Few UK journeys are over 15 hours. Once a driver has crossed the Channel, who will enforce the temporary regulations? I understand that they are temporary, but at the present rate of progress
896
"temporary" could mean quite a long time. In any cases do the regulations apply across the Channel—that is, even if there was someone to enforce them?
I have given the noble Earl notice of a number of questions that I wish to put to him so I hope that I may get some answers. Perhaps I may refer to the journey plan to Europe. If a journey is intended to last for more than 24 hours—as most to Europe are—a journey plan is required, carried by the driver, detailing times and places of resting, feeding and watering. However, if a driver breaks the plan, who is competent to prosecute the hauliers? The RSPCA is anxious to know who prosecutes for cruelty to the animals? Can the United Kingdom authorities prosecute for an offence committed in Spain or Italy, or do we have to persuade their authorities to prosecute?
How long is a journey? Under our previous legislation a journey began from the moment the first animal was loaded and lasted until the moment the last animal was unloaded. Is that definition being used at present?
Does a farmer going to market need a veterinary check on his animals before he sets out? Technically, a farmer taking sheep over 31 miles to market should have a vet check on them before starting the journey. Does the new provision in the directive apply in this country? Does it mean that a farmer must have his animals checked before going to market and before taking them back again if he has not sold them? Are we saying, in other words, that the directive is to be enforced at each short stage? It is important for the farming industry to know that.
Finally, I raise once more the problem of the transport of wild birds within the European Community. I realise that they do not come under the directive if their country of origin is outside the Community, but large consignments arrive at EC airports and are redistributed to member states. The mortality rate is as high as 14 per cent. for many species, but for some species—for example, humming birds—it is 95 per cent. and can be much higher. Very few humming birds survive transportation. What action will the Government take to investigate those high mortality rates and to introduce measures that will achieve improvements? I hope that all those questions can be answered tonight. If not, perhaps the noble Earl will write to me.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, man is always creating new ways of being cruel to animals, birds and fish—and this is one of them. Before I continue my oration on this topic I have been asked expressly by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that she cannot be present tonight due to indisposition. She is one of the most regular attenders at our debates on animals and I am sorry that she cannot be here to support the noble Lord, Lord Harvington. I welcome the noble Lord to our debates on animal welfare. I have known him for many years and admire him in

897
many ways. I knew that he was a nice man, but I was never quite sure whether he had a soft spot in his heart for animals.
As I said, man is always creating new ways of being cruel to other species and of denying to them all the rights that he claims for himself. Man says that his rights are God-given. I say that he invented them. They are what man has established for himself, in many cases putting religion behind his claim.
However, we are dealing with the transport of live animals and I say that that trade is ignoble and unnecessary. One of these days we must rise up and say so. All that the trade is about is the difference between a refrigerated carcass and a live animal. That is all that there is to it. It is a matter of taste. It is a matter of meat being "home killed", which is butcher's rubbish. This problem has become much worse in recent years because of new consumer demands. When did consumers have the right to demand something for themselves which causes suffering to other creatures? When did consumers assume sovereignty over our affairs, especially over moral issues such as this?
The figures that the RSPCA has supplied in its brief show that there has been a substantial increase in this traffic in recent years with 0.5 million more sheep being transported in 1992. Most of those are lambs —and most of the lambs are suckling lambs. Here is a most hideous description of animal transport. Suckling lambs are going to Italy by the hundred thousand and account largely for the increase in the total. What is more, according to the list of journeys which the RSPCA trailed in 1991, they are going on the longest journey. They are going to Italy because, I am told by those who are in the business, the Italians have developed a taste for suckling lambs. Therefore, we are sending suckling lambs to Italy. That is disgraceful. I wonder that the farmers do not rise up and say, "This is a hideous trade and we do not want to have anything to do with it". I feel sometimes that we should hear from those who produce the animals. What do they feel when they send off the animals on those long trails across Europe in conditions of great discomfort and privation?
We must address ourselves to that issue and other matters related to it in our dealings with the Europeans. It is not much good pressing for still higher standards of welfare unless they can be enforced. It would be better to go step by step and have improvements that can be enforced. We owe to the RSPCA the fact that we know what conditions are like. It has been trailing those journeys for a number of years. The stories that come back are most disquieting. So far nothing has been done effectively to remove anxiety. Not until we have a European society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shall we have any confidence in enforcement in Europe.
There was a time when some people thought that the only way of dealing with cruelty to animals in Europe was to have a European society based on the model of the British society. In parenthesis I say that we seem to assume that prevention of cruelty is the duty and within the scope of a voluntary society. Cruelty is condemned by law. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is a crime under the law. The enforcement of
898
that law is the duty of the state, but it has fallen into the hands of the voluntary societies. I do not under-estimate their value. They are probably more reliable than institutions in the attention they pay to these matters. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that cruelty is the responsibility of nation states within the European Community.
There is nothing to justify the trade. In the days before refrigeration there was at least an excuse for shipping live cattle across the Atlantic to Birkenhead to be slaughtered, but there is no excuse for that now. There is no excuse for sending cattle, calves or sheep on that trek now. Another thought crosses my mind. Why are we always cruel to the young? I am not talking just about our own young, but the young of the animal kingdom. Lambs, suckling lambs, piglets, suckling pigs, calves, anything your Lordships can think of—they must be young and must be tender.
It is difficult to get away from the humbug of mankind in all these matters, because it cannot find a straight moral or philosophical line through the labyrinth of attitudes towards the animal kingdom. When shall we have some moral basis for our attitude to and relationship with the animal kingdom? What are we here for that they are not here for? Are we claiming again that we have some special right to be here and they have none at all? Is that the basis of our approach to life on earth? We never get down to such things. We get down to things such as whether they should have 10 hours' rest or receive some food and water to make life less insufferable as they go on their journey. They are important details and we must attend to them.
Article 13 left unsettled a great deal which is important in relation to animals being transported across Europe. We have standards which we believe to be better than those in Europe, but it is not much good having better standards for our animals going to the coast than they have going from Calais to Italy. It is one long journey for the animals. We cannot feel entirely happy that we are giving them a little more comfort and consideration on their way to Dover or Folkestone. The long journeys we read about in the RSPCA brief, for which we are all grateful, all start from the French port of Calais.
With the present rapid increase in numbers what chance is there of standards being improved? If we are to transport hundreds of thousands more on those long journeys will they be any more comfortable or will they be overcrowded? Will commercial considerations cut down what benefits they have to achieve a quicker turn round to fetch more animals?
I am sorry, but there is no fun in animals. My wife will have nothing to do with animal welfare because she says there is no happiness in it. There is not. We cannot withstand the mass demand and claims upon animal life. When it comes to the point, our competitors' commercial considerations and all the mundane acquisitive instincts come to the surface. I do not know whether the Minister knows what conditions for transporting suckling lambs are like. It would be interesting to know. Presumably they want feeding. We can only do our best. We are not in a position to dictate to the rest of Europe. We might

899
look at the issue as a whole and consider whether we should continue to send our live animals on those long journeys just to satisfy what I have described as consumer demand. Cannot people be content with a frozen carcass? It need not be refrigerated for long.
This is going on all over the world. Let us look at the millions of sheep going from New Zealand and Australia to the Middle East. I have seen shiploads of them going. There are terraces on top of the ships which are higher than the funnels themselves. They are all crammed with animals. There may be 20,000 or 30,000 sheep on board. If disease breaks out, there is hell to pay. That is what is going on.
I have every sympathy with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in having to cope with the details of the problems, because I am afraid that he is up against a degree of indifference that we in this country do not appreciate fully. We ought to offer to support the Minister even if he stands out for something which may cost us money. Why do we regard cheap food as the first condition of dealing with animals? People ought to be prepared to pay something for the comfort of the creatures that they are devoting to their own purpose.
I had better leave it there. I hope that we shall get these conditions settled this year to some degree of satisfaction; otherwise it will be necessary to have more debates on this subject and to arouse the agricultural industry. Do your Lordships know that the sheep subsidy from the Community has increased fourfold in the past five years? The number of animals that we are exporting has been rising too. Of course there is the subsidy. There are always subsidies, and they have to be manipulated. Earlier in the afternoon we were debating fraud in the European Community. There is a nice Tom Tiddler's ground for crooks and fraudsters. It has been going on for years, and a lot in the agricultural industry because there are subsidies. If you can collect two subsidies when you are entitled to only one, so much the better say some. I am afraid that everything to do with this contains an unhappy note for me.
I am sorry to have inflicted my strong views on the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, and to command the attention of the noble Earl on this miserable subject. The noble Earl would be much happier if he were dealing with efficiency testing in the Civil Service. He would rather go to Mr. Waldegrave's field of activity where he is only dealing with civil servants than, say, the area of agriculture. But the noble Earl comes from a stock that is speedy, enterprising and dashing, so he should bring these qualities to his work in the Ministry of Agriculture.
I am grateful to the noble Lord who opened this debate. If anybody else likes to be a candidate for my shadow cabinet, I should be very glad indeed to offer him a major appointment. Between us we might get something done before Christmas that might improve the lot of transported animals.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, it is singularly difficult to follow after the charm of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. However, because of what I regard as the importance of this subject for the European Community, and because of what I regard as the importance of the role of the United Kingdom and thereby our Government, I venture briefly to intervene.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, have already graphically described the privations that are imposed upon animals transported around the Community. Beyond doubt it is a serious problem, as anyone who has been around Europe in recent years knows only too well from the lorryloads of tier upon tier of piglets and tier upon tier of sheep and calves going along the roads.
Despite that one must not underestimate that the Community has already done much. I do not underestimate the importance of the existing directives, and particularly of Directive 91/628, which recognised the importance in the single market of ensuring a satisfactory level of protection for the animals concerned being transported across borders. But what is essential is that we should not stop there. Indeed, the creation of the single market makes it particularly important that control by the Community should go on and that there should be vigilance as to all the matters that have been referred to this afternoon.
It is important to the single market, because it is plain from what has been said that breeders and traders are not going to be necessarily concentrating on the most humane methods of rearing and transporting animals. I well remember a case in the European Court that concerned the rearing of veal calves. The Community had laid down standards: so much space for the animals to turn; so much light to come into the sheds for so many hours a day. The Dutch Government went further and required more space per calf; more light for more time during daylight hours. Some of the breeders came to the court and said that the Dutch legislation was inconsistent with Community law because it was too generous to the calves and that it imposed on them the burden of giving better conditions than Community directives required. It is for that reason that the Community has to be extremely vigilant in ensuring that what is done is properly to be done.
My particular interest, upon which I wish to speak briefly, relates not to sheep, pigs or calves but to the transport of horses. Some three or four years ago I found myself one afternoon on a hot August day in a motorway garage in Poland. In the parking area there were two vehicles crammed with horses going to Italy. There was no room for the horses to move about in the trailer. One or two had fallen, and they were being kicked by the others. The horses were biting each other because there was not enough space, and one saw blood spattered over the horses and over the sides of the vehicle. Those horses had yet another two or three days in that intense heat to travel to Italy. It is the control of this sort of thing in the Community that

901
can only be done at Community level. Therefore, there is a particular responsibility on the Commission to see that these things are done.
While the Maastricht debate goes on it is perhaps controversial to say anything about Britain's role in Europe. I venture to suggest, however, that as a country we have a special role and a special opportunity to press for directives and regulations to be made dealing with these matters, and to see that they are enforced. The British enthusiasm for animal protection is perhaps regarded on the Continent as an eccentricity, but it is one that is admired on the Continent, unlike some of our other eccentricities in relation to the European Economic Community. We should press forward as far as we can to insist on the right standards being observed.
I ask myself, if we do not, who will? It is for that reason that the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, has done a special service in raising this matter today. The Government have a special role. They have a special role in this country, and not least because we have voluntary organisations, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, which do so much for animal protection not just in this country but also abroad. For example, the Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad has done great service over 70 years to ensure that horses, donkeys and mules receive proper treatment in North Africa, curiously but marvellously through money raised in this country, even though the animals were to be cared for in former French colonies.
The International League for the Protection of Horses is alive to the problems of transporting horses abroad, especially those intended for slaughter. The journals published by that body sometimes show horrific photographs of horses being transported, the way in which they are lifted onto the carriage vehicles and the way in which they are kept while being carried.
Your Lordships recently debated the role of the voluntary organisations, which were concerned mostly with the care of people. Their activities received high praise, and rightly so. However, I wish to pay tribute to the voluntary organisations involved in caring for animals. I have mentioned two, but there are many others. Despite their dedication and efficiency their finances and powers are limited. They need to be supported not only by private donations but by Community institutions and by government.
I hope that the Government will ensure that in the race for an internal market and maximum interstate trade the plight of such animals as are carried around will not be forgotten. There must be constant pressure on the Commission to regulate. It must enforce its regulations, if necessary by legal proceedings. I suggest that constant pressure must be put on the Commission by our Government, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is their intention.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I too express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, for having tabled the Question tonight. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part, especially the noble
902
Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for the way in which she expanded the grounds of the Question and the accusations which must be made.
The subject is one about which every noble Lord in the Chamber feels strongly, about which many of our countrymen feel strongly and, in spite of what is said, about which many people all over Europe feel strongly. According to the way some people talk one would think that St. Francis of Assisi was an Englishman. He was not; he was an Italian. There have been and are animal lovers all over Europe.
Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, it is for us to dictate terms to the rest of Europe. We are dictating terms from a high moral ground, although I hope not pompously. We are doing so from an area in which we have taken a lead. It is up to us to ensure that the activity is stopped altogether or that it is undertaken only on humane terms. Her Majesty's Government must go to any lengths to see that that happens.
I was at the weekend in Wales addressing a dinner of the Welsh Liberal Democratic Party at its spring conference. With the exception of my noble friend Lord Geraint, few farmers were present because they were lambing. I felt great sympathy for them because recently my son had to retire to bed as a result of heavy bronchitis brought on by lambing during the cold spell last week. My 10 year-old granddaughter is becoming a first-class shepherd. They are raising sheep to be eaten because our civilisation eats meat, as I do and as many other noble Lords do, and we shall probably continue to do so. However, we want to eat only meat which is raised under humane conditions. Today that can be ensured.
As I drove to Cardiff station I travelled through more than one town whose inn was called "The Drovers' Arms". The problem that we are discussing is not new because sheep had then to be driven all the way from Wales to London to feed the people in the capital. One would have thought that with modern refrigeration, which does not harm the quality of the meat, we would have been able to do away with this problem. We have not yet found a way, but we certainly ought to. My purpose tonight is to say that Members on these Benches join the plea made by noble Lords from all quarters of the House that the Government ensure that our wishes are enforced.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, because his Question has allowed us to debate this sensitive and important subject. The noble Lord mentioned the enormous increase in the size of the trade and we have heard about the strong emotions that can be aroused.
The problem highlights the practical difficulties which will result from the operation of a single market. The differing enthusiasm among member states for the implementation of measures to which there is attached an economic cost will mean that those who are less enthusiastic in implementation will

903
gain a cost advantage over those who are enthusiastic and who try their best to carry out the various measures.
Despite what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, a fundamental point is that there is a difference in attitude towards animal welfare in the different member states. I shall not attempt, to name names but merely say that anyone who has travelled in other member states—particularly those in the southerly regions of Europe and parts of eastern Europe—will know that the concept of the moral status of animals, which is at the root of our attitude towards animal welfare, does not appear to enter the consciousness of farmers, transport operators and slaughterers in some parts of the EC and elsewhere. As a result of that there will arise the problem of uniform policing, requiring an EC inspectorate working to common standards.
It is important to make that point at the outset because unless it is recognised and accepted we shall continue to believe that the delay in achieving equality of treatment in this matter between the member states is a matter of bureaucratic dilatoriness. In my view the problem lies deeper than that. It will be harder than we believe to achieve the famous level playing field.
The first question I wish to ask to the Minister has been asked, but in different ways. Why during the UK Presidency of the Council of Ministers in 1992 did we not take the opportunity to ensure that the directive was fully implemented? As I understand it, the implementation of the crucial Article 13 has been delayed and I ask the Minister, why and for how long?
It is all very well for the general objectives to be agreed but, unless the precise details of issues such as the vehicle specification, the stocking densities, the journey times between resting, feeding and watering are agreed and adhered to, we shall continue to see the disgraceful cruelty that has been mentioned. That was set out in the brief from the RSPCA which has already been quoted tonight. It is almost unbelievable that human beings can treat animals in the way described in the brief.
Seven out of the 10 cases quoted in the RSPCA trial summary carried out during the period September 1991 to June 1992 relate to pigs. I wish to mention the first-class work carried out by the Cambac JMA research unit from Woodcote near Reading. That unit is an excellent example of collaboration between farmers, the trade and the Ministry to research pig welfare. In the UK the greatest "welfare insult" is, because of the sheer volume of the operation, the movement of meat herd animals. Fifteen million meat pigs are transported to slaughter each year. Valuable breeding animals are treated with respect. The movement of pigs between the points of production and the abattoirs may not exceed the upper limit of eight hours' duration but often the conditions to which they are subjected are substandard. There is the possibility that the amount of transport of pigs will increase when the ban on the sow stalls and tethers comes into place, because so many sow houses are unsuitable for conversion to group-housed systems and farmers will turn to specialised rearing and
904
finishing. There will be an increase in the transport between units and then between the finishing units and the abattoir. The draft directive may be a step in the right direction, but it is very short on appropriate facts. There are a number of design specifications which are unlikely to promote stock welfare. But of course they will increase the cost to the whole industry, and this represents money which could be spent on welfare improvements.
To take just a few of the many points that could be made about detailed aspects of the directive, if we look in Chapter 1A, Section 2(d), it refers to journey times and stipulates that animals must receive appropriate water and food at intervals which should not exceed 24 hours etc. But in this there is no guidance on the time between the last feed of the animal and the loading, so that, for example, a pig could go for 47½ hours without food. If it was to be loaded 23½ hours after its last feed at the farm and then carried on for the 24 hours which is mentioned in the directive, it would he 47½ hours. This is an area where the directive is at fault. I would ask the Minister whether there has been an attempt to do anything about the feeding times before the animal is loaded so as to avoid the possibility of a long period between the last feed at the farm and the 24 hours that is mentioned in the directive for the journey.
Chapter 1A, Section 5, deals with the design of floors. It says that there must be sufficient litter on a floor to absorb droppings. In the case of pigs, if straw litter is used this may be the first time in their lives that they have seen straw bedding, so this would be just one more unfamiliar experience for the animals when approaching their slaughter. This is an example of the practical matters that the directive overlooks.
There can be little doubt that the recommendation by the RSPCA and the BVA as to an overall maximum of an eight-hour journey time for slaughter animals is correct in principle. I would ask the Government whether they accept this recommendation and whether they will press for this to be incorporated in the European legislation. There can be little justification for transporting animals live for 24 hours or more to take them to slaughter.
In an ideal world, obviously the export of meat should be in carcass form, but it may be a long time before we achieve this. The British Association of Sheep Exporters said that exports increased in 1992 to 1.4 million and contributed almost £45 million to the incomes of sheep farmers and to export earnings for the country's economy. This is big business, and we must expect it to take some time before anything can change.
We know that some good work is being done by farming organisations and others to achieve higher standards. For example, the British Association of Sheep Exporters has set out a code of practice for its members with 16 sections. I shall quote just one or two. It says that members have accepted the obligation to maintain a high standard of stock management and animal husbandry and to strive for the constant improvement of facilities relating to the export of live sheep. It says that members will ensure strict compliance with the EC limitations on travelling

905
time and in particular will ensure adherence to the suitability of staging posts and lairages where any journey is likely to take longer than the permitted time for an unbroken journey. I shall not deal with any more of the 16 items, but they show that there are some farmers who are trying to meet the higher standards that we all want to see.
In the absence of a common policy throughout the Community to ban the export of live animals for slaughter, clearly there must be a common policy to deal with the vital welfare aspects of transport. The directive is a start, but clearly there is a very long way to go before we have a situation throughout the Community which conforms to the best standards in the United Kingdom. Until that time comes, the United Kingdom must strive to get acceptable and practical standards adopted throughout the EC and incorporated within Community legislation, with ideally a Community inspectorate to police implementation.
A number of speakers have said, and I know this from my own experience in agriculture, that no farmer worth his salt would ever defend cruelty to animals. However, I have to say that an awful lot of us do not always know what goes on and are not always as concerned as we should be about how the animal is treated once it has left the farm gate. The noble Lord who put down this Question has done a great service, and I have the feeling that this is not the last time that we shall be debating the subject. In conclusion, in this morning's post I received Farming Food News, which is the journal of the Farm and Food Society. On the front is a cartoon which shows a Customs official at an overseas port who is saying to a sheep, "Have you anything to declare?", and the sheep says, "Only that I am ashamed of my country".
8.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, let me begin with a categoric assurance: Her Majesty's Government regard the welfare of animals as being of the utmost importance. We have consistently given a high priority to the maintenance of strict welfare safeguards and to their effective enforcement. I welcome the opportunity provided by my noble friend to set out the Government's position on this issue and to respond to concerns expressed during this debate by noble Lords.
The Government agree with the view so well articulated by my noble friend that animal welfare is an international issue and that controls need to be established on a European basis. It is not a matter for subsidiarity. To this end we continue to press for the best possible safeguards to be set in Community legislation and for them to be enforced strictly in all member states.
The transport of animals is an issue which gives rise to particular concern. Animals of course have to be moved from farm to farm, to markets and to slaughterhouses. Whatever the purpose of the journey it is, however, essential to ensure that the animals are properly cared for and protected during the potentially stressful time of transport.
906
I should like to give the House a brief sketch of animal welfare transport controls as they operated before the start of the year, before the situation was altered by the introduction of Community Directive 91/628. We had a wealth of detailed legislation setting out the vehicle standards and other requirements which transporters had to meet. For journeys within Great Britain, farm animals were required to be fed and watered after 12 hours unless the animals could arrive at their final destination within 15 hours. In practice, since most journeys within GB territory can be completed within 15 hours, few journeys had to be interrupted to provide food and water for the animals.
In the case of animals for export, the law required, with limited exceptions, that they were rested for 10 hours at an approved lairage near the port. The animals were given food and water and inspected for fitness at the lairage. If the subsequent journey was likely to last more than 18 hours, the exporter was required to make arrangements for feeding and watering the animals en route.
On 1st January 1993, with the introduction of the single European market, Directive 91/628 came into force and this required some changes to be made to our arrangements. We were no longer able to maintain a distinction between domestic journeys and journeys to other member states in terms of the welfare conditions for transport. We thus had to introduce a single feeding and watering interval and to replace the export lairage procedure by new requirements.
My noble friend Lord Harvington has rightly drawn attention to the fact that the directive as it stands is incomplete. Although it recognised that detailed rules on such issues as feeding and watering intervals, loading densities and vehicle standards should be set by the Community, the standards themselves were not defined in appropriate detail. The directive required the Commission to present a report on the outstanding matters by July 1992, with appropriate proposals.
Regrettably, this timetable was not adhered to by the Commission and, despite the Government's many efforts to press the Commission to publish its formal proposals, as yet none have been tabled. It became apparent towards the end of last year that these detailed rules would not be in place by 1st January when the directive was to enter into force. The directive, however, permitted member states in this situation to apply national rules in the areas where further Community rules were awaited. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 10th December that the Government would take full advantage of this provision. Pending further action by the Community, therefore, we are continuing to apply national rules in the areas concerned.
Under these arrangements we are applying a 15-hour limit between stops for feeding and watering the animals. As I mentioned earlier, this compares with an 18-hour limit which was previously applied for exports, and for domestic trade it does not differ significantly from the previous limit of 12 hours which could be extended to 15 hours where the journey could be completed within that time. It is important to note

907
that in adopting this approach the Government have decided to apply a limit which is considerably stricter than the maximum interval of 24 hours set by the directive.
We also ensure that animals for export receive a veterinary inspection before the start of the journey to ensure that they are fit to travel. These inspections were previously carried out at the export lairage but as the compulsory lairage system had to be replaced they are now carried out before the start of the journey. In other areas where the Commission has not yet proposed detailed Community rules, our national legislation will continue to apply. I am pleased to reassure your Lordships that our minimum value system which controls the export of horses has been retained.
The statutory instrument introducing these changes, the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992, revoked previous legislation in a selective manner with the result that the main body of our animal welfare legislation remains in place. The Government also took advantage of the opportunity to tighten up on certain areas such as the transportation of casualty animals which had caused concern in the past.
While we have successfully retained our high standards, the Government are most disappointed that the directive remains incomplete. We accept that animals can be transported safely but that safety relies on suitable standards throughout the Community. It cannot be right that in what should be a single market, different standards for the transport of farm animals apply in different parts of the Community. The Government will therefore continue to press for the introduction of the necessary further Community rules as soon as possible. I must tell my noble friend that we do not yet know when that will be. At the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers in February, the need to complete the directive was raised and the Commissioner was left in no doubt as to the feelings of the United Kingdom and other delegations on the issue.
My noble friend Lord Harvington also drew attention to the most important matter of enforcement of the animal welfare legislation. I have already indicated that this is given a very high priority in the United Kingdom where enforcement is carried out by local authorities with advice and support as necessary from the State Veterinary Service. The enforcement powers have recently been strengthened by an amendment to the Animal Health Act 1981 to give inspectors additional powers to carry out random checks. Under the new Transport Order inspectors also have wide-ranging powers to stop and detain consignments of animals and also to prevent a journey taking place if it would contravene the legislation. I can well understand your Lordships' concern that equivalent high standards of enforcement should apply throughout the European Community. The Government fully share that objective and are most concerned that all member states should enforce the law with the same seriousness as this country.
It is now standard for Community directives on
908
animal welfare to include provision for a Commission inspectorate with powers to visit member states to check on uniform compliance, and we ensured that the directive on animal transport contained such a provision. The United Kingdom has been pressing the Commission to establish this Community inspectorate as quickly as possible and I am pleased to say that the Commission is now making the necessary arrangements. We understand that veterinary inspectors are being appointed who will visit member states to check on compliance with the legislation. These visits will be arranged in conjunction with the authorities of the member states concerned, as it is not of course the intention that the Commission should take over the responsibility of national authorities in enforcing the law. Nor will the Commission have powers to prosecute offenders. Rather the Commission's role will be to ensure that every member state carries out its obligation to enforce Community law properly. It will also be able to investigate specific complaints where it is alleged that the law has been contravened.
Although it remains to be seen exactly how the Commission inspectorate will operate in practice, this is a very positive development which should do much to meet the concerns expressed by my noble friend and other noble Lords over inadequate enforcement of the law in other member states of the Community.
I turn now to some of the questions raised during the debate. My noble friend Lord Harvington mentioned excessively long journeys, sometimes trailed by the RSPCA. I entirely share his concern over the evasion of welfare controls as demonstrated in the examples he cited. The UK does all it can to ensure high standards and strict enforcement. As regards the particular case which he mentioned of a consignment exported to Italy without stopping for feeding and watering, the Ministry is taking legal action against the exporter.
My noble friend also pointed to the increase in the live export trade and questioned whether it was necessary in view of the possibility of carcass exports. Certainly we see advantages in exporting carcass meat rather than live animals. However, it must be said that there is a strong market demand on the Continent for live animals. Provisional 1992 statistics show that the live export trade was worth over £160 million to the UK. In a single market this is not a matter where the Government can intervene. However, government encouragement to the meat trade exists in the form of the group marketing grant which is available for assisting groups to get together to market British meat. We hope that that will happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, mentioned exports to Spain. I am well aware of the type of unacceptable slaughtering practices which were adopted in that country. However, in the single market the ban on exports of food animals to Spain had to be lifted. The Government have, however, reached a formal agreement with the Spanish authorities that animals exported for immediate slaughter in Spain will only be slaughtered at premises which have been confirmed as meeting Community welfare requirements. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, criticised apparent

909
government inaction during the EC presidency. I ask the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to accept that the Government have continued to give the highest priority to animal welfare. However, as I am sure they know, during our presidency the UK could only seek progress in the Council of Ministers in those areas where there were Commission proposals. That is how the EC works. The Commission failed to produce its proposals as required under the directive, despite pressure from the UK and other countries. We hope that proposals will be submitted shortly. When they are, we shall seek rapid progress in the Council.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked about the use of mobile slaughterhouses. The Government welcome the introduction of mobile slaughterhouses and have commended the Humane Slaughter Association for its work in developing that facility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, questioned the increase from 12 to 15 hours in the feeding and watering limit. As I have tried to explain, that is not a step backwards. The previous 12-hour limit could be extended to 15 when the journey could be completed in that time. In effect it was a 15-hour limit. Indeed, we have tightened the rules, because we previously had an 18-hour limit for exports, as I explained. It is now 15 hours for all journeys starting in the UK.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the Government regarded the introduction of the new directive as only a first step to banning live trade completely. Free trade is a fundamental principle of the Treaty of Rome, and much as we might disapprove of practices in other member states we could not take unilateral action to ban live exports. What we must do is to raise standards and the awareness of animal welfare in other member states. Some member states have supported the Government in pressing for high welfare standards for the transportation of animals. However, in some states, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, there is a cultural and attitudinal problem which we must work hard to overcome. It is through our membership of the Community, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, pointed out, that the UK can seek to obtain the necessary improvements in farm animal welfare in all member states.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay asked about the prospects for maximum journey times for animals. I am aware that several organisations have called for overall journey limits and in particular for an 8-hour limit for animals going to slaughter, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The Government sympathise with the view that animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to the place of origin but we believe that an 8-hour limit would be unduly restrictive. Animals can be safely transported under appropriate conditions. We believe that the best way to ensure proper care is to require the provision of rest, food and water at appropriate intervals. We shall be pressing for community arrangements that reflect the requirements which we already apply in the UK in this area, and in particular for arrangements covering individual species based on the welfare needs of the animals.
910
I agree that excessively long journeys must be avoided. However, I do not see any justification for distinguishing between animals going for slaughter and others. All animals need the same high levels of care. In the EC negotiations we shall press very hard for limitations on the stages of journeys.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay raised the question of the attitude of the agriculture industry generally, including middlemen. I have no doubt that the British agriculture industry fully supports strict animal welfare controls. Of course there are some individuals who may seek to cut corners but they are clearly a small minority and we must not judge the industry as a whole by them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked a number of questions and I shall do my best to answer them all, but if I do not I shall be pleased to write to her. The noble Baroness asked whether the Government had had discussions with the industry about how lairages will remain viable now that they are no longer compulsory. Discussions have been held with the industry and, although not compulsory, lairages can play an important role as staging posts for resting, feeding and watering. Indeed, the lairages are continuing to be used and the industry is seeking to ensure that they remain viable.
The noble Baroness also asked a question about the 15-hour transportation rule; in particular, whether the regulation still applies on the Continent and, if so, who would enforce it. The new order applies to all journeys longer than 15 hours which commence in the UK, irrespective of their destination. The Ministry carries out checks on the feeding and watering arrangements prior to departure. If an exporter makes a false declaration, he can be prosecuted.
The noble Baroness asked whether the current journey time is taken from when the first animal is loaded to when the last animal is unloaded. The answer is yes. On the basis that the first animal to be loaded and the last animal to be unloaded may well be one and the same, it can be seen that the 15-hour limit is designed to be exactly that for every animal transported.
The noble Baroness also asked this question. When animals are treated cruelly in another state can the UK prosecute the individual, or is it solely the responsibility of the member state authorities in which the offence occurs? When offences occur in other member states the UK cannot prosecute. However, if we become aware of other member states taking no action to enforce EC legislation, then a report can be submitted to the Commission.
The noble Baroness asked whether there were veterinary checks for journeys to and from markets. It is a requirement for veterinary inspection at the start of all export journeys. Journeys within the UK are subject to random checking. Local authorities are very active on that front. However, there is no requirement to check every consignment to and from markets. It is, of course, a legal offence to transport an animal which is not fit for transport.
The noble Baroness also referred to the trade in birds and asked what the Government were doing. The directive applies to the trade in birds and to the

911
conditions of the journey in transit to the EC. The Government are most concerned about the problems in that trade. Mortality rates for some species are far too high. We are vigorously pursuing improved international standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred to the export of very young suckling lambs and other young animals. The directive makes it illegal to transport any animal which is unfit. All lambs for export are inspected by a veterinary surgeon at the start of the journey who will ensure that they are fit to travel. The noble Lord also expressed his view that transporting animals per se is immoral. It is worth making the point that animals can be transported very satisfactorily provided, of course, that we have proper welfare safeguards. I do not therefore believe that there is something inherently difficult about transporting animals.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, spoke about the trade in horses. Undoubtedly the trade in horses for slaughter from Poland and other countries has been a major problem. As the noble Lord said, the issue can be addressed, and solutions found, on an EC basis. The expected Commission proposals include strict limits on the journey stages for horses. We continue to prohibit the export of horses from the UK for slaughter.
912
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the time between the last feed and loading of the animals. The new transport order requires feeding and watering of animals prior to the journey "appropriate to the species". The noble Lord also referred to the transport of pigs. I agree that pigs have particularly special needs. The noble Lord referred to the excellent research carried out by CAMBAC. That is Ministry sponsored work, as I am sure he knows. In general, we fully support a scientific approach in deciding the appropriate journey conditions. There is an important programme of Ministry research and development in progress.
Although it has been short, it has nevertheless been an important and valuable debate on a subject which I am sure your Lordships will wish to keep under regular scrutiny. I have listened most carefully to the points made today by all noble Lords. They reinforce the Government's determination to continue to give a high priority to animal welfare and to negotiate for the best possible standards throughout the European Community. To that end, I hope that it can continue to be said that the United Kingdom leads by example.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  LEISHMANIASIS OUTBREAK, SUDAN
  LEISHMANIASIS OUTBREAK, SUDAN
  HAND TOOLS: SUPPLY FOR AID PROJECTS
  HAND TOOLS: SUPPLY FOR AID PROJECTS
  BRAZILIAN MAHOGANY: CONTROL OF IMPORTS
  BRAZILIAN MAHOGANY: CONTROL OF IMPORTS
  TROPICAL TIMBER: SUSTAINABLE EXPLOITATION
  TROPICAL TIMBER: SUSTAINABLE EXPLOITATION
  HONG KONG: ANNUAL REPORT
  HONG KONG: ANNUAL REPORT
  PRISON SERVICE WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION
  PRISON SERVICE WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION
  NEW AGE TRAVELLERS
  NEW AGE TRAVELLERS
  DOMESTIC WORKERS: ILLEGAL ENTRY
  DOMESTIC WORKERS: ILLEGAL ENTRY
  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
  CAR PARKS
  CAR PARKS
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  RIO CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT: ACTION BY UK
  RIO CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT: ACTION BY UK
  LONDON DOCKLANDS AND MERSEYSIDE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
  LONDON DOCKLANDS AND MERSEYSIDE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
  ARMED FORCES' SUPPORT SERVICES: MARKET TESTING
  ARMED FORCES' SUPPORT SERVICES: MARKET TESTING
  CONDITIONAL FEES
  CONDITIONAL FEES
  HIGH COURT JUDGES
  HIGH COURT JUDGES