Sitting of 10 March 1993

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

    Human Rights
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to promote the international protection of human rights.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We take every opportunity to promote respect for human rights, through our bilateral relations and in international bodies. With our European Community partners, we shall play a leading role at the world conference on human rights due to take place in Vienna in June this year.
    Dr. Wright: Do the Government and the Foreign Secretary accept that any new world order worthy of its name is not one that permits Governments to continue persecuting and terrorising their populations? Will the Government and the Foreign Secretary follow the lead taken by the French and German Foreign Ministers and by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and start arguing for an international tribunal under the United Nations at which systematic violations of human rights can be brought to book? Is not that the kind of new world order that the world deserves?
    Mr. Hogg: We have been playing a leading part in all the effective initiatives that are intended and are likely to produce an enhancement of human rights in every country where there is a human rights problem. I am not sure that the particular solution identified by the hon. Gentleman is likely to be profitable, if only because before there can be an effective trial there must be a defendant.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us welcome the fact that the international community is taking a much more robust view of article 41 of the United Nations charter, which allows intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state? Will my right hon. and learned Friend seek through the international community further urgent intervention in the appalling situation that is developing in the Sudan, where the Nuban people in particular are being systematically persecuted in a way that is likely to put their survival at risk?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. We are deeply worried by reports of possible atrocities in the
    922
    Juba area and in the Nuba hills. As my hon. Friend probably knows, a relevant resolution is going through even today at the European Commission of Human Rights in Geneva. We have taken every step that we can, bilaterally and collectively, to impose further pressure on the Sudan. I raised that precise matter recently with the incoming Sudanese ambassador, whom I saw but a few days ago.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister take this opportunity to acknowledge, particularly in a week which includes Commonwealth Day, when the focus was on human rights, the special role and importance of the Commonwealth in human rights initiatives? Bearing in mind—I doubt whether the right hon, and learned Gentleman will agree with me on this—the undoubted damage that was done to the Commonwealth during the Thatcher years due to weakness in respect of human rights in South Africa, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that at next autumn's Heads of Government conference, social and political rights will be high on the agenda and actively supported by the British Government?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my right hon. and noble Friend the former Prime Minister, but I accept that the Commonwealth has a role to play. However, it is important to have as broad a base for collective action as can be achieved. The United Nations and the European Commission of Human Rights are therefore even more effective, because those institutions are more broadly based than the Commonwealth.

    Nagorno Karabakh
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Nagorno Karabakh.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: There has been a further recent escalation in the fighting in Nagorno Karabakh following an offensive by the Armenian forces there. We are concerned by reports of hundreds of further casualties in recent weeks. We urge the parties to the dispute to heed the call by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe for a ceasefire and to negotiate constructively in the talks being held under CSCE auspices.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those negotiations are unlikely to succeed without a ceasefire? Will he commend to both sides in the Nagorno Karabakh dispute the Atkinson peace plan, which was put to both sides in Strasbourg last September, as a realistic way forward—not least to avoid the genocide and ethnic cleansing which would undoubtedly occur in the area if the promised Azeri spring offensive were allowed to take place in the next few weeks?
    Mr. Hogg: Before I commend the Atkinson peace plan to the House, I congratulate my hon. Friend on our involvement and that of our noble Friend Lady Cox in the question of Nagorno Karabakh.
    I substantially agree with the peace plan. It stresses the need for a ceasefire; it stresses that there can be no change in frontiers; it makes the important point that the future of Nagorno Karabakh lies in its existence as an autonomous

    923
    region within Azerbaijan; and it emphasises the importance of a number of confidence-building measures, with all of which I agree.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I join the Minister in congratulating the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on his activities in this regard. Does the Minister agree, however, that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe could do more and that the Muslim community in our own nation should help Muslim communities elsewhere to show the same tolerance that Christians show them here?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly think that the CSCE is the leading international organisation in terms of promoting a ceasefire and subsequent negotiations. It may, indeed, be the leading organisation if and when a peacekeeping force becomes necessary. I do not think that it makes sense for any of the parties to think that they would do well to transfer the negotiations to the United Nations; let us keep them within the CSCE.
    On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, the answer may be yes; it would be necessary to explore particular methods, but it is worth thinking about.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss his plans for democratic reform.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I plan to meet the Governor during his visit to this country in April and to discuss with him the progress of his proposals for democracy in Hong Kong, which have our full support.
    Mr. Sims: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House and the people of Hong Kong that he and the Governor are of one mind about how to implement the proposals for democratic reform in the territory? Can he reassure us that Hong Kong will be fully involved in any discussions that may take place between the British and Chinese Governments?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. As I have said, the Governor has our firm and daily support. He and the Executive Council are fully involved in making policy on this and other issues. We hope that it may soon be possible for us to do what the Governor has always wanted and start discussions with the Chinese on the constitutional position. If such discussions were to start, the British team would of course include representatives of the Hong Kong Government.
    Sir David Steel: In view of the Governor's previous high-profile partisan role in politics in this country, is it not important to make it clear that his proposals enjoy not only the support of Her Majesty's Government but support across the Floor of the House? Many of us regard them as the minimum necessary to give reality to the pledge of one country, two systems.
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I agree with him. It is also relevant that the Governor's proposals continue to enjoy wide support in Hong Kong.
    Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as evidenced by the last question, the Governor of
    924
    Hong Kong has the full support of the House in his difficult handling of the reform process with Beijing? Does he accept that although we respect the aims of the People's Republic of China in trying to develop a market economy, want its friendship and wish to pay it every courtesy, that is not by any means the same as agreeing with its every whim in every case?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We welcome and support the liberalising measures that the Government of the People's Republic are taking inside China. We want to hold to the joint declaration. We have no intention of going against the Basic Law. We believe that the Governor's proposals fall within the Basic Law. We wish to proceed in consultation and in discussion with China on this and other matters, but the points that my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick, and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) have made are valid and it is useful that they have been echoed in all parts of the House.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Foreign Secretary understand that we have always supported the Governor's proposals to widen the franchise and to increase democratic involvement in Hong Kong and that that remains our position? When the right hon. Gentleman says that we have to be clear about that, do we not also have a duty to make clear to the people of Hong Kong themselves, including those who sit on Legco, the exact nature of the delay that has been announced? Would it not be clearly unfair to the people of Hong Kong if that delay were to endure without some indication from the Government of the People's Republic of China as to whether, and on what terms, they are willing to return to the discussions about the future of Hong Kong?
    Mr. Hurd: The Governor and Exco have delayed publication of the draft legislation in order to create the possibility and the best possible climate for the talks that we hope to achieve, but it has been made clear to all concerned that the delay cannot reasonably continue indefinitely.

    South America
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the Falkland Islands to discuss relations with South American countries.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I visited the Falkland Islands from 11 to 13 February. I assured the islanders of Her Majesty's Government's determination to defend their rights to live under a Government of their own choosing. I suggested that the possible advantages of closer links with the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and Chile might merit examination.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with me, however, that the prosperity of the Falkland islanders depends on their being allowed fully to exploit the considerable natural resources that exist in that part of the world in terms of oil and gas reserves and fish stocks? Should they not also be allowed to develop, reaffirm and restore their sensible trading links with Argentina? Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the

    925
    Government's commitment to British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, on which the freedoms and aspirations of its people so heavily depend?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. In the course of his visit to Argentina, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reasserted in firm and robust terms our position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. It is important for the Falklands to continue to cultivate their long-standing links with Chile and Uruguay. Links with Argentina are a matter for the Falkland islanders themselves; we should not seek to exert any pressure whatever on them in that regard.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Falkland islanders provided the Foreign Office with a draft letter of comfort as long ago as June last year, but that it took the Foreign Office until December to say that the letter was not acceptable and that the Foreign Office has not yet produced its own letter? Is it not now well past the time for that letter of comfort to be issued to the oil exploration companies? When does the Minister intend to make a statement about the next round of block explorations so that people will know exactly where they are going? If such a letter is not issued, the only people who will be prepared to buy the seismic investigation report will be the Argentines? None of us wants that. We want an international input.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made. He is aware that we have supported the prospect of seismic exploration in Falkland Islands waters. That is now going ahead. I know that there is anxiety in the Falklands about the letter of comfort. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is under active consideration and that we hope to make a decision very soon.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Following my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's successful visit to Argentina, it emerged that the President of Argentina would welcome an invitation to pay an official visit to this country to discuss the Falkland Islands as well as the economic and political issues between our two countries. What is the Government's current position on such a visit?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: During my right hon. Friend's visit to Argentina, no Argentine representations were made on that matter. As for a visit by President Menem, we have nothing definite in mind. If such a visit were to take place, it would be important for it to be carefully prepared and timed, but there would be no question of discussing, as my hon. Friend put it, the future of the Falkland Islands: their future is secure and the basis on which our excellent bilateral relations with Argentina are predicated is that sovereignty is not a matter which we are prepared to
    Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister be a little more precise in announcing a date for the next licensing round for oil exploration? I understand that the seismic investigation company currently operating there is doing so on a daily basis but that other exploratory companies are holding off because of the uncertainty. When the Minister finalises the licensing round, will he take into account the fact that there are other sovereign states in the area that might want to explore the sedimentary basin and which have legitimate interests in the area?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is, of course, absolutely right. I perfectly understand the
    926
    anxiety that he and the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) expressed, but I cannot go further than I already have, which is to say that the matter is under active consideration and we expect to make an announcement very soon.

    Japan
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Japan to discuss the role of his posts in furthering trade.
    Mr. Hurd: I plan to visit Japan in early April. During the visit I shall talk to our ambassador about the considerable effort that our posts in Tokyo and Osaka are giving to export promotion, trade policy and other commercial work, including the encouragement of Japanese investment in this country. I shall also discuss our trading relationship with Japanese and British business men.
    Mr. Viggers: May I say how warmly the visit of the Foreign Secretary and, later this year, that of the Prime Minister, will be welcomed in Japan, as they back up the efforts of our excellent ambassador and his staff in Tokyo? Does my right hon. Friend agree that relations between the United Kingdom and Japan are excellent, as exemplified by the fact that more than 40 per cent. of all Japanese investment in Europe is in the United Kingdom? Does he also agree that that investment is being made here because we are in the centre of Europe?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, our relationship is good. It needs to be maintained at all times by visits at all levels, including, and perhaps most important, business visits. My hon. Friend is right—there are now 184 Japanese-owned manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom which have created, or will create, more than 50,000 direct jobs. Those companies come here because they know that we are fully committed members of the European Community and fully committed partners in the single market, not half-in, half-out.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that since our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism the rate at which the Japanese have invested in this country has slowed down considerably?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that overseas Japanese investment as a whole has slowed down. I do not have the latest figures, but I am sure that anything that creates uncertainty about our future position in Europe is likely to discourage investors from outside, whether from Japan, the United States or anywhere else.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extension of UNPROFOR's mandate in former Yugoslavia under United Nations Security Council resolution 807.
    Mr. Hurd: We support the extension until 31 March of the mandate of UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia under Security Council resolution 807. We look forward to

    927
    the forthcoming report by the United Nations Secretary-General on further extending and strengthening the mandate.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if, under the renewed mandate, the United Nations or any member state decides to send further troops to former Yugoslavia, they should be deployed in Croatia to implement the Vance plan rather than being sent to Bosnia, where they could get bogged down in a difficult military situation from which it might be extremely difficult to extricate them? If they were sent to Croatia, they would reinforce the credibility of the United Nations and compel the Serbs to give up territory unlawfully seized from Croatia. That would greatly improve the chances of reaching a peaceful solution in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It cannot be done the other way around.
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. There are two processes in hand—one in Croatia, to which his question and my answer referred, and the other in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They have to go forward in parallel. The credibility of the United Nations in Croatia certainly needs to be restored, which is why the existing mandate is being prolonged only until the end of the month, so that the talks that I mentioned—not simply on renewing the mandate and the United Nations effort in Croatia in support of the Vance plan, but on strengthening them and making them more robust—may be pursued. At the same time, David Owen and Cyrus Vance are energetically trying to find an agreed settlement. They have made some progress in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but they are not there yet.
    Mr. Mullin: Is it not a regrettable fact that the only thing that will stop the Serbs—[Interruption]—and the Croats—misbehaving in Bosnia is the fear of military force? I do not seek to pretend that there are simple solutions to the problem—everyone knows that there are not—but in what circumstances would the British Government support military intervention by the United Nations?
    Mr. Hurd: lf, as the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question suggests, he is talking about military intervention to impose a settlement or solution that has not been agreed, the answer is: in no circumstances. I can think of no Government who propose that and no circumstances in which we would support it. But if the hon. Gentleman is talking about peacekeeping—implementing and helping to make durable a solution that has been agreed—that is a different matter. I do not believe that trying to enforce a particular solution by military means, without agreement, is on.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the credibility of the United Nations in Bosnia is considerably damaged by the spectacle of troops, including British troops, standing by while men and women are killed and ethnic cleansing is carried on in front of them?
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not underestimating what our troops and civilian drivers are doing. Our troops have escorted 300 convoys carrying 21,000 tonnes of supplies of food and medicines. That is just about the only good news to have come out of Bosnia this year, and we are glad to be able to continue it. We wish to continue it as long as the need is there. I do not believe that that humanitarian effort could be continued—and it
    928
    could not succeed—if the mandate were changed to force our troops to take sides in the conflict. It is because, with great skill, they have fulfilled their existing mandate that it has been successful and many people of all three communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina who would otherwise have died are alive. We now need to aim at an agreement. David Owen and Cyrus Vance have made progress. The agreement would lead to a ceasfire, and then the question of implementing the ceasefire would have to be tackled.
    Mr. Wareing: Was not the ceasefire in Krajina breached on 22 January by the aggresive action of the Croatians? If a ceasefire is to hold and a more permanent peace be brought about, is not one of the vital needs in the area that the Serb minority should feel that they are protected? Would it not therefore be right to press for UNPROFOR's presence to continue at least until the peace negotiations are completed, and to give full support? I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about intensifying and strengthening the UNPROFOR presence. It is undoubtedly needed in that area.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has shifted us back to Croatia. UNPROFOR is needed on a more vigorous basis than before. It also needs to be accompanied by progress, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said, in carrying out the Vance plan. Not only the Government of Croatia but the Serbs living in Croatia have responsibility for making that possible.

    European Community (Membership)
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards enlarging the membership of the European Community.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: On 1 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the opening of accession negotiations with Austria, Finland and Sweden. Negotiations should start with Norway on 5 April. We shall work with our EC partners for a swift and successful conclusion to these negotiations.
    Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Community can only benefit from the addition of further countries with long democratic traditions and relatively high standards of living? If the Maastricht treaty is such a bad thing, is it not amazing that so many countries wish to join the Community? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the Community should be looking not only to enlarge its membership, but in the long term to enlarge the number of countries, especially in eastern Europe, with which it has free and fair trading relationships?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. The accession of the countries I have just mentioned will help to promote a Community that is open, diverse, outward looking and not closed in on itself. Conservatives have always felt that an enlarged Community would be more dynamic and would speak with even greater authority on the world stage.
    Our friends in eastern Europe want trade above all. It is extremely important in the coming months that the United Kingdom and other member states, even in these

    929
    difficult and recessionary times, should continue to fly the free trade flag inside the Community and in Community relations with the rest of the world.
    Mr. O'Hara: Will the Minister give a statement of unequivocal support for the entry of Cyprus into the European Community? Will he confirm that the resolution of the Cyprus problem will not be made a prior condition?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Cyprus applied for membership of the European Community in 1991. The Commission is preparing opinions on that application. The European Council has already decided to strengthen relations with Cyprus by building on the existing association agreements. It would not be right for me to anticipate the Commission's opinion. We shall have to wait and see what the Commission's opinion is.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the meeting of the Nordic Council the week before last clearly demonstrated that parliamentarians from Scandinavian countries, those attending from the Baltic Council and those representing the Commonwealth of Independent States, led by Russia, are coming together as an important group to which membership of the Community is now a vital link? Does he agree, therefore, that we should facilitate the process and that it would be greatly expedited if we put the Maastricht treaty behind us?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been our position throughout our membership of the Community that it must be open to democratic states that can fulfil the conditions of membership. That has been the British position for some time and that is why we were especially pleased that at the Edinburgh Council, for the first time, the goal of European Community membership for the new democracies in eastern Europe was agreed at European Council level. It goes without saying that the applicants from the European Free Trade Association with which we are now negotiating would regard it as not only a disaster for the European Community but as a disaster for themselves if the Maastricht treaty were not speedily ratified.
    Mr. Cryer: Has the Minister ensured that the EC's position on the common agricultural policy, for example, is made clear to new entrants? Has he made it clear that approximately 70 per cent. of all EC expenditure goes on that wasteful means of food production which has produced nightmarish levels of pollution through the pouring of pesticides and insecticides on the land, which has in turn polluted our water courses? Has he made it clear that the CAP costs every family in this country roughly £18 extra each week in the family food budget? My guess is that the propaganda from the Common Market tends to paint a very different picture from the bleak reality of that disintegrating organisation.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman can assume, as indeed can the House, that the applicant EFTA countries are not only highly developed democracies but very sophisticated countries. They have made their own calculation about the benefit of Community membership and specifically of the common agricultural policy. It is faintly patronising of the hon. Gentleman to give advice to four such countries.

    European Community (National Parliaments)
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary fo State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of the areas of policy which remain within the exclusive competence of national parliaments in the EC.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The Community exercises only such powers as are delegated to it by the member states. Any powers not so delegated remain with the member states. It is not possible to draw up an exhaustive list.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not it an outrage that the Minister has not even tried to answer the question? Does he accept that if we go for the Maastricht treaty, almost every single remaining area of exclusive competence will disappear apart from, in my calculation, grammar schools, the council tax and the level of income tax in so far as it is part of an overall level of taxation approved by central Community institutions? Does not the Minister think that he has a duty to tell people the facts before they vote?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's calculation. Indeed, I believe the opposite to be the case. I think that in a number of areas where we have found deficiencies in the Single European Act the Maastricht treaty moves to restrain those deficiencies and to take the Community in the direction in which we wish to see it going. I will not detain the House with a whole list of examples. Let me give just one. In health, while we have recognised the need to co-ordinate research and public information on health protection concerning things like AIDS, the Maastricht treaty provides specifically for the Community not to involve itself in health care because there is no reason why it should do so. The Maastricht treaty specifically constrains Community action in that area, whereas, under the existing treaty, we were under some danger of what my hon. Friend would call creeping competence. There are many such examples littered across the treaty.
    Mr. Skinner: Does not the Minister understand that while he and Ministers like him on the Front Bench, as well as other members of the chattering classes and other politicians, talk about the glories of Maastricht and the Common Market in particular, 70 per cent. of the masses outside do not want the Maastricht treaty, because they can see what is happening on the ground floor, with neo-fascist parties being set up in Germany, Italy and France, and with a former SS leader getting massive support in the German elections at the weekend? Together with mass unemployment, that is the truth about the Common Market of today. The halcyon days are over.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: So far as the House is concerned at any rate, the hon. Gentleman certainly belongs to the chattering classes. The only time recently that I saw a substantial, albeit paltry, turnout of the National Front in this country—I am sure that my hon. Friends who were there were as shocked as I was—was at the so-called referendum rally in Trafalgar square. I gather that that was well attended, not least by such people.
    Mr. Churchill: Given the strong attachment of the EFTA nations to their national sovereignty, is not it clear that once the enlargement of the Community becomes a reality, the dreams of those who would create federal palaces in the air will slam against the buffers of reality?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The accession of EFTA countries will do two things. First, it will produce a number of countries that are net contributors to the budget and therefore likely to take the realistic attitude that this Government take. Secondly, my hon. Friend is right; it will reinforce the position of those of us who believe that we are building in the European Community not a unitary structure and a unitary state but a union of co-operation between member states.
    Equally, I do not think that we should be naive. These countries are independent foreign states. They will fight for their own interests. Of course, we do not expect their interests to coincide with ours in every particular, but, on the fundamentals that my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) mentions, he is absolutely right.
    Mr. George Robertson: While we are talking about the rights of national parliaments, what about the right of this House to make a decision about the Government's opt-out from the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty? Does the Minister not recognise that the stinging humiliation suffered by the Government on Monday this week should tell Ministers at least one thing—that if they attempt to use legal trickery or sleight of hand to ignore or override the carrying of amendment No. 27 on the social protocol, it will be seen at home and abroad as a betrayal of this House, this Parliament and parliamentary democracy
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify the treaty that we agreed with our 11 partners in the European Community. If the hon. Gentleman had wished to have the treaty altered, the Labour party should have won the election. The Labour party did not win the election and this Government's mandate to ratify the treaty that we agreed with our partners is supported by not only a vote in the House but an overwhelming vote in favour of the Conservative party at the last general election.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the applicant parliaments in the European Free Trade Association which wish to join the Community know only too well that they already have for their people the economic benefits of the Community through the European economic area? Their precise reason for applying to join the Community is that they want to be part of and influence its political structure, just as we left the European Free Trade Association in 1973 to join the political structure of the European Community.
    Is it not therefore absolutely vital that the United Kingdom ratifies the Maastricht treaty, which is the basis on which the other countries are applying, and then plays a leading part in influencing the intergovernmental conference in 1996?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is right. The European economic area gives EFTA countries the benefits of the single market. Those countries, like us, see in the Community an ability to enhance their influence as sovereign states. That is why they are as anxious as we are for the Maastricht treaty to be ratified as soon as possible and for their negotiations to proceed so that they may become full members of the Community.

    Israel
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel regarding the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs most recently saw the Israeli Foreign Minister in Brussels on I February. I have recently seen the Israeli Ministers of Housing and Justice, and I shall be seeing the deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Beilin, tomorrow. There is no doubt that the Israeli Government wish to resume peace negotiations as soon as possible. We have reminded them that this resumption will be facilitated by further Israeli moves to resolve the problem of the Palestinian deportees and concrete measures to improve the human rights situation in the occupied territories.
    Mr. Spellar: Will the Minister be discussing with Israeli Ministers the opening of talks with the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the meeting that he had with them yesterday? At the meeting yesterday, did he clearly demand that the Palestine Liberation Organisation seeks to end the violence and terror in the occupied territories?
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I will indeed be talking with Mr. Beilin about the sorts of reasons that caused us to see Mr. Husseini, the Palestine Liberation Organisation representative, yesterday. At yesterday's meeting, I talked about the need for the Israeli Government to take confidence-building measures within the occupied territories to reduce the weight of the occupation. I made it plain to Mr. Husseini and the PLO representative that it would be much easier for the Israeli Government to take that action if violence in the occupied territories could be stopped.
    Mr. Sumberg: Contact with the PLO was suspended two years ago because, at that time, when the lives of British troops were at risk, the first people to rush to Baghdad to support Saddam Hussein were PLO representatives and Yasser Arafat. Has my right hon. and learned Friend any evidence to put before the House that the PLO's attitude has changed or, given a repetition of the Gulf conflict, would the PLO behave in exactly the same way?
    Mr. Hogg: I think that we can agree that a resumption of the bilateral talks is a matter of enormous importance for the peace of the middle east and, thus, the world. Her Majesty's Government felt that it was important to communicate that view as swiftly and powerfully as possible to the Palestinians and the PLO. That is why we had the meeting yesterday.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the resumed ministerial contacts between the Government and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Does the Minister agree that, in order to promote the peace process in a firm and confident move, it would be as well for the Israeli Government—as signatories to the fourth Geneva convention—to accept the Palestinian recommendation to end deportations and all other contraventions of that convention?
    Mr. Hogg: I have made the point to the Israeli Ministers, whom I have met on a number of occasions, that the fourth Geneva protocol applies to the occupied territories and that the policies of the Israeli Government

    933
    constitute a breach of that fourth protocol in a number of inportant respects. I have also said that the weight of the occupation, and some of the specific policies employed there, stand in the way of a successful outcome for the peace talks—at the same time, so does the violence being practised by the Palestinians.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I commend the Government for at last recognising the PLO at ministerial level again following the decision in the Knesset to allow citizens of that country to talk to PLO representatives. Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to do all that he can to support traditional, secular Palestinian political action as a way of checking Islamic fundamentalism in that part of the world?
    Mr. Hogg: The answer to my hon. Friend's specific question is: yes, I will. The thought lying behind my hon. Friend's question is important—if the present Palestinian leadership, represented by Mr. Husseini, is unable to make obvious progress, it is likely to be supplanted by a fundamentalist party. Therefore, I say to the Israelis when I meet them, and through you, Madam Speaker, that it is important that they make rapid progress on reaching an agreement and lifting the weight of the occupation in the occupied territories.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not sad but predictable that Dr. Hannah Ashrawi announced in Jerusalem today that the Palestinians will not be returning to the peace talks in April? Is not one of the principal causes for that decision the regrettable illegal expulsion and deportation of the 400 or so Palestinians by the Israeli Labour Government? When the Minister meets Foreign Minister Beilin—as I shall—will he make it clear that a rapid solution to that problem will facilitate a return of the legitimate voice of the Palestinians to the peace negotiations? Will he also join me in making it clear to Mr. Husseini—as I shall when I meet him shortly—that the appalling descent into sectarian violence in Israel is deplored by all friends of Israel, as well as supporters of the legitimate claims of the Palestinians, who want to see peace in the middle east?
    Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and am glad that he, too, is to see Mr. Husseini and the London representative of the PLO. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the deportation stands as an obstacle to further discussions. I hope that the Israeli Government will build on what they have already done to comply with resolution 799. I would also go further and say that I think that it is desirable—indeed, essential—that the Israeli Government make it plain that they do not intend to resort to the policy of deportation but will look urgently at other ways of lifting the weight of the occupation.

    Middle East
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent discussions with the new United States Administration on the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the peace process with the United States Secretary of State when he saw him in Brussels on 26 February following Mr. Christopher's visit to the middle east. It is clear that the
    934
    new United States Administration are engaged very seriously in the peace process. They have our full support.. We are urging all sides to resume the negotiations as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dykes: Does the Minister share my impression from a recent visit that millions of ordinary, decent Israelis and Palestinians are sick to death of the endless saga of violence and killing? They are no longer interested in jogging backwards 30 or 40 years to see who was originally right or wrong. If partition was right in 1948 and was supported by the whole international community, does not that same community, together with Israelis and Palestinians, now have a duty to work to restore that position between the parties? In further contacts with the Americans, may we please make sure that at long last the American Administration take a decisive lead in that context?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. There is a recognition in the state of Israel that the policies pursued in the past, especially the policy of settlement, are not in the interests of the people of Israel. I think that there is also a recognition by the Palestinians that the time has come to reach agreement with the state of Israel. One can detect similar thinking in the adjoining Arab states. That is why it is so important for the parties to go into the bilateral talks again as soon as possible.
    Mr. Galloway: While I welcome the Government's decision yesterday to resume ministerial contacts, may I ask the Minister to make it clear to the United States that a similar sign from the United States Administration to the secular, moderate Palestinian leadership would be even more valuable in getting the talks back on the road? I, too, was recently in the area. The position of Hannah Ashrawi, Faisal Husseini and even Arafat is being consistently undermined by the failure of the Israel Government to implement resolution 799, to allow themselves to be forced to do so, or to desist, while talking about violence, from the reign of terror that has been waged in the occupied territories since early December. Tens of children have been shot dead during that time. President Clinton could do a great deal to bring the peace negotiations forward if he sent the same kind of message as that sent by the British Government yesterday.
    Mr. Hogg: The United States is doing a great deal to bring the peace process forward. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Secretary of State Christopher recently visited the region and took a letter from President Clinton making it plain to everybody that the President and the United States collectively intend to be a full partner—I use the phrase that was employed—in the peace process. I know that that statement was a great encouragement to Mr. Husseini and others.

    European Community (Membership)
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he intends to take to facilitate the entry of Malta to the EC.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: We agreed at last year's Lisbon European Council, and confirmed at Edinburgh, that the Community should develop and strengthen relations with Malta by building on the association agreement and membership application and by developing political

    935
    dialogue. When the Commission issues its opinion on Malta's application, the Council of Ministers will consider how to proceed.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Malta is an independent, sovereign and prosperous state, and that it is as European as Greece, as democratic as France and is of similar size to Luxembourg? The state of Malta has traditionally looked to Europe. In view of that and the long and strong bonds of friendship between the United Kingdom and Malta, what additional action will my right hon. Friend take to facilitate the early entry of Malta to the Community?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says about our traditional links and friendship with Malta. Those links were underlined by a visit by Her Majesty the Queen last year. I also agree with what my hon. Friend says about Malta's suitability as a European sovereign state for accession to the Community. We must wait for the Commission's report on the membership application. That will identify the issues arising from the application and they will include, no doubt, the institutional aspects of accession by small states. When we have received that opinion we can consider how best to proceed. I think that Malta could help itself if it were able to meet more fully the obligations under the present association agreement, particularly by moving more quickly towards a common customs tariff.
    Mr. Mackinlay: While I associate myself with the plea by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on behalf of Malta, will the Minister tell the House what advantage has been gained and what progress has been made towards extending the European Community by admitting the central European states of Poland, Hungary—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a long way from Malta. We must move on.

    Journalists (Middle and Eastern Europe)
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on media training for journalists from middle and eastern Europe.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The media have an important role to play in the process of political and economic reform in central Europe. The know-how fund has therefore set up a number of projects to train journalists and other media personnel from the area. Major programmes have been managed for the know-how fund by the BBC World Service and the Thomson Foundation, covering Poland, Hungary, the former Czecholsovakia, Romania and Bulgaria.
    Mr. Bottomley: May I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that if all 650 projects under the know-how fund are well managed by organisations as good as the World Service, we can be proud of the £50 million that we are putting into that work?
    Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I think that his point is well made.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister make it quite clear that the services of Mr. John Birt will not be used on the courses for journalists to teach the comrades how to keep their zlotys and roubles out of the hands of the taxman?
    Mr. Hogg: I would not choose to make such a trivial point.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given Russia's awful problems at the moment, the last thing the Russian people need is a rampant fourth estate? Does he further agree that the term tragedy is not an understatement as there is a high risk of immense problems and sadnesses emerging inside Russia which should be the top priority of the Foreign Office? Perhaps that should exercise the bulk of our energies instead of something that historians may see as a side-show around a town called Maastricht.
    Mr. Hogg: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend who makes a serious point about the turmoil in Russia. That is true, but as much as we may sometimes dislike the press, we must recognise that a free and independent press is an essential condition in a pluralistic and democratic country—[Interruption.] We are doing our best to have one here. Although it is sometimes not all that easy to live with, I am in favour of a free and independent press. I think that is as true of Russia as it is of anywhere else in the world of which I have ever heard.

    India
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in respect of relations with India.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): During my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to India in January the Indian Prime Minister assured us of three things: that he attached importance to respect for human rights, that allegations of human rights abuses were investigated, and that those responsible for wrongdoing were punished.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am sure that we join the Minister in welcoming those moves and the proposals by the Indian Government to set up a human rights commission. However, until the Indian Government are prepared to open up the entire country to international organisations such as Amnesty International, there will never be confidence on human rights issues; stories of human rights abuses will continue to trouble people here and abroad. Will the Government continue to press the Indian Government to open up the entire country to the scrutiny of those international organisations?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We do press the Indian Government on that. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Indian Government are in touch with Amnesty International and India will be open to visits by its representatives, except in areas where their presence may cause tension.
    Mr. Jessel: As the most important human right is the right to stay alive, and as India has an entirely exceptional problem with terrorism, which causes death, and as the

    937
    Indian Government are quick to investigate and punish acts of violence, should not India have the complete understanding and sympathy of the House?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my hon. Friend suggests, it is most important that we recognise that human rights abuses and tragedies in India have most certainly occurred through terrorism, but terrorists are not accountable to the democratically elected people, whereas the Indian security forces are.

    Israel
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now propose that the United Nations should apply sanctions against Israel in order to enforce resolution 799; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The United States Secretary of State's visit to the middle east has, we hope, paved the way for the resumption of the peace process. We hope that the Government of Israel will now build on the important first steps they have taken towards complying with Security Council resolution 799. We continue to believe that any move towards sanctions would be unhelpful at this juncture.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that while so many of the Palestinian deportees are still in the wilderness —and it looks as though they will remain there for several months—there is a danger that as they drop out of the immediate news they will cease to have the cutting edge that they have previously exercised in negotiations?
    If the problem is not resolved and if those people are not given their human rights and restored to their homes, at what point would the Minister agree, first, that the United Nations should impose sanctions and, secondly, that action should be taken to ensure that Israel complies with resolution 799?
    Mr. Hogg: We have made our position quite clear. We believe that the deportation was quite wrong and we have said so directly to the Israeli Government. Indeed, I shall do so again tomorrow when I meet the Israeli deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Beilin. What the Israeli Government have done thus far in compliance with resolution 799 is an important first step, but we hope that they will build speedily on that. It is in their interests to do so because while substantial numbers of deportees are out of Israel, that fact will stand in the way of a successful outcome to bilateral talks.

Fishing Incidents (Protests)
3.32 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang(by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the disruption caused by French and British fishermen.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): French fishermen started their disruptive action, in protest at third-country imports, two to three weeks ago. They quickly turned to indiscriminate action against supplies coming into France from all sources, including the United Kingdom. On 21 February, they turned back a Brittany Ferries boat trying to enter Roscoff. On 23 February, they ran riot at Rungis market, causing £2·5 million of damage. There followed a series of violent actions in French ports against lorries carrying fish from Britain and the premises of importers dealing in fish from Britain. The rioting has continued, most recently at Nantes.
I and my ministerial colleagues have been in constant touch with the French to protest at that action and to ask them to bring the offenders to book, to ensure compensation and to restore free trade. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has personally raised the matter twice at Foreign Affairs Councils. My Department has been repeatedly in touch with the French, both directly and through the embassy in Paris.
At the end of last week, we succeeded in securing undertakings from the French that they would protect consignments of fish and shellfish sent by ferry from the United Kingdom to French ports. We are giving notice of those consignments. Fishermen are invited to contact our fisheries officers at their own ports to give that notice, which is telexed to the embassy in Paris and then communicated to the prefect so that he can ensure that he has sufficient forces available to protect those consignments. We have set up that mechanism, which is now working. Twenty-seven requests were made on Monday and a small number yesterday.
I believe that the arrangements would be effective, on the basis of experience we had in working in a similar fashion when problems arose over trade in lamb some years ago. Hon. Members will know that we are not entirely innocent in the matter of dealing with problems of this sort. Ministers will continue to follow the situation daily and will not hesitate to intervene. It is utterly repugnant to see the wilful and malicious destruction of food. Fish is a living and finite resource. There is a market for it, and the destruction of a resource on which livelihoods depend is stupid and morally offensive.
Unfortunately, a few British fishermen have now started action of the same kind. This action has not been sponsored by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, to whose chief executive I spoke a few moments ago to confirm that fact. Incidents occurred on 8 March in Peterhead, where Scottish fishermen boarded a Russian vessel and poured diesel oil on cod, and in Grimsby, where local fishermen held up a lorry carrying fish landed in Wales by a French vessel and prevented it from being put on the market. It is worth recording that some of the fish destroyed by French fishermen was landed in Britain by French vessels and trucked to France.
940
In Milford Haven this morning, local fishermen attacked a local consignment of French cod as it was being brought to land. I totally condemn this action also. There is no earthly purpose in our reading the riot act to the French Government, as we have done, about action of this kind if we then see it in the United Kingdom also. The same rules apply for everybody.
We shall do all we can to see that the law enforcement authorities in this country act firmly when fishermen attempt to take the laws into their own hands, and we shall keep up the strongest pressure on the French to do the same. These incidents raise questions of law and order, but there is also an economic aspect. There is certainly a problem on the fish market. There are several causes. One part of the problem is certainly imports—notably, imports of Russian cod. The Russian fleet is fishing much closer to home because currency uncertainty in the former Soviet Union makes it unprofitable to carry fish over long distances, and there is considerable barter for fish that the Russian market needs.
A second element, which we must not overlook, is the large volume of landing by our own fleet in February. This is a matter that fishermen, notably through the producer organisations, must tackle. Indeed, we have been talking to the producer organisations about means of addressing some of these problems. It is important that catches be phased, and it is important to market fish of the quality that consumers want.
The Community has taken steps to deal with the problem of imports. Minimum import prices for cod and a short list of other species were brought into effect on 26 February. Those prices are at the same level as the withdrawal prices that exist to ensure fairer prices to our own producers. In fact, they are analogous to measures that we took some time ago to protect the Scottish farm salmon market against imports from Norway.
I believe that this is an appropriate and measured response to what is still an unclear situation. I know that there are those who would like us to tighten up on imports to an even greater extent. The House must be aware that such measures, while they might be welcome to fishermen, affect the interests of processors, who import large quantities of cod and similar species every year from outside the Community. I must, of course, balance the interests of fishermen against those of importers, processors and consumers.
The Fisheries Council will meet in Brussels next week. Ministers there will look at all the issues involved and will consider what further action might be taken. We do not want a fish war, which would cause loss to everybody. We must assume our responsibility to prevent such a war, and we shall hold the French Government to theirs.
Dr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that the current level of quayside fish prices is destroying livelihoods and jobs on the catching side of the industry? Will he acknowledge the frustration felt by fishermen when, after days at sea, they land fish on the quayside only to have it withdrawn from the market to be turned into animal feed at prices that are inadequate to cover their costs and give them an income for their labour? Is he aware that that frustration turns to anger when the fishermen believe that their traditional markets are being lost to imports at prices that are hopelessly uneconomic?
To understand the frustrations of the industry is in no way to condone illegal protest action. I should be surprised

941
if the House were not united in deploring the incident at Peterhead, when diesel oil was poured on to fish in a Russian trawler. Such actions do not help the industry; they set it back by undermining public support for the cause. But surely the Minister must recognise that no industry is as tightly controlled by Government as the fishing industry. It is Governments who share out the fish in the sea. It is Governments who set the quotas and determine the conservation measures. Therefore, it is surely right that fishermen look to Government to resolve the crisis.
To that end, I wish to put several constructive points to the Minister. First, will he carry out an investigation into fish prices in the shops, which do not reflect the sharp drop in fish prices on the quayside? Is it the fish merchant or is it the supermarket and the shop which are buying cheap and selling dear?
Secondly, will the Minister set aside the review of the function of the Sea Fish Industry Authority and ask it to commence a major fish promotion campaign? It must be in the interests of consumers and of the industry to encourage an increase in consumption of this healthy food.
Will the Minister accept that the autonomous tariff quotas set by the EC for fish imports and due to come into operation on 1 April have been set too high? I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says about the interests of the fish processors, but we must recognise that we have a crisis in quayside prices.
The Minister must appreciate that the minimum import arrangements introduced by the European Commission two weeks ago are not working, largely because Russian fish, as a result of the declaration of fraudulent weights, are being imported at prices well below the reference prices set by the Commission.
I welcome the response that the Minister has received from the French Government, but does he agree that the French action had a severe effect on the British market because it prevented the movement of fish to destinations not only in France but throughout Europe? Because of the damage that has been done to the British market, will he closely monitor the situation to ensure that the action by the French Government is effective?
Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that this is one more example of too many boats chasing too few fish, and that we want a much enlarged decommissioning scheme?
Finally, will the Minister convene a summit of all the interests in the British fishing industry, including the catchers and the processors, to see whether they can agree some collective action which will help to resolve the crisis?
Mr. Curry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the essential distinction between law and order issues and economic issues. It is important to distinguish between the two. He said that the House would condemn the breaches of law and order, and I am sure that that is the case and it is proper that that should be so.
A large amount of imports come in frozen block form into the processing industry. Less comes in in fresh form, and that predominantly goes to the catering trade.
We have considered the level of prices. It was this Government who asked the Commission to convene the meeting which led to the minimum import prices. We have supplied information on the level and we shall continue to furnish that to Brussels.
If further action is needed, the Government will not hesitate to sponsor that action. For example, we must
942
examine whether minimum import prices should apply to Alaskan pollock, which is one of the substitute cod species. That matter will no doubt be before the Council next week.
We reviewed recently the question of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. It has sufficient resources to pursue an advertising campaign. That is a matter for the industry, and the leaders of the catching industry are represented on the authority's council.
Autonomous tariff quotas will be finally decided at the Council next week. There was an agreement in anticipation of the economic area coming into effect, but it had not come into effect because of the Swiss vote. Therefore, we have some provisional arrangements in place. We would like somewhat lower quantities for haddock, for which we think there is not a case for a quota, and for cod. We must remember, though, that there are also catching opportunities—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will be aware of that. As part of that arrangement, roughly 10,000 tonnes of cod are available, largely for the Humberside fleet, in north Norway. We must ensure that, because it is an important element.
Minimum import prices have barely got under way. We will monitor them closely. Our authorities have instructions to enforce them effectively. The French action had the effects to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which is why we took firm action. It affected also ordinary fishermen who wanted to land their fish directly in France, because there is a lot of direct landing in overseas ports.
It was not just that there were too many boats chasing too few fish. The quotas were very large, many boats were tied up because of very bad weather in January, and there was a lot of fishing activity at the end of that month—simultaneous landings, which did nothing for the market place situation. I am constantly in touch will all elements of the industry—with part of it yet again tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Before I call any other hon. Members, may I say that I am seeking very brief questions and very brief answers. I shall not allow this private notice question to run for very long.
Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the Government's efforts in respect of France and their representations to the French Government. Although we cannot condone law breaking—I make it clear to the Minister that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation condemns the incidents at Peterhead—there is undoubtedly a problem with market instability. Do the Government have the information and data on which to base a judgment as to the cause of the trouble?
Mr. Curry: The problem has three causes—imports that are difficult to tie down, probably coming from the former Soviet Union; a large amount of fish caught by British fishermen on the market; and some consumer reaction after a number of years in which very high fish prices obtained in the United Kingdom.
Mr. David Harris: While I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the few fishermen who sunk to the level of the French in adopting particular tactics unfortunately damaged the justice—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What is wrong with it?
Mr. Harris: Everything is wrong with it?
Although those fishermen damaged the justice of their cause, is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of the deep anger and frustration felt by the whole industry in this deplorable situation in which exports to France are being blocked? Has my hon. Friend the Minister considered with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General taking a case against France to the European Court of Justice to uphold the principles of the single European market?
Mr. Curry: We will explore all opportunities to uphold the principles of the single European market. At the moment I am concerned to provide redress for those who have suffered injustice, and the right for trade for those who want to trade.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: No one condones violence, but the problem in Grimsby was caused neither by violence nor by the destruction of fish. It was caused by the justified anger of British fishermen at seeing French vessels catch fish in British waters and then bring it on to the British market, while Grimsby fishermen were denied access to the French market. The price problem is caused by imports, not reference prices. It cannot be tackled by reference prices; it can only be tackled by dealing with Russian imports as a matter of dumping.
Does the Minister accept that the common fisheries policy must be based on two principles—access to markets, which is now threatened by the French, and a level playing field? Now that the French Government are to give £36·8 million in aid to the French industry, will the Minister get that aid stopped or provide similar aid to the British industry to prevent it from going bankrupt?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that the House will shortly consider a statutory instrument that will make available £25 million for decommissioning.
It is not purely a question of imports. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have received letters from a number of his constituents who are very concerned about the prospect of increasing import prices because of the importance to the processing industry. There is a balance to be struck.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My hon. Friend the Minister said in his statement that the same rules must apply throughout the Community. Is he aware that that is not enough? They must not only apply
Mr. Curry: Yes. I am not able to send in the SAS, but there are times when I think that it would do a very good job—and not against British fishermen.
Mr. Robert Hughes: It is generally agreed that we should feel angry with the French and with our own people—whoever they are—for damaging fish. Does the Minister realise, however, that we are in almost exactly the position in which we feared we would find ourselves when we were discussing the common fisheries policy last year? The problem is the sudden increase in the quota as against the two months at the end of the year when no fishing was allowed.
Will the Minister follow up the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)? There must be round table discussions between the catching side and the processors to bring order and
944
regulation into the market; otherwise we shall stagger on, month after month, with the fishermen feeling angry that they cannot obtain the prices that they want and the merchants falling out with them because they think that they are on the opposite side. In fact, they are all part of the same industry. Will the Minister get them together and thrash out the matter?
Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman will know, some fishing went on at the end of last year, even if it was "black" fishing. I am already having discussions with the producer organisations, and I shall continue to do so. When I find an opportunity to get all sides together to try to reach a sensible arrangement, I shall do that as well, provided that it will protect trade.
Mr. John Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fishermen of Poole are frustrated by, first, the inability of the French Government to enforce the law, and, secondly, the ability of our Government to impose conservation measures that are not observed on the continent? They see French fishermen catching fish off Poole which can be delivered in Cherbourg, while they are not allowed to land similar catches. No wonder there is a problem. Can we get it sorted out once and for all?
Mr. Curry: No restrictions currently apply to British fishermen in regard to days at sea. There is a free market in fish; the problem is getting that over to the French. I entirely understand the anger of British fishermen, including fishermen in Poole. The question is how they should express that anger.
Mr. Alex Salmond: No one condones the destruction of fish, but does the Minister accept that he has a responsibility for the current destabilisation of the fish market? Does he understand the desperation of people who spend long periods at sea and then find that they cannot obtain a price on the quayside for the fish they have caught? Is it not ludicrous that good-quality fresh fish is being used for fishmeal, while imports that are often of poor quality are dominating the market? What will the Minister do about it?
Mr. Curry: It is patently nonsense to say that I should not have come back with a doubling of the haddock quota. The industry wanted that. As I have said, there is a problem of imports in the market place, but that is not the whole problem. We must strike a balance between the interests of all who are involved in the industry, and that is what we are trying to do. It is simply naive to suppose that a magic wand can be waved to make everyone agree on a course of action. There are conflicts in the industry, but we must achieve a balance: that is what politics is about.
Mr. Keith Mans: I support what my hon. Friend has said, particularly what he said about low fish prices. That is illustrated by the number of firms that have gone bankrupt recently in my port of Fleetwood. What still needs to be done to implement the decommissioning schemes as soon as possible?
Mr. Curry: The statutory instruments implementing the decommissioning schemes and relating to days at sea will be laid before the House in due course. I do not think that my hon. Friend will have too long to wait.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will appreciate the fear that is felt by some of the most hard-working people in our community at a time when their livelihood is being taken away and they have no chance of alternative employment. As for the question of exports to France and beyond, is there any means of compensating our fishermen for the financial losses that they have experienced, and may continue to experience until the French Government are prepared to act? Perhaps the French should be asked to compensate our fishermen.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: the French should be asked to do that. I am asking the present Government, and I shall ask the next.
Mr. Roger Gale: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), does my hon. Friend accept that Kent fishermen now feel that insult has been added to injury? Not only are they denied access to foreign ports; the fish that are being landed here, undermining the domestic market, are sometimes part of an illegal quota caught by foreign ships off British shores. Will my hon. Friend commend the work of the fisheries protection fleet, and will he ensure that action will be taken in every complaint that the fleet brings to the Ministry?
Mr. Curry: I confirm absolutely that we get very good service indeed from the fisheries protection fleet and we benefit from the fleet's experience of where to look when it is looking for offenders.
Mr. Barry Jones: Violence is wrong, but when considering how this problem affects Wales, will the Minister bear in mind the very serious unemployment there and the fact that there is no alternative work for these people? Does not the Minister know that the closure of defence establishments in Pembroke means that local people feel that what jobs there are should be protected? Will he bear that in mind when he considers the problem?
Mr. Curry: I am aware that fishing is an activity that goes well beyond the catching sector and that a large number of jobs are involved onshore and in the coastal communities. I wish to make sure that all those people are able to pursue their livelihoods in peace and freedom.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Is the Minister aware that I represent the largest number of shell fishermen in Britain—those on the south Devon coast? Is he also aware that many crab ships have been turned back at Roscoff and that there are tens of thousands of pounds worth of crabs rotting on the sea bed because they have had to be jettisoned? Is he further aware that a number of crab fishermen are losing their livelihoods and that one or two of them may even be going bankrupt? What does the Minister intend to do to make sure that that does not happen? What does he intend to do to get the money out of the French?
Mr. Curry: We shall take every action that we can to get the money out of the French. The important point is that that trade should resume as soon as possible. We cannot, however, send our police force over to France to do that, whatever our inclinations may be. The French have got to assert authority. I shall be taking up that matter with the Government who are in power now and with whatever Government may succeed them.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I emphasise the point that was made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)—that the vast majority of Scottish fishermen deeply deplore the illegal action of a very small number of men in Peterhead? We do not even know if all those men are fishermen, so let us not condemn Scottish fishermen out of hand.
The problem, surely, is the common fisheries policy, which has always been the poor relation of the common agricultural policy, and the fact that there are flagrant violations of the CFP rules by French fishermen and others, with the collusion of their Governments. Only when all European Community fishermen adhere to the rules shall we have a sensible CFP. Does the Minister not agree that that is the message that he should be taking to the Council next week?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was very careful indeed not to suggest at any point that fishermen as a whole were behind, supported or condoned this action. I repeat that I do not believe that that is the case. It would be stupid if that were to be the case. It is equally true that there are certain strains of lawlessness and law breaking in sections of the fishing community right across the European Community. They are doing someone else out of a job, whether it is by "black" fishing, or illegal fishing, or misreporting, or blocking trade. None of that is any good for people's livelihoods or for the long-term future of the fishing industry.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: When my hon. Friend meets his French counterparts and the fisheries Ministers next week, will he add to his long list of complaints that of the landing and sale in French ports of undersized fish? That has long frustrated the fishermen of Hastings and Rye and has added to the anger they feel about the instability of the market for fish.
Mr. Curry: I shall certainly do that, though my hon. Friend will appreciate that my French opposite number is somewhat difficult to get hold of at the moment as he is campaigning. However, when I have a French fisheries Minister to talk these matters over with for some time, I shall certainly raise that issue.
Mr. Skinner: Has not the Minister got a cheek to attack those fishermen in Britain who destroyed fish in order to try to protect their own livelihoods when he, as a Minister, along with the rest of them, has destroyed during the past 14 years millions of tonnes of food because of the common agricultural policy? If he really wants to take on the French, why does he not tell his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to tell them that the French are not going to sell electricity to Britain and that we are going to cut the interconnector and save six British pits? That is the way to deal with them.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has ranged rather widely, but for people who depend on fish to destroy fish, which is a living resource, is a pretty perverse form of self-preservation.
Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend accept that the illegal actions of the French fishermen follow the illegal actions of French farmers and French lorry drivers? Although I welcome his comments about compensation

947
for fishermen after recent events, will he consider the compensation claims made by hauliers and farmers last summer, or even before?
Mr. Curry: Yes, I shall certainly do that. I realise that it is a problem that goes wider than fisheries alone.

Points of Order
4 pm
Mr. Richard Caborn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have, as a matter of courtesy, informed the President of the Board of Trade that I should be raising this point of order with you this afternoon.
As you will recall, the President of the Board of Trade used yesterday's Opposition day debate on manufacturing, industry and unemployment to make his first on-the-record response to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report on British energy policy and the market for coal. I believe that that was a grave discourtesy to the Committee, which was not given advance notice of the President's intention to comment on the report, although I understand that the press were.
The matter was raised at our Committee meeting this morning. The Secretary of State will be receiving a letter, which questions not only his discourtesy but his rather selective, inaccurate and inadequate analysis of our report. It was also discourteous to the House, which has repeatedly been promised an opportunity to debate the Select Committee's report and the Government's response when the Government eventually publish their repeatedly delayed White Paper on the coal crisis.
In order to prevent such an incident recurring and to fulfil the Government's commitment to the House, the Select Committee and, indeed, the miners, it is vital that the Government publish their White Paper and give notice of their intention to devote a full debate to both reports without delay. Anything else would be unacceptable to the British people.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker; I seek your guidance. The record of the President's statement is published in column 824 of yesterday's Hansard, but clearly it is incorrect. In a reference to the report, he said that the gas and nuclear industries were considered but that the Committee had made no recommendation. That is clearly incorrect—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not discuss policy with me. He must raise with me a point of order with which I, as Speaker, can deal.
Mr. Clapham: I raise the point to correct the record.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot correct the record of the House through me. He must find other methods of doing that.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will you take note, Madam Speaker, that there is considerable bitterness and exasperation in the coalfields of Britain that well nigh half a year has passed since the President of the Board of Trade made his announcement? There is deep anxiety, but, despite the fact that the coalfields have been waiting desperately for a statement from the Secretary of State, he chose not to inform anyone, except the press, that a debate on manufacturing industry would be devoted to the future of the coal mining industry. Will you please consider whether the right hon. Gentleman has acted responsibly in this matter?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. If I am given an opportunity to reply and do not have any further points of order, I hope that I can reply adequately to the points raised so far. However, there are two hon. Members standing who wish to raise points of order on this matter. I hope that they are points of order with which I can deal.
Mr. Kevin Barron: I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. The President of the Board of Trade's statement, recorded in column 824, is not incorrect —I understand that he made the statement as printed—but it is at variance with the Select Committee's recommendations. Can you advise us how we can get a statement from the President of the Board of Trade—by means of a private notice question or by any other method— to qualify why he tried to mislead the House yesterday?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When the President of the Board of Trade made a statement on 19 October about the 31 pits, you, Madam Speaker, were in the Chair, and heard it along with the rest of us. A select Committee was told to do the job at the same time as the President of the Board of Trade's own investigation. The Select Committee has met and reported, but we have not debated the contents of the report in the Chamber.
The point of order for you, Madam Speaker, is this. My hon. Friends on the Committee have not had a chance to discuss the report in the Chamber, yet the President of the Board of Trade decided to do his own hatchet job on it yesterday. The Select Committee was told by the House to do that job, and the President of the Board of Trade should not have abused his position yesterday. That is the question that should be answered, and that is why he should be brought here to answer.
Madam Speaker: May I respond to one or two of the points of order that have been raised? As some hon. Gentlemen know, it might be better if they raised the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions.
To take the serious point of order raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), I place on record the fact that the report of the Select Committee to which he referred is, as he knows, in the public domain. Even so, it is wise for the Select Committee to take up the matter with the Secretary of State, and I am delighted to hear that it has done so. For the moment we must leave the matter there.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you are aware, last night some English Labour Members sought to defeat some rating and valuation orders which apply to Scotland. Had those orders been defeated in the Division Lobbies, that would have added significantly to the costs of Scottish industry and caused unemployment in Scotland. As you are aware, there are more such rating and valuation orders on the Order Paper today, one of which—the draft Oil Related and Petrochemical Plants (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1993—relates directly to my constituency —[Interruption.] If that order were defeated, rates for oil companies would be increased by about 85 per cent.—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue with me about the contents of the order to which he refers. If he will raise a point of order with me, I shall try to deal with it.
Mr. Robertson: I should like to ask whether you have had any intimation that the Opposition intend to divide the House on the orders, defeat them, and so put up costs?
Madam Speaker: I have no idea at all what is likely to happen this evening, just as I do not have much indication of what the House will do on most evenings. It would be most helpful to all of us if we knew.

BILL PRESENTED
  GANGMASTER
  Sir Richard Body presented a Bill to require gangmasters to be licensed by justices: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 April, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]
  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  That the Matter of the National Health Service in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

Church of England
4.7 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in England; to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof; and for connected purposes.
The main purpose of my Bill is to allow the House to start to consider whether the time is ripe to disestablish the Church of England in England. Hon. Members on both sides of the House—from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to senior figures in the Labour party, including the Leader of the Opposition, as well as my own party colleagues and hon. Members from the nationalist and Unionist parties—are now all discussing constitutional reform. It would be odd if the debate on what would be an appropriate constitution for Britain in the next century did not also address the question whether it is right and appropriate that in England, uniquely among the four countries in the United Kingdom, there should remain a direct and daily constitutional and practical link between the Church and the state—
Mr. David Trimble: Uniquely? What about Scotland?
Mr. Hughes: Uniquely in England in this respect. The position in Scotland is different, and I shall deal with that in a moment.
If I were given leave to bring in my Bill I should seek to draft, carefully and with the co-operation of colleagues from both sides of the House, a Bill which would reflect the important elements of this subject. I seek to achieve maximum agreement and I am grateful to colleagues from other parties who have shown their willingness to support the measure, if leave to introduce it is given by the House this afternoon.
On a brief light-hearted note, I am also encouraged to believe that it is worth introducing a ten-minute Bill by the fact that about two years ago I introduced a Bill in which I proposed that the Queen should pay tax. That produced a result sooner than I had expected. Although I do not expect the disestablishment of the Church of England to be quite as easy a change to achieve, I believe that it is proper that such issues should be put on the agenda so that they can then be considered inside as well as outside the House.
For the record, I declare my interest. I am a member of the Church. I am an Anglican and I was baptised into the Anglican Church in England, although I was confirmed in the Church of Wales. I should add that I do not think I suffered any disadvantage from moving from the established to the disestablished church at the age of 11.
The premise on which I base my argument is that the Church of England should, like the church universal, be a serving Church and not a ruling Church.
The matter has been the subject of regular review. Over 20 years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury set up a commission under Owen Chadwick which in 1970 reported on the relationship between Church and state. Under Lord Callaghan of Cardiff when he was Prime Minister, changes were brought about in the way in which bishops were nominated and chosen by the Prime Minister
952
of the day. It is therefore not unusual to put the matter on to Parliament's agenda; it has been on Parliament's agenda in one way or another for generations.
Ever since Henry VIII set up the Church of England, for a uniquely personal reason, questions have been asked about whether it is appropriate for the Church-state status quo to continue. The Church of Ireland was disestablished more than 100 years ago and we cannot argue that Christianity has suffered in Ireland as a result of that move. More than 50 years ago, the Church of Wales was disestablished and it cannot be argued that Christianity has suffered in Wales as a result of that move. There is an established Church in Scotland, but it does not have the same constraint on it—for example, in terms of the requirement to pass legislation for approval to this place, as the Church of England currently does. Anglican Churches around the world are not normally established or linked formally with the state. In general, other Churches around the world are not established either.
This initiative is not aimed at demoting the role of Christianity or of religion in society. My argument is not that we now have a multicultural and multi-ethnic Britain in which Christianity is less relevant. That is not an argument, because many who have come as immigrants since the war have been Christians, although from other cultures and ethnic backgrounds. If they are not Christians, many of them are people of other faiths. Many have a great commitment to the idea of a Christian or at least a theist moral underpinning of society. The last thing I would argue is that Parliament should undermine the Christian and other theological principles that many in our society hold dear.
I argue that structural changes should take place. My proposals do not mean that we do not want to keep a place for religious or Christian broadcasting. They do not mean that we do not want to keep a place for religious or Christian education. They do not mean that we do not want to keep one day of the week different from the others. Those issues have nothing to do with the established role of the Church and can all be guarded in separate legislation.
Four obvious changes need to be made. The first is timely, as Parliament is about to consider the measure passed by Synod to permit the ordination of women priests. Why should we continue with a legislative form of supervision based on the assumption that we cannot say no to measures from the Church without causing a constitutional crisis? That is a ridiculous state of affairs.
Secondly, as we discuss what reforms to make in the composition of the other place, the second Chamber, the House of Lords, we should ask whether it is any longer justifiable that 26 bishops—two archbishops and 24 bishops by seniority—should have guaranteed places in the legislature of Britain, when neither the head of any other denomination of the Christian Church nor of any other faith has such a place. Lord Soper and Lord Jakobovits happen to be members of the House of Lords, but that is by individual selection and not on any other basis. In addition, Anglican ordained ministers cannot be elected to this House; that may no longer be appropriate either.
Thirdly, it is arguable that it is no longer appropriate for the Prime Minister of the day, if an Anglican or a Christian and even more so if an agnostic or an atheist, to choose the diocesan bishops of the Church of England.

953
Fourthly—I am sensitive to the issue, but I raise it because it is important—one, two or many generations from now it may no longer be thought appropriate that the heir to the throne should have to be not just a Christian but an Anglican in order to succeed to the throne, when that person might otherwise be entirely qualified to do the job.
I seek to move the measure as a serious initiation of a debate which the House has deferred, although a wish to consider it has been expressed in earlier speeches and in early-day motions. I ask that the House allow the opportunity for the Bill to be introduced, printed and considered.
This proposal is not about undermining the Church or the faith in which I and many others believe. There is all the difference in the world between supporting the Church and supporting the Church as part of the establishment. I do not recall that Christ came to argue that the Church should be on the side of the establishment. The establishment of the Church of England is an accident of our history. I think that we can be just as Christian a country and arguably the Church could be much more effective a Church if it were disengaged from the constitutional shackles which so regularly impose themselves on it.
4.17 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack rose—
Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose?
Mr. Cormack: Yes, Madam Speaker.
I wish to speak briefly about the Bill which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wishes to introduce. I do not for a moment question the integrity of his motives, but I do not believe that it is a subject for a private Member's Bill. The hon. Gentleman is proposing the greatest change of its kind since the Elizabethan settlement of 1558. To do that by means of a private Member's Bill, let alone a ten-minute Bill, seems wholly inappropriate. Although all the subjects which the hon. Gentleman listed deserve proper debate in the House, I think that he has jumped the gun to some degree, perhaps encouraged by his success with his taxation measure of two years ago. Now he is after one of the Queen's titles.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the most important measure ever to come to Parliament from the Church of England—the measure on the ordination of women. Now is not the time to debate that, but it is proper to refer to it, as the hon. Gentleman did in seeking to move the Bill. That measure would introduce a great change. I believe that, if it is effected, the Church of England will have turned itself into a sect and will possibly have forfeited its right to be the established Church anyhow. That may be proper, or it may not, in the view of hon. Members, but it ought to be debated in great detail after the measure on the ordination of women has been dealt with.
Parliament has laid down a procedure for dealing with the measure. First, it should come through the Ecclesiastical Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman and I are members. When that committee has decided whether it deems the measure expedient, there will perhaps
954
be an opportunity for the Synod to reflect again, and perhaps not, and perhaps for the measure to come to the House.
At that stage, it would be wholly appropriate to have a debate on the future of the established Church and touch on all the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That time is not now. Therefore it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to persist with the introduction of the Bill now and I hope that he will not be given permission so to do.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Thank you, Bishop, that is enough.
Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might benefit a little if he went occasionally. Hope springs eternal in my breast, even when I look at the hon. Gentleman, although it takes some doing.
I respect a great deal of what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. This is much too serious a move to be left to a private Member's Bill and a private Member, however exalted. Many hon. Members in the House still believe in the established Church. Many of us hope that the Church will come through its present travail and troubles and soon have a more decisive lead than it is receiving at present. I do not say "leader", because the present Archbishop of Canterbury will perhaps assert a leadership which, sadly, has been lacking to date. Now is not the time for this measure. I therefore seek to oppose it.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. John Battle.

Church of England

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND
  Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in England; to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the homily, it was suggested that the Church of Scotland was an established church. It is not; it is a presbyterian church. I am an episcopalian and I do not know what "established" means, any more than I know what that silly word, Euro-fraternalist, means, which I brought to your attention yesterday.
  Madam Speaker: The House has become enlightened by what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A number of us clearly called "no"; we are therefore puzzled as to why there was no vote on the proposed Bill. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The challenger did not call out "no" when I called again. I called twice. The Chair always calls twice to be absolutely clear. There are occasions when the House becomes sloppy in responding to me. This was one such occasion. When I do not hear a second cry, I must make a decision, and I have just done so.

Prevention of Terrorism
Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I shall make an announcement. There is a lot of interest in the order and I plead with hon. Members to speak for only a short time so that I am able to call Members in all parts of the House.
4.24 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.
The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 is a vital part of our commitment to the defeat of terrorism. The Act is used much more frequently in Northern Ireland against both so-called loyalist and republican terrorism than on the British mainland. But here too, as we all know, Northern Irish terrorism continues to present the main terrorist threat.
Last year, the incidence of terrorist crime in Great Britain was higher than at any time since the Act was first introduced in 1974, and terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, remains at a high level. There is little doubt that the threat from terrorist crime will continue throughout the next 12 months. However, I can assure the House that it will meet with a continuing resolute response from the Government.
Let us look at what has been achieved over the past year as there have been considerable successes. In Northern Ireland, 404 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including 97 with murder or attempted murder. Last year, and also in the previous year, more people were charged with murder than in any year since 1984. More than 300 people were convicted of terrorist-related offences, and more than 200 weapons and two tonnes of explosives have been found.
Since the beginning of last year, 19 people have been charged in Great Britain with serious terrorist-related offences such as murder and conspiracy to cause explosions in connection with Northern Irish terrorism. All 19 were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 using just those powers that I am inviting the House to continue today. We are debating the continuance order against the background of another considerable success for the police force and the security service in this country, with the discovery of a large cache of home-made explosives in London only yesterday.
In the face of the continuing threat, continuing success and the good use of the powers that a Labour Government originally thought necessary when they introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, I am extremely disappointed by the post-election reaction of the new Opposition Home Office team. It has offered talks, as it always does.
On previous occasions the Opposition team has offered to sit down and talk about the Act through the agency, originally, of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He made it quite clear, as has the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), that the talks will be held on two preconditions: that we accept the Labour party's opposition to the two most important provisions in the Bill and the two most important provisions in the order. That is an extraordinary attempt by the Labour
956
party to sound reasonable by talking about holding talks with the Government, while it really lacks sense and is declaring a continued opposition to the purpose of the order.
I acquit my opposite number—the hon. Member for Sedgefield—of any ill intentions. I accept that he is as opposed to terrorism as I am, and does not intend to give help or encouragement to terrorists in this country, but he is in danger of doing so by accident. As we shall, perhaps, discover, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the purpose of the order, the use to which it is put and the vital part that it plays in our defence against terrorist activity on both sides of the Irish sea.
Therefore, I shall begin by addressing the two issues said to trouble the Opposition. I hope to get the Opposition to understand what the prevention of terrorism measure is designed to do.
Mr. David Winnick: Is not the Home Secretary playing on dangerous ground? The House of Commons is usually divided on virtually every subject under the sun. However, one form of unity that we have is our opposition to and loathing of all forms of terrorism, not least from Northern Ireland. Therefore, would it not be unfortunate and dangerous for the Home Secretary to give any impression other than that, while we are clearly divided over the measure, there is no division in our opposition to terrorism? Why should we give the terrorists the satisfaction of thinking that anyone in the House of Commons has time for them?
Mr. Clarke: I have just said that I accept that the Labour party is, of course, opposed to terrorism—as, I trust and firmly believe, are all hon. Members. We were agreed on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) 1974 Act which, for eight years, was supported by both sides of the House after it was introduced by a Labour Home Secretary.
For the past 10 years, there has been a completely absurd division between Government and Opposition because the Labour party changed its mind about these powers. We have discovered that Labour is still withholding support for the Act. Although Opposition Members have not said so, as far as I can see they will vote against the order. As I accept that Labour opposes terrorism, I can only believe that it is giving encouragement to terrorists, who find these powers a considerable inconvenience, by accident.
The Opposition do not understand the purpose of the order, so I shall begin by trying to explain to them again the purpose of the Act and the order. I hope that I can get the Labour party to accept the failure of its opposition over the past 10 years and come onside in practice as well as in sentiment. The purpose of the Act—
Mr. Tony Blair: Does the Home Secretary understand that the first of the two principal objections that we have outlined, which relates to exclusion orders, has been supported by his independent adviser? Our second objection relates to judicial intervention and the period of detention, and was contemplated by previous Home Secretaries. Although the Home Secretary may disagree—I understand the reasons that he is about to give —how can he possibly say that we are giving some form of closet support to terrorism by voicing objections, one of which has been supported by his independent adviser and the other contemplated by a previous Home Secretary?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's point about my independent adviser is deliberately disingenuous. Some years ago the independent adviser once expressed reservations. The independent adviser, Lord Colville of Culross, who I trust is accepted as independent by the hon. Gentleman, recommends the renewal of the order in full. The hon. Member for Sedgefield uses that argument to try to give some respectability to his opposition to exclusion orders, the merits of which I shall shortly address. It is not true to say that the up-to-date advice of independent adviser is for change.
I propose to address the arguments on the detention orders, which were the subject of the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is not a judicial duty to look al the extension of detentions beyond 48 hours. I shall again explain the reasons why we are satisfied that the police and the security services occasionally need to seek leave to detain people for more than 48 hours. There is no point in the hon. Member for Sedgefield standing up, looking steely-eyed, and declaring that his position is reasonable. He is trying to find reasons to carry on clinging to the year in, year out, objections of his predecessor to the renewal of the Act, and by doing so he opposes the renewal of important powers. To that extent he is, although unintentionally, giving great encouragement to the PIRA and others who find these powers so damaging.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I served on the Committee that examined the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and all my attempts to resist such invasions of human rights or proof or anything else by the then Labour Minister and the Labour Government were opposed. If Opposition Members care to read Hansard they will see that. They damn well should read it.
Mr. Clarke: I believe that my hon. and learned Friend was mistaken in some of the arguments that he made against the Bill at that time. It was a new and uncertain power and, as he has said, he was opposed by Labour. When the Bill, which apparently was different as far as the Opposition are concerned, was being introduced by a Labour Government, the hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, North said:
"It would be most sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."
The hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, North, who is now the Opposition spokesman, also said:
"While examining the detail, we cannot deny the principle or say under any circumstances that when our people are looking to us for support we in this House should deny it to them."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 700.]
That is what he said when a Labour Home Secretary sought those powers. It is time for some effect to be given to what ought to be a bipartisan consensus on how to tackle terrorism and for the Opposition to stop retreating into obscure arguments about the detail and to give us the powers that unfortunately, we continue to need.
Mr. Blair: The Home Secretary has begun by playing exactly the politics that one would expect of him, and it is unworthy of him to do so. Let me pick him up on that point, so that the House is in no doubt about the nature of our objection and the offer that we have made to him.
958
On exclusion orders, the Home Secretary suggested that his independent adviser had resiled from his present position. Let me quote from this year's report, just published, in which Lord Colville says:
"My own views on this power"—
the exclusion power—
"are well-known, but it is encouraging that its use is diminishing."
He has in no sense resiled from his earlier view; he has merely accepted that the Home Office has no intention of changing its view. Exclusion orders are still rejected by the Home Secretary's adviser. Judicial intervention, on which we have been found in breach of the European convention, was contemplated by previous Home Secretaries. In those circumstances, to suggest that we are against the entire nature of legislation to prevent terrorism is an outrage.
Mr. Clarke: First, Lord Colville has recommended that the Act and the powers be renewed in their entirety. The hon. Gentleman has disingenuously left out that point in all three of his interventions. When we talk about playing politics, the hon. Gentleman is making it sound as though he is suddenly more robust in supporting the Government and wants talks about how we can make the fight against terrorism more effective, but, as I think he will demonstrate at the end of the debate, he will then vote against the powers that we need.
The offer that he says he has made is to have discussions that will lead to the suspension of the exclusion orders, the ending of the exclusion orders and the introduction of a judicial process after 48 hours. He requests talks on the basis that the most important powers in the Act are not used.
If the hon. Gentleman considers that his case has merit and not simply a new type of Clintonesque style, let us move on to the issues.
Mr. Blair: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Clarke: No. I am seeking to explore whether there is any substance behind the new smiling face on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many conversations and sub-debates. If hon. Members want to catch my eye, they should keep quiet now.
Mr. Clarke: As the House will appreciate, the Act is mainly designed to help the investigation and prevention of terrorism. People are not usually charged or brought to trial in the courts under the parts of the Act that are in dispute.
The Act is aimed at helping the investigation and prevention, where possible, of terrorist incidents before they happen. In attempting to prevent terrorism, powers sometimes have to be exercised in advance of a terrorist act. In some cases, preparations may not have reached the stage where there is any sustainable evidence of a specific crime.
In those circumstances, it is false to draw analogies with ordinary criminal law. When somebody is facing a charge for an actual offence, evidence is presented by one side or the other and there is a judicial determination. However, because of the threat of terrorism, we have to introduce in the Act specific powers designed to thwart terrorist acts in advance and to further the investigation of them. That is why specific powers are needed for the curse of terrorism.

959
The first of those powers, to which the Opposition continue to object, is the power of exclusion. It is not used frequently, and I certainly use it with considerable care. It is used less than previously because I would not use such powers which genuinely run the risk of curtailing the civil rights of innocent people. It is a power to be used with great circumspection. I use it in cases where I am satisfied that a particular person is involved in terrorism—such people almost invariably have a history of that—and there is sufficient information to satisfy me that there is a risk of continued terrorist involvement.
In such a case, however good the information is it cannot be presented in court to secure the prosecution of someone who has committed a particular terrorist act. In general, we are talking about would-be terrorists, where I am satisfied that they are travelling to this country to plan a terrorist act, if they have the opportunity to do so.
As Home Secretary, I use the power to prevent terrorists from coming to this country to plan and to carry out those attacks. In a few instances, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland uses the power to stop people going the other way. We certainly succeed in disrupting the free movement of terrorists between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. I am quite convinced that the use of that power has a substantial effect in frustrating and disrupting the activities of terrorists. It has been suggested that an alternative to the power would be to mount surveillance operations on those who would otherwise be excluded. I am satisfied that that would not work in practice.
The Opposition claim to be leaping to the defence of some great civil liberty. In fact, they are trying to stop me overruling the right of people with a long track record of serious terrorism to come across the Irish sea. They pretend that they want to come to visit relatives, to have a holiday, or to exercise some other great civil right.
I remind the House that during the past year I have made only two new exclusion orders. There were 81 still extant at end of the year. I renew them when I am satisfied that the threat posed by a named person wishing to come here is sustained. That is the lowest total of exclusion orders for 10 years; that is the exclusion order power that the hon. Member for Sedgefield insists is removed before we can have the fairly useless talks about the Act that he has offered.
It is an important power used to prevent people who I am satisfied have an involvement in terrorism from coming to this country. It is used sparingly. It is absurd of the Opposition to try to construct some elevated arguments of principle for removing that important power, thereby making us look for some other method of keeping tabs on 81 people who have been involved in terrorism.
Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be unsure whether to argue that the power is a fundamental necessity because it is used so often, or whether it is fairly trivial because it is not used very often. His own independent advisers have said that only a small number of cases are involved, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledges. The advisers—not just Lord Colville, but his previous adviser—said that the power could be used in a different way and that surveillance could be carried out in such a manner as to make an exclusion order unnecessary.
960
I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that previous Home Secretaries have said that exclusion orders would outlive their usefulness at some point of time, which is precisely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's adviser has now advised. In those circumstances, how can he say that our proposition is extreme?
Mr. Clarke: I have said that it is an important power, which is used sparingly to ensure that there is no infringement of civil liberties. I am quite satisfied that the alternative of surveillance of 81 people on both sides of the Irish sea, wherever they might be at any given time, is not satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman is defending not an important point of civil liberty, but a silly position adopted by his predecessors, which he does not have the nerve to abandon. He takes the same position on the extensions of detention, which is the second power on which he tries to elevate an argument of great principle.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that two new exclusion orders had been made during the past year. Does he agree that almost all such orders arise out of intelligence gathered in Northern Ireland about people who wish to come to England, Scotland or Wales? Does not the exclusion of just two people say something about the level of hard intelligence that has been gathered, or has the capacity to be gathered, under the Act?
Mr. Clarke: We gather a great deal of intelligence in Northern Ireland, and we are strengthening the gathering of intelligence in Great Britain. The relationship between all those involved is extremely good. We use that intelligence in a whole variety of ways. It is true that there are 81 orders extant and that I have added only two new ones during the past year. They are based on sufficient information to satisfy me that a particular person is engaged in terrorism and that preventing him from travelling backwards and forwards between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain would disrupt his would-be activities.
That is not, in itself, a measure of the amount of intelligence that we have gathered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was encouraged by what I said at the beginning of my speech about the number of people being arrested, charged and convicted. I assure him that, through intelligence gathering and every other legitimate police activity, we will build on that success.
Mr. Clive Soley: I hope that the Home Secretary, through the very exchanges that are now taking place, is beginning to understand the need for the talks offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The issue is not just one of civil liberties, although that is important; it is about effectiveness. Terrorist activity has gone up while the use of the Act has gone down.
The dangerous aspect is that the Act is still used by terrorist groups on both sides in Northern Ireland to indicate the political nature of the issue. It is the only case in which a politician can determine a judicial decision; the matter does not go through the courts. Because of that, the terrorists—especially on the republican side, but also on the unionist side—make enormous propaganda use of the Act. It is counter-productive because it acts as a recruiting sergeant for the IRA.
Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that. It is an important point that the Opposition should address. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about cases being matters for judicial decision when I come to deal with the extensions of detention, because the point applies strongly there. They are not judicial decisions; they are not two competing pieces of evidence being examined and decided on by a member of the judiciary. By their very nature, they cannot be so. They are the sorts of actions taken by politicians in every other country when there is intelligence about terrorist activity by an individual. Constraints must be imposed.
If the arguments of the terrorist organisations were not given some credibility by respectable democratic politicians sustaining their opposition to the Act, the terrorists would not get anywhere in trying to persuade anyone other than their committed supporters that the Act was a justification for their actions or that it was helpful in recruiting.
We cannot make exclusion orders a judicial process—I do not think that anybody has ever tried. By their very nature, exclusion orders are based on the fact that we have sufficient information to satisfy a Home Secretary, answerable to the House of Commons, that a particular person has sufficient involvement in terrorism for it to be desirable to prevent his movement between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. It is an important power, the renewal of which was recommended by Lord Colville. It should be renewed.
Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has alleged that our position on exclusion orders lends credibility to the IRA. Is he making the same criticism of his own advisers, who advised him to adopt exactly our position?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. Our adviser, Lord Colville, has recommended the renewal of the Act, which is what the hon. Gentleman opposes. He flies in the face of Lord Colville's advice. I advise him to stop citing Lord Colville in his support, because that is somewhat inconsistent.
The Opposition have criticised us for not bringing the Act into line with the outcome of the hearing that took place under the European convention on human rights. Let us look at that issue, which is narrow but important. It is true that the European Court has held that article 5(3) of the convention is breached if detainees are not brought before a court after four days' detention. The court is quite satisfied about the first four days, but it has said that, thereafter, there should be judicial intervention. This is the point that the Opposition are pursuing. Following the finding to which I have just referred, the British Government have always had a derogation from the convention. We do not believe that what the Opposition suggest is a practical way of proceeding, as I shall explain in a moment.
In response to the claims that we are breaching civil liberties and providing a recruiting sergeant for the IRA, let me remind the House of the care with which this power is used. Last year, I granted only 17 detention extensions under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. That is the lowest number since 1984. We are exercising these powers with great care. In 10 of the 17
962
cases, detention lasted only four days, so in respect of those cases there is no dispute. Cases in which longer extensions are sought are considered very carefully by me.
There was a grand total of seven cases in which I concluded that detention should last more than four and up to seven days. In other words, the power is used very sparingly. However, these are serious cases. Terrorism is serious. Seven is a large number of cases when one is talking about people engaged in very serious, extremely dangerous, terrorist activity.
The cases in which detention beyond the first four days is necessary tend to be those involving serious investigation that has to be continued. Usually, but not always, this arises from the need for forensic tests. Sometimes it is the need for searches, sometimes the need to follow up leads from other contacts, and so on. Without this power in those circumstances, there would be cases in which people charged with terrorism could walk free. It has been said that extension beyond four days should be by way of judicial decision, that a judge should be called in to make a decision about the final three days. First, that was not the conclusion of Lord Shackleton in his report of 1978. Nor has it ever been the conclusion of Lord Colville, particularly in his report of 1987. So far as I know, the view of Lord Colville remains the same.
This is an executive rather than a judicial decision. It is with the greatest respect that I say that the decision of the European Court was wrong. The system here is different from that on the continent. On the continent, people ca .n be detained for very much longer, the papers having been considered by a comparatively minor member of the judiciary, who is probably supervising the whole prosecution. We do not have the juge d'instruction; we do not have the supervisory magistrate; we do not have a professional investigative judiciary. What we have is the careful exercise of executive power. What we have here is an executive rather than a judicial act. In judicial proceedings, someone would present to the judge all the evidence upon which the further extension was called for. The defence would examine the evidence and would put arguments to the judge, and, on the balance of argument, a judicial decision would be made.
In this country, the suspect is not given the information that is being followed up. We do not reveal how alleged involvement in crime is being investigated. It would be the height of folly to do so. Such people are often anxious to get out as quickly as possible to frustrate the investigation. Thus, an extremely serious executive act has to be taken by the holder of my office. The Home Secretary has to be satisfied that there is good reason for extending the detention up to seven days.
If that power were not exercised, or if it were weakened, as, in effect, the Opposition would do, terrorists would be released after four days. They would melt into the population like snow off a ditch, and then the results of the forensic tests would reveal that the authorities had the right people in the first place and that they should have been charged.
Mr. Blair: That is an outrageous suggestion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that, while he wants detention to be extended by executive act, we believe that this should be achieved by way of judicial intervention. I am surprised that he should find this extraordinary. Judicial intervention is the normal course in the rule of law. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that after

963
four days a person would walk free. The evidence would be presented to the judge in exactly the same way as it is presented to the Home Secretary. As the European Court found, and as a previous Home Secretary from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own party was prepared to confirm, the difference here is the difference between proper judicial intervention and executive action. This goes to the very heart of the issue.
Mr. Clarke: The judge would be carrying out an executive act. The difference is that he would be new to the case. Judges do not normally take executive action of this kind. A judge presides at judicial proceedings in which competing evidence is openly exchanged and he makes a decision. That is the role that is most appropriate to a judge. Let me state what I see as the difference between us. I am confronting the reality of the need to deal with terrorist incidents. I am dealing with the reality of what is required for proper investigation of allegations of involvement in terrorist activities on this side of the Irish sea and in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman is using detailed points, which in my opinion are not sustainable, to justify opposition to the renewal of these powers.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Why does the Home Secretary say that Lord Colville never recommended judicial intervention? In the report in which the noble Lord was specifically critical of extended detention, saying that it must be examined again, he said that the new model ought to follow the example of Scottish and Isle of Man procedure, which involves judicial intervention. That is why Scotland was not arraigned before the European Court. Why does the Home Secretary say that Lord Colville took up a position opposite to that which, in fact, he did take up?
Mr. Clarke: I repeat that my understanding of Lord Colville's report of 1987 is that it did not take up that position. Lord Colville, having supervised the operation of the Act, recommends the renewal of all its powers. On the basis of my experience so far in this office, I believe that to be good advice, and I commend it to the House. I believe that our power to investigate and prevent terrorism in Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be greatly weakened if this order were turned down by the House.
Mr, John Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to those who have to face the reality of action against terrorists. I am sure he agrees that the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the other security forces in Northern Ireland do an absolutely superb job. Does he know that, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs visited Belfast recently, the deputy Chief Constable of the RUC pleaded with its members to see that the emergency provisions were renewed, lock, stock and barrel?
Mr. Clarke: I am aware of that. Perhaps I was naive in hoping that that point could be brought home effectively to the Opposition in the course of this debate. So far, we have not succeeded in that respect.
Let me turn to Lord Colville's report. The noble Lord gave the operation of these powers a clean bill of health. On the question of exclusion orders, he observed that the power had been used sparingly in 1992 and that the
964
machinery was working effectively. He emphasised the importance of the work of the three independent advisers who, having reviewed the cases of those wishing to make representations against exclusion, advise the Secretary of State as to their findings.
I agree wholeheartedly with Lord Colville's observations. The advisers fulfil a most important role, each undertaking his work with very great care and diligence. I do not undertake always to accept their advice, although, so far, it has invariably been accepted. These people provide another important check on the use of the power and a safeguard for the individual. Lord Colville's report also records his finding that the proper criteria are being carefully observed in considering whether extensions of detention should be granted.
With regard to the other powers under the Act, the report goes on to present a good picture of the way in which the police have responded to complaints from members of the public about the conduct of checks under the Act. I am glad to hear it, because the co-operation of the public with the police is essential.
Lord Colville's report on the operation of the Act last year approves of the way in which the powers are being exercised and recommends their renewal, and—I repeat —the Opposition are scratching about trying to find some means of justifying the rather surprising repetition of their vote this evening.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The law of Scotland was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but he has got the law of Scotland wrong. Even if he had not, and if he had visited the Province, which I am sure he has, this is nothing to do with a religious war; it is purely a mafia operation which, I regret, is funded by the money thrown at Northern Ireland by the British Government, and the sooner we recognise that the better.
Mr. Clarke: I shall come later to the money-gathering activities of the terrorists. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that, as the difficulties continue, it becomes more and more clear that large numbers of terrorist organisations are heavily involved in arguing over the proceeds of criminal activities to finance what they are doing. The border between criminality and politics is becoming ever increasingly blurred in the continuing campaign—[Interruption.]—so far as the objectives of the terrorists are concerned. So far as the politics of the Opposition is concerned, their tactics are not criminal—I have always conceded that—they are just careless and an attempt to justify their past activities.
I have obtained a quotation to confirm what I said about Lord Colville. In addition to the clean bill of health that he has given, I now have his recommendation for this year, which has been ignored by the Opposition. The December 1987 report deals with the detention powers and sets out in chapter 12 the attractiveness at first sight of the argument that the decisions should be made by a High Court judge.
In paragraph 12.1.3, Lord Colville said:
"On reflection I believe that such a change would be wrong. It would be cosmetic rather than substantial".
I shall not continue to quote, but Lord Colville supports the argument that I am making. [Interruption.] I can read it all if the Opposition wish, but I do not think that they are open to argument. In paragraph 12.1.6, Lord Colville concludes:

965
"On examination, therefore, this proposition adds nothing to safeguards for civil liberties".
Mr. Hattersley: I think that the Home Secretary quoted from the 1987 report. Let me quote Lord Colville in 1991 when he called for a bold new initiative which he regarded as irresistible since the power should be changed. He said:
"It is now perhaps irresistible that some new tribunal will be set up to oversee the powers"—
that is what we are calling for—
"it could draw on Scottish or Channel Island methodology"—
that is what we are calling for. That is four years after the quotation that the Home Secretary has just given us.
Mr. Clarke: The Opposition are calling for a judicial involvement in the extension of the powers. The right hon. Gentleman may wave his finger, but he is not on the Front Bench now. What is being called for is judicial intervention. The arguments against that were set out by Lord Colville in 1987. They were substantial and they remain substantial. I agree with them. I have one advantage over both Opposition spokesmen, in that I have operated the powers. I can assure them from experience that they would weaken the Act if their vote were successful. I assure them that, as they know perfectly well, they are going in the teeth of the up-to-date advice of Lord Colville that we should renew the powers that we are seeking today.
Mr. Blair: Lord Colville's point is not that a judicial intervention would inhibit the security services, which is the Home Secretary's argument; on the contrary, he is saying that he believes—I disagree for reasons that I shall give—that it will not safeguard the civil liberties of the detainee. The Home Secretary's argument is that if we put in judicial intervention that will inhibit the security services. It is that argument that Lord Colville specifically rejected.
Mr. Clarke: He rejects it rather more strongly than that, if we are to go into the detailed argument. He points out the difficulties of doing it that way at all. In paragraph 12.1.5—[Interruption.] the hon. Gentleman raised the point, so he must listen—Lord Colville says:
"In Northern Ireland and Scotland the number of High Court Judges is small enough to bring some consonance. In England and Wales, however, the practicality is different. These applications by the police would be made as a matter of urgency in the force area. The Senior Circuit Judge would often sit as a Deputy High Court Judge for the occasion; he or she would have great difficulty in communicating with colleagues who had been faced with similar applications. It is not a recipe for consistency. Apart from such Deputies, there are over 100 real High Court Judges who might have to make the decision."
A whole range of different people would be involved in making those decisions.
It is right that, as Lord Colville says, no improvement in civil liberties would result. In my judgment—it seems to me to be reinforced by Lord Colville's recommendation that we renew the powers this year—the practicality would fall down in every possible way. It is the most effective way of handling these things that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that further detention is justified. It would weaken our effectiveness in dealing with allegations against terrorist suspects if the power were changed in the way that the Opposition recommend.
Mr. Blair: I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily; I simply say that, after the passage to which the Home Secretary referred, Lord Colville concludes:
"On examination, therefore, this proposition adds nothing to safeguards for civil liberties."
That is why Lord Colville is questioning the provision. At no stage in any of his reports—indeed, as I shall show, a previous Home Secretary said that he wanted judicial intervention—does Lord Colville say that it will prevent us from getting terrorists. That would be a substantial reason for rejecting our position. What is not a substantial reason is the reason given there.
Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is scrabbling about. In 1974, a Labour Home Secretary introduced the Act. Its powers were essential. The Conservative party has voted in favour of them consistently in opposition and in government ever since. In 1982 the Labour party went through what I would like to believe was a temporary period of left-wing aberration and, no doubt at the behest of some of its less desirable Members, things got completely out of hand and it suddenly started to vote against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) are meant to be leading figures in the attempt to rescue the Labour party from the murk of the 1980s and to get it back on to a sensible course of cross-party agreement in those things that are essential in the fight against crime and terrorism. So far, neither of them is up to it. The Opposition have carried on having this silly vote each year, and they are scratching about to try to find reasons for it.
The power is used sparingly by the security services and police who are successfully making strides in combating terrorism in this country. It is time that the actions of the Opposition began to match their rhetoric, and they would best be matched by a vote in favour of continuing the provisions this evening.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to Scottish methodology. There is no such thing. Fortunately, our law is based on principle, as is our party and as is our commitment—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that that is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point of information; a point in debate.
Mr. Clarke: Let me explain some safeguards that are already built into the emergency provisions legislation and which are being strengthened in two ways in Northern Ireland in order to try to meet legitimate concern, if it exists, about the way in which the emergency powers are used.
First, on 16 December last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the appointment of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper to the post of independent commissioner for the police holding centres. His principal role as commissioner will be to observe, comment and report on the conditions under which terrorist suspects are detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the holding centres of Castlereagh, Gough and Strand Road. He will provide an independent check that the statutory and administrative safeguards are fully complied with. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is preparing codes

967
of practice under section 61 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, governing the detention, questioning, treatment and identification of suspects detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The codes will be modelled closely on the existing codes made under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, amended to take account of the emergency legislation. The codes have been issued for public consultation, and it is hoped that they will be laid before the House in the near future.
Mr. William O'Brien: How will Sir Louis Blom-Cooper ensure that those matters are carried out in his absence?
Mr. Clarke: I am assured by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is in his place by my side, that a substitute will soon be appointed.
The question of terrorist finances was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). We have for several years been aware of the determined criminality of the provisional IRA's fundraising methods. There is now reliable information that loyalist terrorist groups are becoming increasingly involved in serious and complex frauds and crimes of dishonesty.
One effective way of undermining terror campaigns is to starve the terrorist groups of the funds that they require. The financial provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are a significant component of our efforts to combat terrorist racketeering in connection with Northern Ireland. They have been used to good effect in stemming a number of traditional sources of terrorist funding and are regarded by the RUC as invaluable in its continuing efforts to combat terrorism.
Lord Colville has long advocated strengthening the Act's provisions in that respect, and his recent report recommends that the Government should seize the opportunity provided by the Criminal Justice Bill—presently under consideration in another place—to make some amendment to that legislation. That is just our intention. The Government will be introducing amendments to the Bill in Committee, with the aim of bringing the law on terrorist finances into line with many of the changes being made in the same Bill to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
I will mention as briefly as possible two further Government measures taken during the course of the year. Last May, I announced that the lead for intelligence gathering against Irish republican terrorism in Great Britain would pass from the Metropolitan Police special branch to the security service. I make it clear again that the security service has not taken over responsibility for counter-terrorism from the police, who remain responsible for prevention and detection of terrorist crime, as for other forms of crime, and retain a national role in intelligence work.
The new arrangements came into effect on 1 October last year. Thanks to the efforts of both services, they are working well. As I intended, they are making the best use of the experience and expertise of each service, and we are steadily gathering more intelligence all the time. The new
968
arrangements do not change the position in Northern Ireland, where the RUC retains primacy in all operational security matters.
The second measure is the extension of tape recording to terrorist cases in England and Wales on a trial basis for two years, from 1 December last year. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of those trials, which are being monitored by a broadly based steering group. If the trials conclude with a recommendation that such cases should be brought fully within the ambit of the PACE code of practice on tape recording, I shall welcome that—but difficult and serious issues must be considered first and, for the time being, I am keeping an open mind on that subject.
I have sought to remind the House of the terrorist threat and to explain as briefly as I can why it is important to ensure that the powers in the prevention of terrorism measures continue in force. Those powers are obviously used carefully and with discretion, backed by established safeguards that we keep constantly under review. The key point is that they continue to provide an important and necessary weapons in the fight against terrorism. At a time when we are achieving successes, it would be the height of folly to dispense with those powers.
I believe, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield often says, that this ought not to be an inter-party issue. We are entitled to expect the Opposition's support in our stand against terrorism in practical form, but their record since 1983, when they started voting against the Act, clearly shows that they are not yet ready to do that and to adopt the position that they occupied in Government in the 1970s. I am genuinely disappointed by that.
It appears that this year only the rhetoric will be changed slightly. The points being made and the policies are exactly the same. The origin of that policy goes back to a difficult time in the Labour movement, which the Opposition are no doubt trying to forget. If the Opposition are trying to forget and to break away from that, they should start changing Labour's actions. It would be welcome and reassuring to many if Labour did not just raise a smoke screen about talks but withheld its opposition to the renewal of the powers this year.
5.15 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: We certainly owe a great debt of gratitude to our police and security services for their excellent work recently, and the new find of explosives announced today. They often work in circumstances of great danger and difficulty, and we pay tribute to them.
This legislation is debated every year because, as every Home Secretary who ever introduced it has said—at least until this year—it involves serious and fundamental departures from the normal processes of British law. It grants powers of detention and exclusion in respect of subjects of the United Kingdom which would otherwise be condemned without hesitation as contrary to the principles of British justice.
In the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Parliament decided the reasonable outer limits of powers of detention and restraint, but the measures before us go beyond them. The majority of those arrested for terrorism could have been arrested under existing criminal law, rather than under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. Those powers, introduced before the 1984 Act, are to cater for

969
cases in which, it is said, ordinary powers are insufficient. We should not forget that they are unique powers, to deal with a unique situation.
That is emphasised by the title of the legislation: the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The first Labour Home Secretary to introduce the power, in 1974, said that he did so with great reluctance. His opposite number on the Conservative Front Bench, now Lord Joseph, spoke of his "distaste" for the laws, although he supported them. In 1982, Lord Whitelaw stated that the Act
"makes considerable inroads into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud",
and he urged particular scrutiny of its powers. That is why they are subject to constant review.
Lord Shackleton reported in 1978, following pressure from the House that it would not agree to renewing the provisions in the absence of such a review, and Lord Jellicoe reported in 1983. In 1984, an annual process of review was established, first under Sir Cyril Philips, and then under Lord Colville. Following reviews, changes were made.
The annual nature of this debate emphasises the serious nature of the order. Of particular cause for concern are the speeches of recent Home Secretaries, especially that of the present Home Secretary today. Expressions of distaste, of concern, and of vigilance to ensure that we were not doing more than was necessary to combat terrorism, and the belief that the 1989 Act might be a necessary evil, have grown rather weaker with time. Today, for the first time, the Home Secretary made no such mention at all.
I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member believes that we should simply rubber-stamp an order of this nature. It comes before us every year precisely because we should carefully scrutinise its provisions. Those right hon. and hon. Members, some of whom are evidently among those on the Government Benches now, who believe that we should just rubber-stamp the measure—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]—and who show by their attitude that they think that it is wrong even to raise doubts about the measure's contents do not pay sufficient attention to the nature of our parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Stephen Milligan: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. May I ask him a simple question? A Labour Government introduced this measure, but for the past 10 years a Labour Opposition have opposed it. Were the Labour Government wrong to introduce it, or are the Labour Opposition wrong to oppose it?
Mr. Blair: I shall explain the precise reasons for the position that we have adopted. I hope to show the hon. Gentleman exactly why our position is entirely reasonable and justifiable; I simply ask him, and other hon. Members, to listen to the argument.
Mr. Eric Pickles: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary quoted the words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Let me refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory: the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that the measures were necessary, and that we should not have the deaths of our citizens on our conscience. I support those sentiments: they were right then, and they
970
are right now. Rather than just talking about getting tough with terrorists, why does the hon. Gentleman not give his support to the people who put their lives on the line?
Mr. Blair: We shall explain the nature of our objections. The hon. Gentleman should realise that Labour is prepared to separate the issue from party politics; it is the Conservative party which insists on turning it into a party political issue, despite our objections. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, will listen to our objections to the order. I shall allow him to intervene if he considers those objections unreasonable.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: I should like to get on with my speech.
There are two fundamental flaws in the order as it is now drafted. Exclusion orders, and the absence of a judicial review of the extraordinary power of detention. Exclusion orders were seen from the beginning as the most temporary of the temporary provisions that we are discussing. Lord Shackleton expressed deep unease about them in 1978; Lord Jellicoe called for them to be severely restricted, and possibly removed altogether; Sir Cyril Phillips, the first independent adviser under the annual review, said that such powers were no longer justifiable; and Lord Colville, the present independent adviser, in 1987 and subsequently called for their removal.
It is not true that Lord Colville has resiled from his earlier view, as the Home Secretary said. He has done no such thing; he has merely accepted that it is not the Government's view. He has also repeated in his review this year that he believes the powers to be unnecessary. Conservative Members may disagree with the point that is being made. They may believe that exclusion orders are necessary. It can hardly be said, however, that objecting to exclusion orders is extreme or unreasonable.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: Conservative Members will not even listen to what I am saying. Objecting to exclusion orders can hardly be described as unreasonable or extreme, given that their abolition has been sought with increasing firmness by every independent adviser to the Home Secretary.
Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for extending his usual courtesy and giving way to me. I remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said of exclusion orders:
"It would be most sad…if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."
Much as I respect the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I must put it to him that he is now dissociating himself from the judgment of his hon. Friend because he knows that if he does not do so he will be unable to carry the left wing of his party. He stands condemned, in the House and the country, for putting the unity of his party before the priority of taking a stand against terrorism. That is the point that he ought to answer.
Mr. Blair: That is not often said, I must say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made it clear at that time that he believed that exclusion orders were necessary. If the hon.

971
Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) reads the speeches made at the time, however, he will see that it was specifically said that those powers should be the first to go. The reason why there was an independent review—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will at least listen to my replies to their questions. The independent review was set up precisely to establish whether measures such as exclusion orders were still necessary. The independent reviewer reported that they were no longer necessary, and his successor has said the same. That is why the position is different today.
It is not hard to see the reason. The section of the Act which provides for exclusion orders says that they can be made either to prevent someone in Northern Ireland from entering Britain, or to prevent someone in Britain from entering Northern Ireland. No restriction on freedom is imposed on such people when they are in Northern Ireland, or in Britain. To make such an order, the Secretary of State must be satisfied—not merely have grounds, even reasonable grounds, for suspecting—that a person entering either Northern Ireland or Britain is a terrorist, or is about to engage in terrorism.
Self-evidently, the power has been subject to attack, for a very simple reason. Either someone is a terrorist, in which case he should be in detention, or he is not, in which case he should be able to move freely. If such a person is under suspicion, he should be under surveillance, whether in Northern Ireland or in Britain. That is precisely why the Government's own independent advisers have sought the abolition of the power.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Blair: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish.
I quote the words of someone who was never considered to be soft on terrorism—former Member of Parliament Enoch Powell—who said in February 1987:
"The inherent objectionableness of a power to exclude from one part of the United Kingdom into another is undiminished, but the evidence for utility continues to diminish. I hope that we shall see the end of it, certainly no later than the new edition of this Act, and preferably when we come to consider renewal in a year's time. An indication of that indeed came from the Home Secretary."
At that time, the Government were themselves saying that they could see the end of the exclusion powers. Mr. Powell continued:
"There is no reason why we should perpetuate this division of the United Kingdom into mutual exclusion zones. We should probably never have done this in 1974. It was probably based on misconception…The power is no longer welcome, certainly not in Northern Ireland."—[0fficial Report, 10 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 277.]
Conservative Members may disagree with the point being made, but they can hardly say that it is so extreme that no reasonable person could ever contemplate it. Their own advisers support it, and even Unionist Members of Parliament believe that the powers have outlived their usefulness.
There are Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who are opposed to exclusion orders although they themselves suffer terrorist threats and abuse. If hon. Members will not listen to us when we tell them of the use to which their views are being put as propaganda for the IRA, at least let them listen to those who have to live with the threat of the IRA day in and day out.
Mr. Derek Conway: Conservative Members do not like it either. No one wants the Act to come before the House. What the hon. Gentleman misunderstands about our position is that we also want to prevent terrorism. The whole point of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was saying is that the power to issue exclusion orders was used only twice last year. The hon. Gentleman is right: there must be reasonable doubt. Until he sees that the purpose is prevention rather than punishment, the Labour party will not gain the respect it should for its so-called tough stand on crime.
Mr. Blair: That is the very question which fell to be considered. Does the advantage of the exclusion order, in the small number of cases to which it is applied, outweigh the disadvantages so well known to those who live and work in Northern Ireland? On balance, are those people better off or worse off? The independent advisers concluded that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages, and that is our conclusion, too. I am not saying that that conclusion is obvious, or that no reasonable person could reach a different view, but I ask the hon. Gentleman at least to accept that our objections are not being raised lightly or superficially. They are objections which can be sustained, even on the basis of the reports of the Government's own advisers.
Judicial intervention is the second ground of objection. This is perhaps the most important point that we can make. Under the criminal law, as set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a suspect, whether it be a murderer, an armed robber, or a rapist, can be held for up to 36 hours. After that time, the suspect must be brought before the court. The court then has the power to detain further, prior to a charge being made.
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the initial period is 48 hours, not 36 hours. That is one difference. The principal difference, however, is that after 48 hours the Secretary of State is given the power to extend detention for up to another five days, making seven in all. The Prevention of Terrorism Act therefore allows an extension of detention not by the judiciary but by the Executive.
It must be accepted, as it was accepted when the power was introduced, that prima facie the power is offensive to the basic principle of the rule of law, which is that deprivation of liberty should be through the courts and not through politicians.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the preservation of life is an even more important principle, and that the precise reason why this power must lie with the Executive and not with the courts is because the information which leads the Executive to believe that the man is a terrorist is of a nature which cannot be given in open court on account of the danger to the lives of witnesses? Those extra five days give the police the opportunity to find information which can be used in court.
Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman has made two points. I shall deal in turn with each of them.
The hon. Gentleman said that these matters cannot be dealt with in open court. No one has ever suggested that they should be dealt with in open court. The courts have the power to sit in camera. That power would be used in such a situation. The hon. Gentleman also said—the Secretary of State says it, too, when he is being somewhat

973
economical with the truth in these matters—that after four days the extra period of detention is necessary or we may let out a terrorist. In other words, we may just about be putting our hands on the evidence that we are missing when the detention period ends and we have to let the terrorist out.
That is a misunderstanding of what has been said. Nobody suggests that we should abrogate the detention period. What is being said is that the decision whether it should be extended should be a judicial decision and not an Executive decision.
Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to come back on that point?
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: I will deal with the point, and then I will give way. The Home Secretary often gave way to me, so I will give way to him.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Blair: Very well.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) talked about the efficacy of detention. Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past 19 years, 7,192 people have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, of whom precisely six have been convicted of crimes and given sentences of more than five years? Is he further aware that four of those were the Maguire family, who were found to have been wrongfully convicted? Far from this power being efficacious during that period, there have been 148 terrorist offences, 60 people have been killed, and the people for whom this legislation was driven through Parliament—the Birmingham pub bombers—are still at large after 19 years.
Mr. Blair: My right hon. Friend makes a point to which had intended to turn: why it is so important that we should be vigilant about the way in which these powers are used. Given that the vast majority of people are not then charged with any offence, as Members of Parliament we should at least look at whether the powers that we are granting to the Executive are justified. Such a situation should be tolerated only if the powers can be proved to be absolutely necessary to secure evidence against terrorists.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who was nodding vigorously a few moments ago. He said that the Act should never have been passed in the first place. He plainly misunderstands the purpose of the Act, which is to prevent terrorism, not to give rise to convictions. The point is not to wait until the bomb has gone off and then try to convict somebody afterwards. The point is to prevent them from committing an act of terrorism in the first place.
Presumably the hon. Gentleman is aware of the passages in Lord Colville's current report about why these issues are not justiciable, if I may use that technical phase. It is right that when I exercise Executive powers they should be subject to judicial supervision. That is what Lord Colville is for: he finds that the powers are being exercised properly; he recommends their renewal.
974
The hon. Gentleman is really burnt up with civil liberties issues. Is he saying that I am not exercising the powers properly? Can he look across at me with a straight face and say that he believes that people's civil liberties are being damaged? The powers are used against someone only when I am satisfied—and I insist that I should be satisfied—that there is a serious public interest involved in using them. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman is irresponsible in engaging in debating games with his right hon. Friend and others to try to justify voting against the powers at the end of the debate.
Mr. Blair: I did not notice any refutation by the Home Secretary of the point that I was making. He says that I am becoming burnt up about civil liberties. These are serious powers. They are virtually unique in the western world. I hope that no hon. Member will say that we do not have the right to challenge powers to make sure that they are in accordance with the civil liberties of our country.
The Home Secretary says that he is satisfied that the powers are being used reasonably. If the fact that the Executive had said that they were using such powers properly was enough for any House of Commons, it would mean that we had given up the right that we have always had to separate the powers of the judiciary and of the Executive.
The purpose of judicial intervention—which the Home Secretary appears, with all due respect, not even to understand—is to make sure that the powers of detention, extraordinary as they are, are exercised in a proper way. It is not good enough to say that the Home Secretary will exercise them in a proper way, because the very principle of the rule of law is that that decision should be made by a court, not by a politician.
Mr. Clarke: This important point seems to be the key to the hon. Gentleman's concern. I am sure that he accepts that I believe in civil liberties just as much as he does. However, I do not ask either the hon. Gentleman or the House just to accept my assertion that my use of the powers is consistent with our common view of civil liberties. I am subject to judicial supervision. That is what Lord Colville is for. [Interruption.] Lord Colville is not a High Court judge. I believe that he sits as a recorder. He exercises a judicial style of review. He says, on supervision, that I exercise my powers properly.
Does the hon. Gentleman disbelieve Lord Colville? Does he have any ground for asserting that Lord Colville is wrong? Does he have any ground for asserting that I am not using the powers consistently with civil liberties? Or is he, as I insist, desperately casting about for reasons to vote against the use of powers which he knows are necessary and which he also knows perfectly well are exercised properly and with discretion by the Executive?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There have been a number of interventions, to which, of course, I have no objection, but they are getting longer and longer.
Mr. Blair: I shall try to make my answer short.
That is an extraordinary thing for the Home Secretary to say. Lord Colville was appointed by the Government. He does not sit in a judicial capacity. It is not that he is biased, any more than anyone else is biased, but surely the Home Secretary, of all people, can tell the difference between an adviser appointed by the Government or a

975
member of the Cabinet and a member of the judiciary. That is at the very heart of and is the basis for the British rule of law.
It is extraordinary that the Home Secretary should say that an adviser to the Government—[Interruption.] I can agree or disagree, but to say that having a judge consider a provision is the same as having a Cabinet Minister consider a particular case is utterly absurd.
Mr. Clarke rose—
Mr. Blair: Just a moment.
That is, of course, why the European Court of Human Rights found against the Government. It found against the Government not because of some technicality or legalism, but because the notion that one should be detained by Executive power rather than by order of the court is contrary to the provisions of the convention on human rights. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot understand that, he cannot understand the basis of British law.
Mr. Clarke: I shall make a short intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. Lord Colville advises that I am using the powers properly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree with that? He skipped over that suggestion. If he does not agree, why not?
Mr. Blair: I have no means of knowing whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is using the powers properly or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Of course I have not. The issue is not whether he is using his powers correctly. We passed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so that, after 36 hours, a person should be brought before a judge. We did not say that he should be brought before a civil servant or a politician but a judge. Let me educate Conservative Members. It is important that the power is vested in a court because in this country we believe that powers of detention should be exercised by courts, not by politicians, civil servants or parts of the Executive.
As a result of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the IRA has been handed a massive propaganda weapon, which it uses. We have had to derogate from the convention, and our reputation abroad is attacked as a transgressor of human rights. All that could be avoided, and the fight against terrorism strengthened, if we were to comply with the ruling.
Listening to the Home Secretary, one would think that it was the most extraordinary proposition that a judge should be involved rather than the Secretary of State. When the European Court of Human Rights first made its decision, in the Brogan case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, said that his preferred route was judicial intervention. In other words, the very suggestion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman today decries as an extraordinary breach of the necessary means to fight terrorism was proposed as the preferred route by the current Foreign Secretary.
Conservative Members may disagree with our proposals, but to claim that the suggestion that someone who is detained should have the right to go before a judge rather than a politician is an outrageous breach of what we need to fight terrorism stands sense, reason and decency on its head. To describe that position as soft on terrorism and
976
to decry it as giving succour to terrorists says far more about the desperation of the Conservative party than about the fight against terrorism.
All hon. Members abhor terrorism. Everyone believes that we must act against it with all the powers we have. Of course that might involve measures which restrict civil liberty in a way which may otherwise be repugnant. However, if we go beyond what is necessary to combat terrorism effectively, if we cravenly accept that any Act introduced by the Government and entitled "Prevention of Terrorism Act" must be supported in its entirety without question, and if we adopt the attitude that anyone who dares to question it is a closet supporter of terrorism, we do not strengthen the fight against terrorism: we weaken it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is too much noise. Hon. Members know that, if the hon. Member who has the floor does not give way, they must resume their seats.
Mr. Blair: I am not giving way, because we need to make progress—[Interruption.]
Conservative Members who are barracking now should read reports of earlier debates on the issue. Some Conservative Members who are not in the Chamber—the present Leader of the House, for example—spoke of their distaste for the renewal of the provisions. I fully accept that they supported the provisions, but they were at least prepared to consider the case against them.
There is something very distasteful about Conservative Members' refusal today even to listen to the points being made. Since the exclusion orders were denounced by the Government's own advisers, and in view of the fact that a judicial intervention power was accepted by earlier Home Secretaries as not inhibiting the work of the security services, nothing that we are proposing would inhibit the security services or the police in the fight against terrorism. Nothing in our proposals would mean that recent arrests or fines would have been hindered. Suggestions to the contrary are merely crude propaganda of the most unworthy kind.
Let us be clear. The reason why the Government refuse even to talk to us about the legislation, despite the fact that our suggestions are being supported by their advisers and were previously contemplated by them, is that crime is doubling. The Government are losing the debate on law and order. They would prefer to disagree for the sake of the Tory party than agree for the sake of the country.
What we are asking the Government to do would in no way hinder the fight against terrorism. Indeed, it would allow us to present our case in the courts of the world with much greater conviction. I urge the Government even now to take the partisan nature of their debating out of the issue, to unite our parties, the House and the country in defence of our democracy and not to play politics with the issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House of what Madam Speaker said earlier. Many hon. Members are anxious to participate, but there is not a great deal of time, so could speeches please be kept as short as possible?
5.47 pm
Sir John Wheeler: I shall try to abide by your wishes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and be brief.
I agree to a certain extent with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). The annual debate on the renewal of the Act is very serious and important. No hon. Member, regardless of the party to which he belongs, willingly or easily agrees to the curtailment of liberty or a change in the normal procedures for the management of the criminal justice system. To that extent, I agree with him. Unlike him, however, I shall vote to renew the order tonight.
The cat leaped out of the bag when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he was opposed to the whole concept of the Act, as he is entitled to be. It became clear that the Labour party is divided on the issue. That is the difficulty facing the hon. Member for Sedgefield.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Wheeler: I shall not give way, because I intend to be brief.
The difficulty faced by the hon. Member for Sedgefield is that he does not have a united party and policy behind him.
We have been debating for some time but, so far, we have not mentioned the victims of terrorism. On the Treasury Bench today I see the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)—and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They have the awesome, gruesome task of appearing before the people of Northern Ireland week after week when an outrage has occurred. We know from the television news at the weekend and over the past few days how dreadful those outrages have been. My hon. Friends have to explain to the public exactly what the Government and the security forces are doing. We know of the horrors inflicted on ordinary people and their families. People are injured, maimed and killed; people have to suffer the consequences of that horror for the rest of their lives.
It behoves us to tackle the problem in the House, and to think about the victims as well as the arguments about civil liberties and the intervention of the criminal justice system.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Wheeler: I intend to be fair, I want to be brief, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall continue, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
I feel able to support the renewal of the Act because I too have read the independent report of my noble and learned Friend Viscount Colville. I have it before me now. Lord Colville is a distinguished member of the Bar, a distinguished Queen's counsel. In his statement to the Secretary of State on 10 February, he said:
"The Act ought, I recommend, to continue in force in its entirety for another twelve months".
He did not say, "Some part of the Act should be excluded from renewal"; he said, "in its entirety".
Lord Colville reviewed the operation of the Act in various ways. His report to the Home Secretary refers to
978
exclusion orders, which have been the subject of considerable debate. Exclusion orders are now being used less and less. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made only two exclusion orders in 1992, one of which was in respect of a man at the end of a 24-year prison sentence. The House may divine from the latter information that there were real reasons why my right hon. and learned Friend made the order relating to that individual. Twenty-one other orders were renewed.
Examining the operation of those procedures, Lord Colville said:
"The machinery is working effectively. The police themselves initiate the process, when orders are due to expire".
My right hon. and learned Friend has to examine carefully a detailed brief before he agrees to the exclusion order.
By far the most important part of the Act, and the reason why we should renew it tonight, is the power to detain people while inquiries are being made. The public outside the House and the people listening to the debate would be astounded if, in the present circumstances, the House of Commons were to say that we would handicap the police in the course of their investigations. It is only fair and right that the police should have reasonably granted powers, because in the course of their inquiries they have to use forensic services, which require time—not merely hours but sometimes two, three or more days—especially when guns and explosives are the subject of the investigations. To deny the police the use of that time would be criminal in itself, and entirely wrong. The power should continue.
It is said that the decision should be transferred from the Secretary of State to a High Court judge. However, when I was a magistrate and had to consider whether to grant or withhold bail, I sat in an administrative capacity, not in a judicial capacity in which I would have been deciding the guilt or innocence of an individual. I was deciding, on the balance of the information presented to me, whether I should allow a person freedom on bail or withhold his liberty. Precisely the same process is in play when considering whether to detain someone under the Act.
One of the key factors in the decision is time. The Home Secretary must make the decision rapidly. As the House knows, such events occur dramatically and suddenly, when the police make an arrest and require further time for forensic and other inquiries, or wish to apprehend other potential suspects. They require an immediate decision from my right hon. and learned Friend. I see no advantage to the cause of civil liberty in transferring that burden and obligation from the Home Secretary's desk to the desk of a High Court judge.
I have heard references to the practices of continental Europe, but when I examine the administrative procedures of France or Germany, to my horror I discover that people can be detained without trial not only for weeks but often for months. We in this country would not find that tolerable, so I see no comfort in looking to the procedures of continental Europe for a comparison with our decision on the procedures in the Act.
I have consulted the police. They do a difficult arid dangerous job on behalf of the public in the United Kingdom. We ought to be grateful to them for the work they do in trying to prevent and contain terrorism. The police are successful, and they believe that they should be given the powers. They do not especially welcome such

979
powers. They prefer to operate not exceptionally but within the curtilage of the normal criminal justice process, but they are firmly of the opinion that for the time being the powers should be retained.
The House does not have to agree simply because the police say so, but we certainly ought to listen to the voices of the people in the front line of the investigation and containment of terrorism.
For those practical reasons, I shall vote for renewal of the Act. I shall not do so lightly. I agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield that this is a serious matter. It is indeed right that we should pause and ask whether it is really necessary to continue with the Act. I reluctantly come to the conclusion that, for the time being, we should, so I urge my hon. Friends and all other hon. Members to agree to the renewal of the Act for a further 12 months, as was recommended independently by Lord Colville.
5.58 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I begin by agreeing with a least two things that the Home Secretary said. First, in reply to an intervention, he said that terrorism in Northern Ireland was becoming less and less political and more and more a feature of gangsterism. The more often that we can say that, the better it will be for all parties involved. I have no doubt that it is true.
Mr. Mallon: I apologise for asking the right hon. Gentleman to give way immediately, but what he has said is entirely wrong. We under-estimate terrorism if we look upon it as gangsterism. Every murder committed by paramilitary groups is a political murder for a political purpose. We under-estimate what we are dealing with if we regard it simply as gangsterism.
Mr. Hattersley: Because of my respect for the hon. Gentleman, I am glad that I gave way to him in order to allow him to register his disagreement—but I believe that he will probably agree more with the rest of what I say.
I congratulate the Home Secretary on his decision to toughen the regulations governing terrorist finances, and to make the law in England more comparable with that which already exists in Northern Ireland, I urged his predecessor to do that last year, when the order was renewed, and I urged him to do so the year before. On both occasions, he swept aside the idea with something approaching disdain.
I suppose that I could then have toured the country saying that the Government were soft on terrorist finance, but that did not seem to me to be an especially grown-up way to behave. I do not believe that it is especially grown-up for the Home Secretary to have produced a mirror image of such behaviour when we advanced rational arguments.
The Home Secretary has the habit of saying the first thing that comes into his head and hoping that, if he is sufficiently emphatic, people will believe it. Several times he challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to say whether he agreed with Lord Colville's judgment that he, the Home Secretary, had behaved properly under the order. Lord Colville says no such thing. He says that the Home Secretary has observed the terms of the Act and that he has applied the criteria as set down in the legislation. Our entire argument is that the criteria are
980
wrong and that the terms of the legislation need to be changed. The idea that Lord Colville has endorsed everything that the Home Secretary has done in principle and in practice during his 11 months in office is simply wrong.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield on the quality of his speech and on his proposal for all-party talks in the hope that there could be a consensus on how to deal with terrorism. All-party agreement would be very much better on this matter, but it cannot come about as a result of the Government stating what they want and expecting everyone else to fall into line. Before this Parliament is over, the Government will discover that Governments with small majorities cannot behave in that way. They will discover that, if they want some co-operation, they must offer some co-operation to other parties.
I have no doubt that it would have been very much better if that had been done today, although I am not surprised that it has not been. The Government prefer to posture as the only true enemy of terrorism rather than pursue the rational course and deal with the provisions on their merits. I shall attempt to do that in one limited area. Because of the limitation of time, I shall not speak about exclusion orders, of which I very much disapprove.
I shall talk about no aspects of the provisions except the powers of detention and extended detention under the Act. I shall at once make my position on the history of the Act clear. I was opposed to it when it was introduced. I was involved in its conception because five of my constituents were killed in the Birmingham pub bombing. With the then Home Secretary, I went to Birmingham in the early hours of the day following that atrocity. Then, and subsequently, I was opposed to the Act.
During the past 14 or 15 years, I have sometimes been convinced that some special powers are needed to deal with terrorism. In my case, that has been a move in a more authoritarian direction rather than the reverse. As I now believe that some special powers may be necessary, all I shall do is consider what those powers should be and how they should be administered.
We have to begin with the question of the purpose of section 14. From time to time—I have spoken in many of these debates over the past 10 years—different arguments have been advanced about why section 14 is needed. On one occasion, the Minister of State, Home Office, who is now, incredibly, the Secretary of State for Education, asked me to understand that it was necessary because men with guns and explosives had been found in the garden of the Secretary of State for Defence. I offered the view that if someone with guns and explosives was found in my garden, I should expect him to be arrested and prosecuted whether there was a Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act or not.
Two years later, the then Minister of State gave the explanation that the Home Secretary has given today—that it is necessary to arrest persons who have not committed a crime but who are assumed to be likely to commit crimes or to co-operate in the commission of crimes. Even as one describes that proposal, one realises how anti-libertarian it is. Men who, on the Home Secretary's criteria, have done nothing for which they can be prosecuted must necessarily be arrested in the belief that they may in some way that the Home Office and the police

981
cannot describe be involved in the future commission of a crime. One may have to take such action, but one must be very careful about the procedure by which it is carried out.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
Mr. Hattersley: I see the Home Secretary rising. I give way to him, but because of time, I shall not give way again.
Mr. Clarke: I give a short example. Under the Act, a request may be made to the Secretary of State for an extension of detention beyond 48 hours to allow investigations to continue. I have known of cases in which, after the extension has been given, the suspect has started to answer questions when interviewed by the police although he has refused to do so before. That can lead to the discovery of equipment, the discovery of weapons and the interception of other people who are still pursuing the criminal conspiracy.
In many such cases, sufficient evidence will never emerge against the person detained to lead to that person being charged with an offence. It may happen that the offence contemplated never occurs, because we have had exceptional powers to deal with terrorism. It is important that a distinction is made between the worst terrorist cases and the ordinary operation of the law. I have given an example of how the extra detention can lead to the frustration of terrorist acts, although not necessarily to anyone being charged. That is a perfectly proper exercise of my role in the protection of the public against terrorism.
Mr. Hattersley: The examples that Lord Colville gives in his report are very different from those that the Home Secretary asks us to examine. The examples given by Lord Colville might well occur in normal criminal prosecutions. A man shoots at a car and the driver is injured, but not killed. A man is apprehended and it takes more than three days to carry out the necessary forensic tests. Such a problem can arise in a shooting that does not have a terrorist connotation. All Lord Colville's examples in the report are very different from those that the Home Secretary has used in his attempt to convince us today.
I am prepared to believe that there may be occasions on which the extension is needed. The question is how the extension should be carried out against the background of what results from detention and its extension. Lord Colville's report tells us that, in 1990, 193 men and women were detained. Only 28 were charged and only six of them were charged with terrorist offences. In 1991, 153 men and women were detained and only four were charged. Last year, 126 men and women were detained and 30 were charged. That means that, although many people are held under these powers, at the end of the interrogation, which the Home Secretary has told us is likely to be so effective because it is prolonged, only one quarter at best are charged with any criminal offences.
The Home Secretary cannot take lightly the idea that numbers of men and women are held for 36 hours, for 48 hours or for seven days in police custody and then turned out without any charge being brought against them.
The suspicion that has always run through these debates is that men and women have been held under this power not because it was anticipated that they would be charged, but because it was thought that they would provide information. On one occasion, the then Home
982
Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, admitted that that was a proper use of the Act. The Home Secretary now says that it is a proper use of the Act.
Mr. Clarke: No.
Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way in a moment.
The Home Secretary must remember that using the Act to trawl for information was a purpose of the Act which his Government specifically recanted when they went to the European Court of Justice. Sir Leon Brittan was disowned at the court. The Home Secretary's immediate predecessor said last year and the year before that the Act was never used for that purpose. If the Home Secretary wants to tell me now that it is, I shall give way.
Mr. Clarke: This is the point that I tried to make at the beginning of my speech. The Act exists to assist the prevention and investigation of terrorism. How many of those detained were charged is not a measure of its success. Of course it is important that people are not detained at whim and that we do not go on fishing expeditions. I have to be satisfied that there is a good and substantial reason for the individual to be detained. It is no good saying afterwards, "You may have recovered 10 tonnes of Semtex, but you have not been able to bring a charge against the person you detained." I regard it as a successful use of the Act if we have got the tonnes of Semtex even if nobody can be charged, because what was intended as a major terrorist outrage never actually took place, thanks to the use of the powers under the Act.
Mr. Hattersley: If the Home Secretary is making a second change of attitude and saying that the powers are being used for what I believe his profession calls fishing expeditions, the queue at the European Court will be a mile long, since the last judgment against the Government was minimised because the Government's representative was explicit in saying that the powers were not used for that purpose.
I say without hesitation that I am opposed to the arrest of men and women against whom no charge is likely or possible simply in order to obtain information from them. That is not consistent with the rule of law in a free society. Men and women who are deprived of their liberty by being held temporarily in custody—"temporarily" meaning seven days in this context—ought only to be men and women against whom a charge is at least possible, whether or not it is likely. Now that the Home Secretary has changed his attitude and has admitted that the Act is being used for this purpose, I believe that we will return to the subject time after time.
One reason why I want to see judicial intervention is that I do not believe that the Act would be used for fishing expeditions were that a feature of its operation. I now begin to understand one reason why the Government do not want judicial intervention; it would be difficult for them to say to a judge, "We have not got anything against this man but we want to hold him in peculiar circumstances under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in the hope that we may obtain information from him."
Mr. Clarke rose—
Mr. Hattersley: Mr. Deputy Speaker asked us to be brief. I have given way twice already. On both occasions the Home Secretary's interventions were almost as long as my speech.
Mr. Clarke rose—
Mr. Hattersley: I have not given way yet. The Home Secretary must learn how the House operates. I will give way to the Home Secretary on the understanding that on this occasion he will be brief. Is that agreed?
Mr. Clarke rose—
Mr. Hattersley: I have not given way to him yet. If he will be brief, I will give way to him. Is that agreed?
Mr. Clarke: Yes, I will be brief. The right hon. Gentleman obviously misheard me a moment ago. I said that we do not use the powers for fishing expeditions. We detain people only when we are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence or information to justify keeping them, but it is a successful use of the powers to prevent and investigate terrorism. It is not an accurate test to say that the person should necessarily be charged at the end. Great success may be achieved without the charging of the person properly detained.
Mr. Hattersley: Now that the Home Secretary and I have developed a proper relationship across the Floor of the House, let me say to him that if that was what he meant, it was not what he said. If it was what he intended to say, it is not consistent with the figures. The figures make it clear that only a tiny proportion of the men and women who are held are charged. That can only mean that what the Home Secretary appeared to say a moment ago is fact.
I want to pursue the crucial and central question of judicial intervention, but before that I want to make one other point clear. Over the past five years, I have taken part in innumerable radio and television programmes about men and women who have been wrongfully convicted. Inevitably the Home Office Minister who appeared with me said that there was nothing to worry about because those men and women had been convicted before the passing of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which meant that such a catastrophe could never occur again.
The Home Secretary must understand, as Lord Colville makes clear in this year's report, that were any of those people, who were so cruelly mistreated by the misapplication of the law and wrongful conviction, brought to court again, they would not have the full protection of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; they would have the protection of that Act as modified by the prevention of terrorism Act. They would not get access to their solicitor at the same time as a man or woman who was charged under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. When I hear the Home Secretary say that, if people are kept in a long time, and if they know that their detention has been extended, they are more likely to talk, the overtones of the Birmingham pub bombing and of the Maguire case ring clearly round the Chamber. [Interruption.] That is what the Home Secretary said, as the record tomorrow will show clearly. He is dealing lightly with the fundamental concept of civil liberty which he, perhaps more than any other Minister, ought to preserve.
Many or perhaps all of the problems could be overcome if the Government would agree to a judge taking the decision on the extension of the detention order. That is necessary in principle because it is wrong in our sort of democracy that a Minister should have the right to
984
imprison a man or woman for seven days. It does not matter how assiduous the Minister is in reading the papers, or whether he is a genuine or a bogus libertarian; it does not even matter if he is an ex-libertarian who is ambitious for high office. It is wrong in principle that a politician should be enabled to keep a man or woman in custody for seven days.
My fears, which the Home Secretary says are groundless, about fishing expeditions or people being likely to talk when they are locked up for a long time are much more likely to be avoided if at some point evidence is presented to a judge explaining why that man or woman is there. The explanation might even be that described by the Home Secretary in his third interpretation of what he said first. Whatever the reason, it could be put to a judge, who would make the judgment.
It has been said that, by giving the information to a judge, one would be risking further crimes being committed. I trust judges enough to believe that they could be given such information in camera and it would remain secure. That is all we are asking for. If that happened, many of our fears would be removed. We would no longer be at variance with the European Court of Human Rights and we would no longer have to have the derogation from section 5 of the document to which we are a party.
The Home Secretary seems to think that what Lord Colville said last year or the year before he no longer believes unless he issues an official confirmation. I assure the Home Secretary that if he reads all Lord Colville's reports he will find that three years ago Lord Colville said that a bold new initiative was necessary to replace the extension of detention order. He said that that initiative should be based on the Scottish or Isle of Man methodology. "Methodology" is not a word of my invention or of common use, but that is what Lord Colville said and that is what the Government should do.
I conclude by telling the Home Secretary what I thought he knew: his immediate predecessor but two, the present Foreign Secretary, told me that that was the scheme which he would like to see in operation. I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary at the time we were arraigned before the European Court. I asked him whether we could conform to European practice by having a judge decide the necessity for the extended detention. There was no secret about it; the then Home Secretary told me that that was his preferred solution but that the judiciary would not have it. There was speculation between us as to why that was so. I came to the conclusion that the judiciary would have it if the House passed a law because, if the obligation was placed on them by Parliament, they would fulfil it.
When our argument provokes from the Home Secretary the response that we are pandering to terrorism, that is the most pathetically second-rate reaction imaginable, even from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches are just as much subject to the discipline of the Chair as any other hon. Member. I will not allow cross-party conversations.
Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps this comes as news to the Home Secretary, but at the meeting of the general council of the Bar in the summer, I discussed the matter with the Attorney-General and other barristers. We all knew that a

985
past Home Secretary wanted that solution and there was discussion about whether the judges were right to reject it. I say only this to the Home Secretary. Some of us who believe that the fight against terrorism will be won only if the Government abide by the rule and the spirit of t he law will go on arguing the case made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield.
It is not because we are soft on terrorism but because we are rational about it. Terrorism will not be defeated by a party which has a political advantage or has some sort of primeval reflex rather than thinking about the real methods of bringing terrorism to an end.
6.19 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: A sense of deja vu returns as we canter through our annual debate, with many familiar faces from previous years and at least a hint of some of the speeches from previous years.
The essence of the debate is how to perform the balancing act between a proactive response to terrorism and safeguarding civil liberties. A delicate balancing act must be performed. I do not for one moment challenge the sincerity of Labour Members when they pronounce their determination to see terrorism effectively combated. My argument is with the means to achieve that.
Listening carefully to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) this afternoon, I had difficulty not so much with the points that he made, which are valid and worthy of debate, as with the fact that I cannot see that the distance between his point of view and that which is contained in the Act is sufficiently great to justify his party in not voting for the order. In other words, I feel that the hon. Gentleman would prefer the provisions to be in place rather than having no provisions at all, which is surely the implication of his voting against them.
To be brief because we are short of time, I wish simply to select three points from the report itself. Arguably, the report has received little attention in this debate. First, I refer to page 4 and the section on exclusions. I have certainly learnt something from the Home Secretary today about Lord Colville's attitude on exclusions which I did not previously realise. I was under the impression that Lord Colville had historic doubts about exclusion.
I specifically notice that, in paragraph 4, Lord Colville refers to the instance of a citizen of the Republic of Ireland being the subject of an exclusion order and being deported to Northern Ireland. I believe that it is the first time that that has happened. That raises serious questions and must be examined. Should not restrictions placed on deportation against a citizen of the Republic of Ireland be examined more carefully?
The second point relates to the comments on the statistics. Lord Colville acknowledges that we must be wary of percentages as an indication of the success or otherwise of the measures. Trends reflect more the level of terrorism than the effectiveness of the measures. I entirely endorse the conclusion that Prevention of Terrorism Act powers are a deterrent, the effectiveness of which it is impossible to prove. Although the effectiveness of the powers is impossible to prove, they are essential.
I am anxious to be brief. My final point relates to my concern about section 5 and the financing of terrorism. If I understood my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary correctly, he puts a different interpretation on the situation from Lord Colville's. Lord Colville refers to
986
section 13 and schedules 4 and 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. He acknowledges that the complexities are great but says:
"so far there have been no prosecutions nor money confiscated."
That is an alarming state of affairs. I therefore fully endorse the suggestion that the Criminal Justice Bill, which is now before the House of Lords, should be examined thoroughly to see whether more effective measures are needed.
On page 19, Lord Colville raises another issue:
"the extent to which the PTA is able to catch fund raising in the UK which is intended to provide for internecine conflicts overseas."
That is a subject which we have debated previously. Certainly, in the past I should have liked to see organisations of other countries prosecuted for their activities in London, but successive Home Secretaries have seen the dangers of that and I wonder whether we should tread more carefully than Lord Colville suggests. It may be difficult to take action against other countries' organisations; after all, today's freedom fighter could be tomorrow's terrorist.
My essential point is that I have no qualms or hesitations about these provisions. It is essential that they be renewed and I look forward to that.
6.25 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I shall try to be as brief as possible in the present circumstances. I begin by thanking Lord Colville for his report. The frequency of quotations by both sides of the House from Colville past and present is eloquent testimony to the value of his report.
Lord Colville makes the point that the only thing that we can do today is renew the Act or not. We cannot make proposals for change, although in such debates we take the opportunity to air matters which we hope that the Home Office will take on board for future reviews. There is a pressing need for some decent parliamentary scrutiny of this issue. Clearly, this kind of annual debate is inadequate, and today's will be more inadequate than usual due to the lack of time. It is time for proper thought to be given to proper parliamentary scrutiny of these matters on a more continuous basis.
I find myself in the curious position of supporting the renewal of the legislation, although I have considerable sympathy with the two ranges of objections made by the Labour party. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) quoted the comments of the former Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, in 1987. We stand for those comments completely; we still do not like exclusion orders, and we believe that the practice should be discountined because it is fundamentally wrong.
The hon. Gentleman's second range of objections referred to the detention power and what we call the Brogan point. I regard the Brogan point as more of a technicality. The substance of the matter is that persons being detained and questioned are treated much better in the United Kingdom than on the continent. Reference has been made to the way in which persons can be detained on the continent for months on end. It is a problem of a different legal culture and the custom of having a juge d'instruction in the continental system.
Because of the propaganda point involved and because it involves our derogating on this small point, I wish that

987
the Home Office would examine the issue more closely. I agree that a High Court judge cannot be involved because he would be involved in any subsequent trial, which completely rules him out. Nor could the job be given to magistrates because of the uneven quality of the magistracy—I say no more on that.
As Lord Colville said, we must look to the practice in Scotland with the procurator fiscal and the practice in the Channel Islands. We must also look at what was recommended in Northern Ireland in 1971 by the MacDermott report—that something equivalent to the juge d'instruction should be introduced. It would not need to be introduced for all cases; it could be introduced for these cases only.
The Brogan case did not require matters to be brought before a court. It used the term "judicial officer". A judicial officer could be created for the purpose of approving extensions. The same person could do the job currently done by Sir Louis Blom Cooper and his deputies with regard to supervising detention. That would be a more favourable way of doing it.
None the less, those matters are technicalities and are not sufficient grounds for voting against the legislation as a whole. I hope that the Labour party will continue to reconsider the matter. There is a change of tone, certainly between last year and this year: the Labour party has reduced its objections from three in 1992 to two in 1993. I hope that that trend will continue and that the Labour party will adopt a more sensible position. Labour Members have put on record their objections to the technicalities, but one way of showing that they are concerned simply with those particular aspects and are not opposed to the fight against terrorism generally is by declining to divide the House later this evening. That would be a fair and balanced way of doing it.
I am glad that the Home Secretary has accepted Lord Colville's suggestion to table amendments to the financial aspects of the Criminal Justice Bill. Financial powers need to be strengthened—even those in the emergency provisions are not working particularly successfully. The Home Secretary should take on board the relationship between financing terrorism and drugs. Terrorist organisations are deeply involved with drugs, and legislation to combat that problem is not very effective. It should be more effective on both counts.
The Home Secretary should also address the issue raised on page 17 of the report in relation to conspiracy offences. I am not sure whether the present Criminal Justice Bill does so. If it does not, will the Home Secretary ensure that it does?
As I have said on previous occasions, there is a need for a coherent United Kingdom provision on terrorism. We have a patchwork of overlapping provisions which operate as a code. The legislation is vital for the police and the Army in Northern Ireland as it is their chief arresting power. We need a more coherent provision.
I shall not explore the subject of the present structures operating in Great Britain as it comes under the Sheehy inquiry. Thought must be given to the structure and approach in Great Britain. The Home Secretary referred to the way in which the security service—MI5—has been brought in. I am not reassured by that, as MI5 has been involved in Northern Ireland, where it has not covered
988
itself in glory, and I am not sure that it would do so here. We are discussing something which is fundamentally a police matter and should be treated as such. I do not think that bringing in overlapping agencies is the right solution. It may ultimately be correct to consider having a Great Britain or United Kingdom equivalent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or some such organisation, but bringing in the security forces is not a good idea.
Like the Home Secretary, I congratulate the police on the recent finds of explosives in London. I wish that the Home Secretary could say whether the explosives were home-grown or imported. Today's edition of the Evening Standard estimates that 10 tonnes of explosive material have been found in England since December. The well-informed security correspondent of The Irish Times —no snide comment intended—estimates that more than 20 tonnes of explosives were manufactured in Great Britain last year by the IRA.
The public should be made aware of that, alerted and told what to look for. Such matters cannot be dealt with in a hole-and-corner manner. The best assistance that we can have in defeating terrorism is the whole-hearted support of the people—and if we receive it, we should not call it collusion.
As other hon. Members have said, the provisions have been on the statute book for many years. Some people wrongly regard that as a reason for dispensing with them. I turn the argument around and say that the Government should think carefully and ask themselves why they have not yet succeeded. What have they been doing for the past 20 years to cause their failure? What should they be doing that they have not done for their past 20 years?
It is time to give serious consideration, not just to the security measures, but to the political context in which they operate. Mistakes have been made, and a mistaken approach adopted, over the past 20 years. It is time to give fresh thought to such fundamental matters. We hope that such action will result in not having to hold debates such as today's year after year.
6.34 pm
Mr. Derek Conway: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), whose experience and bravery—and that of his colleagues from all the parties in Northern Ireland—are well recognised in the House. We pay tribute to them. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will know that the fear and practice of terrorism occurs not only in Ulster, some of our major regional cities, our capital city in England, but in my constituency of Shrewsbury. In August, the IRA bombed many shops in Shrewsbury and caused considerable destruction at Shrewsbury castle and the regimental museum. However, the IRA has not won, as the people of Shrewsbury and Shropshire are determined to ensure that the regimental museum is rebuilt, despite the best endeavours of the terrorists.
It is right that the House should place on record its congratulations to the police on their alertness in making the discovery that was announced today. It should also congratulate them on the many other occasions when they have done a superb job in preventing acts of terrorism, not just sought to bring to justice those who have committed such acts. The purpose of today's debate—albeit a brief debate—is to talk about prevention, not exclusively what happens afterwards. Our police and the security forces

989
have not only one of the most dangerous jobs, but are best equipped and trained to carry it out. Regrettably, they are also the most experienced people in Europe in dealing with the problem.
Is terrorism in decline? I do not think that anyone believes that that is true. How best can we help the security forces to fight on the community's behalf? This afternoon, Labour Members, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—who made a speech more than 20 minutes long—have done nothing but wriggle. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 passed through Parliament only with the support of the then Conservative Opposition, who were not prepared to make partisan political points on an issue as important as the prevention of terrorism. It was ironic that the then Labour Government could get the Bill through the House of Commons only with Tory support, as 35 Labour Members opposed the measure.
The nub of the difficulty for the Opposition during the past 10 years has been that, since 1982, they have opposed the renewal of the Act every year except 1989, when the then Leader of the Opposition decided that it was time for positive leadership and ordered a three-line Whip for Members to abstain. Even then, 45 Labour Members voted against the Bill and against their leadership. Some of those Members now sit on the Labour party's Front Bench.
In 1987 the Labour party did not even mention prevention of terrorism in its manifesto, which shows the extent of its commitment to tackling the problem. In the Chamber today we have heard only empty rhetoric, which is a great pity. I have time and respect for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I fought his constituency in 1974 and know the district he represents. I believe him to be an honourable man, but if he wants the general public or the House to believe that he is serious about crime, his performance this afternoon will not convince them.
The Labour party has been wriggling about the exclusion orders, two of which were imposed throughout 1992. If a Martian landed on Earth and listened to today's debate, it would think that the Home Secretary was authorising the order to be used on thousands of people, but only two such orders were made in 12 months. The Labour party has advanced its whingeing civil liberties without a reference to the civil liberties of those people who have been bombed, injured and killed.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, exclusion orders are used for prevention, not punishment. My newly elevated right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) made an apposite reference to the magistrates' powers of bail. That is not a judgment, but a preventive action—and an executive, not judicial, one at that.
It is a great pity that the debate is not longer as we could have examined more closely why the Labour party is not prepared to support the order. It has tried to persuade us that its argument is based on civil liberty grounds. We believe that it wants to appease a minority—but significant number—of Labour party members who do not want the prevention of terrorism measure at any price. They would not want it if the Labour party were in government and they do not while the party is in opposition. They determine to fight terrorism with empty words, and are not serious in their fight. No Conservative Member wants the prevention of terrorism Act. The question is whether we need it, and Conservatives believe that we do.
990
We need strengthened intelligence—as mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. 'We need to back the police. Above all—however cheap the heckling—we need to try to bring the Labour Front-Bench team back to the realisation that terrorism cares not a damn for civil liberties. The terrorists care only for the succour that they will receive when Labour Members vote against the order in the Lobby tonight.
6.39 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Neither constraints of time nor inclination will persuade me to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), whose speech sits uneasily in the second half of the debate.
There must always be good and sound reasons for legislation of this nature. It inevitably places some categories of citizens in a less advantageous position than others. In truth, the legislation is discriminatory. Exclusion and detention detract from the civil rights of the citizen. The questions that we must answer are: whether the powers are justified and whether the price to be paid in terms of the freedom of a few is justified by the safety of the majority. Are we satisfied that, without the provisions, the police would be just as effective? It would be a confident Home Secretary who felt able to assert that these powers were not still necessary. Assertions that the powers are not necessary or that they should be diluted come rather more easily from those of us who do not have day-to-day responsibility for the terms of the legislation.
As I understand it, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) opposes exclusion orders as a matter of principle. I understand and accept that, but, if the challenge to exclusion orders is that they are ineffective, one must remember that their principal purpose is deterrence. In the field of human behaviour, it is rarely possible to be satisfied that a deterrent has been effective. If the power of exclusion is removed, we shall certainly find out whether it is a deterrent, but finding out may be uncomfortable and unpleasant.
We have discussed judicial intervention in detention orders. I mean the Home Secretary no injustice when I say that he came to the view that, at least in relation to England and Wales, such intervention was determined by practicality. There is much to be said for an element of judicial intervention. The question for the Opposition is whether the absence of an element of judicial intervention at the moment is sufficient reason to vote against the continuance of the order, with the consequent public perception. The hon. Member for Sedgefield makes a good case, but we are not at the Chancery Bar: we are engaged in giving what is inevitably a signal to the people of the United Kingdom about the House's resolution to combat terrorism.
Mr. Blair: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not, because time is short.
If the hon. Member for Sedgefield were on the Treasury Bench, he would face the dilemma of a genuine concern for public safety, against which he would have to balance some of what has been said by his party before today and

991
what he said in the debate. I rather fancy that, in that dilemma, the issue of public safety would prevail, and that would be perfectly understandable.
Mr. Blair rose—
Mr. Campbell: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman but I am anxious to make progress.
Mr. Blair: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned me several times, I think that I am entitled to intervene. Perhaps he will confirm that what I said about the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights was accepted by his predecessor in previous debates on this matter. Secondly, in no way would judicial intervention lessen public safety. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that. However, it would mean that our law would be perceived to be fairer. In view of that, why does he urge me to change rather than urging change upon the Government, when he and his Front-Bench spokesmen used to agree with my position?
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said about judicial intervention, he would have heard that there is much to be said for it. The question is whether it is legitimate today to vote against the continuation of the order because of an absence of judicial intervention, bearing in mind the public perception that will necessarily follow.
We should not vote for the continuance of the order because it will prevent terrorism or because it is a substitute for the due process of law, any more than we should vote for it because we think that that would give us some political advantage over other parties in the House. We should vote for it because it is a regrettable but necessary enhancement of police powers in an area in which the police need special assistance.
If all-party talks are offered or even discussed, they could proceed only upon unanimity of purpose in the House. Such unanimity would be best demonstrated by the order being approved without a Division.
Mr. Kevin McNamara rose—
Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is with great reluctance that I make the point, and I imply nothing in relation to the Chair. It is ironic that the section of the community that is most affected by the order has not been able to put its point of view in the House. I shall leave it at that.
Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I shall deal with the first point of order. I fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) says, but time is limited and there is nothing that the Chair can do about that.
Mr. McNamara: I would be more than happy to give two minutes to my hon. Friend to enable him to make his case so that both sides in Northern Ireland may be heard.
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. If he gave me more time, I would thank him very much.
Mr. McNamara: I am giving time.
6.45 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I have been allowed two minutes, but one gets used to such things when one is a member of a minority party. I shall have time to make just one point and will have to keep an eye on the clock.
This legislation has existed since 1974, and surely after so much time it merits re-examination. Such reexamination has been proposed, and it should come in the light of one question that I pose to the Government and the House. Despite the PTA and the whole battery of legislation, the number of troops that have been poured in, the £3 billion that have been thrown at the problem and the number of police and Army installations, why does terrorism continue in Northern Ireland? Despite internment, curfews and this legislation, why is it continuing?
The thesis that must be challenged is the one that says that the more troops and money and the more stringent the laws that are thrown at the problem, the more success, the more intelligence, the more arrests will result and terrorism will be defeated. That is patently erroneous. As the detection rates and the Secretary of State's figures show, the contrary is the case. The greater the intensity of security, as shown by this legislation, the more the community suffers. The more it suffers, the less hard intelligence is received by the security forces, and the terrorists laugh all the way to their next atrocity.
Let us not forget that the ideal context for the terrorist is the outward show of strength in the north of Ireland. The panoply of legislation is strangling the capacity of the security forces for detection. Those measures defeat their own purpose because communities are being held to ransom, mine more than any. That is why I am angry. That is why intelligence is not coming through. The methods are counter-productive, and by their use we have allowed the classic wasteland to develop. That is an ideal scenario for the terrorists to do as they do in places such as South Armagh. The result is that the detection rate goes down. We are approaching the issue in the wrong way. Let us have the courage to rethink.
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McMamara).
6.48 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) for putting the debate in context. He has shown that all hon. Members share an abhorrence of terrorism and are united in the need to defeat the terrorist threat. Building upon that consensus, the Labour party called on the Government to seek all-party agreement on a counter-subversive policy that would be developed, in the words of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland,
"to strike a balance between the need to detect and convict terrorists and the need to preserve basic civil liberties."
That offer has been rejected out of hand.
Unlike the Conservative party, the Labour party does not want simply to hold up the prevention of terrorism Act as some kind of talisman to ward off evil terrorists, as legislation which takes no account of an individual's civil rights and which brings the law and the security forces into disrepute.
Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNamara: No, I shall not give way.
We want the exclusion order abolished because it violates at least six basic human rights, including the right of freedom of movement contained in article 2 of the fourth protocol of the European convention on human rights; the right to a fair and public trial contained in article 6; the right to respect for private and family life in article 8; the right to freedom of association in article 11; and rights to participate in public affairs and to seek work and improve economic circumstances. If there is insufficient evidence to bring a person before a court of law, there are insufficient grounds to impose internal exile. In a democratic society, the Government cannot simply ignore the due process whenever it is convenient to do so.
I have deliberately excluded various other matters in order to reduce the time of my speech, but I want specifically to turn to another part of the community which suffers inhibitions as a result of the legislation.
One of my hon. Friends spoke about the Irish in his constituency. A survey by the Irish Post found that one in 10 Irish males living in Britain have been detained under or affected by the prevention of terrorism Act. This harassment only adds to the sense of alienation felt by the Irish community in Britain. Although I am not suggesting that it leads people to support the IRA, it certainly does nothing to enhance their perception of the impartiality of the justice system in Britain.
The same survey found that, in the wake of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and other similar cases, 80 per cent. of the Irish in Britain doubted that they would receive a fair trial for a terrorist-related offence. Those figures starkly illustrate the legitimate fears of the largest ethnic group in Britain. While I accept criticisms of such a postal questionnaire, those who replied are the articulate, opinion-forming members of the Irish community.
The prevention of terrorism Act has only a symbolic value, but on this matter more than any other symbolic politics are not enough. The Government have tried to take the high moral ground in the fight against terrorism, and they singularly fail.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spoke about nitrates being used in explosives. I raised the matter with the Department in July; when I suggested that there might be reason to refer explosives and nitrates to the explosives inspectorate, I received the following reply:
"I understand that ammonium nitrate is classified, in line with United Nations recommendations, as an oxidising substance rather than an explosive. It is in widespread use in agriculture, and the Health and Safety Executive has published guidance for its safe storage. I do not believe that any further controls would be workable. Accordingly, I have no plans to refer the matter to the explosives inspectorate." —[Official Report, 15 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 779.]
It took a couple more bombs and a few more threats for me to write to the Secretary of State and get a reply from Earl Ferrers that the Department had suddenly realised the importance of nitrate and its value to the terrorist.
Those are the people who say that we are complacent about the terrorist threat when something has been lying around the country and they are unable to deal with it. We are not having any of that from them, especially when it was not the Labour party that allowed the Harrods bombing suspects to remain at large in London for 33 days.
994
The chief crime correspondent of The Mail on Sunday, Chester Stern, wrote that MI5—the Minister praised MI5 for having control of the terrorist campaign—insisted on holding back video security tapes which led to the capture of the suspected terrorists within hours of them being screened publicly. Disagreements between the police and MI5, whom the Government have placed in charge of anti-terrorist observations, allowed suspected IRA bombers to roam the streets of London for over a month longer than necessary.
During that time, another bomb was placed on a rush hour train leaving Victoria station, and we had to wait until three days after the bombing in Camden for MI5 to relent and release the pictures. I am happy to say that the public reacted quickly and within hours two suspects were arrested.
The decision to adopt such a high-risk strategy, despite police objection, would never have been countenanced by a Labour Government. The Labour party has never put the lives of the people of London at risk in such an incredibly cavalier manner. The consequences of such a policy could easily have been death and mayhem in the streets of London.
The Government talk to us about being easy on terrorism. The evidence was there, but they wanted to play clever dicks, and as a result two further bombs were placed, possibly by those under suspicion. They had the evidence, they had the photographs, but they refused to release them, and those men were roaming the streets of London for 33 days.
That story has never once been challenged, denied or contradicted to The Mail on Sunday, its editor or the reporter: I checked that with them today. Let us have none of that nonsense from the Government, that somehow they are the only people who are hard on terrorism because they have the fig leaf of the prevention of terrorism Act, which does no good at all.
Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, in my constituency, we buried a young man—[Interruption ]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. It is difficult when there is so much noise in the Chamber.
Rev. William McCrea: This afternoon we buried a 25-year-old man in my constituency because of IRA terrorism. Can we hear what the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has to say about the right to freedom of movement for Nigel McCollum, who was buried this afternoon? What about the right to family life— [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for the Chair what the Front-Bench spokesmen of either party have to say.
Mr. McNamara: I have every sympathy with that family and with the families of all people who have been killed in terrorism in Northern Ireland, but I must say quite sincerely that it appears that the prevention of terrorism Act did not work in that sad case.
6.57 pm
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: First, I hope that I never see the day when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is responsible for operational

995
matters which hon. Members will have raised, even with the assistance of The Mail on Sunday. I am also sorry that I did not take up the invitation which he issued on behalf of the Opposition, when he was addressing the Machiavelli society at Hull university, to have talks on the renewal of the Act. However he and his hon. Friends made it quite clear that they are opposed to key provisions in the Act.
I have had robust support for our proposals from my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), among others. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who has a liberal reputation and great expertise in these matters, supported them, and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) also said that the commonsense judgment was to renew these powers. The Ulster Unionists also support us.
I understand why the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) feels instinctively that we should not have exclusion orders, but I assure him that the exclusion orders which disrupt the traffic across the Irish sea—81 remain extant, although we made only two new ones last year—disrupt the effectiveness of the terrorist threat on both sides of the Irish sea.
The main serious objection throughout is that we should have a judicial role in all this. Lord Colville has been much invoked. I pay tribute to Lord Colville who has been widely accepted as a good and impartial observer, and I take comfort from the fact that he is satisfied with my exercise of the powers.
On the point about judicial intervention, I refer to Lord Colville's 1987 report, which actually considered that matter. It was not his annual report. In paragraph 12.1.6, he makes it quite clear why he believes that the introduction of a judicial function would add nothing to safeguards and would not be practicable. Indeed, in that section of his report he defends the adviser system.
It is said that the Act is not successful because it does not result in a sufficient number of charges. I have said that I use its powers only when I am satisfied that charges can be made—but many other things flow from the Act. It is not true that few of those who are detained are then charged. In Great Britain, since the beginning of 1992, 19 people detained under the Act have been charged with serious terrorist-related offences. Indeed, about a quarter of all those detained are charged with serious terrorist offences. Without the powers of the Act, we would be frustrated, in part, in our efforts against terrorism.
I ask the House to renew the order. I make one last plea that we should renew it without a vote, to give some real meaning—
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [5 March]:—
The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 202.

Division No. 180]

[7 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Arbuthnot, James

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Aitken, Jonathan

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Alexander, Richard

Ashby, David

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Aspinwall, Jack

Alton, David

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Amess, David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Ancram, Michael

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

996

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Baldry, Tony

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Fishburn, Dudley

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Forman, Nigel

Beggs, Roy

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Bellingham, Henry

Forth, Eric

Bendall, Vivian

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Freeman, Roger

Blackburn, Dr John G.

French, Douglas

Body, Sir Richard

Fry, Peter

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gale, Roger

Booth, Hartley

Gallie, Phil

Boswell, Tim

Gardiner, Sir George

Bowden, Andrew

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Bowis, John

Garnier, Edward

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gill, Christopher

Brandreth, Gyles

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Brazier, Julian

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bright, Graham

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gorst, John

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Budgen, Nicholas

Grylls, Sir Michael

Burns, Simon

Hague, William

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Butcher, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butler, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butterfill, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hannam, Sir John

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Harris, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Haselhurst, Alan

Carrington, Matthew

Hawkins, Nick

Carttiss, Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Cash, William

Hayes, Jerry

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Heald, Oliver

Churchill, Mr

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clappison, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hendry, Charles

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Coe, Sebastian

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Colvin, Michael

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Conway, Derek

Horam, John

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

Cormack, Patrick

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Couchman, James

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cran, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hunter, Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jack, Michael

Day, Stephen

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jenkin, Bernard

Devlin, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Dickens, Geoffrey

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Dover, Den

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Duncan, Alan

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dunn, Bob

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Key, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Kilfedder, Sir James

Eggar, Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom

Elletson, Harold

Kirkhope, Timothy

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Kirkwood, Archy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Knapman, Roger

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evennett, David

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

Faber, David

Knox, David

Fabricant, Michael

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

997

Lang, Rt Hon lan

Sackville, Tom

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Legg, Barry

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Leigh, Edward

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lidington, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lightbown, David

Shersby, Michael

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lord, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Luff, Peter

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Soames, Nicholas

Lynne, Ms Liz

Speed, Sir Keith

McCrea, Rev William

Spencer, Sir Derek

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Maclean, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Spink, Dr Robert

Madel, David

Spring, Richard

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sproat, Iain

Major, Rt Hon John

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Malone, Gerald

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mans, Keith

Steen, Anthony

Marland, Paul

Stephen, Michael

Marlow, Tony

Stern, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stewart, Allan

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Streeter, Gary

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sumberg, David

Mates, Michael

Sykes, John

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Merchant, Piers

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Milligan, Stephen

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mills, Iain

Thomason, Roy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Moate, Sir Roger

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Thurnham, Peter

Monro, Sir Hector

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

Moss, Malcolm

Tracey, Richard

Needham, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Nelson, Anthony

Trend, Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Trimble, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Trotter, Neville

Nicholls, Patrick

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Tyler, Paul

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Viggers, Peter

Norris, Steve

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Walden, George

Oppenheim, Phillip

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Ottaway, Richard

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Page, Richard

Waller, Gary

Paice, James

Ward, John

Patnick, Irvine

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Waterson, Nigel

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Watts, John

Pawsey, James

Wells, Bowen

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Pickles, Eric

Whitney, Ray

Porter, David (Waveney)

Whittingdale, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Rathbone, Tim

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Redwood, John

Wilkinson, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Willetts, David

Richards, Rod

Wilshire, David

Riddick, Graham

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f''ld)

Robathan, Andrew

Wolfson, Mark

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wood, Timothy

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Yeo, Tim

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Mr. Andrew MacKay

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

998

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Hall, Mike

Adams, Mrs Irene

Hardy, Peter

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Allen, Graham

Henderson, Doug

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Hendron, Dr Joe

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Heppell, John

Austin-Walker, John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hinchliffe, David

Barnes, Harry

Home Robertson, John

Barron, Kevin

Hood, Jimmy

Bayley, Hugh

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hoyle, Doug

Bennett, Andrew F.

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Benton, Joe

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Bermingham, Gerald

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Hutton, John

Blair, Tony

Illsley, Eric

Blunkett, David

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Boateng, Paul

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Boyes, Roland

Jamieson, David

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Janner, Greville

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

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Burden, Richard

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mön)

Byers, Stephen

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Caborn, Richard

Jowell, Tessa

Callaghan, Jim

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Keen, Alan

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Canavan, Dennis

Khabra, Piara S.

Cann, Jamie

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Leighton, Ron

Clapham, Michael

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Lewis, Terry

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Litherland, Robert

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Livingstone, Ken

Cohen, Harry

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Connarty, Michael

Loyden, Eddie

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

McAllion, John

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

McAvoy, Thomas

Corbett, Robin

McCartney, Ian

Corbyn, Jeremy

Macdonald, Calum

Corston, Ms Jean

McFall, John

Cousins, Jim

McKelvey, William

Cox, Tom

Mackinlay, Andrew

Cryer, Bob

McLeish, Henry

Darling, Alistair

McMaster, Gordon

Davidson, Ian

McNamara, Kevin

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McWilliam, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Madden, Max

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

Mallon, Seamus

Denham, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dewar, Donald

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Dixon, Don

Martlew, Eric

Dobson, Frank

Maxton, John

Donohoe, Brian H.

Meacher, Michael

Dowd, Jim

Meale, Alan

Eagle, Ms Angela

Michael, Alun

Enright, Derek

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Etherington, Bill

Milburn, Alan

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Fatchett, Derek

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Faulds, Andrew

Morgan, Rhodri

Fisher, Mark

Morley, Elliot

Flynn, Paul

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Galloway, George

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gapes, Mike

Mudie, George

Gerrard, Neil

Mullin, Chris

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Murphy, Paul

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Godsiff, Roger

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Golding, Mrs Llin

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Gordon, Mildred

O'Hara, Edward

Graham, Thomas

Parry, Robert

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Pickthall, Colin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Pike, Peter L.

Gunnell, John

Pope, Greg

Hain, Peter

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

999

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Spearing, Nigel

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Prescott, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Primarolo, Dawn

Stott, Roger

Purchase, Ken

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Quin, Ms Joyce

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Raynsford, Nick

Turner, Dennis

Redmond, Martin

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Walley, Joan

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Wareing, Robert N

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Watson, Mike

Rogers, Allan

Welsh, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

Wigley, Dafydd

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Ruddock, Joan

Wilson, Brian

Salmond, Alex

Winnick, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Wolfson, Mark

Sheerman, Barry

Worthington, Tony

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wray, Jimmy

Short, Clare

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Simpson, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mr. John Spellar and

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

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

Soley, Clive

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day

  FOREIGN COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS)
  As amended (in the Standing Committee).
  To be considered tomorrow.

  FOREIGN COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS)

    Rating and Valuation
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick ]
    The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 58.

    Division No. 181]

    [7.14 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Colvin, Michael

    Alexander, Richard

    Conway, Derek

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Alton, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Amess, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Ancram, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Cran, James

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

    Arnold. Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Ashby, David

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Day, Stephen

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Devlin, Tim

    Baldry, Tony

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bates, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Beggs, Roy

    Duncan, Alan

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bellingham, Henry

    Dunn, Bob

    Bendall, Vivian

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dykes, Hugh

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Eggar, Tim

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Elletson, Harold

    Body, Sir Richard

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Booth, Hartley

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Evennett, David

    Bowis, John

    Faber, David

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Fabricant, Michael

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Brazier, Julian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bright, Graham

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Forth, Eric

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Freeman, Roger

    Burt, Alistair

    French, Douglas

    Butcher, John

    Fry, Peter

    Butler, Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Butterfill, John

    Gallie, Phil

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Garnier, Edward

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Gill, Christopher

    Carrington, Matthew

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Carttiss, Michael

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Cash, William

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Gorst, John

    Churchill, Mr

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Clappison, James

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    1001

    Hague, William

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mills, Iain

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hannam, Sir John

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Harris, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Harvey, Nick

    Needham, Richard

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heald, Oliver

    Norris, Steve

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hendry, Charles

    Page, Richard

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Paice, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Horam, John

    Pawsey, James

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

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Redwood, John

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Richards, Rod

    Jessel, Toby

    Riddick, Graham

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Key, Robert

    Sackville, Tom

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shersby, Michael

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Sims, Roger

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Knox, David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Legg, Barry

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Leigh, Edward

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Spring, Richard

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sproat, Iain

    Lidington, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lightbown, David

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Steen, Anthony

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Stephen, Michael

    Lord, Michael

    Stern, Michael

    Luff, Peter

    Stewart, Allan

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Streeter, Gary

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Sumberg, David

    McCrea, Rev William

    Sykes, John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    MacKay, Andrew

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Maclean, David

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Madel, David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Thomason, Roy

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Malone, Gerald

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mans, Keith

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Marlow, Tony

    Thurnham, Peter

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

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

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Tracey, Richard

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Tredinnick, David

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Trend, Michael

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Merchant, Piers

    Tyler, Paul

    1002

    Viggers, Peter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Walden, George

    Willetts, David

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Wilshire, David

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Waller, Gary

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Ward, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Wood, Timothy

    Waterson, Nigel

    Yeo, Tim

    Watts, John

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Wells, Bowen

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Whitney, Ray

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Whittingdale, John

    Mr. Robert Hughes.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Hutton, John

    Allen, Graham

    Jamieson, David

    Austin-Walker, John

    Janner, Greville

    Barnes, Harry

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Lewis, Terry

    Byers, Stephen

    Loyden, Eddie

    Callaghan, Jim

    McMaster, Gordon

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Madden, Max

    Canavan, Dennis

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Cann, Jamie

    Martlew, Eric

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Meale, Alan

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Milburn, Alan

    Cohen, Harry

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Morley, Elliot

    Davidson, Ian

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Mullin, Chris

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Rooney, Terry

    Denham, John

    Simpson, Alan

    Dixon, Don

    Skinner, Dennis

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Enright, Derek

    Spellar, John

    Flynn, Paul

    Turner, Dennis

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Godsiff, Roger

    Winnick, David

    Gordon, Mildred

    Wise, Audrey

    Graham, Thomas

    Wray, Jimmy

    Henderson, Doug

    Hinchliffe, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hood, Jimmy

    Mr. Bob Cryer and

    Hoyle, Doug

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos. 4 to 19.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    The House divided:Ayes 249, Noes 49.

    Division No. 182]

    [7.25 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Baldry, Tony

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Alexander, Richard

    Beggs, Roy

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Alton, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Amess, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Ancram, Michael

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Arbuthnot, James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Booth, Hartley

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bowis, John

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    1003

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hayes, Jerry

    Brazier, Julian

    Heald, Oliver

    Bright, Graham

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hendry, Charles

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Burt, Alistair

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Butcher, John

    Horam, John

    Butler, Peter

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

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hunter, Andrew

    Carttiss, Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Cash, William

    Jessel, Toby

    Chapman, Sydney

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Clappison, James

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Conway, Derek

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Key, Robert

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Cran, James

    Kirkwood, Archy

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

    Knapman, Roger

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Day, Stephen

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Devlin, Tim

    Legg, Barry

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Leigh, Edward

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Dover, Den

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Duncan, Alan

    Lidington, David

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lightbown, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lord, Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Luff, Peter

    Elletson, Harold

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Maclean, David

    Evennett, David

    Madel, David

    Faber, David

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Fabricant, Michael

    Malone, Gerald

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Mans, Keith

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Marlow, Tony

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Forman, Nigel

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Forth, Eric

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Freeman, Roger

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Fry, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Gale, Roger

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Gallie, Phil

    Milligan, Stephen

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Garnier, Edward

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gill, Christopher

    Moss, Malcolm

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Needham, Richard

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Gorst, John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hague, William

    Page, Richard

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Paice, James

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Pawsey, James

    Hannam, Sir John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Harris, David

    Pickles, Eric

    Harvey, Nick

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hawksley, Warren

    Redwood, John

    1004

    Richards, Rod

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Riddick, Graham

    Thomason, Roy

    Robathan, Andrew

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Tracey, Richard

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Sackville, Tom

    Trend, Michael

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Viggers, Peter

    Shersby, Michael

    Walden, George

    Sims, Roger

    Waller, Gary

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Ward, John

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wells, Bowen

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Whittingdale, John

    Spring, Richard

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Sproat, Iain

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Willetts, David

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Wilshire, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Stephen, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Stern, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stewart, Allan

    Wood, Timothy

    Streeter, Gary

    Yeo, Tim

    Sykes, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    NOES

    Allen, Graham

    Loyden, Eddie

    Austin-Walker, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Barnes, Harry

    McCartney, Ian

    Callaghan, Jim

    McMaster, Gordon

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Madden, Max

    Canavan, Dennis

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Cann, Jamie

    Martlew, Eric

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Meale, Alan

    Cohen, Harry

    Milburn, Alan

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Davidson, Ian

    Mullin, Chris

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Redmond, Martin

    Dixon, Don

    Rooney, Terry

    Dowd, Jim

    Simpson, Alan

    Enright, Derek

    Skinner, Dennis

    Flynn, Paul

    Spearing, Nigel

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Spellar. John

    Gordon, Mildred

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Graham, Thomas

    Winnick, David

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Wise, Audrey

    Hinchliffe, David

    Wray, Jimmy

    Hood, Jimmy

    Janner, Greville

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jowell, Tessa

    Mr. Bob Cryer and

    Lewis, Terry

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) >(Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    The House Proceeded to a Division—
    The Tellers having come to the Table—
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. As I understand it, the doors were locked in the middle of the vote, Which is not

    1005
    correct procedure. As soon as I found out that that had happened, I reported to you that I was not satisfied that the vote had been carried out in the correct manner.
    I understand that, during that period, some hon. Members went through the doors. I realise that, in your view, it was not unfortunate that the doors were locked for only a short period, but I am sure that you will accept that it is unprecedented for the doors to be locked during the eight minutes that are made available for hon. Members to vote. I can only suggest that the vote be taken again.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am advised that hon. Members went into the Lobbies without being counted. I have to order another Division.
    The House having divided: Ayes 181, Noes 43.

    Division No. 183]

    [at 7.47 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Gale, Roger

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Gallie, Phil

    Alton, David

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Amess, David

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Arbuthnot, James

    Garnier, Edward

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Gill, Christopher

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gorst, John

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

    Beggs, Roy

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hague, William

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Harris, David

    Bowis, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hawksley, Warren

    Brazier, Julian

    Heald, Oliver

    Bright, Graham

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hendry, Charles

    Butcher, John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Butler, Peter

    Horam, John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

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

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cash, William

    Jack, Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Clappison, James

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Colvin, Michael

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Conway, Derek

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Key, Robert

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Cran, James

    King, Rt Hon Tom

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

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Knapman, Roger

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Devlin, Tim

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Dover, Den

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Duncan, Alan

    Legg, Barry

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lidington, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Lightbown, David

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lord, Michael

    Evennett, David

    Luff, Peter

    Faber, David

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Maclean, David

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Freeman, Roger

    Malone, Gerald

    Fry, Peter

    Mans, Keith

    1006

    Marlow, Tony

    Steen, Anthony

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stephen, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stern, Michael

    Merchant, Piers

    Stewart, Allan

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Streeter, Gary

    Milligan, Stephen

    Sykes, John

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thomason, Roy

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thurnham, Peter

    Page, Richard

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

    Patnick, Irvine

    Trend, Michael

    Pawsey, James

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Viggers, Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Walden, George

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waller, Gary

    Redwood, John

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Richards, Rod

    Waterson, Nigel

    Riddick, Graham

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Whittingdale, John

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Willetts, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wilshire, David

    Sims, Roger

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wood, Timothy

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mr. Nicholas Baker and

    Sproat, Iain

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    NOES

    Austin-Walker, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Barnes, Harry

    McCartney, Ian

    Callaghan, Jim

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Martlew, Eric

    Cann, Jamie

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Mullin, Chris

    Cohen, Harry

    Pickthall, Colin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Davidson, Ian

    Redmond, Martin

    Dixon, Don

    Rooney, Terry

    Dowd, Jim

    Simpson, Alan

    Fatchett, Derek

    Skinner, Dennis

    Flynn, Paul

    Spearing, Nigel

    Gerrard, Neil

    Spellar, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Turner, Dennis

    Gordon, Mildred

    Winnick, David

    Graham, Thomas

    Wise, Audrey

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Hinchliffe, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jamieson, David

    Mr. Bob Cryer and

    Lewis, Terry

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c).
    That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Phil Gallie(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that these Divisions on non-contentious matters which are of great benefit to the people and councils of Scotland are a dastardly attempt by the Labour party to rob the people of Scotland of cash which they deserve and which there is no reason to stop?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the general public will read Hansard and make their judgment accordingly.
    The House having divided: Ayes 180, Noes 33.

    Division No. 184]

    [7.59 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Hague, William

    Alton, David

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Amess, David

    Harris, David

    Arbuthnot, James

    Harvey, Nick

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Heald, Oliver

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Austin-Walker, John

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Hendry, Charles

    Beggs, Roy

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

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

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Bowis, John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Jack, Michael

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Brazier, Julian

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Bright, Graham

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Brown, M. (Brigg &Cl'thorpes)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Butcher, John

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Key, Robert

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Carrington, Matthew

    Knapman, Roger

    Carttiss, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Cash, William

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Clappison, James

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Legg, Barry

    Coe, Sebastian

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Colvin, Michael

    Lewis, Terry

    Conway, Derek

    Lidington, David

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Lightbown, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Lord, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cran, James

    Luff, Peter

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

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Maclean, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Dixon, Don

    Malone, Gerald

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Mans, Keith

    Dover, Den

    Marlow, Tony

    Duncan, Alan

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Merchant, Piers

    Dykes, Hugh

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Elletson, Harold

    Milligan, Stephen

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Evennett, David

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Faber, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fabricant, Michael

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Fatchett, Derek

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Page, Richard

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Freeman, Roger

    Pawsey, James

    Gale, Roger

    Pickles, Eric

    Gallic, Phil

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Redwood, John

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Richards, Rod

    Garnier, Edward

    Riddick, Graham

    Gill, Christopher

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Gorst, John

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

    Rooney, Terry

    1008

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Trend, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Viggers, Peter

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Walden, George

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Waterson, Nigel

    Sproat, Iain

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Whittingdale, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stephen, Michael

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Stern, Michael

    Willetts, David

    Stewart, Allan

    Wilshire, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sykes, John

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wood, Timothy

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Thomason, Roy

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mr. Andrew MacKay and

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mr. Nicholas Baker.

    NOES

    Bayley, Hugh

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Martlew, Eric

    Cann, Jamie

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Pickthall, Colin

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Cohen, Harry

    Prescott, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Redmond, Martin

    Davidson, Ian

    Simpson, Alan

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dowd, Jim

    Spearing, Nigel

    Flynn, Paul

    Spellar, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Wise, Audrey

    Graham, Thomas

    Wray, Jimmy

    Griffiths. Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hood, Jimmy

    Mr. Bob Cryer and

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),
    That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
    The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 41.

    Division No. 185]

    [8.10 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Cash, William

    Alton, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Amess, David

    Clappison, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Colvin, Michael

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Conway, Derek

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Beggs, Roy

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Cran, James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

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

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Devlin, Tim

    Bowis, John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Dover, Den

    Brazier, Julian

    Duncan, Alan

    Bright, Graham

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Brown, M. (Brigg &Cl'thorpes)

    Elletson, Harold

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Butcher, John

    Faber, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    1009

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Freeman, Roger

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gale, Roger

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Gallie, Phil

    Morley, Elliot

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Garnier, Edward

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Gorst, John

    Page, Richard

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Pawsey, James

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Pickles, Eric

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hague, William

    Redwood, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Richards, Rod

    Harris, David

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Harvey, Nick

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Heald, Oliver

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Sims, Roger

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hendry, Charles

    Spencer, Sir Derek

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

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Sproat, Iain

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Steen, Anthony

    Hunter, Andrew

    Stephen, Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Stern, Michael

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Stewart, Allan

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Streeter, Gary

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Sykes, John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Thomason, Roy

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Thurnham, Peter

    Knapman, Roger

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

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Trend, Michael

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Tyler, Paul

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Viggers, Peter

    Legg, Barry

    Walden, George

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Waller, Gary

    Lidington, David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Lightbown, David

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lord, Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Luff, Peter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Wi Herts, David

    Maclean, David

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Wood, Timothy

    Malone, Gerald

    Mans, Keith

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Marlow, Tony

    Mr. Irvine Patrick and

    Merchant, Piers

    Mr. Andrew MacKay.

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry

    Graham, Thomas

    Bayley, Hugh

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Hall, Mike

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hinchliffe, David

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cann, Jamie

    Loyden, Eddie

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    McWilliam, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Martlew, Eric

    Cryer, Bob

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Davidson, Ian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Dixon, Don

    Redmond, Martin

    Dowd, Jim

    Rooney, Terry

    Fatchett, Derek

    Simpson, Alan

    Flynn, Paul

    Spearing, Nigel

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Spellar, John

    Gordon, Mildred

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    1010

    Winnick, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wise, Audrey

    Mr. Dennis Skinner and

    Wray, Jimmy

    Mr. Terry Lewis.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),
    That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
    The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 42.

    Division No. 186]

    [8.20 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Harvey, Nick

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Hawksley, Warren

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Heald, Oliver

    Alton, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Amess, David

    Hendry, Charles

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Jack, Michael

    Beggs, Roy

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Bowis, John

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

    Brazier, Julian

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Bright, Graham

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Knapman, Roger

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Butcher, John

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Legg, Barry

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Carrington, Matthew

    Lidington, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Lightbown, David

    Cash, William

    Lord, Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

    Luff, Peter

    Clappison, James

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Coe, Sebastian

    MacKay, Andrew

    Colvin, Michael

    Maclean, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Malone, Gerald

    Cran, James

    Marlow, Tony

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

    Merchant, Piers

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Devlin, Tim

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Dover, Den

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Elletson, Harold

    Page, Richard

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Pawsey, James

    Fabricant, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Redwood, John

    Freeman, Roger

    Richards, Rod

    Fry, Peter

    Riddick, Graham

    Gale, Roger

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Gallie, Phil

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Gill, Christopher

    Sims, Roger

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Gorst, John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Sproat, Iain

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Hague, William

    Steen, Anthony

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Stephen, Michael

    Harris, David

    Stern, Michael

    1011

    Stewart, Allan

    Waller, Gary

    Streeter, Gary

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sykes, John

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thomason, Roy

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Thurnham, Peter

    Willetts, David

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

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Trend, Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Viggers, Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Walden, George

    Mr. Irvine Patnick and

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Mr. James Arbuthnot.

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Hood, Jimmy

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Loyden, Eddie

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cann, Jamie

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Meale, Alan

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Cohen, Harry

    Pickthall, Colin

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Cryer, Bob

    Redmond, Martin

    Davidson, Ian

    Rogers, Allan

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Rooney, Terry

    Dixon, Don

    Spearing, Nigel

    Dowd, Jim

    Spellar, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Flynn, Paul

    Wise, Audrey

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Wray, Jimmy

    Gordon, Mildred

    Graham, Thomas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mr. Terry Lewis and

    Hall, Mike

    Mr. Dennis Skinner.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),
    That the draft Oil Related and Petrochemical Plants (Rateable Value (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for English Labour Members to seek to defeat this order, thus ensuring that business rates in the oil industry in my constituency would be raised by 85 per cent.?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is open to any hon. Member to object to any motion.
    Later—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have asked the Clerk to inquire what the delay is in both Lobbies. If an hon. Member is purposely sitting there, it is verging on contempt of the House.
    The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 41.

    Division No. 187]

    [8.36 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Beggs, Roy

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Alton, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Amess, David

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bowis, John

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Brazier, Julian

    1012

    Bright, Graham

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Lidington, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Lightbown, David

    Butcher, John

    Lord, Michael

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Luff, Peter

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Carrington, Matthew

    Maclean, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Cash, William

    Malone, Gerald

    Chapman, Sydney

    Marlow, Tony

    Clappison, James

    Merchant, Piers

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Cran, James

    Moate, Sir Roger

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

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Page, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Patnick, Irvine

    Duncan, Alan

    Pawsey, James

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Pickles, Eric

    Dunn, Bob

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Elletson, Harold

    Purchase, Ken

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Redwood, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Richards, Rod

    Fatchett, Derek

    Riddick, Graham

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Freeman, Roger

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Gale, Roger

    Rooney, Terry

    Gallie, Phil

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Sims, Roger

    Gill, Christopher

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Gorst, John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Graham, Thomas

    Sproat, Iain

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Steen, Anthony

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Stephen, Michael

    Hague, William

    Stern, Michael

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Stewart, Allan

    Harris, David

    Sykes, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Thomason, Roy

    Heald, Oliver

    Thurnham, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Trend, Michael

    Hood, Jimmy

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Viggers, Peter

    Hunter, Andrew

    Walden, George

    Jack, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Whittingdale, John

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Willetts, David

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Wood, Timothy

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Wray, Jimmy

    Knapman, Roger

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Mr. Nicholas Baker and

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

    Legg, Barry

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Boateng, Paul

    Denham, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    Dixon, Don

    Cann, Jamie

    Dowd, Jim

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Flynn, Paul

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Gordon, Mildred

    Cohen, Harry

    Graham, Thomas

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Cryer, Bob

    Gunnell, John

    Davidson, Ian

    Hinchliffe, David

    1013

    Hood, Jimmy

    Rogers, Allan

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Spellar, John

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Turner, Dennis

    Loyden, Eddie

    Winnick, David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Wray, Jimmy

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Meale, Alan

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Mr. Terry Lewis and

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Mr. Dennis Skinner.

    Redmond. Martin

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next motion, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that any obstruction of the Division Lobby is not acceptable to the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric pic. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
    The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 37.

    Division No. 189]

    [9.10 pm

    AYES

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mr. Bob Cryer and

    Mr. Harry Barnes.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Alton, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Amess, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Arbuthnot, James

    Beggs, Roy

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    1016

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Legg, Barry

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Lewis, Terry

    Brazier, Julian

    Lidington, David

    Bright, Graham

    Lightbown, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Lord, Michael

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Loyden, Eddie

    Burt, Alistair

    Luff, Peter

    Butcher, John

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Callaghan, Jim

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    MacKay, Andrew

    Cann, Jamie

    Maclean, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Malone, Gerald

    Carrington, Matthew

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Cash, William

    Meale, Alan

    Clappison, James

    Merchant, Piers

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Cran, James

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Davidson, Ian

    Moss, Malcolm

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Mullin, Chris

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Dixon, Don

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Page, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Parry, Robert

    Duncan, Alan

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Pawsey, James

    Dunn, Bob

    Pike, Peter L.

    Elletson, Harold

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Redwood, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Richards, Rod

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Riddick, Graham

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Flynn, Paul

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Gale, Roger

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Gallie, Phil

    Rooney, Terry

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Gill, Christopher

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Graham, Thomas

    Sims, Roger

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Gunnell, John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Hague, William

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Sproat, Iain

    Harris, David

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Harvey, Nick

    Steen, Anthony

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Stephen, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Stern, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Stewart, Allan

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Sykes, John

    Hood, Jimmy

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Thomason, Roy

    Hunter, Andrew

    Thurnham, Peter

    Illsley, Eric

    Trend, Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Tyler, Paul

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Viggers, Peter

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Walden, George

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Waller, Gary

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Whittingdale, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Knapman, Roger

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Willetts, David

    1017

    Wood, Timothy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wray, Jimmy

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Mr. Irvine Patnick.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next motion, may I say that I propose to invoke Standing Order No. 39. For those hon. Members who are not familiar with the Standing Order, after the lapse of two minutes on each motion I shall call the Ayes to stand and then to sit down and then the Noes to stand and then to sit down. I shall then make a judgment as to whether there is a clear majority one way or the other.
    Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you might reconsider your ruling. As I understand it, that procedure has normally been used in the middle of a Bill. I cannot recall an occasion when it has been used on statutory instruments. The history of statutory instruments is of considerable importance as they all used to be taken on the Floor of the House. Only with the permission of the House are they referred to a Committee upstairs on the basis that, when they return, it will be possible for the House to express a clear view; in other words, for all hon. Members to record precisely their vote.
    May I suggest that if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Government wish to proceed along this line, it is possible that my hon. Friends will decide that they do not want any orders to go upstairs to Committee. As I am sure you will appreciate—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The decision is a matter entirely for the Chair. I have not consulted anyone. It is my view that it is now appropriate to invoke the Standing Order.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The wording of Standing Order No. 39 is:
    "Mr. Speaker or the chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes, if in his opinion the division is unnecessarily claimed".
    You have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you propose to exercise your discretion. However, surely there is a responsibility upon you to tell the House why you believe a Division is being unnecessarily claimed. I have a case to put to you that—[Interruption.] I am quoting from Standing Order No. 39, which says:
    "if in his opinion the division is unnecessarily claimed"
    I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that these Divisions are being necessarily claimed. Some of us have voted in different Lobbies on different orders.
    May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that I voted against the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I accept the hon. Gentleman's word. However, I made it clear that my decision would be made after a lapse of two minutes; I did not say what that decision would be. I said that if, in my opinion, it was necessary to invoke Standing Order No. 39, I would do so.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am the Chairman of both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. We have made the complaint that in 1992 the Government produced more statutory instruments than have ever before been produced in the history of Parliament. It would be a very serious departure from parliamentary scrutiny if the torrent of statutory instruments produced by the Government were not then subject to a vote on the Floor of the House. That would mean that the legislative sausage machine that the Government are using would become even worse.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already made it clear that the House will not be denied a vote; the House will get its vote.
    Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
    The House divided: Aves 0. Noes 170.
    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you reconsider yet again your decision to invoke Standing Order No. 39? As I recall, the last time that that was invoked was in 1979— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be heard.
    Mr. Meale: On that occasion, 13 votes had already taken place. Surely we have not yet reached that stage in these proceedings.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I entered the House considerably earlier than 1979; and if the hon. Gentleman looks back he will find other precedents. In any case, we have already had 10 Divisions.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it your intention to invoke standing order No. 39 in respect of motion No. 19, which concerns the controversial issue of the common organisation of the market in potatoes, because I am keen to register a vote agin it?
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One at a time.
    Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to pursue the question of your ruling, but I would like you to explain how you will implement your ruling, to protect the rights—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am quite happy to do that when the time comes.
    Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Skinner.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the few occasions that Standing Order No. 39 has been invoked since 1970—although that has happened recently—I have been present. The occupant of the Chair invoked the Standing Order only when there were seven, 10 or a dozen hon. Members in the Chamber. On no occasion were 30 or 40 hon. Members voting—not while I have been here. On the last occasion that I recall, when we were up most of the night, only a handful of hon. Members were voting. It was relatively easy for the occupant of the Chair to see the numbers involved clearly. To do it on the basis of—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that the hon. Gentleman's memory is not perhaps as good as it used to be. Mr. Harry Barnes.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the 1986–87 Session, voting in the last three Divisions before the Standing Order was invoked was 167 to 32, 166 to 31, and 166 to 31.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the same scale—
    Mr. Skinner: You are wrong.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Barnes.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to contain themselves. Points of order from any part the House are important.
    Mr. Barnes: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your further ruling in respect of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) in respect of motion No. 19. Initially, that motion was considered by European Standing Committee A and, in a Division, the voting was four votes to two.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already told the House that I will consider each motion on its merits. We have reached motion No. 11; we are nowhere near motion No. 19.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that you would consider each order on its merits. As an individual Member of Parliament, I ask you to provide a procedure whereby my name is recorded as being in favour of the next order. "Erskine May" states:
    "Neither names nor numbers of a minority are now announced, though the numbers appear in the Journal."
    That would be insufficient to indicate that I voted in favour of the order about the nuclear power industry. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow a Division so that Hansard can show that I voted in favour of the valuation order as it relates to the Scottish nuclear industry.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear the hon. Gentleman's appeal, but I regret to say that I cannot meet it.
    Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to consider how to ensure that there is sufficient time for hon. Members to get into the Chamber to express their views—as is their right—and that thal is made clear on the Annunciator? Each order deals with a different subject, and an hon. Member may well decide not to vote on, for instance, the Scottish rating and valuation motions but to vote on the social security motions, or the motion relating to potatoes. You have a duty to protect the rights of Back Benchers, who rely on the Annunciator to know what is going on in the Chamber.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. However, 15 minutes have elapsed since I announced the position, and I assume that most—indeed, all—hon. Members now know what is going on.
    I shall now put the Question on motion No. 11. The Question is—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a new point of order.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: It really—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this a new point of order?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, it is not.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I shall put the Question on motion No. 11.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot]
    As many as are of that opinion say Aye—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. In my opinion, the Division has been called unnecessarily. I therefore call on hon. Members supporting the motion to rise in their places. Will those against the motion do the same?
    Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point of order for me.
    Mr. Bennett: Hon. Members are still coming in.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will those who are voting No please stand? They have to be counted. Will hon. Members please stand still?
    Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A major difficulty has occurred because of your ruling on this Division. We on this side of the House clearly heard the words from your lips, "Clear the Lobbies." That being the case, hon. Members on this side of the House must be allowed to vote through the Lobby.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I gave adequate warning. The difficulty is that the House is not used to this procedure.
    Mr. Meale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We should like you to reconsider your ruling. The reason is that, when you uttered the words, "Clear the Lobbies", hon. Members left the Chamber and went into the Lobby, following which the Division bells sounded. Those hon. Members remained in the Lobby and missed the vote. Some of them went to other parts of the House. We ask for a further ruling.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members make their own decisions. I made very clear what procedure I was to invoke. That procedure is laid down in the Standing Orders of the House.
    Mr. Don Dixon rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I have finished one ruling I shall be happy to take another point of order. [Interruption.] Order. Let me announce the result of that Division. In my opinion, the Ayes have it.
    Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On that occasion, you definitely said, "Clear the Lobbies." The Division bells rang and it went on the Annunciator. Then my hon. Friends went into the Lobby. May I ask you how many voted Aye? No one took any account of those who stood in favour of the motion, although the Clerks counted those who voted against it. How can you have a proper Division when there are no Tellers?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Clerk's responsibility is to count the minority, which he did. On this occasion it was the Noes. It may be the Ayes on a future occasion. The Clerk undertook that responsibility and reported the result to me. [Interruption.] Order. In my judgment, the Noes
    1020
    were so far below the Ayes that the motion was accepted. [Interruption.] I do not need to count. It was quite clear that there was a majority in favour of that motion.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that all of us in the Chamber, particularly those of us who have held chairs in various capacities, understand the difficulties that you face today—as well as the difficulties that some hon. Members might face in the next three days, difficulties that could have been relieved. Am I right in thinking that the procedure under the Standing Order is that the request to stand takes place on the second call after two minutes? Will you please confirm that? May I suggest that the difficulties that we have just experienced were caused by the fact that many of my hon. Friends—and nearly myself —did not understand that the moment to stand, if there was to be standing, was then and not earlier?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I explained that I proposed to invoke Standing Order No. 39. I spelt out the implications, and the record will show that I did. The fact that hon. Members are perhaps not aware of how Standing Order No. 39 works is not a matter for the Chair. I ask hon. Members to pay proper attention to announcements from the Chair.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the sake of clarification, and to ensure that there is no further confusion or misunderstanding, Standing Order No. 39, for those who —[Interruption.] Order. Will the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) do me the courtesy of listening? Standing Order No. 39 states:
    "Mr. Speaker or the chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes, if in his opinion the division is unnecessarily claimed, take the vote of the House, or committee, by calling upon the Members who support, and who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House or committee, or name tellers for a division."
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for clarification? I was working in my office when the Division bells rang. The Annunciator clearly stated that there was a Division in the House, and the bells were ringing for everyone to hear. There was no way that any hon. Members working in their offices could know that they had to be in the House immediately to stand up at the appropriate time.
    That meant that hon. Members who were working in their offices when the Division was called thought that they had the usual eight minutes in which to come to the Chamber. I seek your guidance on how hon. Members in that situation were supposed to know that the Division was being called on the Floor of the House in an unusual way.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady will be aware that I gave full warning 15 minutes before calling the Division.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. How can I give a proper answer to the hon. Lady if other hon. Members rise?
    I gave full warning 15 minutes prior to calling the Division what the procedure would be and when I would invoke it. Hon. Members are required to keep abreast of

    1021
    what is happening here. They must use their judgment about whether to leave the Chamber to work. My judgment is to give due warning, which I did to the best of my ability.
    Mr. Meale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I crave your indulgence for a second or two? Is it part of the procedure in such cases, when Standing Order No. 39 is invoked, to say, "Clear the Lobbies" and to call a Division?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, it is. If I say, "Clear the Lobbies", that is part of the required procedure. I must follow the procedure of the House as laid down by the Standing Orders. I have no room for discretion in that matter. My discretion concerns whether I announce the Tellers.
    Mr. Derek Fatchett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on how you weighed the votes for the Division. I think that the responsibility of the Chair in these circumstances is to protect the minority from those who try to shout us down. The point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this: those of us who voted No were asked to stand in our positions here. You then said that you thought that the Noes were a minority. May I say how impressed I am by your clairvoyance and perception, because nobody stood on the other side. How do you know—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did ask the Ayes—those who supported the motion—to stand, and all the hon. Members whom I can see on the Government side of the Chamber stood, and some Opposition Members, too. Then I called the Noes. After a delay, the Noes stood and were counted by the Clerk—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"]. It was clear where the majority lay. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] Thirty-four.
    Question agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Scottish Power plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker —[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hat?"] On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hat?"' On a point of—[HON. MEMBERS: "This is during a Division."] I rose on a point of order before the Division was called—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret to say that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order before I called the motion—[Interruption.]—but I shall take the point of order now, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise it and it follows the procedure of the House. The Question has been put, so I should be grateful if the hon. Member would follow the procedures of the House and wear—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Dixon rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am happy to give guidance if the hon. Gentleman will follow the procedure of the House.
    Mr. Eric Illsley(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the Procedure Committee recently recommended that, when there was an alteration during a Division—[HON. MEMBERS: "What? An altercation?"]—
    when there was an alteration to procedure during a Division, a message should be shown on the Annunciator. I am referring to what happens when a Division is extended.
    In those circumstances, it was recommended that some message should be displayed on the Annunciator to show hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) who are coming to the Chamber from outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster that they have extra time in which to vote. My suggestion is that perhaps it would be better for the House to be suspended for sufficient time to allow for hon. Members in and about the Palace of Westminster—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that procedure is primarily for security alerts and other events of that nature.
    Motion No. 12. As many as are of the opinion say Aye. to the contrary No. Clear the Lobbies.
    Mr. Meale(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of hon. Members in the Chamber, will you tell us: is this a Division? Are Members going into the Division Lobbies or not?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: "Clear the Lobbies" means clear the Lobbies of strangers. Hon. Members have had it explained to them several times that, if they wish to take part in the Division—which is entirely voluntary—they should remain in their places. After two minutes, if I believe it appropriate, I shall either call the Tellers, in which case there will be a normal Division, or I shall ask Members to rise in their places.
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, having said that it appeared to him that the Division had been unnecessarily claimed, accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, forty-two Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you explain the procedure under Standing Order No. 39 because there seems to be a lot of confusion, not among Opposition Members, but among Conservative Members? How will you tell whether there is a consistent vote if the vote for the Noes is not declared at the end of each vote? May we be given the number of those voting against at the end of each vote, and can that be put on the Annunciator so that people outside know that there is a Division and how many are voting against the motion?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House is entitled to know that 42 hon. Members voted against the motion.
    Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for clarification. I am sure that it would be helpful if the Clerks stood to count hon. Members. They remain seated, so they must have difficulty in counting. I understand that to challenge the

    1023
    count made by the Clerks would be to challenge your decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker and obviously I do not want to do that. However, while the Clerks remain seated, there is a possibility that they will miscount.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has experienced Clerks, and I think that we can rely on their ability to count.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I shall put my point of order if hon. Members stop baying. It is difficult for folk like me who have a hearing aid to hear everything in the Chamber when there is such noise. Hon. Members who, like myself, suffer from that disability will be helped by other hon. Members keeping quiet when they raise a point of order. I was moving so fast that my wife could not have counted me. How you could you count me, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Where is the hat?
    Mr. Skinner: He does not need a hat.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Where is the proper hat?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House insists on hats. There is one at either end of the Chamber.
    Mr. Skinner: His head has only got to be covered.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hat must be on.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where does it say that 1 must wear a hat? Which page?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wear a hat.
    Mr. Skinner: He does not have to.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you confirm—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call upon those supporting the motion to rise in their places. I call upon those opposing the motion to rise in their places.
    Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.
    Question agreed to.
    Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understood the rules, an hon. Member has to be covered. I understood that the recommendation from the Select Committee on Procedure was to provide the House with two hats but, because many hon. Members felt that it was not dignified to wear a hat like that, an hon. Member was entitled simply to have his head covered. I understand that it was custom and practice for an hon. Member to put an Order Paper on his head. If you can direct us to where it says that an hon. Member has to wear one of the hats as opposed to covering his head, I shall be grateful.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There seems to be great concern in the Chamber about the way in which proceedings are developing. Would it be appropriate for Madam Speaker to be asked to come to the Chamber so that we might have proper rulings on these matters?
    Mr. Redmond: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that Madam Speaker's predecessor allowed the practice of an hon. Member covering his head with an Order Paper. Has there been a change of practice?
    Mr. Michael Connarty: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is much more simple. In the year that I have been in the House, I have not heard three consecutive points of order go unanswered. It seems strange that we have a new procedure in the House. I have heard Madam Speaker say that she will answer one point of order before another is taken. We now have three points of order outstanding without an answer.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that the Select Committee on Procedure said that a hat should be worn. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was provided with a hat, courtesy to the Chair suggests that he should have worn it.

Council Tax Benefit
Motion made, and Questions put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Meale(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have we had the 10 o'clock motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no 10 o'clock motion tonight.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, thirty-five Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Council Tax Benefit (Permitted Total) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Meale(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you called the previous vote, I do not know whether it was because of the noise from the other side of the Chamber, but several of my colleagues and I certainly did not hear the motion on which we were voting. Therefore, it seems that many hon. Members have been through a voting procedure on at least three occasions when they did not know the order on which they were voting. I would appreciate your guidance on where we are at present and whether the previous three 'votes were in order because of the lack of a number.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are now on motion No. 15. I announced the previous motions very clearly.
Mr. Hugh Bayley(seated and covered): On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. For the previous two votes, I heard no announcement of the numbers voting. On one vote, I noticed two hon. Members—the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) and the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—voting both Aye and No. Did the Clerks count the No votes on both sides of the Chamber? You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could clarify the matter by giving the numbers voting Aye and those voting No on the previous two motions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members will know that if they vote Aye and No on both sides, they are counted on both sides.
Mr. Connarty(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that hon. Members are now becoming disturbed by the Deputy Speaker's authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) asked whether Madam Speaker could be called to the House as we have now reached the stage when it is clear that some hon. Members believe that the procedures of the House are being manipulated—and the Clerks are overpaid—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask those supporting motion No. 15 to rise in their places. Is the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is walking, voting Aye? It does not matter whether he is voting in the Gangway; it applies to anywhere in the House.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, two Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
Question agreed to.

Redundancy Payments (Local Government)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a comparatively new Member who has been in the House of Commons for six years, may I say that I have recently spent weeks on end in the Standing Committee on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill where we discussed the abolition of the wages councils. On that occasion, the Government called for secret ballots and the right to have recorded votes, but here tonight we have seen Government Members standing up to vote. Is that democracy, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Will you please rule on that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am duty bound to operate by the proposals of the Select Committee on Procedure.
Mr. Fatchett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to take you back to your ruling on the point of order during a Division when an hon. Member was told to wear a hat. The penultimate paragraph of page 366 of "Erskine May" states:
"Only when a question of order arises during a division may a Member speak seated and covered."
My hon. Friend did exactly that. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might argue that there has been a change of practice—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There have been a number of points of order. To which hon. Member and to which point of order is the hon. Gentleman referring?
Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the matter. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
I should like to refer to the footnotes in "Erskine May". One argument that may have been available to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that there has been a change of practice. The footnotes on page 366 refer to parliamentary debates, and it is important to put them on the record. They read:
"Part Deb (1883) … c 854; … (1886) … (1904) … (1945–46)".
The footnotes also state:
"See also 2nd Report from the Sessional Committee on Procedure, … (1976–77),".
Some long-serving Members will recall that there was a debate on this issue in 1979–80 and a further debate in 1983–84. There has been no subsequent debate or reference.
Mr. SpeakerWeatherill always allowed a point of order during a Division when an hon. Member wore a hat or was covered in some other way. I shall refer to personal experience. Under Mr. Speaker Weatherill, I raised a point of order during a Division and I wore a handkerchief, as if I were on the beach at Blackpool. It was knotted in the peculiar seaside way and looked appropriate. Mr. Speaker Weatherill accepted that point of order.
With respect, Mr. Morris—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; we have spent so much time in Committee
1028
debating Maastricht that you will understand my mistake—the footnotes on page 366 show that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington was in order, and it would be appropriate for you to recognise that. We all make mistakes and I think that you have made a mistake on this occasion and should allow my hon. Friend to make his point of order in the appropriate way, the way in which he was behaving. We need clarification.
If we are to protect minorities, the practices of the House should not be changed from the Chair. They should be changed only with the agreement of the House, and there has been no such agreement or debate. My hon. Friends have not been able to contribute. This is an important change in procedure and should not be made unilaterally by the Chair. I contend that you are out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington was in order and should be upheld.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not seeking to change the procedure. I am guided by the Procedures Committee's recommendation in 1977, subsequently endorsed by the House, that the definition of "covered" was wearing a hat. It need not necessarily be an opera hat: it may be a handkerchief. Some of us wear handkerchiefs in that way in the summer in strong sunlight, especially those of us who are a little short of hair. It is clear that an Order paper is not a hat.
Dr. David Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your ruling is important, because—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not make a ruling: I gave the reference on which the ruling was based.
Dr. Clark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was your reference to the Order Paper a ruling, and are you saying that custom and practice since 1977 has been changed and the understanding is that hon. Members' heads will not be deemed to be covered if they are wearing paper, as has been the custom? To clarify the situation, would it be helpful to suspend the House for a short time so that the matter can be sorted out through the usual channels, because you are making an important ruling?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can envisage a situation where a properly constructed paper hat was appropriate, but not an Order Paper.
Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I attempted to raise a point of order on motion' No. 13, which you decided to ignore and go on to a vote. As a new Member of the House, I have today been to the Library to get my speaking record in the House because people in my constituency may wish to see the contribution that I have made. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether I was recorded as voting on motion No. 13. Would I have had the right to vote because I came in when the vote appeared to be taking place? I wish to have recorded for my constituents whether or not I was involved in the vote on motion No. 13, which is very important. Despite the gesticulations of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I still wish to know whether I was recorded in the vote on motion No. 13.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows, and I clarify, that under this procedure names are

1029
not recorded. However, the hon. Gentleman is known as an assiduous hon. Member and his constituents will know him as such. They will know that he was here this evening and raised an important point of order.
Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you will reflect on the proceedings in the House in the past hour. I suggest that they do not do the House much credit. However, I suggest that the Opposition have a legitimate right to express their disquiet, and the attempts to curtail the voting tonight shows simply that the usual channels have failed to deal with the problems that have arisen over private Bills.
Will you reflect on the fact that, by using this voting procedure, you have become involved in those arguments and have allowed the procedures of the House not to be shown in their best light? Would it not be a good idea to revert to the normal voting procedures so that we can continue and perhaps during the next vote, in the Division Lobbies, the usual channels can sort out the many problems which have developed over private votes?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat what I said at the beginning. I am taking each motion on its merits. I have not decided that every one of the motions will be taken on a rising and sitting basis, and I certainly made a note earlier to consider that.
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Connarty(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to know whether the hat which I am wearing will fit the description of being covered—or must I turn it this way? Must I also put my hand in my jacket? Is this sufficient covering?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my judgment, for this evening, it is.
Mr. Barnes(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On Standing Order No. 39, under which the votes are taking place, although I have put my name down as a Teller I am not absolutely sure what it is that we are voting on according to the Standing Order. Are the votes taking place on challenging your decision, or are they on the motions on the Order Paper?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: They are simply on whether the Ayes or the Noes have it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we be serious for a moment? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be heard. I shall finish the Division and then return to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.
So that there is no confusion, I confirm that we are voting on motion No. 16.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That that the draft Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 40.

Division No. 190]

[10.20 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Hawksley, Warren

Aitken, Jonathan

Heald, Oliver

Alexander, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Alton, David

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Amess, David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Ancram, Michael

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Arbuthnot, James

Jack, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Kirkwood, Archy

Bendall, Vivian

Knapman, Roger

Beresford, Sir Paul

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Bowis, John

Legg, Barry

Brandreth, Gyles

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Brazier, Julian

Lidington, David

Bright, Graham

Lord, Michael

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Luff, Peter

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Burt, Alistair

Lynne, Ms Liz

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

MacKay, Andrew

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Maclean, David

Carrington, Matthew

Malone, Gerald

Carttiss, Michael

Mans, Keith

Cash, William

Marlow, Tony

Chapman, Sydney

Merchant, Piers

Clappison, James

Moate, Sir Roger

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Nicholls, Patrick

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Page, Richard

Cran, James

Patnick, Irvine

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

Pawsey, James

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Redwood, John

Devlin, Tim

Richards, Rod

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Riddick, Graham

Dover, Den

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Duncan, Alan

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Dunn, Bob

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Elletson, Harold

Shaw, David (Dover)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Sims, Roger

Faber, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Fabricant, Michael

Speed, Sir Keith

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Spencer, Sir Derek

Fishburn, Dudley

Spink, Dr Robert

Foster, Don (Bath)

Sproat, Iain

Freeman, Roger

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Gale, Roger

Steen, Anthony

Gallie, Phil

Stephen, Michael

Gardiner, Sir George

Stern, Michael

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Stewart, Allan

Gill, Christopher

Streeter, Gary

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Sykes, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Thomason, Roy

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Thurnham, Peter

Hague, William

Trend, Michael

Hanley, Jeremy

Twinn, Dr Ian

Harris, David

Tyler, Paul

Haselhurst, Alan

Viggers, Peter

1031

Walden, George

Willetts, David

Waller, Gary

Wood, Timothy

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Waterson, Nigel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Mr. David Lightbown and

Whittingdale, John

Mr. Andrew McKay.

Widdecombe, Ann

NOES

Bayley, Hugh

Jamieson, David

Bennett, Andrew F.

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Callaghan, Jim

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Loyden, Eddie

Cann, Jamie

McAvoy, Thomas

Chisholm, Malcolm

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Cohen, Harry

Parry, Robert

Connarty, Michael

Primarolo, Dawn

Cryer, Bob

Redmond, Martin

Davidson, Ian

Rooney, Terry

Dixon, Don

Skinner, Dennis

Fatchett, Derek

Spellar, John

Flynn, Paul

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Gerrard, Neil

Winnick, David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Wise, Audrey

Gordon, Mildred

Wray, Jimmy

Graham, Thomas

Gunnell, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Hood, Jimmy

Mr. Andrew Meale and

Illsley, Eric

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The confusion among hon. Members earlier about whether they should rise or sit to cast their vote may have arisen because they had forgotten that Standing Order No. 39 was invoked in July 1975 by the Labour Government against my right hon. Friends and myself and various Members present today, including the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member should have said "under a Labour Government".
It might be for the convenience of the House if I try to clarify matters. I now have the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure from the 1976–77 Session, paragraph 5 of which on page 6 says:
"Your Committee consider that the requirement to be covered should remain, and that any form of headgear should be acceptable, but that for reasons already stated, such articles as hankerchiefs or Order papers, which are instantly available to all Members, should not be accepted."
The Committee considers that the same rule should apply to lady Members. It recommends that a second piece of headgear should be kept behind the Chair. I hope that hon. Members will accept that that is the reference that has guided me this evening.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you remind the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who I understood was a master of procedure, that he is wrong? A Labour Government did not exercise the procedure; Mr. Speaker did. Perhaps he should know the rule.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made that clear.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, clarify the position with regard to wearing the hat? Many of us are deeply embarrassed at having to wear headgear of such a nature. [Interruption.] It is a fair point to make. We believe that it brings ridicule on Parliament and on us
1032
as Members. Therefore, as the proceedings of the House are now televised and transmitted all over the world, will you consider raising the matter with the Chairman of the Procedure Committee with a view to avoiding such embarrassment for Members?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that any Member can raise such a matter with the Procedure Committee. I shall cogitate on whether it is appropriate that I should, but the hon. Gentleman may wish to make his own submission. I hope that that has finished the issue of the hat.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During this evening's discussions and points of order, it has become clear that there are difficulties with the new microphone system. When hon. Members remain seated, as they are required to do during a Division, particularly those on the Front Bench, they are well out of range of the microphones. The new microphones were installed relatively recently, and clearly they are inadequate—particularly in respect of right hon. and hon. Members seated on the Front Benches near yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Also, the microphones are normally switched off until a right hon. or hon. Member is called, when the nearest microphone is switched on. However, there appears to be some delay in that respect. I did not hear, for example, the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) because he was inaudible—not because of the noise in the Chamber but because of the lack of amplification. If this procedure is invoked again, that could lead to myriad points of order by seated right hon. and hon. Members. It might be helpful if the sound engineers could ascertain whether the microphones might be pointed downwards, so that points of order from seated right hon. and hon. Members wearing appropriate headgear might be heard.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Life is full of difficulties, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the Supervisor of Broadcasting.
Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You quoted a definition to the effect that a readily available item would not be considered suitable headgear. You probably saw me labouring away at making this hat, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would placing it behind the Chair be appropriate? Also, I am not someone who naturally wears a bonnet or an opera hat. Could not a decent, well-designed fedora also be placed behind the. Chair?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I quoted the reference, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to read Hansard tomorrow morning and then decide on the kind of hat that he considers appropriate, within the rules of the House.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to sit in that laconic way on the arm of his Bench?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Right hon. and hon. Members should sit on the Benches.
Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been sitting here listening quietly to your various

1033
comments. Perhaps I may ask you, in what I hope is a typically polite way, whether you are in a position to reply to my earlier point of order about motion No. 19?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are taking the motions one at a time.

MEDICINES CONTROL AGENCY
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Medicines Control Agency Trading Fund Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. MacKay.]
Question agreed to.

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

  POTATOES
  That this House takes note of the Court of Auditors' Report concerning the financial year 1991 together with the institutions' replies (OJ No. C330, Volume 35) and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 25th February 1993 relating to the draft Council Recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge of the General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1991.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 53.

  Division No. 191]

  [10.37pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Forman, Nigel

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Freeman, Roger

  Alexander, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Gallie, Phil

  Amess, David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Ancram, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Arbuthnot, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hague, William

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Harris, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Heald, Oliver

  Bowis, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Brazier, Julian

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Bright, Graham

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Jack, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cash, William

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Clappison, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Knapman, Roger

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

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

  Legg, Barry

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lidington, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lord, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Luff, Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  MacKay, Andrew

  Elletson, Harold

  Maclean, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Malone, Gerald

  Faber, David

  Mans, Keith

  Fabricant, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Merchant, Piers

  1034

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stern, Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stewart, Allan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  Page, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trend, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Richards, Rod

  Viggers, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Walden, George

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waller, Gary

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whittingdale, John

  Sims, Roger

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Willetts, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sproat, Iain

  Mr. Irvine Patrick and

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Stephen, Michael

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beggs, Roy

  Lewis, Terry

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Callaghan, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Cann, Jamie

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Parry, Robert

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Pike, Peter L.

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Prescott, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Cohen, Harry

  Redmond, Martin

  Connarty, Michael

  Rooney, Terry

  Cryer, Bob

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Davidson, Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Don

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fatchett, Derek

  Spellar, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Tyler, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Winnick, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Wise, Audrey

  Gunnell, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Harvey, Nick

  Hood, Jimmy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Illsley, Eric

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Sir David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for drawing my attention to the fact that, on 1 July 1975, following a Division in which the Ayes voted 222 and the Noes 13 and in which I was a Teller, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised with the then occupant of the Chair a point of order, in which he said:
  "Following the announcement of the clear intention of the Liberals to call Divisions on every amendment, I would point out that Mr. Speaker has it in his power under Standing Order 36 to rule on unnecessarily claimed Divisions, to take appropriate action and to call votes in the Chamber."—[Official Report, 1 July 1975; Vol. 894, c. 1363.]
  What has happened tonight is consistent with the wise words of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The House is certainly a mine of information this evening.
  Mr. Skinner: It is fair to point out that, during the 23 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been consistent in never trusting the Liberals. I did not do so on that occasion. I took appropriate action and, what is more, always will, because they are junior Tories.

Court of Auditors
10.49 pm
The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Court of Auditors' Report concerning the financial year 1991 together with the institutions' replies (OJ No. C330, Volume 35) and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 25th February 1993 relating to the draft Council Recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge of the General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1991.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected no amendments.
Sir John Cope: The motion takes note of the report of the Community Court of Auditors on the 1991 expenditure of the Community. It is a long report, just short of 500 pages, with a long commentary from the Commission, and it is also the subject of a long explanatory memorandum from the Treasury, which I hope that the House has found helpful.
As the House knows, the court's duty is to report whether the Community's revenue has been properly received and the expenditure properly incurred and on whether the financial management of the funds has been sound. The report is an important, independent check in itself, but it is also a valuable tool for the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and others, including the national parliaments—but especially for the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament—which are the two arms of the budgetary authority of the Community, to examine how well the Commission and the member states have managed the Community's resources.
The court's report is forwarded to the Council of Ministers and, from there, to the European Parliament. The Council and the Parliament examine the report along with the accounts and financial statement submitted by the Commission. The Council will then usually recommend, and the European Parliament will decide to give, what is called a discharge to the Commission over its implementation of that year's Community budget.
The intention is that the Council's recommendation should be discussed and, I expect, adopted at the Economic and Finance Council next Monday.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The court was critical of the aid provided for the temporary laying up of fishing vessels. The report states that access to that aid was, to say the least, unequal. What means are available to our fishermen, who have suffered, to redress the grievance? Have they the right to compensation—sometimes for having been denied fair and reasonable treatment because of the regulation—under the treaty of Rome, or do they have to wait until the treaty of Maastricht is ratified?
Sir John Cope: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman satisfactorily off the cuff, but I shall answer later in the debate if I am able. Perhaps I may proceed with general remarks about the report and the treatment likely to be accorded to it after our discussion.
The draft Council recommendation, which the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers is expected to consider on Monday, is also available to the House and is,

1037
of course, the subject of another explanatory memorandum. However, the main explanatory memorandum, which was submitted on 5 February, gives a comprehensive summary of the report itself. The report is, by itself, an extensive survey of the Community budget; it also contains some important remarks by the court.
The report rightly emphasises the Court of Auditors' continuing concern about financial management, and control in the Community and identifies two main reasons for the deficiencies: inadequately drafted legislation, and poor arrangements for management and monitoring. These are deficiencies which go to the heart of financial control and of value for money. The Government consider that they raise issues that the Community must continue to address. Of course, those concerns are not new. Indeed, in highlighting the deficiencies of financial management, the report picks up criticisms that were central to the court's previous report, on the 1990 budget.
The Government's concern to secure value for taxpayers' money from Community spending was the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the issue with the Commission, with his ministerial colleagues and with the European Parliament, at about this time last year. A copy of my right hon. Friend's letter to the Commission was sent to the Scrutiny Committee and placed in the Library. As the House would expect, our concerns were taken seriously. Considerable advances have been made since then, although the situation is still not satisfactory.
Even before that, in 1990, an important amendment was made to the financial regulation which sets out the detailed rules for implementing the Community budget. The United Kingdom had long been concerned that the rules did not emphasise that, in spending the revenues provided by Community taxpayers, the Community did not take sufficient account of value for money. The financial regulation was amended in 1990 to include a specific reference to the need for economy and cost-effectiveness in Community spending.
In consequence, proposals for spending must now be justified by reference to value-for-money criteria. The court's most recent report picked up that requirement as a yardstick for considering the Community's performance, and drew attention to important inadequacies in that performance—notably the need for the Community to appraise proposals for spending against clear objectives before spending any money; to monitor the effectiveness of the spending at the time; and to evaluate the outcome and then adjust future programmes as necessary.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Paymaster General mentioned the letter written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the then chairman of the Finance Council—Dr. Macedo of Portugal—of which copies were sent to Commissioner Schmidhuber and the chairman of the parliamentary budgetary council of the European Parliament. The letter raised some important issues, which the right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned. As he said, the letter is in the Library for us all to see. Was there a specific response to it, or was that subsumed in the process that he has just described, which may have started a little before the letter was sent?
Sir John Cope: Yes, the process that I have described took place in 1990, as I believe I explained. There was a response to last year's letter, too. It was discussed further
1038
and has been taken up since, as I shall tell the House in a moment. It was followed through—most importantly in the negotiations on future financing which took place in Edinburgh but also, meanwhile, in various discussions in the Economic and Finance Council.
The points raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time have been an important aspect in the consideration of the Community's finances ever since.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I appreciate the Minister's sincerity, but does he accept that what was agreed at Edinburgh was a budget of £31,000 million for the EC to spend on agriculture this year? Does he accept that the cereal mountain is the highest it has ever been in recorded history, and that we have an horrendously large set-aside system which is costing us dear? Does he accept that, so long as there is a crazy policy, no matter how good Ministers are or how hard the Commission tries, nothing can be done to resolve the problem?
Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend is not quite right; his approach to the matter is over-pessimistic. As I said, I do not think that the position is satisfactory, but I think that it improved a bit as a result of the Edinburgh considerations. The position has improved further since then.
Among the conclusions at Edinburgh, there was an unambiguous requirement that the Community's resources should not be committed without a thorough prior appraisal which demonstrated that there would be economic benefits in keeping with the resources deployed.
More specifically with reference to the structural funds, of which the Court of Auditors has been critical, the Heads of Government concluded that financial control should be strengthened, and that greater emphasis should be given to appraisal in advance, to monitoring and to evaluation afterwards. They also concluded that assistance should be allocated where appraisal showed that medium-term economic and social benefits commensurate with the resources were involved and that operations should be adjusted in accordance with the results of monitoring and evaluation.
I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that the additional funds to which he drew attention, which were decided on at Edinburgh, are part of the conclusions reached at Edinburgh. The different parts of those conclusions—to spend the money and to have the criteria to which I have referred—depend on one another; they are part of the same resolution.
Since the Edinburgh conference, the criteria have been applied more rigorously, although not so rigorously, no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would like or as I would like. In the agreement in the Foreign Affairs Council last Monday, there was a regulation for the interim cohesion fund, about which my hon. Friend, like me, will be interested. The matter was agreed in principle at Edinburgh.
The regulation agreed last Monday in the Council explicitly requires the prior appraisal of projects; it explicitly requires that, before approving a project, 1;he Commission must assess the appraisal against value for money criteria; it explicitly requires that beneficiaries have the management and audit systems to ensure that the projects are effectively implemented; and it further explicity requires that the Commission is responsible for

1039
ensuring the adequacy of those systems. The operations are to be reviewed to ensure that the original objectives have been achieved. Those are specific requirements for which the Court of Auditors, the Council and the European Parliament, through the Budgetary Control Committee, can look out. The Commission is under an obligation to put those requirements into practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will realise that matters cannot become magically perfect in a short time, but I believe that real improvements have been taken on board by the Council of Ministers, by the Commission and by the European Parliament.
The steps that I have described concern value for money—avoiding wasted expenditure. The Community has also addressed the important issue of fraud, which is also a matter of concern. During the United Kingdom presidency, constructive steps were taken under that head. The matter was discussed at the Economic and Finance Council more than once, and we set up a high-level group of officials under United Kingdom chairmanship to agree some practical steps to improve the prevention of fraud.
Those practical steps included an improved programme of action for the Community's fight against fraud—the 45-point programme—and ways in which to improve co-operation, including the Commission agreeing to take a more positive co-ordinating role and work to continue on simplifying legislation. That is one of the weaknesses in the system, and a special group is considering it with the anti-fraud issue in mind. Vague or poorly defined legislation is one area highlighted by the Court of Auditors in the report before us. The quality of administration and financial control depends very much on the quality of the legislation on which it is based. All those are important points on fraud. The steps that I have outlined are not the whole answer to improving financial management in the Community, but they take us down the right road.
In the explanatory memorandum on the draft Council recommendation, we set out the key features, which include value for money and the importance which the Council attaches to that. Attention is also drawn to problems of management which might permit fraud or other irregularities—not fraudulent—and the Council's commitment to continuing action as agreed by ECOFIN last autumn is restated. It is also important to draw attention, as we do in the explanatory memorandum, to the Commission's commitment to review periodically the justification for on-going actions and to call on the Commission to report on the steps that it has taken to improve its internal procedures.
These are important conclusions which the Government welcome, just as we welcome the report of the Court of Auditors and its valuable comments on the financial management, value for money, evaluation of Community funds and the need for member states to assume their responsibilities more fully, because much of the Community expenditure goes from the Commission through the mechanisms in the member states themselves.
It is an important report. The explanatory memoranda on the report have given the Government an opportunity to express their views. I think it is in the interests of the House that I should not go into more detail now, but
1040
should leave time for hon. Members to contribute and then do my best, by leave of the House, to respond to the points they raise.
We have to remember all the time that, although the legal term for Community revenue is "own resources", none of the money belongs to the Community institutions—it is taxpayers' money which has to be raised by the member states. It must therefore be used with the utmost care and attention to value for money and to the avoidance of fraud. The report of the Court of Auditors helps the Community to do just that.
Mr. Tim Smith: Can my right hon. Friend say what changes there are in the Maastricht treaty which would improve the quality of financial management in the Community institutions and enhance the accountability of the Commission?
Sir John Cope: There are some changes. The amendment to the financial regulation to which I referred was an initial step. At Maastricht, the members of the European Council built on that. Among the improvements to the treaty which were agreed, and which I believe will be ratified before long, it is made explicit that the Commission, in implementing the Community budget, is responsible for the sound financial management of the Community's finances. Responsibility for that is placed firmly on the Commission.
In addition, the Court of Auditors will be strengthened and made a full-blooded Community institution. The European Parliament's powers of scrutiny will also be strengthened. There is an explicit requirement that member states should pursue fraud against the Community's budget with the same vigour as they pursue fraud against their own national budgets.
Those changes in the treaty represent an important move forward in strengthening the framework necessary to improve the management of the Community's finances. We shall have many opportunities to debate those matters on another occasion. In the meantime, I commend the Court of Auditors' report to the House.
11.9 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith: It would seem that the Court of Auditors' report does not have quite the same entertainment value in terms of pulling an audience as the proceedings on the previous votes. Anyone who thought that the report might be dull should read it, because the absurdities in it are equal to anything we saw in the procedural farce earlier in the House.
As the Minister said, the report is important. It covers 55,327 million ecu, or £46 billion, of expenditure, to which the United Kingdom contributed revenue of a gross £5·6 billion. The report leaves no doubt that there are errors, irregularities, fraud and waste on a disturbing scale in a number of areas of the Community's financial affairs. Some of that is the responsibility of the member states themselves, some is the result of legislation which is unclear or inconsistent, and some is the result of inadequate supervision by the Commission. Whatever its cause, it is unacceptable and more resolute action needs to be taken as a matter of urgency if it is to be rooted out.
Resolute action is crucial to ensure that public money is not wasted or misappropriated, and thereby to build public confidence in the efficacy of Community action and expenditure. No one should under-estimate the damage

1041
which is inflicted on the whole Community and on its future by the shortcomings identified in the court's report. Given the difficulties to which the auditors referred in monitoring all the expenditure and revenues involved, it would surprise no one if, despite the quality of the auditors' work, what they uncovered was only part of the whole iceberg.
The Minister talked about the changes which the Maastricht treaty would bring about. One of those changes is that the auditors will be required to certify that the accounts are a true record of the Community's finances. It disturbs me greatly—I hope that it disturbs the Minister—that an article in The Guardian on 27 November quotes sources at the Court of Auditors as saying:
"If we had to certify these accounts, we would not do so."
That shows how much progress must be made if the irregularities and fraud are to be controlled in the way in which people would expect, and if we are to have confidence in the way in which the Community's finances are being maintained.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those member states which as yet cannot properly manage their own income tax and VAT do not give us much confidence that they will properly manage EC funds?
Mr. Smith: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It shall refer to the different numbers and sorts of discrepancies which have been discovered in different member states. On the whole, the United Kingdom's performance in terms of the regularity with which the operations are supervised that our authorities have responsibility for supervising is a good record. Sadly, that record is not equalled in some of the other member states.
The explanatory memorandum to which the Minister referred is a useful summary of the auditors' report and a helpful guide to its 496 pages. The report's dead-pan language does not fully do justice to the scale and seriousness of the problems which the Court of Auditors' report identified.
If I were to go through all the irregularities, this would be a long speech. Instead, I shall pull out some examples. In the collection of so-called traditional resources, the member states' six-monthly reports of frauds and irregularities are an important element of what is, after all, largely a delegated system of control. On that subject, the auditors say:
"Useful information is rarely provided, and cannot in every case be used to justify their effectiveness"—
that is, the effectiveness of the reports. Perhaps that accounts for the fact that in 1991 the United Kingdom reported 223 such cases—nearly a third of the Community total—whereas, to take a topical example, Italy reported only 25. That may have a bearing on the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs).
It is disturbing that there were instances of identified own resources not being made available to the Community. The largest such example was one of no less than 1–4 million ecu, which one customs district in the Netherlands failed to pay over. That was rectified by the Dutch authorities when the Court pointed it out. I hope that the Government will use their voice strongly in the Council to support the Court's recommendation that the Commission monitors more closely the implementation of the relevant legislation in member states.
1042
Also of concern is the amount of interest due to the Community on late payments of customs duties, which amounts to 25.7 million ecu—l6.9 million of it in Germany. The report states that the court has brought that matter to the attention of the Commission and the member states involved. I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would say whether that money has now been paid.
There were many issues of concern relating to the operation of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. The court's report stated that about half of the expenditure of that fund involved measures that can reasonably be regarded as the inescapable consequences of surplus agricultural production: in particular, aids for the export or destruction of products—34 per cent.—and intervention—18 per cent.
In addition, the Court found that
"some production aid schemes, which are intended to support rural communities, are actually obstacles to rational development. High rates of subsidy are paid in order to render viable small farms which would otherwise be uneconomic. There are premiums which encourage farms to remain small or which encourage the breaking up of farm holdings in order to qualify as small farmers."
Those premiums include higher rates of aid for small olive producers, which the Court of Auditor's report states is not an effective way of supporting rural communities, since
"producers can continue to benefit from aid after they have moved to the towns and the cities".
That is plainly not a measure that supports rural communities.
The report notes that budget expenditure on the special premium for beef and veal producers has increased from 52.5 million ecu in 1987 to almost 305 million ecu in 1991. The scheme was meant to compensate for the cut in the previously excessively generous buying-in price in order to save money, but the report states:
"Despite the situation of surplus production, the criteria for granting the special premium do nothing to curb As intrinsic incentive effect. The premium is not selective since there are no conditions laid down as to the type of holding that is eligible or as to the quality of the products, and worse still within the annual limit of 90 animals per holding, there is no provision for preventing increases in the number of male cattle in respect of which the premium is paid."
The Court also notes that the Commission authorised an exemption from that limit in France without any legal basis. The Commission has said that it will re-examine that issue. I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would give us more information on that subject, as it seems to be a clear instance of favourable treatment to one member state not being enjoyed by others.
In paragraph 7.56, the Commission states that many of the concerns, including those about the beef and veal premium, have been met by reform of the common agricultural policy adopted by the Council in 1992. I question whether anyone can rest easy on any of the issues. We must underline the importance of constant review arid changes in the means by which we work towards achieving the objectives of article 39 of the European Community treaty, which stated that, while we should aim to achieve
"a fair standard of living for the agricultural community", we must be aware of the very real need to
"increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of factors of production."
There must be a much more radical reform of the common agricultural policy. Nothing less will do.

1043
There are other examples of irregularities and curiosities in the report. The court questioned the legitimacy in the United Kingdom of the administration of the sheep annual premium scheme, and provided an extraordinary example. Six shepherds with no more than eight sheep each formed a group with a limited company to claim for 6,024 sheep, and were awarded full payment for them. I have heard of people counting sheep, but that is ridiculous. I welcome the court's work in bringing that to light, thereby ensuring that the rules have been tightened to prevent such practices.
The report contains more worrying examples of vested interests conspiring to misuse EC taxpayers' money. It states that work on the olive cultivation register is bogged down in Greece, blocked by a lack of funds in Portugal, and behind schedule in Spain. It also says that spot checks are limited. Such a lack of information causes severe problems. In Corfu, flat rate aid was paid on three times the amount of olive oil that was produced.
Wine-growing measures financed by the agricultural guidance fund also attracted criticism. The report says that the simultaneous use of two opposing methods—premiums for replanting and for the final grubbing up of vines to achieve market equalibrium—was illogical. It states that wine growers using land of identical quality may choose between one Community aid to replant their vines and another for their final grubbing up. One wonders where the guidance element in the work of the EC agricultural guidance and guarantee fund is to be found.
The report says that there is some inconsistency in promoting measures which increase production capacity in a market that is in constant imbalance because of plentiful supply and constantly falling demand, while maintaining the possibility of distilling surplus quantities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about the court's comments on common fisheries and the seas. It questioned the operation of withdrawal premiums to compensate for monetary abstention from profitable fishing, supposedly to encourage conservation of fish stocks. The report says that compensation has been paid in Portugal
"for days when no fishing would be carried out anyway thus adding about 40 per cent. to the European taxpayers' contribution."
The report also says:
"the amount of the temporary withdrawal premiums is not attractive enough to dissuade fishermen from carrying out fishing activities at times when it is possible to fish for the most profitable species—which are the ones that are threatened by overfishing."
According to the Court, 40 per cent. of expenditure on temporary withdrawal premiums subsidises traditionally low periods of fishing activity.
Dr. Godman: I should like to ask my hon. Friend about what I call the Portugese fiddle. Is he confident that the Maastricht treaty, if it is ever resuscitated by the Danish people, will lead to a diminution of such frauds? Does he agree that it is more likely that the Maastricht treaty will increase fraud?
Mr. Smith: The provisions in Maastricht for enhancing the status and powers of the Court of Auditors and putting stronger injunctions on member states and the Community to secure value for money in the Community's programme should help. However, as I said earlier, more
1044
determined action is required. The British Government, through the Council of Ministers, should be calling for the schemes which are most open to abuse to be threatened with closure unless the abuses are ended. Some of those programmes required radical reform.
Sir Teddy Taylor: May I point out that the British Government have no power to do anything except ask?
Mr. Smith: The British Government have the power to raise the issue in the Council of Ministers. The Minister said that these matters were pursued during the British presidency. I share the scepticism of hon. Members who believe that member Governments wanting those abuses stamped out must take a firm stand.
Dr. Godman: There is a discrepancy in the Maastricht treaty in the way in which the two courts—the European Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors—have been treated. The European Court of Justice will have formidable powers, particularly in imposing sanctions against recalcitrant member states, but no such equivalent powers have been given to the Court of Auditors.
Mr. Smith: As I said earlier, the powers of the Court of Auditors would certainly be strengthened by Maastricht. It would be required to provide a statement of assurance on the reliability of the Community's accounts and there would be an explicit responsibility on member states to tackle fraud. As we have said on other occasions, the treaty is a framework. What policies are initiated and pursued through that framework is a matter of political will.
We are in favour of tougher action to stamp out abuses, including the 5 million ecu of movable property which was unaccounted for in the European Parliament. Our colleagues there will need to look into that before effectively discharging themselves from the censure of the auditors' report.
The final, and perhaps most disturbing, items on the list of abuses as they involve taking food out of the mouths of starving children, are the failings in the food aid programmes to the former Soviet Union, Bulgaria and Romania. As well as identifying appalling instances of mismanagement, the court questioned the practice of charging that to the agricultural budget.
There are a number of disturbing examples of how things went badly wrong. For example, the Soviet authorities gave the Commission a list of beneficiaries. The Commission did not specify exact destinations when making the individual transportation contracts. The report states that, as a consequence,
"the German Red Cross discovered that some organisations they chose to deliver to had already received deliveries from the French Red Cross and could not store any more items. The Commission accepted alternative destinations …and met the consequential increase in transport costs from 262 ecu per tonne to 392.39 ecu per tonne."
In February 1992, of the 79,500 tonnes for which the Commission had to organise transport, only 44,000 tonnes had been taken over by the transporters. The remainder was costing the Community taxpayers storage charges, because dates of final delivery had not been properly specified in the contracts with the transporters.
It is also appalling to read about 740 tonnes of skimmed milk powder delivered to Bulgaria and subsequently sold for foreign currency on the Egyptian market, using a

1045
Greek middle man. So blatant was the fraud that they did not even bother changing the packaging before it went on sale.
The House should commend the work of the Court of Auditors in bringing all that to light. While it would be wrong to blame the Commission for all the irregularities uncovered, some of which are clearly the result of member states and agencies not getting their act together, it would be equally wrong to accept the Commission's grudging response to some of those very serious matters. It is not good enough for it to say, as it does on page 322:
"The Commission agrees that some difficulties arose in the implementation of these schemes of emergency aid to Eastern Europe"—
an understatement if ever there was one. It then went on:
"The Commission does not agree with the Court's accusations of a lack of transparency and insufficient controls on the operations."
It is plain that there were not sufficient controls on the operations.
Still less is it acceptable for the Commission to accuse the court, as it was reported as doing in The Guardian on 27 November, of making observations and a recommendation
"relating directly to the policy goals and content of Community action."
It is the job of a proper audit not merely to check that the accounts add up—and it is clear from what I have said and from what the auditors were quoted in that article as saying that in many of those programmes the figures did not add up—but to assess whether the programmes and procedures pursued were actually geared, and geared consistently, to the objectives set by Community laws, regulations and policies.
I therefore support what the Government say in the explanatory memorandum about the importance of a rolling action programme to tackle fraud, improvements to financial control, and better co-ordination by the Commission and between member states. However, I believe that more needs to be done. After all, for the past 14 years, the Government have been sitting on the Council of Ministers. They have seen a succession of reports, a number of which have raised irregularities and frauds as
1046
blatant as those in the report before us. As well as handing out their share of criticism, the Government should take their share of responsibility, in that the Council is responsible for overseeing the Commission and for setting the direction of Community policy.
Does the Paymaster General undertake that, both on the instances cited in the report that relate to the United Kingdom and on the broader criticism of the various programmes in the report, he will report back to the House on the progress, or otherwise, being made with actions to eliminate abuse? There has been insufficient follow-up and tough action on many of the abuses and irregularities that the Court of Auditors has identified. The House and the people should have the right to know exactly what action is being taken by the British Government to stamp out such grotesque abuses of the Community budget.
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on additionality, which the auditors say in paragraph 599 is still riot sufficiently verifiable? Can he assure the House that the Government will be able to satisfy the Commission on additionality so that the up to £1 billion in European Community regional aid grant which has been put at risk by delays in matching funding for projects for Britain's most depressed regions, can go ahead?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also tell us the position on the accumulated devaluation effect on Britain's allocation from the European social fund, amounting over the period of 1990 to 1992 to some £82 million? Will that extra money be spent as it should be for the benefit of the long-term unemployed and our depressed regions, or will it be a repeat of the British presidency, when the Government forced out of the Edinburgh summit the proposal for £160 million expenditure on training for those who had lost their jobs or whose jobs were at risk, despite support for the project by the other 11 member states?
When Community resources appear to have been misappropriated elsewhere, it would be an indefensible irony if resources to which Britain's depressed regions and unemployed people were legitimately fully entitled were to be denied them—not, on this occasion, by fraud in the rest of the EC but by the Government's dogma and reluctance to act.
11.35 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: It has taken us about 500 years to develop a satisfactory system of audit of public expenditure in the United Kingdom, and our present system goes back 130 years. Against that background, it is not altogether surprising that the European Community institutions are still effectively in their infancy when it comes to dealing with audit. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) that the report and its predecessors leave much to be desired.
We know from our experience of audit in the United Kingdom that there is financial and regularity audit and, secondly, value for money audit. On both counts, it is clear that the EC institutions, and the Commission especially, fail completely to meet the standards that we as taxpayers are entitled to expect. First, on financial and regularity audit, it is clear that there is widespread fraud throughout the Community. There are not the standards that one would expect. Secondly, on value for money audit, it is clear that there are not the systems in place for assessing value for money. Criteria are not set out before projects are developed. Systems are not in place for assessing projects after projects have been executed. There are fundamental concerns which have been raised year after year.
There are two basic reasons for the concerns. First, there is no great incentive for individual member states to make significant improvements. If a state tackles its own back yard, so to speak, the result will be a reduced amount of money from the Community. In other words, there is a disincentive to tackle the issues. Secondly, there is still a less than satisfactory system of accountability. If we compare the system of accountability of the Commission to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament with the system which prevails in the United Kingdom —we have a National Audit Office which reports to the Public Accounts Committee, which then submits to tough questioning the accounting officers responsible for public expenditure—we see that the system in the Community leaves much to be desired. We must improve the systems of accountability, and I do not suppose that that will be easy.
It is not a coincidence, for example, that the number of cases of reported fraud was higher from the United Kingdom than from any other member state. That merely shows that we have a reasonably effective system. Unfortunately, the systems in other member states leaves much to be desired. It is almost certain that the prevalence of fraud in other member states is much greater, which shows that they are not very good at, or not especially interested in, trying to detect it.
I think that it is down to the European Parliament to take a greater interest in these matters. It is impossible for us, in a 90-minute debate, to give proper consideration to these problems. The report before us goes into great detail on all the different areas of Community expenditure. The report should be considered paragraph by paragraph by the Budget Commitees of the European Parliament. The Committees should call before them the Commissioners responsible for the various heads of expenditure and keep them there until they give satisfactory replies to questions about who was responsible and how matters will be put right in future. That seems to be the right forum.
I have given some thought, as have other members of the Public Accounts Committee in the past, to whether we
1048
could carry out the function in the United Kingdom, but I have come to the conclusion that that is not possible. The European Parliament, to which the Commission is accountable, should take a greater interest in these matters. That is why I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister what changes have been made in the Maastricht treaty to try to improve the system of financial management and accountability.
I am glad to hear that the constitutional position of the Court of Auditors will be reinforced and that the European Parliament is to be given an enhanced role. But when the treaty is ratified we shall have to see how that works out in practice. That requires not just a statement of good intent but the necessary political will on the part of those involved. I am not yet persuaded that Members of the European Parliament take all this sufficiently seriously. British taxpayers have a right to expect that money spent on their behalf by the European Commission is spent in an honest straightforward manner in accordance with the purposes for which it was voted.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East mentioned additionally. That is a difficult issue. It is difficult to demonstrate additionality when it comes to expenditure in the regions. Usually, if there is investment in a particular region, it simply means that investment in another area has been displaced. One is simply moving investment around the country or around the Community. The Department of Trade and Industry at least has some objective criteria for determining what additionality means and tries to assess projects on that basis before approving them, but it is clear from the report that there are no similar arrangements in the EC.
Mr. Alan Meale: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying that EC funds coming into Britain should be distributed in the way that the Government have attempted. For example, RECHAR or RETEX funding should be going not to the south of England but to areas which have lost an amazing number of jobs in coal, steel and textiles. It is illogical for the Government to come forward with such a suggestion.
Mr. Smith: I was not suggesting that such money should come to the south of England, although the rate of unemployment in some areas there is now higher than in some of the regions. I was simply pointing out that when in the past the Public Accounts Committee has considered regional expenditure—I recall a recent report on expenditure in Wales—we have naturally cross-examined the accounting officer, the permanent secretary from the Welsh Office, on the important question of additionality.
It should be possible to show that new jobs have been created and that jobs are not simply being lost elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is what additionality means, and it is important in a United Kingdom context, and in the context of European regional expenditure. That is why the Court of Auditors has drawn attention to it.
Mr. Meale: I was trying to say that RECHAR provided money from Europe for areas which had lost jobs in coal mining. RETEX, similarly, provided money for areas in Britain which had lost textile jobs. The Department of Trade and Industry has redirected that money to different areas for different jobs in different circumstances where there had been no coal mining or textile jobs in the past. That cannot be logical or correct.
Mr. Smith: I understand that, but I do not wish to be diverted down that road because it is not relevant to the report that we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman may well be right. 1 know nothing of that.
The point that I was discussing was the question of additionality in the context of the report. It is a good example of the way in which the Commission needs to tighten up on value for money and fraud. The way to achieve that is to try to enhance accountability by persuading the European Parliament to take a greater interest in these issues.
11.43 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has mentioned two important institutions, domestic and European, in this scene—the Public Accounts Committee and the European Parliament and, in particular, its Committee concerned with this topic. I shall mention both of those in the course of my remarks.
I want first to put on record a sense of dissatisfaction that it was Her Majesty's Government's intention that, however events proceeded this evening—and they have been somewhat unusual—there would be only an hour and a half for this debate. That was clearly the Government's intention in the business motion on last Friday's Order Paper. By chance, it was frustrated—but still only one and a half hours is available for this debate. That would have remained the case if the Government had been successful and the debate had started at around 7 pm. I regard that as unhealthy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) clearly showed, the report contains many items which require ventilation and some expression of dissatisfaction.
That is even more important than some hon. Members described. The question of taxation and the authorisation of its expenditure—without any question of its value for money—is a central feature of any Government. It is the responsibility of any Parliament to ensure that it is done correctly. It is also at the centre of any democracy. The European Community claims that it prides itself on being a democracy. Unfortunately, we do not have much control over the passage of money from the United Kingdom to the European Community, which the Court of Auditors oversees by way of its own resources. By virtue of the European Communities Act 1972, the Treasury hands over so much per year from the three main resources that the Community has at its disposal.
That is decided from time to time by the Economic and Finance Council, and the framework is changed roughly every five years. That expenditure does not come before the House and is not part of the Budget, although it is part of the public expenditure Estimates that we see from time to time. The House is cut out of that process.

The House is also cut out of determining how that money is spent, other than by our representatives in the respective Council. The money is spent in a number of controversial ways, but I particularly want to draw the attention of the House to the way in which that money is spent irregularly and the consequential effects, which may be political.
We know from our history that the way in which public money is distributed and those who are to benefit from it are highly political matters. In a democracy, only when Parliament and the elected representatives of those who
1050
provide the money have complete control of it can proper democracy and accountability exist. We rely for that on the Public Accounts Committee. In the 18th century and early 19th century, the constitutional position was that those in power got hold of money through patronage, and distributed it in various ways. The Gladstonian reforms made us all respectable.
The Public Accounts Committee tries to ensure that public money is spent on the authorised purpose for which it was raised, appropriated and allocated by the House. The PAC has in its hands at least some sanction. The prospect of being summoned before the PAC or being investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General—now an Officer of the House—has some effect, although we still have problems and read about them from time to time.
Any person—a Minister, official, or anyone else in receipt of public funds—knows of the existence of the long arm of the Comptroller and Auditor General, with the backup of the Public Accounts Committee and the threat of exposure. What is the equivalent in the Community, which has vast sums at its disposal and complex accounting because of the ecu and having to deal with different Governments and agencies in different languages? Year after year, the Court of Auditors produces a report of which we always say in our debates that if only one tenth of it applied to any one organisation, it would be given a qualification by any auditor in this country. That has been going on for years. We debate the report, and say the same things, year after year.
What happens to the report? The Commission comments on it, and then it goes to the Council. I must express some dissatisfaction. The Council acts as referee: after the national Governments have taken on board all the contents of the report, the Council then examines the Commission's responses. That is fair enough. Auditors often ask for explanations in the course of their work; they are entitled to ask questions, and many of the replies may be satisfactory—as, indeed, some of the Commission's replies may be. But what happens next?
I understand that the various member Governments and their respective Treasuries then reach some consensus on how far the Commission has given satisfaction in answering the questions raised by the Court of Auditors. When they think that the Court of Auditors is right, they should say so; when they think that the Commission has answered its questions satisfactorily, they are not drawn to the Council's attention in its discharge meeting.
As I understand it, the rights of the Public Accounts Committee within ECOFIN—the Council of Finance Ministers, which is surely the equivalent of the PAC—are concentrated in one person, the Paymaster General. He is the PAC's equivalent, but only collectively within the Council, which will meet on 15 March and reach a final conclusion—equivalent, perhaps, to a report that we might receive from the PAC.
Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman is right: I expect to represent the Government at a meeting of ECOFIN on Monday. I think, however, that the nearest equivalent to the PAC is the European Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee.
Mr. Spearing: In a sense, the Paymaster General may be correct: that is where the buck stops. The Budgetary Control Committee receives a recommendation, which will be drawn up by ECOFIN on 15 March—we have a draft,

1051
or the indication of a draft, before us—and will then decide what to do. I assume that the Committee has powers to summon witnesses, to make reports and to reach some sort of conclusion. Perhaps it should issue the final judgment on the 1992 accounts.
I am rather disappointed with what is before us as I had hoped that we would be able to discuss some sort of draft recommendation. We have the explanatory memorandum, dated 25 February, which the Paymaster General has signed. In paragraph 3, he says:
"In its Recommendation the Council has, in particular"—
followed by eight paragraphs. I shall not take up the House's time by reading them out, but they are a poor set of paragraphs and a shadow of what we read in the report of the Court of Auditors. I shall not embarrass the Paymaster General—or shall I?—by reading out the formulations. I hope that they were not drafted in our own Treasury, although I have no doubt that Sir Humphrey would be very proud of some of the sentences.
I will give a few samples. For instance, the Council
"emphasised the importance it attaches to funds being administered in accordance with Article 2 of the Financial Regulation and reiterated its attachment to monitoring and ex-post and ex-ante assessment".
Of course. That is part of the job, is it not? There is nothing new about that. The Council also
"stressed the importance it attaches to the Court of Auditors report as a tool to improve the implementation of the Community budget."
That is what is going on in the so-called discharge. I see nothing in this draft for that European Parliament Committee to get its teeth into. I know that it can look at the report of the Court of Auditors, but it ought to take its cue from the Council of Ministers' so-called discharge, because I do not believe that it is a discharge—frankly, it is a disgrace.
Hon. Members may ask me what it is upon which I base that assertion. Let us look at some of the better reports to be found in the other document that the Paymaster General signed. He has therefore done something for us. I refer to the preceding memorandum dated 5 February. Under the heading "Introduction", we read:
"The Court identifies two main reasons for deficiencies in financial management and control. First, they may be due to inadequately drafted legislation."
That is just it. Many of the regulations that come before us are incapable of providing the hooks, knobs and indicators which allow auditors to get to work. It is no use having an auditor unless he has something to look at.

The memorandum says:
"some of the practices used by the Commission to collect revenue arc, in the Court's view, contrary to the Financial Regulation".
That does not appear in the Council's conclusions, does it? It goes on to say:
"there are deficiencies in the supporting documentation submitted by member states in respect of agricultural guarantee expenditure."
The Court of Auditors found that,
"because records for VAT and GNP own resources are incomplete, transactions cannot easily be traced in the accounts."
It sounds like a qualified report all the way through, does it not?
In paragraph 21 we read:
"The Court noted that a substantial proportion of the aid for the temporary laying up of fishing capacity had been granted for periods which are unfavourable for fishing".
1052
That paragraph has already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I shall therefore leave it to one side.
In paragraph 45 we see:
"The Court noted that in the absence of a principal authorising or accounting officer a number of disbursements under the Fourth Lomé Convention had been made illegally …(ii) bank guarantees covering advances paid to contractors do not appear in the financial statements; …(v) because of the transfer to the new computerised accounting system, it is not possible to reconcile 20 per cent. of the records for the fifth and sixth EDFs with end-year balances."
Dr. Godman: It has been said several times that the Maastricht treaty enhances the status of the Court of Auditors. If that is so, would that enhanced status meet some of my hon. Friend's criticisms?
Mr. Spearing: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has caught me there, rather like the Paymaster General. I should have looked at that famous treaty just to see the extent to which the effective power of the Court of Auditors is increased, other than by being brought formally into the institutional family, of which it was formerly perhaps an associate member. If I looked at those articles, I suspect that I should need the help of persons who have been members of the Court of Auditors to understand them. British representatives have been very active in the Court of Auditors. Only they would be able to make the proper evaluation for which my hon. Friend correctly asks. That is perhaps beyond the powers of any hon. Member, but Treasury officials might be able to make such an evaluation.
I intend to refer to two sums of money which are of particular interest. One relates to the European Parliament. In the third volume of the draft general budget for 1993, we see, under title 3, a sum of about £13 million for what is called, under article item 3706, political activities and, under article item 3708, information about the role and work of the political groups inside the European Parliament. This country is debating whether public funds should be used to support political parties. It is less well known in this country that that already applies to the European Parliament. I am wondering to what extent the European Court of Auditors can have a look at that.
I conclude by mentioning a subject which has not been raised so far. It involves an entry by the Court of Auditors in respect of some moneys granted in support of other organisations. I refer to page 465 of the voluminous report consisting of the Commission's replies, which mentions a grant for the European Year of Tourism 1990. I cannot remember very much about it, but I should have thought that there was already plenty of tourism within Europe without the Community having to stimulate it further. However, we had a European year of tourism, which went badly wrong.
The European Parliament asked the Court of Auditors to examine the organisation. The journal states that, for the objectives of the EYT to be met, there had to be
"some co-ordinated activity between the Community, the Member States and private organisations …Three types of activity were planned".
However, they did not happen.
Even more important, the resources allocated to the EYT turned out to be "7.7 Mio ECU", which I take to be 7.7 million ecu. If that is not the case, we shall no doubt hear from the Paymaster General. That sum was

1053
"allocated in Parts A and B of the 1989 and 1990 budgets …whereas Council Decision 89/46/EEC had estimated the cost at 5 Mio ECU."
Presumably, 5 million ecu, which I suppose is about £3 million or £4 million, was allocated to that particular effort, which went 50 per cent. over budget.
However, it gets worse. Subcontractors were involved, and all sorts of things went wrong. I shall not detail them all, but I quote paragraph 19.68 which states:
"The Commission itself merely participated in events organized by third parties and took no initiative of its own regarding the EYT. As a result it failed to organise any sort of objective survey to evaluate the impact of the EYT, both on public opinion and on professionals in the tourist industry." I do not know what the impact was meant to be.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) mentioned value for money. The project does not seem to have done very well, as 7 million ecu, or at least £5 million, was spent on it. I suggest to the Paymaster General that that fact could be added to the observations and recommendations if the Council wishes to discharge the accounts of which this matter is part.
12.2 am
Sir Teddy Taylor: 1 hope that the Government will accept that it is an insult to the taxpayer and to the Court of Auditors that a handful of hon. Members are discussing this enormous report at 12.2 am, when no one will notice, hear or care.
It is also frightful to realise that the report contains a multitude of frauds, overspending and illegal spending. With reference to illegality, page 91 states:
"The Court noted that in the case of France the Commission has authorized, without any legal basis, an exemption from the limit of 90 eligible animals per year",
which is one of the key new agricultural issues. It cost a fortune. The Commission's response was that it would re-examine the issue.
Member states are acting illegally. Page 111 reveals that, in the case of a Portuguese sardine fishery, regulations were interpreted in such a way as to add 40 per cent. to the European taxpayers' contribution.
All the estimates by the Commission about the great savings that would be made seem to fade away. Page 54 outlines a case in which it was anticipated that "227 Mio ECU" was to be saved because of a remarkable change in policy, but it faded away.
There are further examples of crazy spending, of which the tobacco industry is a perfect one. Every year the expenditure increases on growing high tar tobacco and dumping it in the third world and in eastern Europe. Page 79 of the report says:
"over half of the maximum guaranteed quantity of the tobacco market receives a premium which is equivalent to 75 per cent. or more of the intervention price: 15 per cent. of this quantity receives a premium equivalent to 94 per cent. or more."
The tragedy is that the scandals grow greater every year. Ministers know that—and we certainly have a most patient Paymaster General. The CAP is totally out of control, with the mountains breaking all the records and expenditure at an all-time high, so that the poor families in all constituencies are paying massive extra sums for their food.
The plain fact is that there is nothing that anyone can or will do about that. It is sad to see one of the most able and useful Treasury Ministers sitting on the Front Bench and hearing us talking about all those crazy injustices.
1054
They are nothing to laugh at. The poor people and the local authorities of Britain are being deprived of cash for things that are needed while money is being wasted and poured down the drain.
Mr. Meale: Does the hon. Gentleman not find it peculiar that senior officials of the legal profession should be found trying to account for a document that shows an enormous amount of illegal activity and wrong auditing?
Sir Teddy Taylor: There is massive illegal activity arid illegal spending, waste and fraud—and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. It is a tragedy that here we have an able Treasury Minister who will tell us that things are being examined—my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) even made the remarkable suggestion that the European Parliament could examine those activities. But so long as we have mad crazy policies based on artificial prices, nothing can effectively be done. If we found a way of blocking out graft and corruption in our country, another means would be found.
I could mention many cases, but I want to finish my speech quickly because of the pressure of time. I simply hope that Ministers will accept that there is nothing that we can do—that, sadly, the work of the Court of Auditors is wasted, apart from annoying people who read about the graft, corruption, fraud and waste. Nothing whatever can happen. The waste will increase, the fraud will increase and the mountains will increase—unless there is some way in which policy can be changed.
Briefly, in the one minute left to me, I simply add that there is nothing that we can do to change policy. I wish that the Government would accept that. There is no way in which the CAP, for example, can be reformed. We have talked about it year after year. New plans are brought forward all the time. But the same thing always happens. Remember Lady Thatcher's wonderful attempt to spend all the money to wipe out the food mountains and insist on strict budgetary controls? Although the strict controls were there, in the first year of operation the Commission —with the help of ECOFIN and even of a British representative—got round them by declaring a metric year of 10 months to ensure that it kept within the strict budgetary controls.
The tragedy is that Ministers and Members of Parliament are kidding themselves into thinking that there is some bright solution; some new committee or some new fraud department that we could set up. I wish that they would accept the plain fact that nothing can be done. Unfortunately, the organisation of the EC is such that problems tend not to be solved. The CAP is the perfect example.
I hope that, if the hard work of the Court of Auditors and its splendid reports prove anything to anyone, they will prove that we are wasting our time year after year when we say, "We hear that more exciting things are happening in the Commission and in the Council. There are more reports, more checks, and more frauds will be detected." Nothing can be done. Things will get worse, and more costly—and the poor people and the unemployed will suffer. Everyone is suffering. The CAP is one of the greatest scandals and protection rackets in the world. We are doing massive damage to the third world by dumping all the surpluses at artificial prices.
I simply wish that honest, decent Ministers—of which the Paymaster General is certainly one—would stand up

1055
and say, "I am sad about this; I think that it is a tragedy and a waste—but the Government and other hon. Members must work out how we can find a way of disengaging from those mad policies and stopping the waste." The only way in which we can stop the scandals and abuses is somehow to pull out from policies that can neve be, and will never be, resolved.
12.9 am
Sir John Cope: I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) thinks that there is no cure for any of the problems discussed this evening or for many other problems except for us to withdraw from the Community as it is now organised. I do not take that view. The problem of agriculture in the third world, to which my hon. Friend referred, would not be improved if we opted out of the EC. Nor am I prepared to agree with his judgment—to which he is entitled—that Ministers or the House should give up and say that the problem is insoluble.
I am not prepared to agree that nothing should be done. I accept that there are difficulties that we need to address and that we need to push our colleagues in the Council of Ministers. I accept that we need to ensure that the machinery of the Community is improved to deal with the problems that we have discussed and to which the report draws attention.
Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
Sir John Cope: No. Many detailed points were raised and I shall try to deal with as many as I can. I shall write to hon. Members about detailed matters raised if necessary. I shall also forward a copy of the Hansard report of this evening's debate to Commissioner Schmidhuber, who is responsible for budgetary matters, to draw his attention to the strength of feeling among hon. Members of all parties about aspects of the budget and of its control.
There have been references to the control of finance in this country by the House. The mechanism in which hon. Members have much confidence, as I do, includes the Public Accounts Committee, with which we are all familiar. As hon. Members have rightly said, that mechanism has taken a long time to build up. The history of the Paymaster General's office reveals that some of my predecessors made enormous profits out of the post. From the point of view of my pockets, I am sorry that the traditions of the office have lapsed. For the past 150 years, from before Victorian times, such profits have not been possible for Paymasters General or for other Government officials. Gladstone improved the control mechanisms a good deal, but he did not start the process of tidying up the mess.
I intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to explain that the procedure is that the Council, as he rightly described, considers matters initially in detail through the Budget Committee of the Council, which is made up of Treasury or equivalent officials and which makes recommendations to Ministers—that is approximately the state at which we are now in respect of the 1990 report—after which the Council's recommendation is debated by Ministers. When duly passed, it goes on to the European Parliament.
1056
The hon. Member for Newham, South read some extracts from the explanatory memorandum about the Council recommendations. The full Council recommendations run to 59 pages and can also be made available to the House. I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely assiduous about looking at original documents. The explanatory memorandum is a brief summary, and I am sorry if it did not please him. The recommendations are far longer.
When the recommendations reach the European Parliament, the Court of Auditors' report goes to the Budgetary Control Committee—a different Committee from the Budget Committee—which is the nearest equivalent to the Public Accounts Committee. It starts with the Council's recommendation. In addition, obviously it considers the report of the Court of Auditors —nearly 500 pages—and the Commission's response. The relevant Commissioners give evidence to the Committee about the programmes in which they are interested. It has to decide whether or not to give a discharge, as it is called, to the budget for the year. So there are quite a number of democratic checks inserted in the process.
During the British presidency in the second half of last year, I had the benefit of appearing before the Budgetary Control Committee, something I had not done before. As a representative of the Council and not just of the United Kingdom, I attended meetings to try to explain some matters. Appearing before that Committee was not all that different from appearing before a Select Committee of the House.
The work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office is substantially the same as that of the Court of Auditors. The Court has representatives of each member state, including the United Kingdom, obviously. Its job is to go through the detail and to produce a report. It produces not just the annual report but special reports when it considers them necessary.
Additionality and RECHAR were mentioned in the debate. Receipts have always enabled programmes to be higher than they would otherwise have been. There have been changes in the United Kingdom's presentation of receipts of the European regional development fund in the public expenditure figures. They were agreed last year and they will produce greater transparency so that there cannot be accusations such as there have been in the past, and we hope that they will encourage a wider range of applications, helping to increase value for money. The Commission accepts that full provision has been made for RECHAR receipts—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have decided to ask for an investigation of the delay in the No Lobby.
The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 19.

Division No. 192]

[12.17 am

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Alexander, Richard

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Alton, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Amess, David

Bates, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

1057

Bowis, John

Lord, Michael

Brandreth, Gyles

Luff, Peter

Brazier, Julian

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Bright, Graham

MacKay, Andrew

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Maclean, David

Burt, Alistair

Malone, Gerald

Carrington, Matthew

Merchant, Piers

Cash, William

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Chapman, Sydney

Neubert, Sir Michael

Clappison, James

Nicholls, Patrick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Page, Richard

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Patnick, Irvine

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Redwood, John

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

Richards, Rod

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Devlin, Tim

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Dover, Den

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Duncan, Alan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Dykes, Hugh

Spencer, Sir Derek

Elletson, Harold

Spink, Dr Robert

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Sproat, Iain

Fabricant, Michael

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Steen, Anthony

Fishburn, Dudley

Stephen, Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Streeter, Gary

Freeman, Roger

Sykes, John

Gallie, Phil

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hague, William

Thomason, Roy

Harris, David

Thurnham, Peter

Haselhurst, Alan

Trend, Michael

Heald, Oliver

Twinn, Dr Ian

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Tyler, Paul

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Waterson, Nigel

Jack, Michael

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Whittingdale, John

Kilfedder, Sir James

Widdecombe, Ann

Kirkwood, Archy

Willetts, David

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Wood, Timothy

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Legg, Barry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

Lidington, David

Mr. Robert C. Hughes.

Lightbown, David

NOES

Barnes, Harry

Kilfoyle, Peter

Beggs, Roy

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Meale, Alan

Cann, Jamie

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Connarty, Michael

Skinner, Dennis

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Spearing, Nigel

Davidson, Ian

Wise, Audrey

Dixon, Don

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Tellers for the Noes:

Graham, Thomas

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mr. Jimmy Hood.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Court of Auditors' Report concerning the financial year 1991 together with the institutions' replies (OJ No. C330, Volume 35) and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 25th February 1993 relating to the draft Council Recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge of the General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1991.

Plymouth Development Corporation
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Plymouth Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1993, dated 20th January 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.—[Mr. Redwood.]
12.33 am
Mr. Doug Henderson: I am grateful for the unexpected opportunity properly to open the debate. I thought that the Minister might have taken the opportunity, with such a full House, to put a strong case for the establishment of an urban development corporation in Plymouth. I thought that he and many of his hon. Friends would have considered it an important contribution to economic development, not only for Plymouth but for the south-west. An explanation of the Government's policy on urban and economic regeneration would have been helpful. He could have commented on the work of other urban development corporations since their establishment in 1981.
As the Minister knows, there has not been complete unanimity, even among Conservative Members, about the establishment of such organisations. It was not that hon. Members believed that the establishment of urban development corporations could have damaged economic development in those areas, but that more effort could have been made towards regeneration had they been designed differently.
Following his appointment as the Government's ambassador to Tyne and Wear—my own area—the Minister will be aware of the different views on the establishment of urban development corporations throughout the north-east. It is pleasing to see hon. Members representing constituencies in the north-east in their places tonight; perhaps they will participate in the debate.
The Minister will also know that there are different views on the success of those urban development corporations. I would have thought that he would want to itemise at least some of their strengths, and acknowledge some of the weaknesses that have been apparent not only to those who take a close interest in the work of the development corporations but to others whose work in the community has been affected—in the business community, the voluntary sector or other sectors. I hoped that the Minister would have made a stronger case than simply formally moving the resolution.
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): It is for the convenience of the House at this late hour if I reply at the end of the debate to points that have been raised, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman has serious questions to ask, I will answer them, but had he known a little more about Plymouth, he might have known that the Labour-controlled city council is keen on the proposal and is looking to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends to expedite the business and vote for the motion.
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the Minister for reminding the House that the Government were persuaded to establish an urban development corporation in Plymouth by the Labour-controlled council, which recognised the terrible state of the economy in that city and

1059
the need to do something to start regeneration. I assure the House that the Opposition are not attempting to delay the establishment of the urban development corporation.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is there not a certain arrogant and sinister attitude on the part of the Minister, who has been given powers to introduce an order defining an area and giving it advantages over other areas? It is an important power, granted by primary legislation in the House. The order is not subject to amendment; we have to take it or leave it. It is subject to a maximum time of one and a half hours, and the Minister did not even have the courtesy to explain what governed the issue of the order and outline the powers that he is using.
It is an example of the overweening arrogance of a Government who, in 1992, turned out more statutory instruments than any Government in the history of Parliament. It is an arrogant use of power by the Government, who are piling on more regulations, the most unaccountable part of our parliamentary democracy, than any previous Government.
Mr. Henderson: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I am glad that he has brought them to our attention, not only in regard to the issues we are discussing tonight but, as he rightly points out, on a number of other issues where shortened parliamentary procedures have been adopted in preference to a full debate.
The Opposition make no attempt to delay the establishment of the urban development corporation. Somewhat cynically, the Government announced their intention to establish such a body in the run up to the general election, and there has been much criticism in Plymouth of the fact that it has now taken nearly 12 months for the Government to lay an order in the House to that effect. If there are any criticisms about delay, the Government should remember their apparent difficulties in introducing the measure.
Our purpose in praying against the order was to enable a full debate to take place in the Chamber, albeit in an hour and a half, on developments in the dockyards in Plymouth and the linked issues of economic development throughout that city and its travel-to-work area.
I would argue—I hope that my case convinces at least some hon. Members—that, if the important aim of regenerating the dockland and the travel-to-work areas in Plymouth is to be achieved, it must be done in the context of the economic development of the whole of the south-west region. People in that part of the country recognise the absolute importance of Plymouth as a major centre, which encompasses a significant proportion of the population, the economic activity and the potential economic activity in the south-west. They recognise that, if Plymouth does well, the whole of the south-west does well.
Mr. David Harris: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's new-found concern for the welfare of the south-west. Is he saying, with the authority of an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, that he is in favour of the contract for the refitting and overhaul of Trident going to Devonport rather than Rosyth? Is that the Opposition's view? If so, we welcome it.
Mr. Henderson: I rather suspected that that matter would be raised by Conservative Members. I have already had some discussions today on that matter, in another forum. The policy of the Labour party is that the refitting of Trident is of such strategic importance that a country such as Britain requires options. That means that a capability must be retained in both Rosyth and Plymouth, so that Britain can properly maintain its armed forces. Opposition defence spokespersons have made that position quite clear, and I reiterate it this evening.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that it is Labour party policy to have a nuclear capability in both Rosyth and Devonport to maintain a Trident boat? Has he any idea what the cost of that would be?
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has not considered what has been happening previously with the refitting of important MOD vessels. Maintaining a Trident submarine does not occupy all the work of any particular yard. What I am saying, and what those involved in shipbuilding and ship repair recognise, is that a yard in the modern world must have a greater flexibility than has been the case with some yards.
Some yards in the north of England may suffer because of their over-concentration on one form of naval refit. Given a joint capability between Rosyth and Devonport, into that can be built a capability to undertake other important work for the MOD. I am sure that those who work in the dockyards at both Devonport and Rosyth will welcome the Labour party's position.
Mr. David Jamieson: Rather than discussing the Labour party's view on the nuclear refit contract, what we should be discussing—and what I thought Conservative Members would have raised—is the Government's procrastination and delay with the contract. Indeed, Conservative Members have often said that the Government have subjected the contract to delay. That delay is harming the economic future of the area.
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point that concerns people both in the dockyard and in the whole of the Plymouth community.
The reason for the order is that the Government recognise that, even if the refitting of Trident goes to Devonport, there will still not be sufficient employment to regenerate the dockland and the wider economic areas of Plymouth, and that further action is required. Indeed, when the Minister replies, he may argue that a UDC is a proper way to proceed.
I hope to establish that the UDC acting alone would be insufficient to achieve adequate urban regeneration in Plymouth, a city which has served the nation well. If my history is reasonably accurate, it has served the country from Elizabethan times, and perhaps before, through two world wars to the present. It is regrettable, however, that the city has fallen on hard times. There has been a serious decline in naval dockyard work and the work force in the yard has been halved over the past five years. The consequences of the recession in the United Kingdom generally, and in the south-west particularly, have been felt deeply in Plymouth during recent years. There is much evidence to confirm the difficulties that the city faces.

1061
In the past, it would have been extremely surprising to find Plymouth high on the list of cities and urban areas qualifying for urban aid. Unfortunately, that is now the reality, and that fact reflects the difficulties that the city faces. Since the late 1980s, Plymouth has been eligible for urban aid. Unemployment is 13·4 per cent., which is damaging for such a city. It is similar to the levels of unemployment that are to be found in areas in the north of the country, which have traditionally suffered from the difficulties of economic degeneration.
In the Plymouth, Sutton constituency, which covers part of the area in which the proposed UDC will be employed, unemployment has increased by 104 per cent. over the past three years.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is my hon. Friend aware that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) I went to Plymouth several times in the late 1980s as a member of the Public Accounts Committee? That stemmed from work that we had been doing as members of the Committee on the contractorisation of management in the dockyard. We were able to predict the immense damage that would be done to the yard by the arrangements that the Government were introducing. When I went to Plymouth, everyone recognised that it was inevitable that there would be major redundancies. Plymouth then was not in a position to deal with the problems that were to confront it in the future. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to comment on that.
Mr. Henderson: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the matter. A point which has been made forcefully to me over the past three years, during which I have made numerous visits to the south-west, including Plymouth, is that, when contractorisation or privatisation is under way, there is concern only with work which existed in the past or, at the very best, which currently exists. It seems that no one is concerned with how work will be created or generated in future. That is because very few will have a stake in that work, and that is one of the great weaknesses of privatisation. That has been felt deeply by the work force at the dockyard at Plymouth.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Government were considering contractorisation, there was an argument in Plymouth about the nature and nationality of the company that was being considered for the contract. This was many years ago, but there was a great deal of argument about Brown and Root. It was felt that, because it was not a British company, it would never understand the dilemma of running a management system that would lead to unemployment. It was felt that the fact that it was not a British company would detract from its ability to secure the future of the yard.
I think that events have proved that correct. Once that contractor came in, it was the beginning of the end for the city. Over the years, many have complained about what happened.
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. If I had more time, I would make it clear that I do not take a narrow nationalistic view of economic development or even economic ownership. There are occasions when that can be an advantage, as some of my hon. Friends from Sunderland have acknowledged. But there are instances where ownership is transferred to a
1062
foreign source—foreign to a particular area, not necessarily foreign in a nationality sense—which means that is has less of a commitment to the traditions and future prosperity of an area.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may wish to comment further on that point, which I am sure a number of his constituents will have made to him.
As the Minister said in an intervention, the Labour-controlled city council in Plymouth supports the establishment of the urban development corporation. The Opposition also support it. But there is concern about the delay in establishing the body. As unemployment in, and the economy of, the Plymouth area continue to deteriorate relentlessly, there is no way in which that damage can be redressed. The delay in establishing the development corporation has further weakened the ability of the Plymouth economy to tackle the problems it faces and to begin regeneration.
I also welcome the close liaison between the local authority and the Department of the Environment on the analysis of the problems that face Plymouth—the urban degeneration that has taken place in recent times and the need to work together to try to establish a basis for future prosperity.
It is important that there is that consensus, so that often unnecessary disputes about planning and the location and nature of particular developments, which has often occurred in other urban development corporations where there has not been such a consensus, can be avoided and the best use made of limited resources. That can happen when planning priorities are agreed.
I welcome the change in the Government's position and their recognition of the increasing need to work closely with a local authority on any development schemes in our urban areas. The commitment given by the local authority in Plymouth augurs well for success in future if other conditions, which I hope to mention later, are met.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend talks about the willingness to work together, but we have a reference in the explanatory note to eight members, in addition to the chairman and deputy chairman. Has my hon. Friend any information on how those eight members will be selected? Will they be representatives of the local authority—
Mr. Redwood: Yes.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why did not the Minister make a speech setting out such matters, instead of moving the motion formally so that hon. Members would not have to intervene to secure the facts? My hon. Friend might be able to help me.
Mr. Henderson: I can help my hon. Friend. I have been advised by the local authority that it has some concord with the Government on the way in which the board will be established. I am not sure whether it agrees 100 per cent. with the Government's proposal on board membership. I understand that a chairman has still to be found. However, the Minister may be able to announce this evening that that problem has been overcome. The local authority has, to some degree, accepted the structure of the board, and I think that it hopes to participate in it.
Mr. Streeter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hostility shown this evening by Opposition Members

1063
towards the Plymouth UDC, particularly expressed by the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), will be noticed in Plymouth and not forgotten? The hon. Gentleman should take that on board.
Mr. Henderson: I had hoped that interventions would be helpful, but the hon. Gentleman's comment was not. I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). They were testing the issue, in the hope that the Minister, when he winds up, would meet some of the points that they raised and which are important to the people of Plymouth. The hon. Gentleman must get it firmly in his mind that the Labour party will take no lessons on urban regeneration from the Conservative party. I reaffirm, and made it unequivocally clear, that we support measures to support and stimulate economic regeneration—particularly in rundown city areas, including those of Plymouth.
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) visited Plymouth with me in 1986, and I was grateful to him for his support for the local economy. I wonder how many Conservative Members can say that they visited Plymouth dockyard in 1986 or earlier, and expressed great concern for its future and for that of Plymouth, and predicted many of the difficulties that Plymouth now faces.
Mr. Henderson: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend, who reinforces a point that I tried to make. The people of Plymouth know the truth of my hon. Friend's remarks, and they showed, in the way that they expressed their preference at the last general election, whom they trust with the area's development.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may clarify my position in the light of earlier interventions. As a Labour Member of Parliament, I have no difficulty accepting the development corporation. In fact, I positively support the principle. However, we are debating the scrutiny of legislation.
The people of Plymouth will want to know that Parliament has considered the implications. We have no difficulty with the proposition—I hope that the proposal will deal with the problems of Plymouth, and certainly those that I identified when I visited it with my hon. Friend some years ago. I wish the people of Plymouth the very best of good luck with the proposal.
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his further intervention, which made clear the point that he intended to make clear earlier. My hon. Friend has stated his firm commitment to the people of Plymouth and to their need to develop their economy.
The Labour party supports the urban development corporation's establishment, but I have certain worries —which I have expressed on other occasions, in relation to the Urban Regeneration Agency that the Government hope, with the approval of another place, to establish shortly, linked to the activities of urban development corporations throughout the country.
My first concern relates to resources. I invite the House to compare the proposed level of resources for Plymouth development corporation, totalling £45 milion over five
1064
years, with the amount of public money that has been injected into Plymouth in the past, one way or another, in defence work or contracts. The sum of £45 million over five years is fairly small by comparison.
I make a comparison also with the amount of development money given to Wales. South Wales and south-west England have populations of similar size. Next year, the Welsh Development Agency will receive from the public purse £171 million for one year. That compares with £9 million for the Plymouth development corporation, and puts the Government's commitment into perspective.
I hope that the Government will have further thoughts about development in the south-west of England. If a strong case can be made for economic development stimulated by public finance in south Wales, where unemployment is 10·4 per cent., surely a similar argument can be advanced for the economic regeneration of the south-west of England, with a similar population and unemployment of over 10 per cent.
Notwithstanding what the Minister has said in our debates about the establishment of an Urban Regeneration Agency, perhaps he will recognise that, although urban development corporations can be of some value in tackling the specific problems of particular areas, if there is to be an overall economic regeneration, it is important that the whole region is on the way up and receives a stimulus. That cannot possibly be achieved through the efforts of the UDC, which has neither the powers nor the resources to tackle the problem.
The Minister should realise that what is really required for the economic regeneration of the south-west—and the full economic regeneration of Plymouth—is the establishment of a regional development agency similar to those established in both Wales and Scotland. That proposition carries wide support across the political divide in the south-west.
If the Government are serious about economic regeneration in Plymouth and the south-west, they should consider how the work of the proposed urban development corporation could be incorporated in the overall work that would be co-ordinated and undertaken by a development agency in the south-west. The establishment of such an agency was a firm Labour commitment at the last general election, and continues to be so: we recognise the importance of such bodies.
I hope that, in establishing the development agency, the Government will be able to build on the strengths that have been identified in the structures and work of UDCs in other parts of the country, and that they will recognise the failures of other development corporations.
The House recently debated the effectiveness of a UDC established in the east end of London, and a fairly wide argument has been conducted among all sorts of people involved in the question of urban regeneration and the best way in which it can be achieved. It has been alleged that the failures of the London dockland development corporation resulted largely from the adoption of an excessively narrow approach, based on the philosophy that, if a new property development is established, some use will have to be made of that development, and that there will be a trickle-down effect which will regenerate a wider area, incorporating the people who live in the area and providing them with work.
As the Minister well knows, the evidence of what has actually happened in docklands completely contradicts

1065
what was intended to happen. Docklands has been a complete failure, and many of its main projects have become white elephants. The classic example is Canary Wharf, an under-utilised property development which has done very little to regenerate the economy of that part of east London and very little to provide employment for people who were previously employed in the area and have lost their jobs, partly through the clearance of the area to provide an opportunity for property development. It has also done very little to incorporate the local community into the work of Canary Wharf: indeed, the project is not supported by the community.
As a result, only 15 per cent. of the Canary Wharf building is now occupied; 85 per cent. is redundant, with little prospect of reaching its full capacity in the near future. Of the three major companies that have taken a stake in Canary Wharf, one is the developer, which has used it as a base for its administration. The last thing that Plymouth needs is its own empty Canary Wharf overlooking Plymouth Sound. What Plymouth needs is an integrated project to regenerate this area.
The Minister will already have heard some of the arguments. They have not been put forward on a narrow, partisan, party political basis. My argument about the failure of property-led development has been put to the Minister by the developers upon whom he has to rely if there is to be any prospect of development in Plymouth. It is an argument that has been put to him by developers, development consultants, local businesses, the British Urban Regeneration Association and by the Minister's economic advisers, such as Professor Robson at Manchester university and Mr. Nigel Smith, a property consultant with Drivers Jonas.
Many others have also made the point forcefully to the Government: that there can be no proper economic development if we rely completely on property development, and that there have to be other forms of integrated development. That is what Plymouth and other parts of the country need.
Plymouth needs wider power to enable it to support the work of an urban development corporation that can be integrated into the structure of a development agency. I refer, for example, to the power to develop infrastructure that covers a wider area than that covered by the urban development corporation—to transport facilities and other utilities for the city of Plymouth. Wider powers are needed to enable aid and grant to be given to companies that need it, whether they are involved in engineering, shipbuilding, or other sectors of the economy. Powers are required to enable industrial promotion to take place. Powers are needed to provide marketing opportunities and business advice—all the things that are done by the Welsh Development Agency.
Those hon. Members who represent constituencies in the south-west may be unaware of Lord Walker's view. He has been appointed chairman of the Urban Regeneration Agency, which is to cover the rest of England, including the south-west. When Lord Walker was a Member of this House and Secretary of State for Wales, he recognised the importance of development agencies. In his autobiography, "Staying Power", he said:
"We calculated that by creating new businesses, helping existing companies to grow and attracting inward investment to Britain from overseas we could bring down unemployment to the lowest figure in England."
He was talking about Wales at that point.
1066
"I quickly realised that my best instrument for achieving all this was the Welsh Development Agency. It was flexible, could help with the property side, offer grants in line with the EEC rules. I gave it more money"
he says proudly—
"to expand the job."
That is what Lord Walker says is necessary for Wales.
Some of Lord Walker's wisdom surely applies to the problems of the south-west of England. A regional development agency is needed to reinforce the work that can be conducted on a narrower geographical base by the urban development corporation.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the arguments for urban regeneration that he has heard from many hon. Members since he assumed this responsibility nearly 12 months ago. He will hear other hon. Members say that it is crucial for the urban development corporation to have the resources that it needs if it is to make an impact on Plymouth's economy. Those resources must be comparable to those that are available for urban development in, for instance, south Wales.
There is a need for close liaison between Government Departments so that one Department is not running in one direction and another Department in a different direction. There is already some strain between the interests of the Ministry of Defence and those of the Department of the Environment over the establishment of the agency.

It is important that there should be no further delay in the establishment of the body. There is a need for the close liaison, which has been established with the council—a fact I welcome—to continue. Local people must be fully involved in any decisions made, and I hope that the Minister will agree that monitoring committees should be established where development work covers a very small area.
Many strengths have been identified in urban development corporations in other parts of the country, and I am sure that hon. Members will bring them to the Minister's attention. I hope that, in establishing the development corporation in Plymouth, the Minister will be able to incorporate the best practices and that he will recognise the forceful arguments made by virtually everyone involved in urban redevelopment. It cannot be undertaken successfully on a narrow basis—it cannot be undertaken if the basis of urban regeneration is property development alone. There is a need for a fully integrated approach, so that jobs have as important a role as property development.
1.10 am
Mr. Gary Streeter: I welcome the opportunity to take part in an important debate about the Plymouth development corporation. Although the hour is late, it is never too late to put the case for Plymouth.
I was not impressed by or pleased with the grudging welcome given by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) to this important urban development corporation, which is greatly welcomed in Plymouth, even by the Labour-led city council. It is typical of the Labour party to put forward someone from the north-east to talk about an urban development corporation in the south-west, two areas about as far apart as they could be. The hon. Gentleman displayed a lack of knowledge of Plymouth, and of the Royal William yard in particular, by comparing it to Canary Wharf. There is

1067
absolutely no comparison. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman displayed such a lack of knowledge and did not see fit to welcome an exciting proposal.
The motion is the final parliamentary step of the Plymouth development corporation becoming a reality. We look forward with great excitement to 1 April when it will be up and running. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities for his personal effort in causing this day to arrive, as there was a danger in the autumn statement that the £45 million for Plymouth might disappear. We would have understood, but my hon. Friend fought diligently for the city. On 26 March, he is to speak at a conference in Plymouth; I can assure him not just of a warm welcome but of a hero's welcome. If he carries on in the same way, a statue will be erected to him on the Hoe, alongside that of Sir Francis Drake.
I wish to put the urban development corporation in context. The south-west is suffering from the effects of the recession. It has three traditional industries: agriculture, tourism and a defence-related industry.
Mr. Harris: And fishing.
Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) reminds me that we also have a vital fishing industry, which he diligently protects at every opportunity. For different reasons, all those industries are experiencing difficulty. In that context, the UDC is very welcome.
We must also understand that Plymouth suffers from peripherality. It is more than 120 miles from any larger city. That cannot be said about any place other than London. It means that, in times of difficulty, no other industries are waiting to move to our part of the world.
I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged that Plymouth is a special case. The creation of the UDC is also a reflection of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's commitment to the south-west. It is good to see the commitment of which he speaks becoming a reality and taking concrete form tonight.
As has already been said, Plymouth has suffered from a rundown of the dockyard since 1985. We have lost 8,000 jobs in that period and unemployment now stands at roughly 14 per cent. It is also true, as I have often said in the House, that we are suffering from the uncertainty about the outcome of the Trident contract—if my voice is a little croaky, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is caused by the excitement of the hour. It is critical for our city that Plymouth be chosen for the work. We can do it well and cost-effectively, at a price that other parts of the country cannot match. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has not been able to confirm clearly to the House tonight that it is Labour party policy for the Trident contract to come to Plymouth. That will be noted in Plymouth.
Mr. Jamieson: Does the hon. Gentleman share my abject disappointment at the constant delay and change in dates for the announcement of the nuclear refit contract?
Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) for intervening in the debate. He knows only too well that it is my commitment to my constituents that I shall fight for them
1068
at every opportunity. Of course, the frustration that we have suffered in Plymouth at the delay in awarding the contract is a matter for concern.
Because we are in difficulty, we welcome the urban development corporation all the more. I see the corporation as the cavalry coming over the hill—£45 million over five years is a substantial sum in anyone's book. I believe that it will be a catalyst for change and progress in Plymouth. It will be a pump-priming exercise that will attract private sector investment. The Minister is already aware of the private sector activity in Plymouth which, in combination with the local authority, has already set up a company to shadow the corporation and incur some of the early expenditure so that time is not lost. I hope that the pump-priming exercise will produce jobs for the people of Plymouth. That is what our young people want—and I believe that the £45 million will be a catalyst, a springboard and a turning point which will lead to the creation of jobs for the people of Plymouth. That is why I welcome it so much.
Now I shall go into one or two details concerning the areas involved in the UDC. First, I hope that the Mount Wise area will be used primarily for development to raise extra cash for the other flagship facilities. The Royal William yard will be the flagship of the development, and the challenge for the board of the UDC will be to produce the right solution—the right scheme, which will be lively and attract inward investment.
The third area—RAF Mount Batten, in my constituency—must be kept for recreation. The people of Turnchapel, who live around the area, want it to be left as an open space for recreation, where the people of Plymouth can come and walk and enjoy the beautiful scenery and the beautiful sea. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that he will bring every pressure to bear on the board to listen to the voice of local people.
My hon. Friend may be aware that I attended a meeting of the Turnchapel residents and preservation association last Friday, and heard people's concerns about RAF Mount Batten. I pledged to them—I repeat that pledge tonight—that a month or so after the UDC is set up I will arrange a meeting between the residents of Turnchapel and the board so that the board, too, can hear the concerns of local people. That is what we want in Plymouth, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us assurances.
In replying to the debate, will my hon. Friend the Minister also confirm that one of the priorities for the board should be to ensure that local workers are engaged in any development work? Will he confirm that, as far as possible, local contractors will be engaged to do up the properties, for example, so that local people can enjoy the benefits?
One of the Labour party's many failings is that it does not welcome good news. It delights in talking things down, whether in the country generally or in Plymouth. Plymouth has gone through a difficult patch. We have real needs, of which the most pressing is the need for jobs. Today's move is welcome because it will lead to the creation of further jobs. Some Opposition Members talk down Plymouth, but with this Government's assistance it can be a boom town of the 21st century. It has so many things going for it: the attractive environment, the facilities that it affords, an excellent and skilled work force—[HON. MEMBERS: "An excellent Member of Parliament."] My hon. Friends are kind to refer to the representation that Plymouth, Drake and Plymouth, Sutton enjoy. I welcome

1069
the order. It is an important turning point for the city of Plymouth. It is to be welcomed widely in the House and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his efforts in making it a reality.
1.20 am
Mr. David Jamieson: I too am pleased that the debate is taking place tonight and that it gives us the opportunity to discuss Plymouth and the economic needs of the south-west. Unlike the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), I shall not congratulate the Minister on his comments. I shall wait until I hear them before congratulating him on them. I may do so when the debate has finished.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for his comments of support this evening. I would not sneer at any hon. Member who spoke as warmly in favour of Plymouth as my hon. Friend has done tonight, wherever he came from.
To reinforce the point, I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for his support over the years. He came to the dockyard many years ago and spoke to the work force, to the unions, to me and to others. He spoke warmly in favour of the work force. He accurately predicted what has now come to pass—that we should lose many jobs. The only way in which he was wrong was that he underestimated the number of jobs that would be lost. He was accused of scaremongering.
The development corporation proposal for Plymouth is to be welcomed. The proposal was first mooted way back in 1985. The hon. Member for Sutton said that he wanted to erect a statue in the Minister's honour. If we do erect a statue and if progress is made at the same rate as the announcement of the development corporation, the Minister will be drawing his pension before we see the unveiling of the statue. He can come to my constituency, in which the dockyard lies, and I shall be happy to unveil the statue.
It was in 1985 that the Secretary of State for Defence announced the release of the Royal William yard because it was surplus to requirements. It has taken us eight years to get to where we are now. The proposal has, like so many other proposals, been subjected to prevarication and delay. There has been little action over the years, and it has been very slow. My regret is that, during that time, the buildings that are owned by the Ministry of Defence have fallen further into decline and decay.
We now welcome the proposal for the Royal William yard, for Mount Batten and for Mount Wise, the three areas that we are discussing. There are many other areas of urban decay in Plymouth that need to be addressed. Many of those areas were outlined in the bid that Plymouth made last year for city challenge which, I regret to say, was unsuccessful.
Mr. Streeter: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, because I am sure that he is drawing to the end of his remarks, can he say whether the city has welcomed the £1·8 million from the urban partnership fund for which my hon. Friend the Minister is also responsible? Is not that substantial compensation for us not getting the city challenge bid?
Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment about the length of my speech—a triumph of optimism over reality. We welcome any amounts that come to the city, small and late though they may be.
In a way, the south-west has suffered from having too good an image, which has concealed many of its problems. It is seen very much as a holiday and tourist area. Important and vital though that part of the economy is, we need more than that to survive. Over the years, Plymouth has needed more to survive.
For many years, Plymouth has been dependent on manufacturing industry, which has been linked almost exclusively to defence. The old town of Devonport in my constituency did not exist when Plymouth dock came to the area. The dockyard came first, in 1691, and the people were housed in hulks out in the sound. Later the town was built around the dockyard. So the dockyard came first and the people followed.
The whole south-west is dependent on defence-related industry. I believe that it is the most defence-dependent region in the whole EC. In the Plymouth travel-to-work area there is a total of 25,000 defence-dependent jobs or 21 per cent. of the work force. A survey by Bristol polytechnic in May 1991 estimated that in the whole south-west region 155,000 jobs were dependent directly or indirectly on defence.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Having told the House how important the defence industry is to his area, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he supports Labour party policy to reduce defence expenditure by £6 billion, which would probably have a massive jobs impact on his area?
Mr. Jamieson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has brought a sour note of party politics into a debate about Plymouth. My constituents have suffered for many years from Tory defence cuts. There is over 50 per cent. male unemployment in my constituency due to cuts by the Government which he supports.
Total expenditure on defence in the region is £3·38 billion per year, which is 18·8 per cent. of United Kingdom defence expenditure. Recent world events and the volatile profile of defence expenditure prove that there will be more changes in defence needs in our area. In my constituency in the 1970s over 20,000 people were employed in the dockyard. In 1986 and 1987, when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington visited the dockyard, nearly 13,000 people were employed there. There are now just over 5,000.
Constituencies in the region are suffering very much because of unemployment. In my constituency there has been a 77 per cent. rise in unemployment over the last three years. The hon. Member for Sutton quoted the rise in his constituency as 104 per cent. In other areas, such as Barnstaple, Redruth, Camborne and Torbay, there is great concern about the state of the economy. If the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) were here, he could tell us that there has been an 82 per cent. increase in unemployment in his area. If the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) were here, she could tell us that the increase in unemployment in her area is 139 per cent.
Mr. Michael Bates: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are talking about the urban development corporation and that the Labour party

1071
strenuously opposed its establishment? Is he aware that a primary function of the urban development corporation is to sell the benefits of the city and attract inward investment? For the sake of Plymouth, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not play any part in the work of the urban development corporation, because that would not attract many people to the area.
Mr. Jamieson: I find it tiresome when hon. Members who probably do not know where Plymouth is intervene in this debate. When I met my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North the other day, he surprised me with his detailed knowledge of many roads and streets in my constituency. He probably knows my constituency much better than many of the Conservative Members who are gasping at present.
This order is a positive move forward. There have been some positive moves forward recently. Devonport Management Ltd. has done some limited work on diversification and is now repairing railway locomotive engines. At present, repairs are being made to privately owned ships in our dockyard. On Friday, I shall be visiting another company in the dockyard, Walker Wingsail, which has done excellent work in creating new jobs within the dockyard; but that work is limited and only a few jobs have been created.
I am glad that the Minister referred to Plymouth city council. In the past 18 months, that council has done more work than anyone to assist the economic regeneration in the area. It has been pro-active in helping the economy and has created co-operation among business, industry and commerce, the like of which we have not had for many years. The council must be heartily congratulated on that.
The hon. Member for Sutton will recall attending a presentation with me at which he congratulated the council on its Plymouth city challenge bid. The hon. Gentleman must admit that it was an excellent bid for the city.

The urban development corporation will provide £45 million. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that is simply the first step down the road for Plymouth and the south-west. It will take much more than putting right buildings and the decay which has taken place over many years in the areas to which I referred to bring back the number of jobs to Plymouth and the south-west which is required. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will urgently appoint the chairman, the chief executive and the rest of the board.
I hope that not only will the board be set up urgently but that the jobs which are created in the first instance will go to people in Plymouth and the surrounding areas where the developments are to take place. In the past, those people were traditionally employed in those areas and they lost their jobs. In the constituencies of the hon. Member for Sutton and of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), and in my constituency, there are some depressing areas of unemployment. In some areas, male unemployment is more than 50 per cent. It is a serious situation. I hope that those unemployed people will be the first to find jobs.
I hope that this order is the first step down the road and that the Minister will tell us that he has further plans for the use of the buildings, the growth of the urban development corporation and more funding. I hope that
1072
we will see an announcement of the establishment of a regional development agency which will not only embrace the difficulties and problems in Plymouth. I hope that we can look forward to not only the redevelopment of Plymouth but to the much wider development of the whole of the south-west.
1.33 am
Mr. David Harris: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) found the visit of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) of some assistance. I wish that I could report such a happy experience in my constituency. When the hon. Member for Workington came to Hale in my constituency, he held up a development which has still not taken place. The hon. Gentleman was aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrat chairman of the city council planning committee. That visit held up the development and destroyed the prospect of jobs.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not even know of the existence of the place that I am alleged to have visited—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the wrong one.
Mr. Harris: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman—I thought that he did. I am sorry about that; I am attributing to the hon. Gentleman even more mischief than he usually makes around the country. It must have been one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues of like-minded intent. I wholeheartedly withdraw the remark.
My credentials—if I have any for this debate—are that for five years I had the privilege of representing Plymouth, albeit after Cornwall, in the European Parliament as the Member for Cornwall and Plymouth. In those days the Devonport dockyard was much larger, as the hon. Member for Devonport said, but the writing was on the wall for maintaining a dockyard of that size and that number of employees. It was clear—
Mr. Jamieson: It was not.
Mr. Harris: The hon. Member for Devonport says that it was not, but it was. It was recognised in the city at that time that a dockyard of that size could not be maintained. All that has happened since then has borne that out, partly because of this country's shrinking defence capacity.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), I was disappointed by the response of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) to the central issue of which dockyard would have the role of refitting Trident. Despite the hon. Gentleman's attempt to fudge the issue, it is clear that Devonport and Rosyth cannot both service Trident. If the hon. Gentleman is now saying that it is Labour party policy that the refitting work on Trident should go to both dockyards, I will give way to let him make that position clear.
Mr. Jamieson: Give us the Government policy.
Mr. Harris: The Government policy is a two-yard solution, but not—as I understand it—to have both yards servicing Trident. If that is the Labour party's policy, I am more than happy to sit down and let the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North clarify the position.
Mr. Henderson: I did not wish to take up any more of the time of the House. I thought that I had already clarified our position. The Labour party's policy is clear: there is a

1073
need to maintain options because of the strategic importance of Trident, which means the maintenance of both Rosyth and Plymouth. Both must have the capability of dealing with Trident, but they will clearly have to attract other work to make themselves viable in a wider context.
Mr. Harris: I do not want to labour the issue, but I still do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered the central point as to whether he believes that both dockyards can share the work of servicing Trident. I do not believe for one minute that they can. I therefore say unhesitatingly that the dockyard best equipped to carry out that function is Devonport. That must be the conclusion of any independent survey of the matter.
Mr. George Kynoch: As I am an independent person, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to stay seated having heard his comment. He must accept that both yards will put in a case for winning the contract. I am sure that my hon. Friend would want there to be fair battle between the two. That is why the decision has been delayed. I am sure that Rosyth will win the contract.
Mr. Harris: I accept everything that my hon. Friend has said, except his last point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton said, we should have a fair fight. I am sure that the result will be that Devonport will win. However, let us move on from that contentious issue—[Interruption.] I am being goaded to attack the Liberal Democrats, but I will not do that.
I agree with some of what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said. All the parties in the south-west, including the Liberal Democrats, agree that we need some form of development agency which can operate more widely than the urban development corporation proposed for Plymouth. Devon and Cornwall need their own development agency and the funds and the means to compete against the unfair competition from Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. I endorse what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said about that.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, I would not like it to go out from the debate that somehow Plymouth, with all its difficulties, is in a hopeless position, because it is not. Plymouth has marvellous advantages. It is a vibrant and confident city, and from the time of Drake it has always looked outwards. Although in the past it has had an unhealthy over-reliance on the dockyard, in recent years it has gone a long way to try to correct that dependence.
In my five years as a Euro-MP, there was inward investment in industrial estates such as Estover. Firms incorporating modern technology came to the modern factories on those estates. I speak not just as a former Member of the European Parliament for Cornwall and Plymouth but as the Member of this Parliament for a Cornish constituency, albeit the one furthest from Plymouth.
The prosperity of parts of Cornwall is greatly bound up with the prosperity or otherwise of Plymouth and we have a vested interest, albeit an indirect one, in what happens there. What is good for Plymouth is certainly good for the parts of Cornwall that surround it. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Taylor) will agree on that. The wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) is recovering from a
1074
serious operation, which is why my hon. Friend is not present for the debate, but he would also agree, because a large number of his constituents work in Plymouth, many of them in the dockyard.
I wish Plymouth well. I am sure that the corporation will benefit not only Plymouth but Cornwall, especially south-east Cornwall. In the context of confidence, we must look to the strengths of Plymouth, one of which is the transformation of its polytechnic to a university. That is another asset, not just for Plymouth but for a wider area. I heartily welcome the Government's action, which will benefit not just Plymouth but Cornwall and the south-west.
1.44 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall be as brief as I possibly can.
It is of considerable importance to the economy of Devon and Cornwall that Plymouth is given this new lease of life. It is unfortunate that there has been an acrimonious tinge to tonight's debate, because in recent months there has been all-party support on many issues affecting Plymouth and the economy of Devon and Cornwall and I regret that to some extent that has dissolved this evening.
My constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) are directly and indirectly affected by what happens to the dockyard and to the wider economy of the city of Plymouth. It is estimated that some 30,000 jobs will be at risk if the dockyard goes down. It is part of the engine of recovery for a vulnerable economy with bad unemployment that the city should receive all the help that it can get.
My constituency has two of the top 10 unemployment black spots in the United Kingdom. We travel from the constituency to get jobs wherever we can—I suppose that that is why I come here.
Cornwall is highly dependent on defence-related industries, which affect not only the south-east of the county, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) pointed out. Some 4·5 per cent. of the Cornish gross domestic product is dependent on defence-related industries, and the south-west's research centres demonstrate that 5 per cent. of the total of Devon and Cornwall's gross domestic product is directly affected by Devonport.
That is why hon. Members in all parts of the House are so dismayed at the extent to which the Government have procrastinated over the Devonport decision. It is not that there has simply been more thought about it; they have repeatedly returned to the parties for support. In the Christmas Adjournment debate, I pointed out that it was totally unfair to keep a loyal work force on tenterhooks at Devonport and, indeed, at Rosyth. Since then, the Ministry of Defence has given the parties another chance to consider the decision; what was previously a Dutch auction has become a double Dutch auction, and it is time that the Government made up their mind.
Reference has been made to the resourcing of the urban development corporation, but the economic context in which the UDC will have to operate is clearly critical. In that regard, I wish to refer to EC funding.
As the Minister will know, his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry recently made a bid to the European Commission for objective 1 status for Devon and Cornwall. The inclusion of all of Devon and Cornwall

1075
automatically prevented the bid from being successful. On 3 March, in answer to my written question, the Minister made it clear that had Cornwall alone or Cornwall and Plymouth been able to make the bid, they almost certainly would have achieved objective 1 status. If that were done now, after devaluation, which has reduced our GDP figures, it would be below the 75 per cent. threshold. It is critical not only that we have the UDC, but that we take advantage of all the funding that we can get.
Mr. Harris: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Commission determines the units put forward from Britain to qualify for objective 1 status. It was at the insistence of the Commission that Devon and Cornwall were lumped together. I heartily agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it was the fault of the Commission and not the Government.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he is incorrect. The answer that I received from the Economic Secretary made it quite clear first, that
"the final decision is to be taken by the Council of Ministers" —[Official Report, 3 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 163]
and, secondly, that the bid was put in for Devon and Cornwall and the possibility of a separate bid for Cornwall was not even considered. Until now, nobody has chosen what may well be the right option—to link Plymouth and Cornwall—which would almost certainly qualify to receive the support of the EC structural funds that are essential to ensure that the UDC is not simply a drop in the ocean but the beginning of something more substantial.
There are three important options, and I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support the proper funding of development agencies in Plymouth and the wider Cornish and Devon economy.
Much reference has been made to Sir Francis Drake. It is not widely known that he was actually a Member of this House. He represented the constituency of Bossiney, which is now in my constituency. He demonstrated that sometimes one has to stick together with the people in one's own area against the London Government. Indeed, he spent more time attacking the London Government than attacking the Spaniards.
Mr. Greg Knight (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Rubbish.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read history or studied the career of Sir Francis Drake. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he was an effective buccaneer on behalf of his part of the country.
During recent months, there has been unanimity among Members of Parliament in the south-west, from all parties, that we need more support and investment to enable our economy to turn the corner. We are still at the bottom of a very severe slump. Conservative central office pointed out that that was why the Conservatives lost so badly to the Liberal Democrats. It is extremely important for the Government to show that they are now determined to pull our economy out of that slump.
1.50 am
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): We have had a good-humoured debate, despite both the lateness of the hour and what
1076
happened beforehand. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) accused me of arrogance when I offered more time for the House to hear the views of other hon. Members, who had important points to make, and offered to answer their points at the end of the debate, if time permitted. It is a shame that he has not been here to listen to the debate and to the answers to some of the points that he said were important and needed discussion.
A number of hon. Members raised important issues. It is right that we should press on quickly once the House has approved the motion tonight. I hope that, within a few days, I can announce the name of the new chairman of the urban development council. I also hope to press on quickly with the appointment of the full board of 10 members, including the chairman. I hope that we will reach rapid agreement with local councils. We wish to co-operate fully with them. We are proposing that five of the 10 board members should be representatives of the two councils concerned. Timing is very important and we will move forward rapidly. We are also in the process of drafting suitable advertisements for the post of chief executive. Once the chairman is announced, he will want rapidly to appoint a suitable chief executive.

I am glad that there was wide-ranging support from a number of hon. Members for the proposal in general, including the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—who I am glad to see back in his place—from the Opposition, after a little prompting, and from my hon. Friends, who have been strong in their support and who have worked hard to ensure that the UDC comes into being.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) adopted his usual line of welcoming public money but wanting to know whether there was enough of it—and then producing further proposals for even more money and even bigger bodies. There is a new Labour belief in regional non-elected quangos, in addition to the regional committees that the Opposition have also proposed. They want both regional committees and regional development quangos, but as always they have not said who would pay for them, by how much taxes would have to rise, and how the bodies would avoid becoming unduly bureaucratic.
We are proposing a formula that works—a UDC formula that has brought great benefits to many parts of the country through the 11 UDCs that are up and flourishing. That formula will harness the energies of the private sector to the public money that is available. It recognises the interrelationship between property development, land clearance, the creation of new jobs, the attraction of enterprise and the commitment that that can make to regenerating and improving the local community.
The hon. Gentleman and I have often debated the nature of urban regeneration, and I think that we agreed that is about more than property redevelopment and development. However, I think that, in his more honest moments, he would concede that property development plays an important part in creating the new environment in which jobs can materialise, and that jobs are important in giving hope, life and confidence to communities. That is one of the prime tasks of the UDC.
We have set out signs of the funding over a five-year period for the UDC from Government sources. There are land transfers to it in the areas identified on the map that is attached to the proposed order.

1077
That will not be the sole funding for improving opportunities in Plymouth. We have already made available additional moneys through many programmes. Recently, £5 million in the form of city grant has been paid for projects in Plymouth. There has been derelict, land grant. Urban partnership money—£1·8 million, which will lever in other substantial sums—will produce much-needed road improvements, which in turn could trigger private investment. In addition, £2·5 million of estate action money has recently been passed to Plymouth, and more is to come. Under a variety of Government programmes, in addition to the UDC, money has been made available. I am sure that in future Plymouth will continue to benefit from the programmes that we are operating.
In addition, there are the substantial sums that are going to the county council and the city council. The councils have a significant role to play in important programmes that are related to the future prosperity of Plymouth and the adjacent region. It is—[Interruption ] The hon. Member for Workington asserts from a sedentary position that funding has been cut. He should study the figures. He will find that in recent years there has been a massive increase in Government funding of local government, and that has applied to Devon and Plymouth as it has to the rest of the country.
The hon. Gentleman laughs, because he knows that billions upon billions of extra pounds have been given in grants to local authorities throughout the country to strengthen the core services of education, training, social services and planning, which are so important to successful communities and which we thoroughly support. We believe also in getting value for that money and in introducing important policies to improve quality and efficiency. We shall ensure that the money is well spent.
I had no sympathy for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North when he went into another of his tirades about the London Docklands development corporation. It is not a relevant subject for this debate but his illustration was wide of the mark. The area involved is totally different from that in Plymouth. His criticisms of the LDDC, as always, were ill based and ill founded. The hon. Gentleman still does not understand that there is a great triumph throughout the docklands area and that there are five or six distinct parts of east London, several of which have been developed in an excellent way to produce affordable housing, jobs and inward investment. All this has transformed the area, which had been desecrated by Labour councils for years before.
Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister think that Canary Wharf has been a success? Would he want to repeat the scheme in Plymouth?
Mr. Redwood: It is much better to have large new buildings on that site than derelict and rundown docks with no economic function. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come with me to the area in five years time. I think that he will find then that there is a great success. It is one that will bring much prosperity and life to the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents and the city. I was flattered by his remarks, but I would not wish to suggest that I should stand alongside Sir Francis, who made such an important contribution to the life of the nation. I shall, of course,
1078
stand up for Plymouth, as I have in recent months. I believe that there is an important job of work to be done in the city and that we can do it in partnership with the people there, with suitable Government funding along the lines that I have outlined and identified in the House tonight and on other occasions elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton is right to say that the private sector is vital in Plymouth. It is clear that it can make a vital contribution. I welcome what it has done already. I am sure that the UDC will be asking it to do far more over the next five years as it goes about its life.
The UDC must listen carefully to local opinion. I am sure that it will welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion about the area of Turnchapel. There is the crucial question of how much of the land adjacent to it should be open space and what parts of the site should be identified for suitable development to create the jobs and the new prosperity that my hon. Friend wishes to see. We shall ask the board to be sensitive to local views. With five out of 10 of its members being local councillors, we hope that it, too, will want to follow the process through. Its members should know the local area and they should want to listen carefully to the local people.

Wherever possible, the UDC should employ local talent labour. It must seek value for its money, but I am sure that many in Plymouth will be willing and able to fulfil the roles that the UDC will need to have fulfilled as it goes about spending its money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) has been most assiduous in putting forward her constituents' views. I am sure that the House understands that her special position as one of your colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, prevents her from making a direct statement in tonight's debate.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) welcomes the proposal. I can assure him that this is a first but important step. It is one of several steps as we live through the life of the UDC, which will be developing plans and taking many steps which will not only generate prosperity for its immediate area but will help in the regeneration and renewed prosperity of the adjacent areas to its own territory. This is a big step, which the House should welcome.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is a keen supporter of the measure. I agree that Plymouth has a great deal to recommend it as a place for inward investment and for self-generated creativity and business development and as a place which can do a great deal for itself given a little help from the UDC and the Government programmes that we have already identified.
I shall be working with the UDC to ensure that Plymouth's name, skills and opportunities are well known to investors from Britain and elsewhere. I am keep to see Plymouth restored to higher levels of employment and lower levels of unemployment than are currently being experienced, and I am sure that this initiative is an important step along that road.
I think that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Taylor) welcomed the proposal, although he mainly spoke on other subjects. Of course, a thriving dockyard is important to Plymouth and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already outlined the Government's position in principle on the two dockyards and will be announcing in due course the other part of the decision which the House is keen to know for the sake of Plymouth and our naval dockyards generally.

1079
I trust that the House will welcome the order tonight. I urge every hon. Member to support it and, at this late hour, it would be a good idea if it went through without a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Plymouth Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1993, dated 20th January 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.

Sex Tourism (South-east Asia)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
2.2 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: We move from Plymouth to Thailand. Despite the late hour, this is an important debate and I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the subject. It would have been debated much earlier but for some of the most appalling antics that I have seen in the House since I was elected on 9 April 1992.
The fact that this is an important issue has been recognised by the very fact that 138 Members of Parliament have signed early-day motion 1168 on sex tourism in Thailand, asking that action should be taken to stamp it out.
This is my first Adjournment debate. I could have chosen almost any subject—perhaps one closer to my home of the Ribble valley rather than something that is going on in Thailand many miles away. However, I am grateful to have this opportunity to air such an important subject tonight. I know that many people will read the report of this debate in Hansard in days to come and will take heed of what I and the Minister have to say.
The whole issue is enmeshed in corruption, drugs, violence, power and perversion. Sex tourism is big money. It is seedy and sordid. It is the perverted preying on the poor. A whole generation is in danger of being wiped out by AIDS.
Thousands of women and children are involved. Independent estimates vary from between 200,000 and 800,000 children being involved in prostitution. That is an astounding figure. Even the much lower estimate of 30,000 child prostitutes that the Government hide behind is amazing.
Children as young as seven years of age have been involved in prostitution in Thailand, and with AIDS rife in the area, sex tourism is not just a carefree fling but a death sentence for thousands in the region.
Thailand has always been tarred with the reputation of easy sex, but it is now scarred with child exploitation and forced prostitutes. How do the young become involved in that lethal trade? Money inevitably has a role, but so have absolute poverty and the lack of education.
Some parents feel forced to sell their children into prostitution, to raise money to fund their drug addiction. The Thai Government have come down hard on foreigners who try to smuggle drugs into the country. I only wish that they would come down equally hard on foreigners visiting Thailand to prey on the children of that country.
Villages in the north are being depopulated. Those villages are poor, and have nothing to offer their young. Consequently, those youngsters are attracted by the bright lights of the south, just as youngsters are attracted to cities in any other part of the world. Eventually, those young people are sucked into child prostitution.
Parents in the north see the opportunity to raise lump sums—money that they could otherwise only dream about —by selling their children into prostitution. The money is spent on drugs or on the consumer products that they covet. That gives rise to the prospect of pimps moving in.
There is a premium on young children. Some visitors to Thailand naively imagine that child prostitutes will not have AIDS. Nothing could be further from the truth.

1081
Whereas older prostitutes may resist certain perverted practices, younger children will not. HIV passes more easily through the blood stream than anything else, so if bleeding takes place—and the chances are that it will with young children—the virus will be transmitted.
That leads in turn to another problem. Those who have contracted diseases are compelled to borrow money from pimps to pay for hospital treatment. They find themselves locked into a life style and hooked by their pimps for the foreseeable future.
Tourism in Thailand has boomed in recent years. In the 1960s only 180,000 visited the country on holiday. Today, the figure is 5 million. Rice used to be Thailand's big earner, but now tourism is the No. 1 earner—and the foreign exchange it generates is extremely valuable.
In 1980, the then deputy Prime Minister, Boonchoo Rojanasthian, spoke at a national conference of provincial governors and urged them to boost tourist numbers by encouraging
"certain entertainments, which some of you may find disgusting and embarrassing because they are related to sexual pleasure."
That is an amazing declaration from a deputy Prime Minister, but those were his words. As tourism increased, so did the sex trade.
The supply of Thai children for sex is supplemented by children from Burma, Laos and China, where sex tourism is seen as a means of escaping from the poverty of their home economies. Kidnapping goes on as well, to ensure a constant supply of young people to the area. In the 1980s, when one of the brothels was burnt down, the bodies of five young children were discovered handcuffed to beds. This appalling traffic of flesh and blood meets the demands of paedophiles from the west. We export our perverts to prey on innocent children.
Some of the children who try to escape from their brothel prisons are beaten and tortured, and some are killed. Some are drugged to make them compliant. Sudrat S. Srisang, the project consultant of the ecumenical coalition on third-world tourism, has stated:
"consumption of sexual favours has become so open and crude that the demand for new varieties of sexual fantasy inevitably arises. Engaging in acts of intercourse with minors has become the rage."
There are the pimps on the make; the compliant parents with topsy-turvy values, who sell their kith and kin for a lump sum; and a system that outlaws such acts—for they are against the law in Thailand—but is only too willing to turn a blind eye to their continuation. There are collusions between some local police and politicians—parasites on the people. It is a gruesome corruption, of which children are the victims. Even the Thai Prime Minister, Chuan Leekpai, noted in a speech last year that the problem of child prostitution stemmed from the collusion of police officials with influential local figures.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will my hon. Friend join our own Prime Minister in condemning child pornography, which promotes the activity that he is describing?
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Like my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members, I visited the exhibition of pornography that was held in the House not long ago, and I was amazed at some of the things that I saw: I had never thought that such
1082
things went on. Unfortunately, they lead to the perversion and corruption of people, some of whom then go out to Thailand to satisfy their desires.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Is not the key problem with child pornography in this country the fact that, although there are heavy penalties for trafficking, the penalty for possession is still only a modest fine? It is not an arrestable offence.
Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I know that he feels very strongly about the subject; he has spoken about it in the House many times.
Mr. Michael Bates: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to the House's attention. Many of us were previously unaware of this horrid and depraved practice, and we are immensely grateful to him: Parliament is well served by his action.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that this matter is being debated at such a late hour is entirely due to petty practices on the part of Opposition Members? Given that they knew that matters of such gravity would be discussed later, it is deplorable that they should choose to focus on other issues.
Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he fights very hard to raise the moral values that, unfortunately, have fallen so readily in our own country. He has made his point only too well; this debate should indeed have been held a long time ago.
In a letter to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 11 February, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad)—hit the nail on the head when he said that the difficulty with the problem was not education but enforcement. As I said earlier, many of the things that go on in Thailand are against the law, but too many people are turning a blind eye to what is happening because there is money to be made.
Unfortunately, some of the children who have been sucked into prostitution are arrested one night and then, on payment of a very small fine to the police, are released the next day and go straight back into child prostitution. Action should be taken to stamp that out.
We are signatories to article 34 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It calls for international co-operation to protect children worldwide from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This issue—which I believe has appalled so many of us who are here this evening, and many other colleagues who have spoken to me about what is going on in Thailand—ought to be raised at every opportunity by Ministers and officials with the Thai Government.
The Thai Government must beef up their laws. They must also enforce their laws on this abuse. We must give as much assistance as we possibly can to the Thai police and the Thai authorities. Our police expertise should be shared with the Thai authorities. I know that we cannot police the world. Some people say that we are not so good at policing our own country. I believe, however, that we ought to share the knowledge and expertise that we have built up over a long period with the Thai authorities.
One of the first things that we should do is make available to the Thais a list of all known paedophiles so that these perverts can be prevented from going into that

1083
country. Germany will probably introduce a law shortly to enable the Germans to try people in Germany who are suspected of having sex with children in another country.
If that becomes law in Germany, can I ask the Minister to monitor what happens there, see whether we can learn from that process and, if so, introduce a similar law in this country? If any of our paedophiles then went to Thailand, got caught and were deported to this country, they could be tried in this country for that offence.
Without any shadow of a doubt, all the agencies—whether they be non-governmental, the Churches, Interpol or the police authorities—need to get together to make a concerted effort to ensure that this depravity and child corruption is stamped out as soon as possible in Thailand. It is an absolute nightmare for the children who live in Thailand at this moment.
The world seems to unite when it comes to tackling the problem of saving the Amazon rain forest. Can we not therefore unite to save the children of Thailand?
2.17 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): It gives me particular pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing this very important debate. Apart from it being a very humane and proper subject to discuss, my hon. Friend is also a near parliamentary neighbour of mine, and a fellow colleague from Lancashire. I felt that he did the House a singular service in painting a vivid and moving word picture of this vile trade and by referring to some of the unsavoury and sometimes almost unspeakable things that happen to innocent children who get caught up in this disgusting trade.
In preparing myself for the debate, I watched the "Dispatches" television programme. It provided a singular service by showing vividly just exactly what is involved. My hon. Friend mentioned the recent exhibition, which I too saw. What he may have seen is perhaps not as bad as it can be, in terms of the way that paedophiles use this type of information. I visibly winced when I saw other material of this nature. Therefore, I understand the enormous sensitivities that this issue evokes. The very fact that 138 hon. Members have already signed early-day motion 1361 is a genuine sign of how seriously the House takes this issue.
I was glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) were in the Chamber for the debate, and that they lent their support to our hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned concerted action on a worldwide basis. It is important to put in context article 34 of the United Nations's convention on the rights of the child, which this country ratified in 1991 and which requires parties to take
"all appropriate national, bilateral, and multilateral measures to prevent:

a. the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;

b. the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;

c. the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials."

Although we signed up to the resolution, I must say that it is for individual states to determine what measures are
1084
appropriate to discharge that commitment, and the convention does not stipulate that extended criminal jurisdiction, which has been mentioned in this regard, must be introduced.
The United Kingdom has not been complacent, but has raised the issue at an international level. Indeed, at last year's Commission on Human Rights, we co-sponsored a resolution implementing a programme of action for the prevention of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. At last year's United Nations General Assembly, we introduced a resolution on the problem of street children. It was adopted by consensus, and we are following up both resolutions at this year's session of the Commission on Human Rights, which began on 1 February. We have done something solid in taking up the problem.
My hon. Friend mentioned the size of the problem, which is notoriously difficult to predict. Worrying about which figure we choose should not diminish the seriousness of the problem, because if only one child is involved in this vile trade, that is one child too many.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to what was happening in Germany, and rightly suggested that the German Government's action should be monitored. I can give him an assurance that we shall monitor the German Government's action in that regard, but part of the reason they have taken the action they have is that they are constitutionally prohibited from extraditing their own nationals. They are unable to do what we would do, which is to use our own extradition procedures to send anyone charged with such vile crimes in Thailand back to Thailand to face justice there. We would also use the various powers that we have to help in getting evidence if someone were to be extradited. I shall spend a moment talking about the judicial co-operation at our disposal for help in these circumstances.
We have taken steps to aid the enforcement of criminal law where there is an international element. We passed the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, which specifically enables us to assist criminal investigations in foreign countries by arranging for the service of summonses and other legal documents in this country, for statements to be taken from witnesses or for other evidence to be obtained here. The Act also provides for a person in custody to travel abroad to assist in proceedings and, in certain cases, for the search of premises here and the seizure of documents or other evidence. In that way, we are able to assist other countries to enforce their domestic law but, in the final analysis, the main responsibility must rest with them—in this case, the Thai authorities.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all we can to assist, but we should not lose sight of the fact that it is for each country to enact its own laws and to ensure that they are properly enforced, a telling point raised by my hon. Friend.
In watching "Dispatches", I took some comfort from the fact that the Thai Prime Minister twice made clear his personal concern about and commitment to dealing with the problem. If our extradition proceedings are to be brought into play, the question of getting evidence and finding persons involved in the vile trade and bringing charges against them is an important first step in the process.
Some people have suggested that we might, for example, do what the Germans do. But in the few moments remaining at my disposal, I must tell my hon.

1085
Friend that, if we were to do so, there would be serious problems in evidential terms. He will understand that, in this country, considerable strictures govern the gathering and presentation of evidence in our courts, and it would therefore be difficult to bring cases in the simple way suggested. As I have already said, however, we shall monitor what happens in Germany.
I want to make it clear to the House that, although I have emphasised our work within the United Nations, our efforts to give prominence to the matter do not stop there. The Government have taken extensive steps to ensure that the Thai Government are made fully aware of our concern about the sexual exploitation of children through prostitution. We have emphasised our willingness to assist with prosecutions where appropriate. Our ambassador has made several representations about prostitution to the Thai Prime Minister, and has assured him that his Government is urgently considering ways in which to tackle the problem. In addition, the Thai Government have made public their concern and their resolve to take effective action.
We shall, of course, continue to bring to bear whatever pressure is appropriatre in an effort to ensure that the issue is properly dealt with. The fact that the House is having a debate on the subject should assist that process.
Dr. Spink: Will the Minister take this opportunity to make the public totally aware of the fact that to go abroad and indulge in such activity is illegal and puts people at grave risk, not only from the law in this country and in Thailand, but in terms of AIDS and venereal disease? My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) strongly made that point.
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but although a debate such as this, if properly publicised and used, can serve to inform the public, one of the problems is that around the world there is no uniform code on the age bracket at which such offences occur. That is one of the dimensions of the problem involved in bringing people to book in this country for offences that they may have committed abroad, when there are differences between the legal codes. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes a valid point, especially with reference to AIDS. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, too, drew out that aspect extremely clearly—and anyone who happened to watch the television programmes on the subject could have been left in no doubt about it.
I hope that what I have said in the limited time available has conveyed to my hon. Friend the fact that we take the subject very seriously, and that we shall put the full weight of our extradition procedures and our international co-operation at the disposal of the Thai authorities should they be able to bring charges. But I lay particular emphasis on what we can do to reinforce their resolve to tackle the problem, both through the work that we have undertaken in the United Nations and through the work that our ambassador is doing in Thailand.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the matter. We shall monitor the situation closely.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Two o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In 1991–92 expenditure on official entertainment in the Lord Chancellor's Department was

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom by Polish nationals, excluding dependants, and decisions

  Number of principal applicants

  Decisions1

  Refusals

  Applications received

  Total decisions

  Recognised as refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination

  Refused on safe third country grounds2

  Refused under para 101 of Immigration rules3

  April 1992

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  May 1992

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June 1992

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  July 1992

  4

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  August 1992

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  September 1992

  3

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  October 1992

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  November 1992

  4

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  December 1992

  63

  6

  —

  —

  6

  1

  4

  1

  January 1993

  85

  9

  —

  —

  9

  —

  9

  —

  February

  19

  5

  —

  —

  5

  —

  5

  —

  1 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  2 Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  3 Refused for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to two invitations to interview to establish identity.

  Prosecutions and Convictions
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions have been made in each police authority area in respect of (i) the Football Spectators Act 1989 and (ii) the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992, respectively, since the Acts came into force.

  Mr. Jack
  Information collected centrally on the number of prosecutions, convictions and orders given under the Football Spectators Act 1989 for 1990 and 1991 is given in the table. 1992 data will not be available until autumn 1993.
  552
  £20,894·90p. In the current financial year, expenditure to 31 January, the latest date to which figures are available, it was £16,460·25p.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Manchester Prison (Market Testing)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the revised closing date for tenders in respect of the market-testing exercise at HM prison Manchester.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  13 April 1993.

  Political Asylum
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Poland have applied for political asylum since April 1992; and of these, how many have been granted asylum.

  Court proceedings data under the Agravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992, which did not come into force until April 1992, will not be available until autumn 1993.

  Number of orders made under Section 15(1) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 by police force area 1990 and 1991

  Police Force Area

  Orders

  1990

  Derbyshire

  17

  Dorset

  1

  Merseyside

  1

  1991

  Merseyside

  4

  553

  Number of defendants prosecuted and found guilty of offences under the Football Spectators Act 1989 by police force area 1990 and 1991

  Offence

  Police force area

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1990 Nil return

  1991

  Failing to comply with the duty to report imposed by a restriction order [Section 16(4)]

  Humberside

  1

  1

  Metropolitan Police District

  1

  1

  Failing to comply with requirements necessary to give effect to restriction orders [Section 19(6)]

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  —

  Derbyshire

  3

  3

  Kent

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  Making a false statement or making use of a false document in connection with an application for exemption from the duty to report [Section 20(10)]

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  —

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each year of the last 10 years, the number of police officers in the Metropolitan police area per head of population and the actual numbers used in the calculation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is as follows:

  Population

  Establishment

  Ratio

  1982

  7,329,000

  26,615

  1:275

  1983

  7,214,000

  26,915

  1:268

  1984

  7,200,000

  27,115

  1:266

  1985

  7,202,000

  27,165

  1:265

  1986

  7,241,000

  27,515

  1:263

  1987

  7,247,000

  27,815

  1:261

  1988

  7,237,000

  28,115

  1:257

  1989

  7,201,000

  28,415

  1:253

  1990

  7,223,000

  28,423

  1:254

  1991

  7,260,000

  28,439

  1:255

  1992

  7,284,000

  28,680

  1:254

  Secure Units
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his statement to the House on 2 March,Official Report, column 139, what he estimates will be the total capital costs of the secure units; and how much will be available in the current financial year and in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Jack
  As my right hon. and learned Friend indicated in his statement on 2 March, at columns 139–42, we are now working up detailed plans for the introduction of a new secure training order for persistent juvenile offenders between the ages of 12 and 15. At this stage, it is not possible to provide detailed estimates of the extra capital provision likely to be required for this purpose.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.
  554
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department's expenditure on official entertainment in the financial year 1991–92 was £28,094; and in the current financial year, to 28 February, is £16,387.

  Cleveland Alternatives for Young People
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 609, if he will give funding to revive the Cleveland Alternatives for Young People project.

  Mr. Jack
  I understand that the Cleveland Alternatives for Young People project, which originally received funding from the Department of Health, is now a part of the local authority's youth justice team and that its services continue to be offered by the local authority.

  Andrew Ohene
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement about the death of Andrew Ohene in Swaleside prison on 13 June 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the inquest into the death of Mr. Ohene, which concluded on 5 February 1993, the jury recorded the verdict that death was caused by "misadventure aggravated by lack of care". Following the inquest, the prison service operational director with responsibility for Swaleside prison established an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr. Ohene's death. The inquiry is being conducted by Mr. John Harrison, the governor of Canterbury prison, and by Dr. Roger Ralli, principal medical officer within the prison service's directorate of health care.

  Police
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide by police authority for England details of the ratio of the standard spending assessment and the population served for the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–24; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the ratio of the approved establishment to the population served in each police authority area in England in 1991–92 and 1992–93, and proposed for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.
  555
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is shown in the table.

  Force

  Police: population ratio (officers per person)

  SSA: Population ratio (£ per person)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Avon and Somerset

  464

  464

  464

  38·73

  44·71

  46·45

  Bedfordshire

  478

  454

  454

  37·88

  47·03

  49·59

  Cambridgeshire

  544

  540

  540

  32·38

  39·58

  41·12

  Cheshire

  509

  503

  503

  35·16

  41·18

  42·79

  City of London

  5

  5

  5

  5,033·90

  5,655·37

  6,480·49

  Cleveland

  371

  371

  371

  48·50

  55·85

  58·03

  Cumbria

  414

  413

  413

  43·19

  50·25

  52·21

  Derbyshire

  515

  508

  508

  34·34

  40·81

  42·40

  Devon and Cornwall

  525

  516

  516

  34·08

  40·14

  41·61

  Dorset

  515

  509

  509

  34·51

  40·72

  42·30

  Durham

  435

  435

  435

  40·96

  47·65

  49·51

  Essex

  511

  501

  501

  37·13

  43·77

  45·87

  Gloucestershire

  455

  455

  455

  38·89

  45·56

  47·33

  Greater Manchester

  363

  362

  362

  49·32

  56·36

  58·51

  Hampshire

  533

  522

  522

  35·13

  41·96

  44·25

  Hertfordshire

  501

  500

  500

  39·14

  46·06

  47·82

  Humberside

  432

  430

  430

  41·32

  48·23

  50·10

  Kent

  504

  491

  491

  37·32

  44·44

  47·06

  Lancashire

  437

  436

  436

  41·09

  47·53

  49·38

  Leicestershire

  488

  481

  481

  36·64

  43·13

  44·80

  Lincolnshire

  491

  491

  491

  36·36

  42·19

  43·83

  Merseyside

  306

  306

  306

  58·72

  67·70

  70·33

  Norfolk

  534

  525

  525

  33·38

  39·48

  41·01

  Northamptonshire

  503

  493

  493

  34·98

  42·02

  43·66

  Northumbria

  400

  397

  397

  44·63

  52·12

  54·15

  North Yorkshire

  510

  508

  508

  35·16

  40·78

  42·37

  Nottinghamshire

  433

  433

  433

  41·55

  47·85

  49·71

  South Yorkshire

  429

  426

  426

  41·75

  48·61

  50·50

  Staffordshire

  474

  473

  473

  37·84

  43·84

  45·55

  Suffolk

  544

  537

  537

  32·74

  38·62

  40·12

  Surrey

  460

  459

  459

  43·29

  51·08

  52·72

  Sussex

  480

  474

  474

  39·22

  42·48

  44·75

  Thames Valley

  529

  517

  517

  35·94

  43·19

  45·92

  Warwickshire

  482

  480

  480

  37·66

  43·93

  45·81

  West Mercia

  543

  535

  535

  33·15

  38·74

  40·25

  West Midlands

  376

  375

  375

  47·38

  54·64

  56·76

  West Yorkshire

  390

  390

  390

  45·99

  53·13

  55·20

  Wiltshire

  516

  487

  487

  36·72

  46·07

  48·28

  Metropolitan

  256

  258

  258

  92·93

  100·14

  104·56

  Notes:

  1. The latest population information available from the OPCS is for mid-1991.

  2. For consistency with the shire forces, the SSA information used for the metropolitan single-service authorities excludes the capital financing and other services components.

WALES

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

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I understand the local education authorities for Clwyd, Dyfed, Powys and Gwent have adopted new agreed syllabuses since 29 September 1988 and that none of them is an agreed syllabus of another LEA. I further understand that Gwynedd LEA has completed a review of its agreed syllabus and that Mid Glamorgan, West Glamorgan and South Glamorgan LEAs are at present reviewing their agreed syllabuses.

  Schools (Daily Worship)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each local education authority(a) the number of determinations granted to schools by the Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education under section 12 of the Education Reform Act 1988, (b) the total number of county and controlled schools and (c) the percentage of such schools which have been granted exemption from daily Christain worship; and if he will give the corresponding figures for Wales as a whole.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Development Agency (Merger)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the merger of the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Tillery Valley Foods
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what authorisation was(a) sought and (b) granted for departmental officials from his NHS directorate to attend the opening of Tillery Valley Foods new factory on 1 March.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No specific authorisation was required for the visit, which was undertaken by the director, NHS Wales.

  Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total received for Wales from the European regional development fund in each year since 1987–88; and what are the expected receipts for each year until 1996–97.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since 1987–88, the amounts allocated from the European regional development fund are given in the table:

  £ million

  1987

  57·8

  1988

  63·3

  1989

  38·8

  1990

  27·4

  1991

  89·0

  11992

  54·9

  11993

  61·9

  1 Figures quoted are based on an exchange rate of £1 = 1435 ecu.

  Negotiations are continuing over Wales' allocation for 1994–97.

  National Technology Strategy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to develop a national technology strategy for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I already have a policy which actively encourages the strengthening of the technology base in Wales. This includes maximising the use in Wales of Government support means such as SMART, SPUR, STRIDE and other technology transfer schemes.

  In addition, other initiatives such as the creation of Imperial Park, the formation of the Welsh relay centre and the publication by the WDA of the "Welsh Academic Directory" are designed to assist.

  Development Agency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each year since 1987–88(a) the estimated market value at 1993 prices of property owned by the Welsh Development Agency, (b) the amount raised by the sale of property, (c) the total floor area of property owned and (d) the total floor area of property sold; and if he will provide forecasts of the corresponding figures for years until 1996–97.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have arranged for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Gentleman, and for a copy of his response to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the finance for the work of the Welsh 558
  Development Agency has come from European Community sources in each year since 1987–88; and how much is expected to come from European Community sources in each year to 1996–97.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures for the period 1987–88 to 1992–93 are set out in the table:

  Finance from the European Community

  £

  1987–88

  502,166

  1988–89

  2,560,725

  1989–90

  1,759,046

  1990–91

  3,917,682

  1991–92

  1,231,505

  11992–93

  804,252

  1 To 5 March 1993.

  Note: Figures include loans from the European Coal and Steel Community for which the WDA acts as agents.

  EC funding for future years will be dependent upon the number of successful bids made by the agency.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much has been allocated to and how much has been spent of the Welsh Development Agency's technology growth fund budget, in each of the last four years;

  (2) if he will list the projects which have been funded from the Welsh Development Agency's technology growth fund budget in each of the last three years; and what was the funding level granted to each project.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Development Agency's technology growth fund—TGF—is supported from its investment, grant in aid budget which includes a number of other investments. TGF expenditure in each of the last three years and a forecast outturn for the current year is as follows:

  Total WDA technology growth fund payments

  £

  1989–90

  540,000

  1990–91

  120,000

  1991–92

  92,500

  1992–93

  400,000

  I am not able to provide details of support to individual companies as this may be commercially sensitive.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve investment in Welsh organic farming.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am considering a new grant scheme to encourage organic methods of production on farms and holdings in Wales. A consultation paper will be issued shortly.

  High Technology Training
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to improve the quality of training in high technology in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A rigorous quality standard is applied to high technology training under employment training in Wales. A comprehensive quality system, based on the
  559
  European quality award and developed by the department in collaboration with the Wales Quality Centre, is used by training and enterprise councils in contracting with their training providers.

  Under the new training for work programme I expect all Welsh TECs to continue to offer quality training in high technology skills.

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total cost of services provided by local authorities and other public bodies in connection with the official duties of lords lieutenant in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Personal expenses arising from the official duties of lords lieutenant in Wales are paid by the Welsh Office. Expenditure in 1992–93 is estimated to be £16,500. Information on the cost of services provided by local authorities and other public bodies is not held centrally.

  RECHAR Programme
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the projects in Wales that have gained approval under the European Community's RECHAR programme to date and the amount of funding granted.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the budget for each training and enterprise council in Wales for 1992–93.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 10 November 1992, at column 723.

  Education (Special Needs)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase available resources to local education authorities in Wales to assist with promoting policies of integrating children with special educational needs in mainstream schools; and how much has been allocated to each local education authority for this specific purpose in each of the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Resources for local authorities are not hypothecated and it is for authorities to determine funding for integration in the light of local circumstances and priorities. For 1993–94, under the grants for education support and training—GEST—programme, the Welsh Office is making grant available to local education authorities to support expenditure of £223,000 on projects for the integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream settings. The Department has also invited applications from county joint planning teams for pump priming funding under the mental handicap strategy for integration in education.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those services or functions that have been contracted out from his Department since November 1991 560
  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. David Hunt
  There have been none.

  Local Government
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he received during the consultation period on the future of local government in Wales; how many of these representations urged him to abolish Montgomeryshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since June 1991 I have received many tens of thousands of representations in the form of letters, petitions and other submissions including a small number who favoured unitary authority status for Powys.

  Substance Advisory Committee
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will grant funding to the substance advisory committee to enable it to employ a full-time worker in the Llandrindod Wells area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This financial year the Welsh Office has allocated to Powys health authority over £131,000 from central funds for combating drugs misuse, to supplement the authority's own investment in this field of work. The location of the drugs misuse workers is a matter for the health authority.

  Drugs Dependency
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of drugs dependency have been recorded in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available in the form requested. Figures relating to the number of first admissions to mental illness hospitals for drugs-related diagnoses are published in "Mental Health Statistics for Wales". The latest information on the number of addicts in Wales notified by medical practitioners to the chief medical officer at the Home Office is published in "Statistics of Drug Addicts notified to the Home Office, UK 1991: Area tables". Copies of these publications are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Further information is available from the Welsh drug misuse database, which was set up in April 1991. The database records anonymous information on individuals applying to voluntary/statutory drugs services of general practitioners in Wales with problems relating to the misuse of drugs. A total of 1,759 new cases of drugs abuse were recorded in 1992.

  Carmel Woods
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the future of Carmel woods in the Gwenlais valley; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from hon. Members, individuals and organisations. An appeal for the registration of a claimed
  561
  old mining permission in respect of land including the woods is currently before him. A public inquiry has been held and a decision will be reached as soon as possible after the inspector's report is received.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The amounts spent by the Welsh Office on official hospitality were:

  Amount

  1991–92

  £35,982

  11992–93

  £34,569

  1 28 February 1993

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what quantities of aid by bilateral, United Kingdom and EC programmes have been given to Nicaragua in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following is the information.

  Official development assistance (net) to Nicaragua 1982–1991

  ($ million)

  United Kingdom (bilateral)

  Other DAC donors (bilateral)

  European Community

  1982

  0·06

  76·83

  7·27

  1983

  0·10

  72·85

  6·85

  1984

  0·01

  71·65

  14·68

  1985

  0·15

  67·08

  12·65

  1986

  0·13

  104·45

  9·07

  1987

  —

  111·11

  14·29

  1988

  0·32

  166·24

  24·56

  1989

  0·10

  182·70

  19·66

  1990

  0·13

  273·58

  1n.a.

  1991

  0·36

  1n.a.

  1n.a.

  1 n.a.—not available.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he will implement to ensure that the equal opportunities practices established in the civil service will be continued in any areas where services are contracted out to private companies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Where services are contracted out to private companies, the Government do not intend to require particular employment policies and practices, and such requirements will not be included in tender documents. EC directives impose restrictions on the Government's ability to take account of non-commercial matters. Subject to these restrictions, departments and agencies may wish to give prospective contractors the 562
  opportunity to provide information on their employment policies and practices, including equal opportunities, that such contractors may believe is relevant to their ability to fulfil the contract for which they are bidding.

  Citizens Charter
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements are in place for the modification of insurance agreements between public service providers and insurance companies in order to underwrite the service commitments outlined in the Citizens Charter White Paper (July 1991, Cm 1599).

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No special arrangements have been established in relation to the commitments set out in the "Citizen's Charter", Cm 1599. Government Departments do not generally insure, as it is considered more cost effective to deal with claims as they arise.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The expenditure by my Department on official entertainment was £282,770 in 1991–92 and £52,567 in 1992–93 to date. The 1991–92 figure includes £234,126 directly attributable to the 1991 economic summit.

  European Bioinformatics Institute
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made on the United Kingdom's bid to host the European Bioinformatics Institute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am delighted to announce that the United Kingdom has been successful in its bid to host the European Bioinformatics Institute at Cambridge. This was agreed yesterday by the governing council of the European molecular biology laboratory. The EBI is expected to be fully operational within two years. Accommodation will be provided jointly by the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.

  Winning this bid represents a significant boost for British science. Molecular biology is an exciting and important area of modern science, with great potential for industry, and the EBI will provide researchers with vital informatics support. Securing this facility for the United Kingdom underlines our commitment to international science and will reinforce our leading position in molecular biology in Europe and beyond.

TRANSPORT

  Roadworks (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the issue on approval of codes of practice under parts III and IV of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Three codes of practice have been prepared by the highway authorities and utilities committee, representing highway authorities and utilities
  563
  in Great Britain, and have been approved by the Secretaries of State for Transport, Scotland and Wales. They are the codes on:
  Reinstatement, approved under Sections 31 and 130, dated June 1992, published September 1992.
  Diversionary works, approved under Sections 84 and 143, dated June 1992, published October 1992.
  Co-ordination and Co-operation, approved under Sections 56, 59, 60, 115, 118 and 119, dated November 1992, published February 1993.

  The Secretaries of State for Transport, for Scotland and for Wales have issued a code of practice, dealing with safety at street works, under sections 6 and 124. This was published in February 1993.

  In addition, the Secretaries of State have arranged for the publication of the code of practice on inspections prepared by the highway authorities and utilities committee and dated July 1992. The Secretaries of State commend the use of this code although they have no statutory power to approve it.

  All of the codes have been the subject of extensive public consultation before approval, issue or commendation. All apply to the whole of Great Britain, and all are published by HMSO.

  Copies of all the codes of practice have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many night flights will be permitted at Heathrow and at Gatwick in the winter under his recent proposals, excluding aircraft which are at present exempt and assuming that airlines use the same mix of aircraft as in the past year.

  Mr. Norris
  At Heathrow the mix of traffic in the period 2330 to 0600 does not differ markedly between the seasons. Assuming airlines use the same mix of traffic as in the past year, the proposed winter quota of 5,000 for Heathrow would translate into about 2,000 movements by aircraft counting one or more under the proposed new system and there would be about 300 movements by zero-rated aircraft in addition to those currently exempt. The assumption that the mix of traffic at Gatwick at night in the winter season will remain unchanged is unlikely. The best estimate is that the proposed winter quota of 6,450 for Gatwick will translate into between 2,350 and 3,500 movements depending on the build-up between scheduled and chartered services. There would also be some movements by zero-rated aircraft in addition to those currently exempt.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  Child casualties1by Police force area and severity: Great Britain 1990–1991

  Casualties

  1990

  1991

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Metropolitan Police

  30

  6,627

  6,657

  34

  5,913

  5,947

  Cumbria

  5

  392

  397

  6

  326

  332

  Lancashire

  11

  1,415

  1,426

  5

  1,332

  1,337

  Merseyside

  9

  1,726

  1,735

  14

  1,617

  1,631

  Greater Manchester

  17

  3,177

  3,194

  28

  2,883

  2,911

  Cheshire

  12

  735

  747

  3

  672

  675

  Northumbria

  19

  1,244

  1,263

  10

  1,199

  1,209

  564
  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport, excluding its agencies, spent £169,050 on official entertainment during 1991–92, and has spent £194,222 to date—5 March 1993—during 1992–93.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the criteria used by his Department for the calculation of spending on roads leading to red routes in Greater London; how much has been spent in Islington; and how much is further planned on the Al red route in Islington.

  Mr. Norris
  The specific traffic management measures to be introduced on and adjacent to red routes will be determined in local plans to be prepared under the direction of the traffic director in accordance with his network plan.

  Some £680,000 has been spent by the Department on approved works on roads adjacent to the A1 pilot red route in Islington. Apart from maintenance, there are no plans at present for further expenditure on the pilot scheme in Islington, but the traffic director will be reviewing the route in due course to ensure that it is operating in accordance with his network plan for red routes generally.

  Speed Limits
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate has been made of the effect a drop in the national speed limit to 60 mph would have in a reduction in energy consumption.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We have made no precise estimate of the effect on fuel consumption of such a reduction in speed limits. The calculation is a complex one as fuel consumption would be affected by a number of factors, particularly the level of compliance with the speed limit, the rate of acceleration and braking, and the transfer of traffic to roads which already have a speed limit of 60 mph or less. However, the Government are keeping speed limits under review for both safety and environmental reasons. Our strategy is set out in the Department's document "Killing Speed and Saving Lives".

  Road Accidents (Children)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children were(a) killed and (b) injured on the roads in each police authority area in England in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The table shows the number of children aged up to 15 killed and injured on the roads, by police authority area for 1990 and 1991.
  565

  1990

  1991

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Killed

  Injured

  Total

  Durham

  8

  468

  476

  9

  449

  458

  North Yorkshire

  4

  575

  579

  5

  507

  512

  West Yorkshire

  20

  2,018

  2,038

  11

  1,878

  1,889

  South Yorkshire

  7

  1,099

  1,106

  7

  1,017

  1,024

  Humberside

  6

  888

  894

  11

  794

  805

  Cleveland

  8

  581

  589

  4

  588

  592

  West Midlands

  20

  2,444

  2,464

  22

  2,279

  2,301

  Staffordshire

  4

  1,022

  1,026

  10

  929

  939

  West Mercia

  13

  814

  827

  3

  753

  756

  Warwickshire

  3

  381

  384

  3

  304

  307

  Derbyshire

  8

  691

  699

  2

  593

  595

  Nottinghamshire

  9

  1,006

  1,015

  13

  986

  999

  Lincolnshire

  7

  458

  465

  8

  433

  441

  Leicestershire

  10

  747

  757

  7

  740

  747

  Northamptonshire

  6

  492

  498

  3

  420

  423

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  580

  585

  7

  491

  498

  Norfolk

  6

  670

  676

  6

  612

  618

  Suffolk

  2

  417

  419

  4

  437

  441

  Bedfordshire

  2

  452

  454

  6

  437

  443

  Hertfordshire

  3

  618

  621

  4

  492

  496

  Essex

  19

  1,177

  1,196

  7

  1,036

  1,043

  Thames Valley

  14

  1,376

  1,390

  5

  1,176

  1,181

  Hampshire

  16

  1,289

  1,305

  8

  1,130

  1,138

  Surrey

  2

  675

  677

  3

  546

  549

  Kent

  9

  1,054

  1,063

  16

  1,111

  1,127

  Sussex

  11

  948

  959

  3

  871

  874

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  9

  1,055

  1,064

  5

  883

  888

  Avon and Somerset

  4

  769

  773

  7

  737

  744

  Gloucestershire

  4

  300

  304

  4

  279

  283

  Wiltshire

  4

  387

  391

  7

  373

  380

  Dorset

  4

  454

  458

  5

  372

  377

  TOTAL

  350

  41,221

  41,571

  315

  37,595

  37,910

  1 Aged 0–15.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of passenger trains using the core west coast main line are arriving within five minutes of their scheduled times for the latest available period.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the passengers charter, punctuality on InterCity services is measured by the number of trains arriving at their destinations within 10 minutes of the advertised time. On this basis, the west coast main line's performance for the period ending 27 February was 89·2 per cent.

  Twyford Down
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will order an inquiry into whether excessive force was used by private security guards to evict protesters from Twyford Down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: No. Any allegations about the use of excessive force to remove trespassers from the Department's land at Twyford Down are for the police to investigate.

  Motorways (Grey Boxes)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many sets of steps have been built on motorway verges to connect with grey boxes; what is the purpose of the boxes; what is the average cost of the construction of the steps; what is their expected annual usage; and amortised over 20 years what is the predicted average cost of such use.
  566
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: No central record is kept of the total number of sets of steps or their total usage. The steps are provided for safety reasons for when maintenance engineers carrying equipment need to gain access to the grey boxes mounted on embankments or at the bottom of slopes. Such access might be routine—about four to seven times a year per site—or for emergency repairs which might be during the day or night. The average cost of a set of steps is about £1,000. The grey boxes house electronic equipment for the motorway emergency telephones and matrix signals.

  New Drivers
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the introduction of probationary plates for young or inexperienced drivers.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: My right hon. Friend is considering various options for reducing the high accident rate associated with young drivers. Probationary plates are just one of many possibilities. We hope to issue a consultation paper shortly.

  Staff (Working Hours)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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.
  567
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: As part of implementating the citizens charter, my Department has already undertaken a number of surveys of customers' attitudes and needs. Among other things, they have enabled the Department to adjust office "opening hours" more closely to what the public want. We do not apply a uniform rule, but we have a number of changes to provide a better service; for example the Driving Standards Agency now offers driving tests on Saturdays and summer evenings. We will continue to keep the position under review.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the casualties sustained by Her Majesty's armed forces' peacekeeping force stationed in Bosnia; and how they were sustained.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been two deaths, that of Lance Corporal Edwards during an exchange of small arms fire by the warring factions in Gorni Vakuf on 13 January 1993, and that of Lance Corporal Rocke in the early hours of Saturday 6 March, the circumstances surrounding which are currently being investigated. There have been a further 48 casualties whose injuries were sufficiently serious or incapacitating that medical evacuation was necessary. Most have been of a minor nature resulting from road traffic accidents but more serious were a shrapnel wound sustained during a mortar attack, a ruptured liver suffered while taking exercise and an acid burn and fractured collar bone sustained from separate road traffic accidents.

  On and off duty road traffic accidents involving British Forces Belize

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Number of accidents

  13

  6

  26

  33

  22

  50

  244

  Number of injuries3

  9

  8

  5

  4

  8

  7

  17

  Number of deaths

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  6

  1 Figures for 1992 are provisional.

  2 Up to July 1992.

  3 Comprises only those injuries resulting in admission to hospital.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums of money have been paid to the Government of Belize in each of the past 10 years for the payment of road repairs and maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence does not make any payments to the Government of Belize in respect of road repairs and maintenance.

  Road Accidents
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the practice for boards of inquiry to investigate road traffic accidents occurring in other countries which involve armed forces personnel and vehicles and in which service men and women have suffered fatal or serious injuries; and if he will make a statement.

  Gulf Patrols
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost at current prices of the Royal Navy Gulf patrols in each year since 1987; and what are his estimates for the next two financial years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The costs of individual fleet tasks could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Test Sites, Australia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet his Australian counterpart to discuss rehabilitation of the former United Kingdom nuclear test sites in Australia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Australian Minister for Primary Industries and Energy met my noble Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, in November 1991 to discuss the Australian request for a United Kingdom contribution towards the cost of further rehabilitation of the former United Kingdom nuclear weapon tests sites at Maralinga and Emu Field. We have no plans for further meetings, but there has been regular contact with the Australian authorities on this subject and we hope to respond to the Australian request shortly.

  Belize
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many traffic accidents involving military personnel have occurred in Belize in each of the past seven years; what was the number of service men killed or injured in these accidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Road traffic accidents involving military personnel serving overseas are investigated by the service police in liaison with the local police authorities. The findings of the police investigation are submitted to command headquarters for consideration. A board of inquiry may subsequently be convened if the command authorities require an internal investigation additional to that of the police, but this is not normally considered necessary.

  Welbeck College
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the examination results for Welbeck college, Nottinghamshire for the last two academic years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information on A-level results is set out in the table.
  569

  Academic year

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Number of students

  66

  55

  Overall pass rate (per cent.)

  81

  76

  Average points per student in all examination subjects1

  19.35

  17.33

  1 Grade A=10 points, B=8, C=6, D=4 and E=2.

  RAF Hospitals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 February to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox),Official Report, column 740, if he will place in the Library a copy of the review on which he based his decisions concerning RAF hospitals.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Gibraltar
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 255, what estimate he has made of the costs of deploying personnel from the United Kingdom to undertake naval control of shipping tasks at Gibraltar in periods of tension or war, hitherto undertaken by Royal Naval Reserve personnel; what plans he has to close the maritime headquarters; what use it is intended to make of the accommodation at HMS Calpe; from whose budget the annual costs have hitherto been met; on whose budget the costs of the Territorial Army element of the Gibraltar Regiment are borne; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Naval control of shipping staff would only deploy to Gibraltar in the event of a major conflict. The extra costs of deploying an RNR officer would be approximately £160 per person travel costs, should a trooping flight be unavailable, and £1·55 per officer per day for mess accommodation at current prices. There are no plans to close the maritime headquarters. The accommodation at HMS Calpe will be used as a community centre by the staff of Commander British Forces Gibraltar and their families. The costs of pay, bounty and allowances for volunteer reservists at HMS Calpe fall to the top level budget of the Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command; all other costs fall to the higher level budget of the Commander British Forces Gibraltar within the top level budget of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff as do the costs of the TA element of the Gibraltar Regiment.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Agricultural Land (Building)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual estimated yield if a 20 per cent. tax was imposed on the enhanced value of agricultural land sold for building development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that a reliable estimate could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Self-employment
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals who claim self-employed status each year are subsequently found to be employed.
  570
  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to review the principles of contract of service and contract for services in distinguishing between employed and self-employed status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The principles of contract of service and contract for services are matters of general law. The application of these principles to the question of employment status for tax purposes is kept under review.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances the Inland Revenue treats an individual with one source of income as self-employed.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Whether or not an individual is self-employed is a question of fact and law, and depends on the terms of the engagement concerned, rather than the number of sources of income.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the criteria applied by the Inland Revenue in determining whether an individual is self-employed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Guidelines to help an individual decide whether he or she is self-employed or an employee are set out in the Inland Revenue leaflet IR56/N139. These are summarised briefly in the table. But the criteria must be considered as a whole. Any one of them is unlikely to be sufficient in itself and the relative weight to be given to each may vary accordingly to the particular circumstances of the case.

  Does the individual have a final say in how the business is run? Does the individual risk money in the business? And is the individual responsible for meeting losses as well as taking profits?
  Does the individual have to do the work themselves, or can they hire someone to do the work (and pay them out of their own pocket)? Does someone else tell them what to do? Does the individual provide major items of equipment necessary to do the job?
  Does the individual have to work at the premises of the work provider?
  Is the individual paid by the hour, week or month, or for a specific piece of work?

  Family Perspective and Life Cycle
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which publication, speech or statement his Department has described how it takes account of the family perspective and the life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of his Department.

  Sir John Cope
  The "1993 Departmental Report for the Chancellor's Departments", Cm 2217, outlines the roles and objectives of the Treasury. The Chancellor's Budget statement and the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" outline developments in the economy, provide economic forecasts and set out the Budget proposals. The "Autumn Statement" and "Statistical Supplement to the Autumn Statement" set out public spending plans. The policies outlined in these various publications take account of implications for the family.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how his Department takes account of the family perspective and the family life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of his Department.
  571
  Sir John Cope
  These issues are considered by the Treasury in the formulation and implementation of the Government's economic and financial policy.

  Taxation
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to the rules covering the claiming of expenses against tax in respect of a person opting for the payment of fees to a company rather than of a salary to himself.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I cannot comment on suggestions for tax changes at this time of year. But benefits in kind provided by a company to its directors or employees, and expenses paid on their behalf for which they could not obtain a tax deduction, are chargeable to tax on the individuals in the normal way.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those services or functions that have been contracted out from his 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. Nelson
  All services or functions in the Treasury that have been contracted out since November 1991 were either new services or functions, or had previously been contracted out. In all these cases, there was no in-house team to bid.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he(a) has taken and (b) proposes to take to reduce opportunity for tax avoidance by full-time employees through the payment of fees to private companies in lieu of salaries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 5 March, at column 341.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the number of companies which are being used as vehicles for tax avoidance purposes for individuals who have their salaries paid through the companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Inland Revenue has made of the number of single person service companies currently established primarily for the purpose of receiving fees in lieu of salaries where that person works full time for one organisation; and what plans he has to regulate these companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Aggregate information of the sort requested is not available centrally. But tax avoidance arrangements of all kinds are kept under review and action is taken as appropriate.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines have been issued to the Inland Revenue on 572
  the handling of tax returns of individuals who opt to register as self-employed rather than as an employee of a company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Whether an individual is an employee or self-employed for a particular engagement is a question of fact and law. Inland Revenue staff receive guidance to help them deal with all aspects of tax returns.

  11 Downing Street (Catering)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when catering for No. 11 Downing street was put out to contract; if this was by public tender; how many tenders were received; and for how long the contract will run.

  Mr. Nelson
  There is no single contract covering the provision of catering services for official functions at No. 11 Downing street. Arrangements are made for individual functions as and when they arise.

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of tine Exchequer what was the change in levels of trade in manufacturing between(a) the second half of 1973 and September 1992 and (b) since September 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest information is available from table A9 of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and its annual supplement which are available in the Library of the House, and from the Central Statistical Office database which can also be accessed through the Library.

  Skills and Qualifications
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement giving the details of those policies which have been introduced by his Department in each of the last five years in order positively to encourage individuals to improve their skills and qualifications.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: In the 1991 Finance Act my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced tax relief at source for fees paid by an individual for training towards most national vocational qualifications and their Scottish equivalents.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning the possible impact upon the property market of the abolition of stamp duty on the purchase of houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: We have received a number of representations about stamp duty on land and buildings. I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether listing officers are required to correct factual errors on the council tax valuation list which are brought to their attention before 1 April.
  573
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: Listing officers are required to take such steps as are reasonably practicable in the time available to ensure valuation lists are accurately compiled on 1 April 1993. This will include taking account where possible of factual errors brought to their attention before that date.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of domestic properties located on registered agricultural holdings in England and Wales have been valued for council tax purposes(a) by officers of the Valuation Office agency and (b) by valuers engaged from the private sector.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The valuation for banding of all known composite dwellings was undertaken by officers of the Valuation Office.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those regulations affecting small firms which have been abolished by his Department in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: This information is not available in the precise form requested. The Chancellor is fully committed to relieving the regulatory burden on small businesses to the maximum possible extent. A significant number of taxes have been abolished altogether, including car tax, the investment income surcharge, the national insurance surcharge, development land tax, on-course betting duty, capital duty and a number of stamp duties. Both Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have made major contributions to reducing the burden of tax administration on small businesses. Each Department has its own deregulation unit, strategically placed to ensure that deregulation is well to the fore when policy options are being considered. Measures implemented in recent years include significant increases in the threshold for VAT registration, the introduction of a cash accounting scheme to simplify VAT administration for smaller traders, increases in the corporation tax threshold, the introduction of an option for small businesses to submit three-line accounts instead of full accounts, and a major and continuing programme in both Departments to cut down on and simplify the forms which businesses have to complete.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. Portillo
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: Responsibility for market testing has been passed to the efficiency unit of the Cabinet Office, which will be issuing guidance shortly.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  War Crimes
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what personnel and resources in the Crown prosecution service are now being devoted to the investigation and possible prosecution of recent war crimes.

  The Solicitor-General
  The war crimes unit of the Crown prosecution service, which was established to advise the police on war crimes committed between 1939 and 1945, is made up of seven lawyers together with appropriate administrative staff. The unit also provides advice to the Metropolitan police in connection with their inquiry concerning the Falkland Islands. The latter is the most recent allegation of war crimes on which the unit is currently giving advice.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  The Attorney-General
  The amount spent on official entertainment in the departments for which I am responsible, the Crown prosecution service, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Serious Fraud Office, and the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, in 1991–92 totalled £32,118. The amount spent in 1992–93 as at 28 February 1993, totalled £27,563.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Competition Legislation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers he has under competition legislation to investigate the role of major retailers in decisions by manufacturers to withdraw supplies from other retail outlets.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Under the competition legislation, the responsibility for investigating allegations of anticompetitive practices and restrictive practices lies with the Director General of Fair Trading. Unregistered registrable restrictive agreements can be addressed under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, while refusal to supply can be tackled under the Competition Act 1980 or the Resale Prices Act 1980.

  Kelloggs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Director General of Fair Trading the matter of decisions by Kelloggs in respect of the supply of products to Shoprite.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Under the competition legislation the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg, has a responsibility to investigate allegations of anti-competitive practices. I understand that Sir Bryan is looking into a complaint from Shoprite regarding the supply of products. Any evidence of possible anti-competitive behaviour should be submitted to Sir Bryan.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much electricity has passed from England to France and how much electricity has passed from France to England in each year since the interconnector link opened.

  Mr. Eggar
  According to the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1992", the amounts of electricity which have passed from France to England and England to France have been as follows:

  Calender year

  France to England TwH

  France to England TwH

  1986

  4·4

  0·2

  1987

  11·7

  —

  1988

  12·5

  —

  1989

  13·5

  0·9

  1990

  12·0

  —

  1991

  16·4

  —

  Figures are not yet available for 1992.

  Propellant Gases (Labelling)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans there are to require the labelling of canisters of propellant gases such as butane and propane with warnings that if they are inhaled the consequences could be fatal; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government have no present propposals to require the labelling of aerosols containing butane or propane to warn about the dangers of inhalation, but we will continue to keep the matter under review.

  Foam Furniture
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will extend the 1 March deadline in respect of second-hand foam furniture regulations to enable clarification and safeguards to be written into the regulations in connection with the recycling of secondhand furniture by charities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department has no plans to amend those requirements of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, as amended, which apply to second-hand upholstered furniture, and which came into force on 1 March this year.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many proposed Royal Mail capital investment projects have not proceeded in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Leigh
  The information requested is not available.

  Stepped Piston Engine
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance is provided by his Department for the development of the stepped piston engine.
  576
  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department is not currently supporting any project specifically involving stepped piston engines. However, my Department does support other industry-led research projects including the development of vehicle engine technologies.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response the nuclear installations inspectorate has made to the representations from the British Computer Society regarding the computer safety system planned for Sizewell B; and what assessment he has made of the delay and the cost involved in implementing them.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate—Nil—received a copy of the British Computer Society's—BCS—open letter which put forward suggestions for reassuring the society about the safety of the computerised primary protection system—PPS—for Sizewell B. The NII replied to BCS noting the points made. In the NII's view, none of these raise safety issues that are not already being addressed by the Nil in its ongoing assessment of NE's safety case of the PPS.

  Nuclear Electric has carefully considered the BCS open letter but have not identified any points which might undermine their safety case for the PPS. The company do not believe that any changes to the PPS are required and consequently do not foresee any delay leading to extra costs being incurred.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what shareholding Nuclear Electric holds in the European fast reactor consortium, SKB; and what effect Her Majesty's Government's recent decision to discontinue involvement in collaborative European breeder reactor research will have on the future of this shareholding.

  Mr. Eggar
  Nuclear Electric plc has a shareholding of 1·65 per cent. in SBK consortium. The future of this shareholding is a commercial matter for the company.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the directors appointed as Government appointed directors of British Telecom since 1984 with their dates of appointment; what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the appointment of such directors; and under what legal provisions such appointments are made.

  Mr. Leigh
  Under the terms of BT's articles of association, the Government hold a 'special share' in BT. By virtue of their status as special shareholder, the Government are entitled to appoint up to two directors to the BT board.

  There have been four such directors to date:
  Mr. Graeme Odgers was nominated as Government director on 20 September 1984 and relinquished this post on 30 September 1986;
  Mr. John Raisman was appointed as Government director on 20 September 1984 and relinquished this post on 30 September 1987;
  Mr. Paul Bosonnet was appointed as Government director on 1 October 1986 and relinquished this post on 30 September 1991;

  577
  Mr. Geoffrey Mulcahy was nominated as Government director of BT on 19 October 1988. His current terms of appointment run until 19 October 1993. In addition to discharging the function of Government-appointed director, Mr. Mulcahy is a director of BT in his own right.

  The Government's present policy in this area is that they do not plan to appoint a second Government director. The Government will keep the longer term issue of Government directors to BT in general under review.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the policies set out in Energy Paper 42 remain those of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's current strategy on wave energy is laid out in Energy Paper 55 "Renewable Energy in the UK: The Way Forward". An updated appraisal of wave energy "A Review of Wave Energy", ETSU-R-72, was published in December 1992, a copy of which is available in the Library. A decision on any future United Kingdom wave energy programme will be made in the context of the Government's overall review of renewable energy strategy in the light of the 1992 review of wave energy, the report of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, the coal review, and Government energy policy generally.

  Support for Products under Research
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the success of the Spur initiative.

  Mr. Leigh
  The support for products under research scheme offers grants of 30 per cent. of eligible project costs, up to a maximum £150,000 grant, to companies in Great Britain with up to 500 employees who need support to develop innovative products and processes. It has been a great success and in its first two years up to the end of February 1993 there have been 255 offers of grant worth a total of over £22 million. There will be an interim evaluation of the scheme in autumn this year.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to ban the import of coal from countries where there is evidence of the employment of children or the exploitation of coal miners in the coal mines providing such coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  As a general rule, there are severe practical difficulties in identifying goods allegedly produced using child labour or exploiting labour, given the complexities of international trade. Also, it is highly doubtful whether the social conditions that give rise to such practices can be improved by restricting trade.

  In the specific case of coal from Colombia, which the hon. Member may have in mind, the authorities have assured the Government that no coal mined from pits which employ children is exported to the United Kingdom. The Government call on all states which have ratified international instruments covering slavery, servitude, forced labour or child labour to meet their obligations.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he expects the safety-related plant status monitoring system to be fully integrated into the control systems of nuclear power stations;

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that Nuclear Electric has carried out full safety checks on its safety-related plant status monitoring system; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list the nuclear power stations where the safety-related plant status monitoring system (a) has been installed and (b) is under consideration for installation.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that Nuclear Electric—NE—proposes to employ the plant status monitoring system—STATUS—to augment current administrative procedures at their nuclear power plant for assessing that adequate safety systems remain available whenever equipment is temporarily taken out of service for maintenance purposes. STATUS is neither a protection nor a control system, and is currently at the trial stage and not yet in operational use at any of NE's plant. Before the system is put into operation it will require the agreement of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate. NE has not yet asked the NII to consider the matter.

  Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long on average it takes from the initiation of an investigation to a conviction of those prosecuted under the Directors Disqualification Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In cases where the prosecution was brought by my Department and the conviction was obtained in 1991–92 or 1992–93, the average period between the date when an investigation with a view to prosecution was initiated and the date when a conviction was obtained for an offence under section 11 or section 13 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 was 20·3 months.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many successful prosecutions there have been in 1991 and 1992 under the Directors Disqualification Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Prosecutions by my Department for offences under section 11 or section 13 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 resulted in 83 convictions in 1991–92. So far in this financial year my Department has been informed of 54 convictions for offences under section 11 or section 13.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many investigations are pending under the Directors Disqualification Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There are 76 cases where my Department is conducting an investigation with a view to prosecution under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

  Consultancy Service
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of consultancy services offered by his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am pleased to announce that my Department will be working with the training and enterprise councils and pilot one-stop shops to develop and trial a package of business advisory services which will build on and ultimately succeed the very successful DTI enterprise initiative consultancy scheme.

  Businesses are not homogeneous. Strengths and weaknesses vary between individual firms. Their problems do not remain static. Rather they change as the firms and the markets in which they operate evolve.

  In considering DTI's own business services I have, therefore, decided that we should begin to move away from the idea of rigid, narrowly defined national schemes towards a more flexible system responsive to consumer needs and delivered locally.

  The new package of support will include a new diagnostic service, a consultancy brokerage service, continuation in some form of consultancy support and technology-related advice.

  To provide for the development of this new package of services, I am revising the rate of subsidy paid by my Department under the existing enterprise initiative consultancy scheme.
  580
  At present the DTI meets two thirds of the cost of consultancy in assisted areas and urban programme areas and half the cost elsewhere. These rates will be reduced to one half the cost in assisted areas and one third elsewhere. The revised rates will apply for all applications received after 4 pm on Wednesday 24 March 1993.

  The scheme will continue until 31 March 1994 as originally scheduled.

  Beyond that I am convinced that consultancy support will have a continuing role to play. The new flexible package will enable it to continue beyond the previously designated closure date of the consultancy scheme.

  The new services will be developed, trialed arid introduced alongside the consultancy scheme to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements.

  I am convinced that the comprehensive range of local services outlined in these proposals, contracted through TECs and delivered through the one-stop shops where they exist and through TECs elsewhere, will provide high-quality support for business. It will not only provide support suited to business needs; it will also make cost effective use of public funds.

  In doing so it will enable the Department to assist a larger number of firms than at present while enabling them to choose from a wider variety of support services which meet their needs.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of the surplus in the Post Office superannuation fund can be attributed to(a) the Royal Mail, (b) Post Office Counters and (c) Parcelforce.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: The Post Office has two pension schemes: the Post Office staff superannuation scheme, which all staff who were employed before 1 April 1987 were eligible to join, and the Post Office pension scheme which is open to all staff who have joined the Post Office since 1 April 1987. Both these schemes are Post Office-wide schemes, and there has never been any attribution of any part of their surpluses to any of the constituent businesses of the Post Office. This information is therefore not available.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent research has been undertaken into the levels of Japanese and United States investment in the United Kingdom and the factors encouraging or discouraging such investment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: Specifically commissioned research into the levels of Japanese and United States investment in the United Kingdom is not necessary since information on this is reported regularly by various governmental and other bodies.

  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau commissions research from consultants to assist its promotion of the United Kingdom as the preferred location for manufacturing investment in Europe. This information is not published as it is commercially sensitive and would be of value to competitors.

  Qualifications and Skills
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement giving the details of those policies which have been introduced by his
  581
  Department in each of the last five years in order positively to encourage individuals to improve their skills and qualifications.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: My Department aims to ensure British business has access to an adequate supply of people with the right skills and attributes. It does this by encouraging business to invest in the training of its work force, listening to what business has to say, and, where appropriate, influencing the policies of the Department for Education and the Department of Employment who have primary responsibility for education and training. Specific programmes supported by my Department in furtherance of these aims include the teaching company scheme, senior academics into industry and the Shell technology enterprise programme.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation, the Confederation of British Industry or the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance to discuss ways in which his policies can more effectively encourage individuals to improve their qualifications or skills.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: The President of the Board of Trade regularly meets a range of industrial bodies to discuss issues of concern to industry, including qualifications and skills.

  Airbus Agreement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the full terms of the US-EC Airbus agreement(a) in respect of aircraft engines and (b) in respect of other matters.

  Mr. Sainsbury [holding answer 8 March 1993]: Since the agreement applies only to support offered for the development of the airframes of large civil aircraft, it does not contain provisions relating to aero-engines. However, the agreement commits the signatories to seek its multilateralisation and its expansion to cover aircraft of all sizes, engines and equipment, through the GATT agreement on trade in civil aircraft. Negotiations are currently under way on this extension.

  Copies of the agreement between the United States and the European Community have been available in the Library of the House since 23 June 1992. The text is also available on request from my Department.

EDUCATION

  Music Teachers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many full-time music teachers were employed in state schools in 1979, 1985, 1989 and the latest available date.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the numbers of full-time music teachers is available from school staffing surveys. The four secondary school staffing surveys show the following numbers of full-time teachers who taught music at some point in the survey week and, regardless of whether they taught any music in the survey week, the number of full-time teachers who held a post A-level qualification in the subject:—582

  Maintained Secondary Schools in England

  1977

  1984

  1988

  1992

  Number of full-time teachers teaching some music (thousands)

  10·4

  9·3

  7·1

  5·8

  Number of full-time teachers with a post 'A' level qualification in music (thousands)

  14·3

  11·6

  9·2

  7·6

  The primary school staffing survey carried out in 1987 showed that 15,200 full-time teachers teaching in English primary schools had a post A-level qualification in music and that 18,600 full-time teachers had responsibility for curriculum leadership in music.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the net expenditure on research and development activities by the Higher Education Funding Council, and its predecessors, the Universities Funding Council, University Grants Committee and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, in each year since 1979(a) in cash terms and (b) at current prices.

  Mr. Boswell
  Estimated expenditure on research and development funded by the University Grants Committee, the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council from 1979–80 to 1991–92 is shown in the table. There are no outturn spending estimates for later years. The figures are based on a notional attribution of spending between teaching and research. The funding councils have not separately earmarked funding for teaching and research.

  UGC/UFC and PCFC funding of research and development

  £ million

  Outturn

  Cash

  1991–92 prices

  1979–80

  359

  832

  1980–81

  441

  863

  1981–82

  484

  864

  1982–83

  535

  891

  1983–84

  551

  878

  1984–85

  564

  855

  1985–86

  609

  875

  1986–87

  655

  912

  1987–88

  695

  917

  1988–89

  755

  929

  1989–90

  758

  875

  1990–91

  789

  844

  11991–92

  881

  881

  1 Estimate.

  Notes:

  Source: Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development, 1992.

  2. Figures exclude research into the humanities.

  3. Figures include PCFC funding for research from 1988–89 onwards.

  4. Figures for 1989–90 onwards are calculated on a revised basis which is not directly comparable to previous years.

  5. Figures for 1991–92 only include Computer Board.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what education grants or other forms of assistance are available to asylum seekers to enable them to take up full-time courses(a) while their applications to remain are

  583
  determined, (b) when they have been granted exceptional leave to remain and (c) when they have been granted indefinite leave to remain; and what is their status, as seen by college authorities, when in each of the above categories.

  Mr. Boswell
  Mandatory awards and student loans, and help from the access funds, are available to eligible students on qualifying courses of higher education who have been ordinarily resident in the British islands throughout the three years immediately prceding the start of the academic year in which their course commences. Students who are recognised as refugees within the meaning of the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees and who are now ordinarily resident in the British islands are exempt from the three-year requirement, as are their spouses and children. They are eligible for support from the date of their recognition as refugees. This provision does not apply to students who have been granted exceptional or indefinite leave to remain, for whom local education authorities are free to make discretionary awards. Discretionary awards may also be available for most other courses of further and higher education not designated for mandatory awards. Other assistance may be available through refugee charitable organisations in the form of scholarship programmes.

  Further and higher education institutions may not, in most cases, lawfully charge a higher rate of fee to students who are recognised as refugees or have been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom than to students who meet the three year ordinary residence requirement.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all those services or functions that have been contracted out from his 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. Boswell
  Since November 1991, the Department has contracted out—that is, engaged private sector contractors to undertake work previously done by the Department's staff—without market testing in one area: the professional architectural scrutiny of school building projects. The successful contractor is Hurd Rolland of Berkhamsted; there was no in-house bid because this is a small-scale pilot to test whether external contractors can provide the necessary service satisfactorily.

  Since November 1991 the Department has also let contracts as a result of market tests undertaken before that date. Previously in-house costings rather than in-house bids were used to frame value-for-money judgments.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make it his policy to amend section 4 of the Special Educational Needs Regulations 1983 to require that local education authorities seek written professional advice on a child's potential for learning and the provision required to realise this potential as part of any section 5 assessments;

  (2) if he will seek to amend section 4 of the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 so as to
  584
  secure that local education authorities seek out written professional advice related to the kind and level of provision needed by a child whom the authority decides to place in an ordinary school.

  Mr. Forth
  Paragraph 2(1) of schedule 8 to the Eduation Bill, currently before Parliament, provides that regulations shall make provision as to the advice which a local education authority are to seek when making an assessment of a child's special educational needs. We shall be consulting widely on the regulations.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make it his policy to seek to amend the Education Act 1981 so as to establish statutory rights for non-statemented children with special educational needs;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to place an obligation upon school governors and head teachers to obtain professional advice regarding the form of special education required by statemented and non-statemented children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  Clause 153 of the Education Bill, currently before Parliament, places statutory duties on the governing body of all maintained schools to use their best endeavours to secure that all registered pupils with special educational needs receive the necessary special educational provision. This clause also requires governors to report annually on the implementation of their school's policy for pupils with special educational needs.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to issue new guidelines to local education authorities on defining efficient use of resources within section 2 of the Education Act 1981.

  Mr. Forth
  No. It is for local education authorities themselves to reach decisions on the efficient use of their resources.

  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 ensure that local education authorities have a duty to ensure that children with special educational needs are not deprived of the opportunity to realise their full potential.

  Mr. Forth
  A child's potential is relevant in deciding whether he or she has special educational needs. The Education Bill, currently before Parliament, reinforces LEAs' duties to arrange appropriate provision to meet. pupils' special educational needs where they are required to determine that provision.

  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 so as to grant the rights of parents to insist on an assessment under section 5 of the Act if they disagreed with any changes to statements of children with special educational needs via the statement amendment process.

  Mr. Forth
  Clause 162(2) of the Education Bill, currently before Parliament, provides for the parent of a child with a statement of special educational needs to ask the local education authority to arrange for full assessment under clause 158 to be made. The authority shall comply with the request where a further assessment is necessary providing that such an assessment has not taken place within the preceding six months.
  585
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make it his policy to seek to amend the Education Act 1981 so as to secure that local education authorities consider their duties to explore the possibility of integrating special needs children into mainstream schools under section 2 as part of the assessment and statementing procedures under section 5, and prior to considering their duties to consult parents under section 7;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to seek to amend the Education Act 1981 so as to remove the responsibility on local education authorities to satisfy themselves that the integration of a single child with special educational needs must represent an efficient use of resources.

  Mr. Forth
  Our policy is to encourage sensible integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. Clause 152 of the Education Bill, currently before Parliament, puts a qualified duty on local education authorities to integrate unless that duty is incompatible with the wishes of the parent.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to give statutory force to the principles outlined in his departmental circulars 1/83 and 22/89 relating to the involvement of a child or young person in determining the nature of his or her special educational needs provision.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to my remarks made during debates in the Committee stage of the Education Bill,Official Report, Standing Committee E, 26 January 1993, c. 1139–40.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to place an obligation on local education authorities issuing new statements or amendments to existing statements for children with special educational needs to secure that such statements are produced no later than the beginning of the term prior to the one when they are intended to come into effect.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to my remarks made during debates in the Committee stage of the Education Bill,Official Report, Standing Committee E, 26 January 1993, c. 1108–9.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make it his policy to seek to amend part II of schedule I to the Education Act 1981 to secure that the form and contents of a statement include reference to any non-educational needs;

  (2) if he will amend section 10 of the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 so as to ensure that all statements refer to the amount, type and content of the provision to be made and the qualifications of the person designated to deliver it.

  Mr. Forth
  Clause 159(2) of the Education Bill, currently before Parliament, provides that a statement of special educational needs shall be in such form and contain such information as may be prescribed. We shall be consulting widely on the regulations.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to amend section 10 of the Special Educational Needs Regulations 1983 requiring a school to be named within a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Under paragraph 3(3) of schedule 9, to the Education Bill, currently before Parliament, a local 586
  education authority shall name the parent's preferred school in the statement of special educational needs, subject to prescribed exceptions. If those exceptions apply or the parent has not expressed a preference for a school, clause 159(4)(b) requires the LEA to specify the name of any school or institution which it considers appropriate for the child and which should be specified in the statement.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to amend section 12 of the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 to place a duty on a local education authority to whose area a family of a child with special educational needs has moved, to fulfil the needs expressed in the statement established by their former local education authority in the shortest possible time.

  Mr. Forth
  Paragraph 7(2) of schedule 9, to the Education Bill, currently before Parliament, allows for regulations to make provision for the transfer of a statement of special educational needs from one local education authority to another, and for the new authority to have the duty to maintain that statement. We shall be consulting widely on the regulations.

  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 ensure that children are not placed in special schools without the provision of a statement or the formal commencement of a section 5 assessment.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's guidance in circular 22/89 is that children in special schools should normally either have the protection of a statement or be undergoing a formal assessment under section 5 of the 1981 Education Act. The Education Bill, currently before Parliament, will not make this a statutory requirement.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to separate the power to assess statements for children with special educational needs from the power to decide on and make appropriate provision outlined within statements.

  Mr. Forth
  Part III of the Education Bill, currently before Parliament, makes it clear that the duty to assess, make statements of special educational needs and, unless the parent has made suitable alternative arrangements, arrange the provision specified in the statement, remains the responsibility of the local education authority.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to place a duty on local education authorities to establish a minimal procedure for the annual review of statements for children with special needs to include(a) the preparation of written reports and their submission to parents and (b) the granting of a meeting with parents to discuss the review.

  Mr. Forth
  Clause 162(6) of the Education Bill, currently before Parliament, provides that regulations may make provision as to the manner in which reviews of statements of special educational needs are to be conducted. We will be consulting widely on the content of the regulations.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to place a legal duty upon the relevant authorities to provide non-educational provision to
  587
  children with special educational needs whose assessments under section 5 of the Education Act 1981 have specified the need for such provision.

  Mr. Forth
  1 refer the hon. Member to my remarks made during debates in the Committee stage of the Education Bill,Official Report, Standing Committee E, 26 January 1993, c. 1128–31.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to seek to amend section 9(1) of the Education Act 1981 to enable parents of non-statemented children to request local education authority assessments under section 5 of the Act.

  Mr. Forth
  Clause 163 of the Education Bill, currently before Parliament, provides for the parent of a child who does not have a statement of his special educational needs to ask the authority to arrange for an assessment under clause 158 of the Bill.

  Schools (Access)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will establish a target date by which time all schools in the United Kingdom will be wheelchair-accessible;

  (2) what plans he has to seek to amend the Education Act 1981 so as to remove from the category of children with special educational needs those children whose only problem is that the school that they wish to attend does not offer full and equal physical access;

  (3) if he will place an obligation upon local education authorities to (a) seek professional advice on adapting a mainstream school for the needs of a child with special educational needs, (b) make an assessment of the child's mobility needs and (c) receive an estimate from a professional builder of the cost of the adaptation work to be undertaken at the school, prior to taking a decision under section 2 of the Education Act 1981.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government do not intend to set a target date by which time all schools should be adapted to allow wheelchair access. Government policy is to encourage local education authorities to improve access to school buildings to facilitate the integration of disabled pupils into mainstream provision. When established, the Funding Agency for Schools will also contribute to the furtherance of this policy.

  Youth Crime
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to the answer of the Home Secretary of 10 February,Official Report, column 625, what future plans he has to increase the amount committed by his Department in 1992–93 under its grants for education support and training for youth crime prevention schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: No grants were provided for youth crime prevention schemes under the Department's 1992–93 programme of grants for education support and training—GEST. With the 1993–94 GEST programme, my right hon. Friend will be grant aiding expenditure by English local education authorities of £4.1 million on such schemes. Funding beyond 1993–94 will be considered in this year's review of public expenditure plans.

SCOTLAND

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

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the average school population for each education authority is as follows.

  Average school population as at September 1991

  Primary

  Secondary

  Scotland

  186

  708

  Borders

  111

  656

  Central

  200

  879

  Dumfries and Galloway

  110

  558

  Fife

  215

  1,118

  Grampian

  161

  789

  Highland

  96

  519

  Lothian

  233

  722

  Strathclyde

  230

  765

  Tayside

  171

  689

  Orkney

  75

  231

  Shetland

  64

  183

  Western Isles

  58

  144

  Strathclyde Divisions

  Argyll and Bute

  74

  45.4

  Ayr

  228

  778

  Dunbarton

  258

  897

  Glasgow

  248

  660

  Lanark

  220

  868

  Renfrew

  294

  780

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it the policy of his Department to decline to advise health boards on ways of arranging transferring services to trusts so that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 do not apply.

  Mr. Stewart
  No such advice has been given by my Department. As indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) on 23 February at column 565, health boards and trusts have been advised to seek legal advice on the applicability of transfer of undertakings regulations in relation to specific proposals for the market testing of services.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all those services or functions that have been contracted out from his 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 decisions to exclude an in-house bid.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that 1 gave him on 17 February, at column 169. Of the functions listed in that answer, property management at the Scottish police college, the management and maintenance of court houses, the building and plan maintenance for the Scottish fire service training school

  589
  and property management at the marine laboratory, Aberdeen were all previously undertaken by the Property Services Agency on behalf of the Scottish Office. The toll collection at Erskine bridge was examined and tenders invited under the procedures obtaining before the publication of the White Paper "Competing for Quality" in November 1991. External tenders were examined against the existing in-house service. The audit of two national health service trusts involved new work. The Scottish Office audit unit submitted bids for the work but these were unsuccessful. I am encouraging in-house bids in all the activities currently being market tested.

  Infertility Services
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish the report produced by a working group of the national medical advisory committee on infertility services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The report is being published today and will be welcomed by all who are interested in planning and providing services to the infertile. It contains valuable guidance on good practice and on the organisation and management of infertility services at all levels of treatment. Accordingly, I have accepted, or commended to health boards, all but one of the report's recommendations which when implemented will bring much needed improvements to the services provided for childless couples. The one exception is the recommendation supporting the establishment of a centrally funded NHS service for high-tech treatments such as in-vitro fertilisation and gamete intra-fallopian tube transfer. I do not consider that these services meet the criteria for central NHS funding and have concluded that decisions on the provision of such services are a matter for individual health boards. Boards may provide or purchase high-tech assisted reproduction services from the general resources already allocated to them: as is the case for many other treatments, the judgment of the priority for these services, as compared to others, is for them to make.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many juvenile offenders are in Scottish prisons at ages of(a) 14 years, (b) 15 years, (c) 16 years and (d) 17 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Number

  14 years

  Nil

  15 years

  Nil

  16 years

  72

  17 years

  152

  The figures for 16 and 17-year-olds relate to prisons and young offender institutions but exclude those held on remand.

  Prisoners (Suicide)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners on remand or after conviction have(a) committed suicide, (b) attempted suicide or (c) been recorded as having attempted self-mutilation in the last five years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of suicides

  Number of attempted suicides

  Number of attempted self mutilations

  1988–89

  9

  40

  18

  1989–90

  4

  18

  23

  1990–91

  5

  30

  26

  1991–92

  5

  24

  16

  21992–93

  14

  22

  13

  1 Additionally there are 4 outstanding fatal accident inquiries.

  2 To 28 February.

  Prison Escort (Escapes)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many escapes there have been from prison escort in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Escapes from prison escorts

  Number

  1992

  March

  3

  April

  2

  May

  4

  June

  2

  July

  1

  August

  4

  September

  2

  Octoer

  2

  November

  1

  December

  5

  1993

  January

  1

  February

  2

  29

  Prison Officers ( Assaults)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of convictions for assault on(a) male prison officers and (b) female prison officers in each of the past 14 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 March 1993]: Records of convictions for assault on prison staff are not maintained.

  Shetland Oil Spillage
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sub-littoral monitoring of benthic marine communities in the vicinity of MV Braer has been undertaken to assess the immediate impacts of the oil spillage in the Shetland Islands.
  591
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: Adverse weather has prevented any structured programme of diving, although local divers have made occasional descents which indicate significant mortality of macrobenthic species. The marine nature conservation review team from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee carried out work between 25 February and 2 March but the results of this are not yet available.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring of the marine plants and invertebrate communities in the shorelines in the vicinity of MV Braer has been undertaken to assess the immediate impacts of the oil spillage in the Shetland Islands.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: Adverse conditions prevented immediate post-spill monitoring. Scottish Natural Heritage marine biologists have recently visited the area, but their observations have not yet been assessed. Monitoring will be kept under review by the ecological steering group.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional funding he has allocated to Scottish Natural Heritage to undertake studies and other work in the aftermath of the grounding of the MV Braer.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: None. On present information, Scottish Natural Heritage currently has sufficient resources available to it to fund such research studies or other work likely to arise following the MV Braer incident.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Lang
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The national health service in Scotland management executive wrote to health authorities in Scotland on 11 December 1992 on the need to seek legal advice on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. A copy of this advice is being placed in the Library. No other general advice has been issued by my Department.

  Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of new-build(a) general needs, (b) special needs and (c) sheltered houses constructed by local authorities in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: Information on housebuilding by category of need is not readily available for the years prior to 1986, and could be extracted only at disproportionate cost. The available information is set out in the table.

  Local authority housebuilding in Scotland

  Category of need

  Year

  General needs

  Special needs1

  Sheltered housing2

  1986

  1,192

  540

  273

  1987

  1,068

  592

  321

  1988

  1,249

  632

  312

  592

  Category of need

  Year

  General needs

  Special needs1

  Sheltered housing2

  1989

  953

  498

  330

  1990

  3677

  3294

  3207

  1991

  3567

  3419

  3272

  1 Consists of sheltered, sheltered wheelchair, amenity, ambulant disabled and wheelchair housing.

  2 Includes sheltered wheelchair.

  3 Based on incomplete returns.

  Water Services
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he received to his consultation on the future of water services in Scotland, in the form of(a) letters, (b) names on petitions and (c) individually signed postcards; and how many submissions were in favour of (i) continued control of water services by local authorities with no privatization, (ii) control by a body other than a local authority and (iii) for privatisation options; and, in the last case, how many were for each method of private involvement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 4 March 1993 ]: In response to the consultation paper we have received more than 4,800 letters; 11 large petitions and a number of smaller petitions which together have over 85,000 signatures; and more than 56,500 pre-printed postcards some of which were received before the consultation paper was issued. The petitions and postcards oppose privatisation of the water and sewerage services. Other responses are being studied and a full analysis is not yet available.

  Minerals Extraction
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 562, if he will give the amounts received by the Forestry Commission from licences and leases for permitting the extraction of minerals in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: The information is as follows. Detailed records are only available for the last four years; the amounts for the first six years are therefore based on estimates.

  Year ended 31 March

  £ million

  1983

  10·3

  1984

  10·3

  1985

  10·4

  1986

  10·4

  1987

  10·5

  1988

  10·5

  1989

  0·6

  1990

  0·7

  1991

  0·9

  1992

  0·8

  1 Estimate.

  School Boards
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools are eligible to have a school board; and how many have such a board currently in operation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 March 1993]: A total of 2,907 schools in Scotland are eligible to have a school board. Of these, 2,199 currently have such a board.

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Non-denominational

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1. Applicants

  1990

  3,722

  50·12

  3,349

  45·10

  355

  4·78

  1991

  2,792

  49·10

  2,649

  46·59

  245

  4·31

  1992

  1,959

  46·76

  1,949

  46·53

  281

  6·71

  2. Appointees

  1990

  118

  47·39

  108

  43·37

  23

  9·24

  1991

  222

  49·22

  212

  47·01

  17

  3·77

  1992

  122

  44·53

  145

  52·92

  7

  2·55

  Applicants and appointees from outside Northern Ireland have, where possible, been classified as Protestant or Roman Catholic.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the Housing Executive's new build programme to house homeless people in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Housing Executive's new build programme is not required to be extended to provide housing for homeless people in Northern Ireland.

  Government Employees
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 4 March, whether prospective Government employees in Northern Ireland are asked to indicate on their application forms whether they are EC or non-EC nationals.

  Mr. Mates
  Prospective Government employees in Northern Ireland are not asked whether they are EC or non-EC nationals. Applicants are asked to state their place of birth and, if they have changed their nationality since birth, to state their nationality.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  Mr. Mates
  Expenditure on Department of Finance and Personnel official entertainment has been:

  £

  1991–92

  29,000

  1992–93

  43,000

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the number and (b) the proportion of applicants for positions with the Belfast education and library board in the last three years who were classified as (i) Protestant, (ii) Roman Catholic and (iii) from outside Northern Ireland or non-religious; and what proportion of each group was appointed to positions with the board.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information, as supplied by the Belfast education and library board, is as follows:

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much was spent of offical entertainment in his Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office, which includes the Private Office of the Lord Privy Seal and Lord President as well as the Judicial Committee and Privy Council proper, spent £6,782 in 1991–92 and £10,477 in 1992–93, to 8 March 1993, on official entertainment.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Prime Minister's Questions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 5 March to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick),Official Report, column 334, how many of the five questions tabled for answer to the Prime Minister by each of the two hon. Members mentioned were (a) reached and (b) answered by the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Newton
  Three of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) were answered orally by the Prime Minister, and the other two were answered by me. Two of the Questions asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) were answered orally by the Prime Minister, one was answered by me, and one was not reached; the remaining question is due for answer on Tuesday 16 March.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a Minister from his Department last visited Cyprus to obtain information as to the situation on the island; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Our high commission in Nicosia is irt close and regular contact with both communities. I have frequent meetings with Cypriot Ministers, and all parties to the dispute, in London and elsewhere.

  Since the last ministerial visit in 1983, we have believed it important not to undertake initiatives that could cut across negotiations by United Nations envoys in Cyprus itself. In particular a ministerial visit would raise problems concerning the nature and level of contact with the Turkish-Cypriot community. The timing of any such move must be most carefully considered.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what steps the British Government have taken to promote a successful outcome from the forthcoming United Nations-sponsored talks on Cyprus.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take to encourage greater progress towards a political settlement in Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We give full support to the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to promote a negotiated settlement to the Cyprus dispute. Talks are due to resume in New York shortly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the way forward with Dr. Boutros-Ghali on 3 March and with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Cetin, on 26 February. We will continue to work hard to prepare the ground for a successsful outcome to negotiations.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet the new President of Cyprus to discuss the situation on the island.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have congratulated Mr. Clerides on his recent election success and welcome his commitment to attend continuing negotiations on the intercommunal dispute to be held by the United Nations in New York. No firm date has yet been set for a meeting with President Clerides, but we hope a mutually convenient opportunity may be found in advance of those talks.

  Dalai Lama
  Mr. Illsely
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of Her Majesty's Government will be available to meet the Dalai Lama during his visit to Britain later this year.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I understand that the Dalai Lama will be visiting this country privately in May. As a distinguished religious leader and Nobel Prize winner he is very welcome. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has indicated that, if 596
  a suitable time can be found, he would be glad to have a private meeting with his holiness. I do not know the private plans of other members of the Government.

  United States of America
  Mr. Ottoway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom/United States relations.

  Mr. Hurd
  United Kingdom/United States relations are in excellent shape and we expect them to remain so.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the United States ambassador to the Court of St. James's to discuss co-operation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs meets the United States ambassador on a fairly regular basis. They last met on 3 March.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what high level contacts have taken place between the United Kingdom Government and the United States Government on future relations between Britain and the United States of America since the new United States presidency began.

  Mr. Hurd
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Washington for talks with President Clinton and members of his administration on 24 February.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer met United States Treasury Secretary Bentsen last weekend, and I have had meetings with Secretary Warren Christopher and Defence Secretary Les Aspin.

  India
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of India about human rights in Nagaland.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have regularly raised human rights with the Government of India.

  Sudan
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place concerning the situation in the Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have discussed the situation in Sudan with our EC partners, the United States and other countries which give relief, and also with Governments in Africa and the middle east. We are following up at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the human rights situation in Sudan adopted by an overwhelming majority in December. We hope that the United Nations Commission will agree to appoint a rapporteur to investigate the situation in Sudan on a public basis.

  South Africa
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of Governments of front-line states regarding progress in the Republic of South Africa towards ending the policy of apartheid.

  Mr. Hurd
  We share the wish of all states in the region to see non-racial democracy established in South Africa. We discuss progress on this with representatives of those states at every suitable opportunity.

  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will have further discussion with President de Klerk and other members of the South African Government regarding their proposed constitutional changes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We shall keep in regular touch with them, and with the other main parties in the constitutional negotiations, as the process develops.

  Angola
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking at the United Nations Security Council to support the Government of Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 29 January, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 804 which, among other things, calls on member states to render economic and technical assistance to the Government of Angola for reconstruction and development.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the leaders of UNITA since the beginning of 1993; and what was their response.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We were actively involved in United Nations Security Council resolution 804 of 29 January and the EC statement on Angola of 17 February, which condemn UNITA's initial rejection of the results of the elections of 29–30 September 1992 and call for a ceasefire and dialogue between the Government of Angola and UNITA. Officials, including our outgoing ambassador, have reinforced this message with the UNITA office in London.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European Community counterparts about changes in the powers, accountability and openness of European Community institutions consequential upon ratification of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Edinburgh European Council agreed a range of measures to increase transparency and openness in Community decision-making. The first results are being felt, for example in the televising of some Council debates, even before the Maastricht treaty comes into force. The Edinburgh Council also welcomed the measures decided and announced by the Commission on greater openness.
  598
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with his counterparts in the other EC countries regarding the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs regularly meets his counterparts in other member states. The Maastricht treaty is frequently a topic of discussion.

  Diplomats (Experience)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many senior diplomats in overseas posts have any industrial or commercial experience; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Forty-five senior diplomats of first secretary rank or above, have gained direct industrial or commercial experience through attachments to companies during their diplomatic service careers; 20 are currently serving overseas. Fifty senior diplomats have undertaken attachments to the Department of Trade and Industry; 32 are currently at overseas posts. A number of senior diplomats had commercial or industrial experience before joining the diplomatic service. The figures for these categories are not readily available. A total of 669 senior diplomats have trained for, and carried out, overseas commercial work. Of these, 433 are currently at post. Nearly half our senior locally engaged staff overseas are engaged in commercial work.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has of human rights abuses in Kashmir; and what representations he has made to the Government of India.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received representations from a number of sources about abuses of human rights in Kashmir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the situation in Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister in January, who assured him of his commitment to respect for human rights, that allegations of human rights abuses were investigated, and that those responsible for wrongdoing were punished.

  Nuclear Conflict
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to reduce the possibility of a nuclear conflict.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Our strategy for preventing nuclear conflict will continue to rest on two pillars: the maintenance of an effective minimum deterrent, and wholehearted support for the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We attach the highest importance to securing the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty in 1995.

  Ukraine
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with the Ukraine.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have good relations with Ukraine. President Kravchuk's visit to the United
  599
  Kingdom on 9 to 12 February helped to consolidate ties, and gave British business men opportunities to make useful contacts. During the visit a bilateral treaty, which sets out the framework for future relations, and a number of other agreements were signed.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the United Kingdom has to contribute to a multinational peacekeeping force in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British troops are already an important part of the relief effort in Bosnia. They will no doubt continue to be needed. If there is a durable ceasefire and a workable agreement, there may need to be a United Nations peacekeeping effort alongside the relief operation. I cannot say whether there should be a change in the role of the British troops in Bosnia until a workable agreement has been secured and the nature of any peacekeeping operation been determined.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the suitability of Tuzla airfield in northern Bosnia for taking heavy transport plances; if mines have been cleared; what plans he has for using the airport to deliver aid; and what assessment he has made of the number of refugees and availability of supplies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The current assessment of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is that road access and delivery of supplies to Tuzla are adequate and that there is no need to open the Tuzla airfield for the delivery of supplies by air. The possibility of using the airfield in future is being kept under constant review but would require an extension of UNPROFOR's mandate as well as additional troops on the ground to secure the airport.

  There are now estimated 70,000 to 100,000 refugees in Tuzla and more are expected following the recent fighting in eastern Bosnia. Shelter and supplies for the refugees are being prepared and the United Kingdom has already offered to provide additional aid to help meet the needs of the expected refugees.

  Serbia and Montenegro
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to improve the enforcement of sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are providing material assistance to help the customs authorities of Serbia's neighbours to improve sanctions enforcement. We are also contributing to international sanctions assistance missions to those states, and welcome the recent appointment by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of a sanctions co-ordinator.

  European Assembly
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, he will bring forward proposals at the next intergovernmental conference of the European Community, to put the European Assembly on a more representative basis.
  600
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have no present plans to do so.

  Balkans
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Balkans.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our European Community partners have made clear our full support for the international conference for the former Yugoslavia. It is vital to achieve settlements in Bosnia and Croatia, and to prevent the conflict spreading into Kosovo or Macedonia. We are devoting considerable resources to the provision of humanitarian relief to those caught up in the fighting.

  Yemen
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Yemen.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have good relations with Yemen. I made a worthwhile visit there in December. I was able to demonstrate British support for Yemen's move towards establishing a democratically elected government, and to support British aid and trade initiatives in Yemen.

  Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 30, concerning Shenaz Begum, Afsar Khan and Shaira Begum, what consideration is being given to the submission of further evidence dated 10 February by the representative of the children's father; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British high commission at Islamabad considered that the further evidence submitted by Mr. Ismail Ghani on 10 February tended to support the passport applications of Shenaz Begum, Afsar Khan, and Shaira Begum but some doubts still remained. As the hon. Member knows, the case was subsequently referred to the Home Office on 2 March. Once the outcome of its inquiries is known, the passport applications will be considered again.

  Minority Languages
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have signed, or have declared an intention to sign, the European charter for regional or minority languages; and which languages each country has specified or expressed an intention to specify, under article 3 of the charter.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The following countries have signed the Charter:

  Austria

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Finland

  Germany

  Hungary

  Liechtenstein

  Luxembourg

  Malta

  Netherlands

  601

  Norway

  Spain

  No countries have declared an intention to sign and none has specified or expressed an intention to specify a language.

  Poland
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the timetable for negotiations on Poland's application to join the EC.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We support Poland's accession to the EC when she is ready. The Edinburgh European Council endorsed this objective. There is no precise timetable. The United Kingdom will work to use the association agreement to prepare Poland for the earliest membership possible.

  E1 Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's Government representatives in El Salvador concerning human rights abuses and the pursuit of the perpetrators of such crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Her Majesty's ambassador reports on human rights and other issues. The end of the armed conflict has led to an improvement in human rights observance, but we remain concerned by continuing reports of abuses. We will continue to support UN monitoring of implementation of all aspects of the peace accords in E1 Salvador.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government concerning the conduct of the proposed referendum in western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have been fully involved in consultations in the Security Council on western Sahara which led to the adoption of resolution 809 on 2 March on the proposed referendum.

EMPLOYMENT

  Industrial Accidents
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many safety reports required under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations have been submitted to the Health and Safety Executive for each of the last four years; how many have been accepted as complying with CIMAH provisions in each year; and if she will list those companies whose submissions have not yet been accepted as complying.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  By 30 September 1992, the latest date for which information is centrally available, a total of 668 safety reports required by the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards—CIMAH—Regulations 1984 had been received by the Health and Safety Executive—HSE—since the regulations came into force on 1 April 1985.
  602
  Of these, the HSE considers that 207 reports provide sufficient and suitable information but that 109 do not. The remaining reports are still subject to the HSE's multi-discipline assessment.

  It is not the HSE's policy to publish the names of those companies whose reports do not meet the requirements of CIMAH.

  Family Perspective and Life Cycle
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) in which publication, speech or statement her Department has described how it takes account of the family perspective and the life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of her Department;

  (2) if she will make a statement on how her Department takes account of the family perspective and the family life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of the Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The objectives, activities and expenditure plans of the Department are set out in the latest departmental report, Cm 2205. Full account is taken of the implications for the family in developing and operating policies and programmes. For example, this January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched a booklet entitled, "Rising to the Challenge", which encourages employers and individuals to consider the advantages of women achieving their full potential in the workplace. In April 1993, a new out-of-school child care grant will be introduced, which will make it easier for parents of school-age children to participate fully in the labour market.

  Training
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are taken by training and enterprise councils to ensure that proper training is given by placements with employers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  All training and enterprise councils are aiming for employer placements, which form an integral part of youth training. The terms of their contract with us require that they satisfy quality criteria and provide each trainee with an individual training plan which specifies the work experience element.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the performance of job clubs in the south-east of England.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Hartley Booth, dated 10 March 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the performance of Jobclubs in the South East of England. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  A national study carried out by my Research and Evaluation Branch in 1989 concluded that nationally,

  603
  attending a Jobclub increased an individual's chalice of finding a full-time job by about 50% This study was followed by a nationwide review of the performance of Jobclubs, carried out by my Consultancy and Management Services in August 1991, which confirmed the effectiveness of the Jobclub programme for the long-term unemployed. Several locations in the South East of England were visited during the fieldwork for the review.
  Information is collected monthly to measure the performance of individual Johclubs. The information is collated to give area, regional and national totals. Between April 1992 and January 1993, 41% of people leaving Jobclubs in London and the South East Region left to go into jobs. This compares with a national figure of 45%. Overall, in the London and South East Region some 56% went into jobs, further education, training or self-employment compared with 59% nationally. However, these figures have been achieved against a background of a 23% rise in unemployment in the Region over the last year, compared with a 15% rise nationally. London and the South East Region still achieves 27% of all our Jobclub placings into jobs.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Potato Processing Industry
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the potato processing industries five years ago and at the latest available date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Estimates for the potato processing industries are not available separately. The figures are aggregated with data for other food processing industries.

  Self-employment
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the number of people who are simultaneously employed and self-employed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest estimate for Great Britain from the summer—June to August—1992 labour force survey, is that there are 250,000 such people, not seasonally adjusted. This total comprises 189,000 people who were employees in their main job and self-employed in their second job, and 61,000 people who were self-employed in their main job and employees in their second job.

  Unemployment, Tottenham
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the relative position of Tottenham as regards unemployment levels; what assessment she has made of the extent of structural unemployment; and what consideration has been given to its designation as an assisted area.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Meaningful comparisons of unemployment between areas with different sized work forces can be based only on unemployment rates. However, official unemployment rate estimates are not available at the level of parliamentary constituencies.

  The criteria for designating assisted areas are published in the consultation paper "Regional Policy—Review of the Assisted Areas of Great Britain", which is available in the Library.
  604
  All areas are being considered in the assisted areas review, the results of which will he announced as early as possible taking account of the outcome of the coal review and after necessary clearance from the European Commission.

  Training Places
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her assessment of the impact on the providers of training places of her policy that training and enterprise councils and the Training, Enterprise arid Education Directorate should withhold 30 per cent. until job placement has been secured.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1993–94 the majority of TECs will receive between 25 and 40 per cent. of their training for work funding in the form of output-related payments for job placements and national vocational qulifications. Payment to providers is a matter for the TECs and they are not required to pass on to providers their funding arrangements with TEED.

  National Training Partnership Ltd.
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a further statement on the establishment of the National Training Partnership Ltd. and the scope of its intended operations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The National Training Partnership Ltd. is a non profit-making company, limited by guarantee, whose board of directors is made up of individuals drawn from TECs, national organisations and independent bodies such as the CBI. Its primary business function is to provide a central contracting service to national providers of training and TECs. The company is currently involved in contract negotiations and plans to become fully operational in April 1993.

  Women's Issues
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the decisions of the ministerial sub-committee on women's issues which have been made known to Parliament and the public since it began its work.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to her on 5 March 1993,Official Report, column 310.

  Clean Bake Ltd.
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she expects her Department to pay the outstanding start-up grant to Clean Bake Ltd. of Southport and Skelmersdale.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  Although the terms of the offer of regional selective assistance to Clean Bake Ltd. provided that the second and final payment would not fall due until 19 August 1993, the Department exceptionally agreed to the applicant's request to submit an earlier claim for payment. A claim was received on 4 March, but without the necessary supporting documentation. When this is received, the Department will proceed without delay to consider

  605
  whether the normal criteria for payment have been met. Grant is usually payable on a fully documented and eligible claim within 30 working days of receipt.

HEALTH

  Prescriptions
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of prescriptions written by doctors who are(a) fund holders and (b) non-fund holders.

  Net ingredient cost per head £

  Non-fund holders

  54·31

  Fund holders

  48·52

  Notes:

  1. NIC is the basic cost of drugs without the discount, VAT or container costs.

  2. This information is derived from data provided by the Prescription Pricing Authority.

  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of prescriptions written by family doctors per annum; and what is the average number of prescriptions written per patient, per annum by doctors who are members of a fund holding practice.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally. However, in 1991–92, the average number of prescription items dispensed per head was 8·6.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all medicines and treatments which are available on a prescription-only basis, whose cost price is lower than £4·25; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is contained in the drug tariff and the British National Formulary, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Family Perspective and Life Cycle
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which publication, speech or statement her Department has described how it takes account of the family perspective and the life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of her Department.

  Mr. Yeo
  The role of the family is discussed in a range of departmental publications, speeches and statements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health discussed the role of the family at length in the National Childrens Homes George Thomas Society lecture in 1992.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on how her Department takes account of the family perspective and the family life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of her Department.

  Mr. Yeo
  Family perspective and life cycle are considered in relation to a wide range of departmental 606
  activity, including: many aspects of the implementation of the Children Act 1989 and of care in the community policies; improving parental awareness of drug and alcohol abuse; grant aid for United Kingdom voluntary organisations providing help and support for families and children, and for the United Kingdom Association for the United Nations Year of the Family (scheduled for 1994) and support for family members in their role as carers. Statistics collected by the Department also reflect this emphasis, for example: statistics on local authority services to children identify family placements. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys also collects information on a variety of aspects of family life; for example: the General Household Survey, the Family Resources Survey, the Labour Force Survey and the census.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has finished its evaluation of the case for providing injection pens and special needles for availability on general practitioner prescription for diabetics; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We continue to consider the financial case for authorising general practitioners to prescribe insulin injection pens and needles for diabetics. Their inclusion in the GP prescribable list must, like other new additions to the list, be subject to the availability of resources.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of(a) conventional syringes and needles for the injection of insulin, (b) the cost of insulin, (c) the cost of insulin injection pen systems and (d) the cost of needles for injection pen systems; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Prescribable disposable syringes with needles cost £10·70 per 100. Disposable needles for use with syringes cost £2·20 per 100. A published cost is available for three makes of reusable pen injectors—£13·96, £18·40 and £23·86 each. The most commonly used pen needles cost £7·35 per 100, and retail at a recommended price of £9·80 per 100.

  Insulin costs vary according to type and presentation. Insulin in vials for use with disposable syringes costs £0·67-£0·95 per ml; in cartridges £1·03-£1·13 per ml, for reusable pens and £1·80 per ml if the pen is disposable.

  Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of ethnic minority and non-ethnic minority hospital doctors and general practitioners at the latest available date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Consultant to Patient Ratio
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the consultant to patient ratio in each EC country.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Data on the number of practising physicians per 1,000 of population for all countries in the EC are available from the Organisation for Economic
  607
  Co-operation and Development (OECD). This covers all qualified doctors. Data specifically about consultants are not available.

  The table gives the available information:

  Number

  United Kingdom

  1·4

  France

  2·6

  Germany

  2·9

  Belgium

  3·3

  Netherlands

  2·4

  Italy

  11·3

  Spain

  3·6

  Luxembourg

  1·9

  Portugal

  2·7

  Denmark

  2·7

  Greece

  3·2

  Ireland

  1·5

  11 Hospital doctors only.

  The OECD does not guarantee consistency of information between member states. The data are not directly comparable as training, career structure and nomenclature of medical staff and the organisational structure of health services vary greatly between the states.

  Data on consultant-to-patient ratios in other EC countries are not available.

  Estimated number of Dental Care Payments made—1991–92

  Number of patients registered 31 March 1992

  FHSA

  Adult items of service

  Child items of service

  Estimated adult continuing care payments1

  Estimated Child capitation payments1

  Total

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  Cleveland

  276,106

  56,430

  2,258,382

  901,384

  30,099,913

  229,213

  85,905

  315,118

  Cumbria

  269,702

  34,855

  2,041,609

  685,424

  25,610,943

  203,308

  62,898

  266,206

  Durham

  257,089

  42,430

  2,333,957

  757,440

  27,746,581

  232,595

  71,424

  304,019

  Northumberland

  138,489

  19,878

  1,086,726

  412,129

  14,063,106

  108,345

  38,025

  146,370

  Gateshead

  89,774

  10,972

  749,113

  252,810

  9,542,858

  77,014

  24,276

  101,290

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  128,077

  19,886

  1,034,862

  332,676

  14,064,309

  104,737

  31,108

  135,845

  North Tyneside

  96,218

  11,517

  790,857

  262,493

  10,038,337

  80,133

  24,774

  104,907

  South Tyneside

  61,698

  8,701

  560,095

  184,954

  7,189,026

  57,550

  18,342

  75,892

  Sunderland

  113,728

  18,732

  981,473

  339,021

  12,890,484

  102,240

  33,084

  135,324

  Humberside

  417,783

  63,663

  3,373,413

  1,231,311

  42,100,030

  336,053

  115,281

  451,334

  North Yorkshire

  428,967

  43,407

  3,326,025

  1,058,349

  40,958,062

  318,673

  96,343

  415,016

  Bradford

  248,150

  31,091

  1,909,005

  624,302

  25,195,211

  191,172

  58,626

  249,798

  Calderdale

  110,424

  12,472

  866,219

  293,513

  11,547,961

  86,477

  27,688

  114,165

  Kirklees

  186,937

  23,308

  1,577,981

  532,589

  19,623,282

  157,737

  50,240

  207,977

  Leeds

  418,067

  56,463

  3,170,625

  1,054,618

  42,534,112

  310,929

  97,022

  407,951

  Wakefield

  141,589

  25,468

  1,201,004

  434,597

  15,959,154

  120,963

  40,854

  161,817

  Derbyshire

  449,240

  60,145

  3,580,326

  1,271,166

  45,769,104

  355,251

  118,338

  473,589

  Leicestershire

  475,150

  62,972

  3,647,635

  1,301,579

  45,184,275

  358,302

  120,094

  478,396

  Lincolnshire

  317,209

  33,023

  2,518,570

  818,750

  28,509,819

  247,045

  75,120

  322,165

  Nottinghamshire

  540,624

  78,538

  4,226,314

  1,486,211

  53,391,108

  415,693

  137,392

  553,085

  Barnsley

  88,054

  15,138

  717,366

  283,327

  10,020,381

  75,612

  27,007

  102,619

  Doncaster

  135,019

  24,439

  1,102,516

  482,032

  15,180,650

  113,657

  45,761

  159,418

  Rotherham

  100,693

  20,893

  852,383

  355,771

  11,325,621

  84,774

  32,406

  117,180

  Sheffield

  284,390

  35,552

  2,222,692

  714,149

  28,691,154

  221,461

  65,798

  287,259

  Cambridgeshire

  366,111

  40,708

  2,720,922

  992,660

  34,237,413

  266,149

  90,802

  356,951

  Norfolk

  448,303

  43,045

  3,332,811

  1,266,549

  41,856,407

  330,179

  107,759

  437,938

  Suffolk

  420,708

  41,152

  3,064,745

  1,002,392

  37,526,389

  295,243

  90,759

  386,002

  Bedfordshire

  207,416

  23,906

  1,666,796

  542,290

  23,100,552

  176,270

  53,071

  229,341

  Hertfordshire

  506,844

  72,325

  3,957,412

  1,624,633

  58,573,425

  401,642

  150,469

  552,111

  Barnet

  96,257

  23,253

  762,598

  356,262

  12,482,808

  80,258

  34,109

  114,367

  Brent and Harrow

  181,557

  36,696

  1,567,166

  526,423

  24,605,059

  165,113

  51,074

  216,187

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  244,653

  32,413

  2,077,167

  609,433

  34,266,868

  227,086

  61,058

  288,144

  Hillingdon

  114,499

  12,349

  928,903

  266,512

  12,938,068

  94,322

  25,749

  120,071

  Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the number of nurses currently leaving nurse training schools who wish to serve in the national health service but find no post to go to; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities are responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient trained nurses to meet local requirements. With around 390,000 full-time nursing posts in the national health service in England, the matching of newly qualified nurses to vacancies is best handled at local level.

  The Department does not routinely collect information on nursing vacancies or newly qualified nurses seeking employment.

  Establishment and Finance Officer
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the qualifications by examination held by her Department's principal establishment and finance officer.

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

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by family health service authority in England(a) the number of dental care payments made and (b) the number of dental patients registered in 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is given in the table.
  609

  Estimated number of Dental Care Payments made—1991–92

  Number of patients registered 31 March 1992

  FHSA

  Adult items of service

  Child items of service

  Estimated adult continuing care payments1

  Estimated Child capitation payments1

  Total

  Adults

  Children

  Total

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  114,807

  9,951

  956,851

  179,584

  16,587,234

  107,346

  18,444

  125,790

  Essex

  665,284

  94,600

  5,493,058

  2,075,240

  75,868,173

  558,786

  194,210

  752,996

  Barking and Havering

  148,117

  21,165

  1,206,954

  430,768

  17,848,177

  124,950

  40,798

  165,748

  Camden and Islington

  156,825

  10,899

  1,315,667

  261,986

  20,682,080

  145,231

  26,215

  171,446

  City and East London

  183,535

  33,884

  1,581,032

  469,000

  27,472,337

  179,826

  48,786

  228,612

  Enfield and Haringey

  170,480

  26,448

  1,419,410

  541,371

  22,704,926

  152,969

  52,475

  205,444

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  169,164

  27,526

  1,446,632

  558,081

  22,401,958

  155,947

  53,720

  209,667

  East Sussex

  427,242

  38,553

  3,306,972

  965,719

  43,685,096

  323,717

  87,771

  411,488

  Kent

  744,547

  96,144

  5,669,905

  2,078,051

  78,323,687

  572,359

  192,728

  765,087

  Greenwich and Bexley

  186,316

  31,186

  1,446,118

  560,410

  22.033,639

  152,406

  54,562

  206,968

  Bromley

  96,731

  21,852

  735,069

  378,513

  11,673,322

  75,191

  33,537

  108,728

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  301,056

  27,720

  2,651,357

  657,559

  40,750,530

  281,425

  64,662

  346,087

  Surrey

  544,417

  63,117

  4,017,106

  1,510,572

  55,961,553

  400,541

  138,681

  539,222

  West Sussex

  447,295

  49,230

  3,207,955

  1,155,259

  42,863,962

  314,166

  106,065

  420,231

  Croydon

  157,121

  25,144

  1,222,438

  404,774

  19,644,355

  129,146

  38,632

  167.778

  Kingston and Richmond

  104,248

  22,342

  789,427

  391,963

  12,894,157

  83,482

  36,719

  120,201

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  234,286

  33,590

  2,007,443

  602,011

  30,599,781

  211,972

  57,587

  269,559

  Dorset

  460,225

  37,158

  3,267,024

  993,878

  40,680,508

  320,241

  91,996

  412,237

  Hampshire

  954,260

  83,816

  6,989,684

  2,333,108

  89,046,671

  682,960

  213,617

  896,577

  Wiltshire

  307,569

  30,133

  2,245,288

  843,223

  26,962,649

  220,085

  78,529

  298,614

  Isle of Wight

  85,685

  5,410

  573,108

  176,344

  7,436,472

  55,212

  15,734

  70,946

  Berkshire

  341,147

  45,759

  2,632,586

  1,098,626

  37,819,286

  270,228

  102,364

  372,592

  Buckinghamshire

  303,404

  37,000

  2,351,843

  1,042,737

  32,500,019

  236,777

  96,962

  333,739

  Northamptonshire

  279,654

  31,717

  2,184,967

  836,334

  27,496,376

  219.323

  77.577

  296,900

  Oxfordshire

  289,872

  32,031

  2,108,898

  859,875

  28,924,106

  211,650

  78,612

  290,262

  Avon

  613,002

  63,441

  4,449,310

  1,515,796

  55,764,637

  434,462

  137,747

  572,209

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  262,771

  26,810

  2,141,735

  710,372

  26,154,938

  212,731

  65,795

  278,526

  Devon

  633,749

  63,506

  4,992,863

  1,609,815

  61,507,050

  484,243

  146,954

  631,197

  Gloucestershire

  355,705

  31,500

  2,570,817

  844,853

  31,974,693

  252,190

  77,116

  329,306

  Somerset

  309,893

  31,371

  2,248,702

  765,079

  27,753,221

  219,739

  69,887

  289,626

  Hereford and Worcester

  391,128

  45,081

  2,866,073

  1,045,949

  35,538,641

  282,192

  95,511

  377,703

  Shropshire

  238,133

  28,656

  1,917,301

  665,386

  22,469,182

  186,335

  60,237

  246,572

  Staffordshire

  497,744

  68,789

  3,889,168

  1,528,116

  49,744,297

  389,920

  141,970

  531,890

  Warwickshire

  267,530

  24,484

  2,015,782

  711,697

  24,538,764

  198,392

  65,184

  263,576

  Birmingham

  482,213

  63,780

  3,928,422

  1,306,134

  52,730,969

  398,631

  125,006

  523,637

  Coventry

  140,645

  18,151

  1,324,696

  371,733

  17,196,550

  132,337

  34,920

  167,257

  Dudley

  156,316

  17,165

  1,190,534

  385,215

  15,818,598

  118,148

  35,606

  153,754

  Sandwell

  134,445

  13,748

  1,104,582

  308,395

  14,472,543

  112,445

  29,077

  141,522

  Solihull

  93,780

  11,775

  701,674

  263,202

  10,091,105

  70,498

  24,650

  95,148

  Walsall

  102,427

  16,409

  820,475

  324,391

  12,150,240

  85,171

  31,158

  116,329

  Wolverhampton

  122,738

  10,504

  938,021

  245,373

  11,282,021

  94,906

  23,180

  118,086

  Cheshire

  537,862

  72,366

  4,205,310

  1,497,414

  53,686,156

  417,884

  139,018

  556,902

  Liverpool

  208,059

  44,389

  1,764,607

  625,556

  26,137,149

  182,790

  60,559

  243,349

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  139,561

  25,899

  1,257,667

  477,320

  17,197,682

  129,536

  45,788

  175,324

  Sefton

  158,045

  19,688

  1,241,704

  463,012

  16,568,357

  124,666

  42,762

  167,428

  Wirral

  178,510

  24,651

  1,457,665

  490,610

  18.705,649

  146,531

  45,925

  192,456

  Lancashire

  698,124

  103,440

  5,604,512

  2,099,337

  75,273,474

  561,565

  195,598

  757,163

  Bolton

  134,227

  18,262

  1,018,596

  399,893

  13,334,049

  99,666

  36,965

  136,631

  Bury

  93,211

  12,913

  713,442

  270,684

  10,123,593

  70,222

  24,780

  95,002

  Manchester

  219,681

  34,076

  1,839,908

  644,362

  29,049,017

  189,924

  59,812

  249,736

  Oldham

  103,779

  18,206

  800,495

  355,464

  11,860,279

  80,770

  33,239

  114,009

  Rochdale

  91,643

  14,046

  797,740

  314,615

  10,427,777

  79,537

  29,747

  109,284

  Salford

  105,766

  18,273

  900,558

  437,441

  13,602,036

  91,388

  36,552

  127,940

  Stockport

  191,586

  22,109

  1,448,489

  508,009

  18,163,896

  138,210

  45,379

  183,589

  Tameside

  101,041

  19,443

  802,127

  341,879

  11,586,466

  81,554

  32,454

  114,008

  Trafford

  137,064

  17,783

  1,099,798

  395,080

  14,359,559

  107,268

  36,417

  143,685

  Wigan

  139,909

  25,906

  1,207,737

  501,392

  16,368,778

  121,056

  46,553

  167,609

  ENGLAND

  24,273,099

  3,098,815

  190,314,970

  67,086,309

  2,545,314,894

  19,106,039

  6,239,185

  25,345,224

  1 Continuing care and capitation payments are paid monthly. This means that each dentist receives 12 such payments per year per patient registered.

  610

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statement by the Home Secretary of 2 March,Official Report, columns 139–42, if she will list the measures to be taken within her Department in relation to secure accommodation, care and control.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are proposing to implement a range of measures to strengthen existing policies. These will include:

  issuing guidance on measures of control in secure and other forms of children's residential accommodation;

  ensuring that social services departments, working with others, take a consistent approach towards the control of juvenile offenders;

  reinforcing the social services inspectorate's role in upholding rigorous standards in all forms of secure accommodation, including the new secure training centres;

  amending regulations to enable private and voluntary providers to provide secure accommodation;

  charging the Central Council for the Education and Training of Social Workers with ensuring that issues of control and standards of supervision of offenders are properly addressed in the training of social workers.

  We will implement our commitment that local authorities provide an additional 60 to 65 secure places by 1995–96 for juvenile remands.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library copies of the correspondence between her Department and the city of Newcastle upon Tyne director of social services about the provision of additional local authority secure unit accommodation.

  Mr. Yeo
  There has been no such correspondence.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the numbers and occupancy rate of local authority secure unit places in each region over the last five years; how many children were in such accommodation each year; and what was the cause of their admission.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information held centrally about local authority secure units is published in "Children accommodated in secure units during the year ending 31 March 1991, England". The information published includes numbers accommodated in each secure unit at 31 March in total and by the legal status on admission, the number of places at 31 March in each unit and occupancy levels. The number of children accommodated in each former social services inspectorate region is also published.

  Information is not collected about the circumstances of admission, other than the legal status.

  Copies of the publication are held in the Library.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what purposes a hospital transferred to an NHS trust continues to be treated as Crown property.

  Mr. Sackville
  A hospital transferred to a national health service trust continues to be treated in the same way as Crown property in respect of developments notified to the local planning authority before 1 April 1991 whilst the trust has an interest in them; in respect of any building work approved before 1 April 1991 until such time as the work is completed; and in respect of tenancies entered into before 1 April 1991 in which the trust is landlord and 612
  which would otherwise be assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988 or protected tenancies under the Rent Act 1977. NHS trusts are exempt from the need to carry insurance under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (equivalent arrangements under NHS (Injury Benefit) Regulations 1974 cover NHS staff); from the need for motor vehicle taxation under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971; from the need to effect third party insurance for ambulances under the Road Traffic Act 1988; from most taxation in line with the arrangements for other public bodies, and there are exemptions in certain circumstances in relation to licences under the Medicines Act 1968. In respect of section 48 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, NHS trusts are deemed to be Crown bodies in relation to material communicated to the Crown for a particular purpose in the course of public business, and thereby are entitled to copy and issue copies of the material to the public for that purpose without infringing copyright therein.

  GP Patients
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by family health service authority in England, the number of patients registered with general medical practitioners in 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested at 1 October 1991 is shown in the table.

  Numbers

  Avon

  996,744

  Barking and Havering

  386,641

  Barnet

  365,675

  Barnsley

  229,821

  Bedfordshire

  568,123

  Berkshire

  788,771

  Birmingham

  1,066,156

  Bolton

  268,742

  Bradford

  495,476

  Brent and Harrow

  588,944

  Bromley

  307,557

  Buckinghamshire

  662,534

  Bury

  186,179

  Calderdale

  197,575

  Cambridgeshire

  661,842

  Camden and Islington

  451,537

  Cheshire

  975,865

  City and East London

  690,802

  Cleveland

  573,720

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  478,820

  Coventry

  330,840

  Croydon

  335,033

  Cumbria

  496,765

  Derbyshire

  970,100

  Devon

  1,040,918

  Doncaster

  300,464

  Dorset

  658,142

  Dudley

  315,298

  Durham

  600,626

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  821,049

  East Sussex

  744,022

  Enfield and Haringey

  573,930

  Essex

  1,578,918

  Gateshead

  212,408

  Gloucestershire

  537,955

  Greenwich and Bexley

  439,871

  Hampshire

  1,588,935

  Hereford and Worcester

  678,320

  Hertfordshire

  1,050,750

  Hillingdon

  244,967

  Humberside

  883,672

  Isle of Wight

  128,281

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  422,713

  613

  Numbers

  Kent

  1,559,873

  Kingston and Richmond

  329,576

  Kirklees

  366,653

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  851,622

  Lancashire

  1,427,797

  Leeds

  730,806

  Leicestershire

  914,793

  Lincolnshire

  595,419

  Liverpool

  503,204

  Manchester

  499,955

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  677,591

  Newcastle

  293,550

  Norfolk

  744,796

  Northamptonshire

  589,843

  North Tyneside

  193,148

  Northumberland

  305,017

  North Yorkshire

  719,661

  Nottinghamshire

  1,013,546

  Oldham

  199,256

  Oxfordshire

  584,002

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  476,785

  Rochdale

  205,954

  Rotherham

  246,799

  Salford

  244,249

  Sandwell

  318,230

  Sefton

  292,127

  Sheffield

  528,948

  Shropshire

  401,245

  Solihull

  222,639

  Somerset

  474,313

  South Tyneside

  160,807

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  363,875

  Staffordshire

  1,018,355

  Stockport

  296,313

  Suffolk

  640,394

  Sunderland

  294,236

  Surrey

  1,073,544

  Tameside

  218,044

  Trafford

  220,118

  Wakefield

  331,452

  Walsall

  260,976

  Warwickshire

  500,556

  West Sussex

  741,841

  Wigan

  307,621

  Wiltshire

  551,339

  Wirral

  343,470

  Wolverhampton

  256,827

  NHS Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider setting up arrangements whereby NHS employees transferred to non-NHS employers under planned schemes involving the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 can continue in membership of the NHS superannuation scheme.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. The national health service pension scheme is intended only for those people who are directly employed by NHS employing authorities.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that the present range of oral contraceptives will continue to be available to women free of charge under the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have asked the advisory committee on national health service drugs to ensure that 614
  contraceptives to meet all real clinical needs will continue to be available free of charge on NHS prescription. There is no change in policy on family planning and we remain committed to the aim that the full range of NHS family planning services, however provided, should be appropriate, accessible and comprehensive.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of direct employees of each regional health authority; and what estimate she has made of the effect on staff requirements of the proposed reorganisation of the regional health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 4 March at column 221 about the numbers of regional health authorities' employees.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in her speech to the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts (NAHAT) on 23 February that there would be a rigorous review of the manpower and functions of the intermediate tier; with the view that regions should typically employ a maximum of 200 people against the current average of 560.

  Local Authority Homes
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require local authority homes caring for the aged to meet the same registration standards as those met by the voluntary and private sector.

  Mr. Yeo
  All residential care homes, including those run by local authorities, are inspected regularly by reference to common inspection standards and criteria. We expect authorities to act on inspection reports which identify shortcomings in their own care homes.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to ensure that women users of mental health services have the choice of a woman worker.

  Mr. Yeo
  The "Health of the Nation" key area handbook on mental illness published in January advises purchasers that when considering local needs they should take into account women's particular concerns. This may include the choice of a female professional including a female key worker.

  Music Therapy
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time music therapists are currently employed in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The number of full-time music therapists in England at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which information is available centrally, is 40 (rounded to the nearest ten whole number). Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Deployment of staff, including the number employed is a matter for trusts and directly managed units.
  615
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local authorities use music therapy as a way of treating autistic children; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held centrally. The Department is currently funding Professor Newson of Nottingham university to undertake an evaluation and comparative study of current interventions for children with autism.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the NHS management executive's report "Care for the Community in the 21st Century".

  Mr. Yeo
  The document referred to is not a national health service management executive document but a discussion paper which represents the output from a "learning set" of professionals drawn from the NHS and from local government and does not represent Government policy, nor the official view of any of the organisations who employ the members of the group.

  The establishment of the set was supported through the resource management unit of the NHS management executive to enable an exchange of views between experienced senior people from different backgrounds but with a common interest in community and priority care services on a topic of their choice.

  The "learning set" decided to distribute their piece of work widely within health organisations as a contribution to the debate on the future of community and priority care services, as one might with a piece of academic research. In the same spirit arrangements were made for distribution to Health Select Committee members and for copies to be available in the Library.

  Medical Advisers
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical advisers employed by family health services authorities have had their performance assessed; and how many were deemed effective on the criterion laid down to assess their performance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally. All family health service authorities (FHSAs) are expected to have medical advisers. Individual FHSAs are responsible for salary costs of medical advisers and for setting in train any procedures for monitoring their effectiveness.

  Guy's and Lewisham Trust
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish the report of the inquiry into allegations about patient deaths at Guy's and Lewisham NHS trust; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The report was commissioned by the Guy's and Lewisham NHS trust and publication is a matter for it.

  Hospital Charges
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce a system of(a) billing or (b) charging patients for any elements of their stay in NHS hospitals; and if she will make a statement.
  616
  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such plans.

  Children's Homes, Islington
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports she has received concerning the operation of children's homes in Islington; what proposals are being made for future changes; and what aspects she has asked the social services inspectorate to examine.

  Mr. Yeo
  An interim report by the independent inquiry into allegations of mismanagement in Islington's children's homes has been received by the Department. The inquiry team is being strengthened by the addition of a former director of social services. The inquiry will complete its investigation into the management and practice of the children's homes, the management of child care cases by the Islington neighbourhood services department and a range of associated personnel matters. The social services inspectorate will also conduct a full inspection of the children's homes service shortly.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints she has received about children in care in England in the past year; and on how many occasions she has ordered a social services inspectorate inquiry.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received a number of representations, some contain complaints but others seek advice or express opinions. The social services inspectorate does not undertake "inquiries" as such. However, on the instructions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State it has undertaken an inspection of children's homes in Southwark and inspections will be carried out in Lambeth and Islington in the near future.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further research is planned on the causes of child asthma and bronchial conditions and its relationship to air pollution; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology. As stated in my reply on 8 June, 1992, the MRC is sponsoring some research into factors contributing to the rise of asthma and has set up a working party to examine the aetiology of asthma under the chairmanship of Professor A. J. Newman Taylor. It is considering a range of possible contributory factors to current levels of asthma, including air pollution. The Department is represented on the working party and on the MRC committee on toxic hazards in the workplace and the environment, both of which will consider areas of need for further research.

  In addition, the committee on the medical effects of air pollutants (COMEAP) which was established by the Chief Medical Officer last year has set up a sub-group on asthma which will make recommendations on research relating to asthma and air pollution.

  Whittington Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the deficit of the Whittington hospital for 1991–92; what is the projected deficit for 1992–93; and how this will be paid.

  Mr. Sackville
  The balance on the audited income and expenditure account of the Whittington hospital for 1991–92 showed a breakeven operating position. This was after a temporary increase of £600,000 in the cash limit from the regional health authority (RHA) under the brokerage arrangements operated by them.

  The projected unaudited net income and expenditure deficit for 1992–93 is presently £70,000 after regional support. The RHA is currently in discussion with the hospital to identify ways in which the deficit can be covered.

  Primary and Community Care
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications for grant for the commissioning of primary and community care under the new purchasing arrangements for general practitioner fund holders have been made(a) nationally and (b) in Stockport; how much each individual application has been for; and which applications have been granted.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: General practitioner fund holders do not apply for grants for primary and community care.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what areas of food production within the United Kingdom currently fall(a) within and (b) outside of arrangments made under the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Curry
  Within the United Kingdom, all primary food production falls within the common agricultural policy with the exception of potatoes and honey. A Commission proposal to bring potatoes within the CAP is currently under discussion.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  89,014·54

  11992–93

  53,884·91

  1 To 31 January.

  Bananas
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Kingdom's618
  traditional suppliers in the Commonwealth Caribbean on the agreement in the Agriculture Council on the Community arrangements for bananas.

  Mr. Curry
  The Agriculture Council agreed, at its meeting in February, a regulation setting up harmonised arrangements for the Community banana market. The negotiations were long and difficult but the final text of the regulation reflects the agreement reached at the December Council on the basis of a United Kingdom presidency compromise.

  The new arrangements needed to satisfy a number of objectives: completion of the single market in bananas, compatibility with GATT, the needs of consumers and the Community's legal and moral obligations to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries under the Lomé convention. Until now, those obligations have been met by the United Kingdom and a small number of member states and we were careful, during the negotiations, not to lose sight of the crucial importance of the banana industry to our traditional suppliers in the Commonwealth Caribbean. The common organisation of the EC banana market which will now be introduced will share the burden of the Lomé obligations among all 12 member states. The agreement will ensure that banana producers in the Caribbean can maintain a viable industry and it has been widely welcomed by them.

  Ministers' Homes
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent from public funds on approved work on Ministers' private residences arising from their ministerial duties other than in respect of security.

  Mr. Gummer
  None, but I refer the hon. Member to the Second Report of the Committee on Members' Interests —HC 469, Session 1992–93.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds in Walthamstow are in receipt of benefits; and what percentage this is of the age group.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Family Perspective and Life Cycle
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in which publication, speech or statement his Department has described how it takes account of the family perspective and the life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of his Department;

  (2) if he will make a statement on how his Department takes account of the family perspective and the family life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of his Department.

  Mr. Burt
  A substantial proportion of the activities of the Department of Social Security is aimed at supporting
  619
  families, through the benefit system and through the proposed child support arrangements. Numerous speeches and statements have set out the Department's views on the family perspective and the needs of families featured prominently in the deliberations leading up to the 1988 social security reforms, as well as the 1990 White Paper "Children Come First".

  The structure of the benefit system now provides two clear and distinct paths for the provision of help to families with the cost of bringing up children. The first is to provide help for families generally, while the second is to provide extra help for low-income families, both in and out of work.

  Child benefit is designed to meet the needs of families generally and the Government remain committed to the principle of giving financial support to those who bear the extra responsibility of bringing up children.

  The introduction of income support to replace supplementary benefit enabled us to tackle many of the deficiencies and complexities of the old system. Through the system of personal allowances and premiums reflecting the needs of particular client groups, such as the family premium for families with children, we are now able to direct help specifically towards low-income families not in work.

  The cornerstone of our approach to help low-income working families is family credit. This now provides a tax-free weekly cash payment to boost the incomes of almost 450,000 working families, payable in nearly every case to the mother. Family credit is designed to:

  (i) provide extra support to these families in accordance with their needs and ensure as far as possible that they are better off in work;

  (ii) ensure that those who are able to work harder or for longer hours do not lose all or more of the extra money earned because of the withdrawal of income related benefits.

  In our manifesto we promised:
  "We will set up a new Family Credit telephone advice service to support working families".

  The new family credit helpline will be set up from April 1993 to help potential, as well as existing customers.

  Families both in and out of work qualify for housing benefit and for community charge benefit, to be replaced next month by the council tax benefit. Both benefits, like income support, feature a family premium and a structure of allowances to take account of family needs.

  There is a need for social policy to reinforce and encourage parents' acceptance of their responsibility for providing for their children. Our new Child Support Agency, to be launched on 5 April, will take over the task of assessing, collecting and enforcing payments of child maintenance. By setting up a purpose-built agency charged with all aspects of maintenance, rather than the current fragmented system, we expect to see big gains in the extent to which absent parents contribute towards the support of their children. The new system should also bring greater predictability and regularity in the payment of maintenance—so that maintenance will contribute to creating a stable basis of income on which parents caring for children can build.

  The Department also commissions research to analyse the situation of single people and families receiving benefit of various stages of life. All benefit statistics give a breakdown of the numbers and characteristics of the people receiving them. The departmental report—
  620
  Cm 2213, February 1993—provides an analysis of social security expenditure and includes a bibliography; a copy is in the Library.

  Fire, Banbury Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claimants' records were destroyed in the fire at his Department's office in Banbury, Oxfordshire; and if he will make a statement as to the probable cause of the fire;

  (2) what action he is taking to see that claimants whose records were destroyed in the fire at his Department's office in Banbury, Oxfordshire, do not suffer undue delay in having their claims processed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  There was no fire at the Department's premises in Banbury—media reports were misleading. It is understood that the fire in question was at the local authority social services office in Banbury.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by year for the last five years(a) the number of persons employed by grade and (b) the annual cost of (i) the disablement benefit section, (ii) the contributory benefits (appeals) section, (iii) the social fund section, (iv) the income support (appeals) section, (v) the income support section, to cover all aspects of income support including housing benefit, (vi) the section dealing with income support for persons aged 16 and 17 years, (vii) the section dealing with direct payments to third parties in respect of fuel costs etc., (viii) the Child Support Agency, (ix) the Contributions Agency section, (x) the fraud and special investigations section and (xi) the reception area of his Department's offices in Castle house, Doncaster.

  Mr. Burt
  Figures are available only for 1991–92 and 1992–93 since the Benefits Agency was formed except for details from the Contributions Agency where 1990–91 information is held.

  Such information as is available is tabled.

  Staffing and costs of Doncaster district office Department of Social Security 1991–92

  Benefit

  LO1

  Grades LO2

  AA

  Cost £

  Disablement

  1

  3

  0·5

  53,000

  Contributions (Appeals)

  1

  0

  0

  15,000

  Social Fund

  12

  9

  5

  327,000

  Income Support (Appeals)

  1·5

  0

  0

  23,000

  Income Support Section

  4·5

  18

  6

  322,000

  Income Support 16–17 year olds

  0·5

  0

  0

  8,000

  Direct Payments

  1

  2·5

  0

  43,000

  Child Support Unit

  5

  3

  0

  110,000

  Contributions Agency

  3

  2·5

  0

  74,000

  (90–91 details available)

  3

  3

  1

  88,000

  Fraud and Special Investigation

  4

  1

  1

  81,000

  Reception

  1

  7·5

  0

  99,000

  Note: All salary costs at 1991–92 rates.
  621

  Staffing and costs of Doncaster district office Department of Social Security –93

  Benefit

  LO1

  Grades LO2

  AA

  Cost £

  Disablement

  1

  3

  0·5

  54,000

  Contributions (Appeals)

  1

  0

  0

  16,000

  Social Fund

  10

  12

  5

  331,000

  Income Support (Appeals)

  1·5

  0

  0

  24,000

  Income Support Section

  5·5

  20·5

  6·5

  369,000

  Income Support 16–17 year olds

  0·5

  0

  0

  8,000

  Direct Payments

  1

  6

  1

  91,801

  Child Support Unit

  4

  3

  0

  97,382

  Contributions Agency

  3

  2·6

  0

  77,000

  Fraud and Special Investigation

  4

  1

  1

  82,000

  Reception

  1

  9·5

  0

  125,000

  Note: All salary costs at 1992–93 rates.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will abolish the regulation by which unemployment benefit is reduced by 10p for every 10p over £35 received in occupational pension for those aged 55 years.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the conditions in which persons over the age of 55 years lose unemployment benefit arising from interaction with pension entitlement.

  Mr. Burt
  Unemployment benefit is reduced by 10p for every 10p by which an occupational or personal pension payable to a claimant aged 55 years or over exceeds £35 a week.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he intends to review the benefit rules as set out in NI 230 in so far as they discriminate against persons aged over 55 years; how many persons are in receipt of a reduced level of unemployment benefit arising out of the rules; and what is the reason for the different treatment of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit arising out of the rules.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to revise these rules.

  The number of people whose entitlement to unemployment benefit is reduced or extinguished due to the receipt of an occupational or personal pension is 26,400.

  The abatement rules are in line with the Government's policy to target help to those in greatest need, particularly those who do not have the support which an occupational or personal pension provides. The reduction of the age threshold from 60 to 55 years was made to reflect changing patterns of retirement. Since the introduction of the original rule, increasing numbers of people have been retiring before the age of 60 with an occupational or personal pension.

  Source: Half Yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants, May 1992.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people lose all their entitlement to unemployment benefit because of an occupational pension; and are such people still counted on the official register of number of unemployed;
  622
  (2) how many people lose some amount of unemployment benefit because of receipt of an occupational pension.

  Mr. Burt
  The number of people who lose some amount of unemployment benefit because of receipt of an occupational or personal pension is 26,400. In 9,200 of these cases entitlement to unemployment benefit is extinguished.

  Source: Half Yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants: May 1992.

  People whose entitlement to unemployment benefit is extinguished due to the receipt of an occupational or personal pension may continue to register unemployed for the purpose of obtaining national insurance credits. Those who do so will be included in the unemployment statistics. No figures are held for people who decide not to pursue a claim for credits and they could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will raise the age at which receipt of occupational pension affects unemployment benefit from 55 to 60 years of age.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so.

  Income Support
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, columns 201–2, if he will (a) make it his policy to end the arrangements on the deprivation of capital for benefit purposes and (b) place in the Library of the House a copy of the adjudication officers' guide; and when benefits agency officers were last reminded of the provision of existing legislation and guidance on this matter.

  Mr. Burt
  There are no plans to change the present rules. Copies of the adjudication officers guide have been in the Library for some time. I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the most recent reminder to agency staff was issued in January 1993.

ENVIRONMENT

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has, following the United Kingdom's commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emission levels in 2000 to the level in 1990 for the emission levels beyond 2000.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Nations framework convention on climate change contains provision for further commitments to be agreed for limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the period beyond 2000. The commitments in the convention must be reviewed at the first meeting of the convention's conference of parties, again not later than the end of 1998, and periodically thereafter.

  For the present, the Government have no specific objectives for emissions beyond 2000. However measures taken as part of the programme to limit emissions by 2000 are likely to have a continuing effect on emissions thereafter. And, given that there is likely to be a continuing*************************************

  623
  need to restrain emissions, the Government are looking at the options for containing emissions in the longer term and are carrying out research where necessary. Interim advice has already been given to local planning authorities on how land use planning might influence the need to travel and choice of travel mode, and hence affect CO2 emissions from transport in the longer term.

  Packaging Directive
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to secure amendments to the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste in order to(a) set targets for reducing the overall amount of packaging used and (b) introduce measures to increase the use of refillable containers.

  Mr. Maclean
  We believe that limiting the amount of packaging to be produced in the Community would be an unacceptable constraint on economic growth. Such a limit would be very difficult to enforce and is not necessary to achieve the environmental objective of reducing the amount of packaging waste going to final disposal. We believe the approach proposed by the Commission of setting targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste is more appropriate. We will explore in negotiation whether those targets can reflect the contribution made by refillable containers without creating barriers to trade or competition.

  Catalytic Converters
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the projected decrease in emissions of nitrogen dioxide resulting from the introduction of catalytic converters takes into account the effects of cold starts and short journeys within urban areas; and what are the implications of these factors for future urban air quality.

  Mr. Maclean
  Projections of emissions of oxides of nitrogen published by Warren Spring Laboratory take account both of the introduction of catalytic converters on cars and of the fact that these do not control emissions effectively until the engine has warmed up. The introduction of catalytic converters is expected to result in a decline both in emissions of oxides of nitrogen and in average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide. However, peak wintertime concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in urban areas will be less affected because of the preponderance of short car journeys and of low ambient temperatures in winter.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the publicity budget of the Energy Efficiency Office(a) for 1986–87 and (b) for 1992–93, expressed in constant money terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Energy Efficiency Office's publicity outturn in 1986–87 was some £18 million in 1992 prices, and the estimated outturn for 1992–93 is £8 million. The higher level of expenditure on publicity in 1986–87 reflects the short-term "Monergy" campaign undertaken at that time to raise general awareness of the economic benefits of energy efficiency. The EEO continues to run general 624
  publicity campaigns such as "Helping the Earth Begins at Home", but in addition is now giving greater emphasis to helping specific groups of consumers make energy efficiency improvements by providing them with advice and information.

  Noise Abatement Zones
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action he now proposes to take arising from the Building Research Establishment's report on noise abatement zones; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received on noise abatement zones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is currently considering the findings of a review of noise abatement zones in England and Wales 1976–1992. We will announce our conclusions in due course. We have received no representations on noise abatement zones, other than from the hon. Member.

  Pollution
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public complaints, broken down by region and by county, have been received in each of the last four years by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and if he will provide the same information identified for each installation complained about.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information can be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. However, the figures for public complaints against processes are included in the HMIP annual report which is placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Landfill Sites
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many landfill sites in the United Kingdom have gas control plant with flarestacks; how many of these have licence conditions incorporating the recommendations for combustion temperature contained in waste management paper 27; and what action has been taken against site operators who do not maintain flarestacks to a satisfactory standard.

  Mr. Maclean
  Waste disposal licensing is the responsibility of the waste regulation authorities and these authorities maintain public records of licensed activities in their areas. The information is not held centrally.

  In considering applications for licences, suitable conditions are set by authorities to ensure that operations do not lead to pollution or danger to public health. Conditions are set on a site specific basis taking account of the guidance given by the Department in waste management papers. Waste management paper 27 explains that all landfill sites should be considered as having the potential to generate landfill gas and all should be monitored for gas evolution and migration. Sites should, where necessary, have control systems installed to prevent uncontrolled gas migration.

  Authorities have a duty to monitor activities at licensed sites. They are able to revoke licences if licence holders fail to comply with the conditions attached to the licence and take appropriate remedial action if a hazard arises.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the levels of radioactive discharges into(a) the sewerage system and (b) rivers, in the United Kingdom, for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Discharges of radioactive waste to the public sewerage system and to watercourses are strictly regulated by means of authorisations issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP. Authorisations are issued only after a careful radiological assessment and impose strict conditions and maximum activity limits which ensure proper protection from such disposals for all members of the public, including sewer workers. Discharges in excess of the set limits would be an offence and could render an operator liable to prosecution.

  Results of a research study conducted on behalf of HMIP by the National Radiological Protection Board into the exposure of sewer workers associated with radioactive discarges from hospitals was published in June 1991. It found that doses of radiation to those sewer workers with long exposure near to hospital discharge points are approximately 100th that of natural back-ground levels.

  Further research conducted on behalf of HMIP by St Bartholomew's medical college into the levels of Iodine 125 in drinking water show that actual radiation exposure to the public is less than 100th that of natural background levels. I-125 is a principal component of discharges from hospitals. Both these reports (DOE/HMIP/RR/91/030 and 031) are in the Library of the House. The studies form part of an HMIP-commissioned programme of research into the environmental behaviour of radionuclides.

  A programme for monitoring radioactivity in public water supplies in England and Wales has operated for many years. Results from this programme are published in the Department's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" a copy of which is in the Library. Selective monitoring of private water supplies is also undertaken under contract to this Department.

  Contracting Out
  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 his 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. Howard
  None of the projects in my Department's market-testing programme which involves exposing in-house functions to competition has yet reached the stage where a contract or service level agreement has been awarded. In-house bids are being encouraged in every case.

  Housing Subsidy
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the formula for arriving at the housing element allowed to local authorities under the housing subsidy application; and if he will make a statement.
  626
  Mr. Baldry
  My Department publishes, annually, two general determinations setting out how each local housing authority's entitlement to housing revenue account subsidy for the forthcoming financial year shall be calculated. These determinations are placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The most recent determinations were published on 17 December 1992 in respect of the financial year starting on 1 April 1993.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the rate of inflation included in the housing element of the housing subsidy(a) nationally and (b) for Wakefield district council.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our policy is to target housing revenue account subsidy according to the relative needs of each authority. This is done by targeting the two main components of the housing element of the subsidy calculation, guidelines rents and management and maintenance allowances, according to the relative value and characteristics retrospectively of each authority's stock. For 1993–94, we are increasing guideline rents nationally by 7.75 per cent.—5 per cent. above the underlying rate of general inflation—compared with a 7·1 per cent. increase for Wakefield district council. Management and maintenance allowances are to be increased by 3·75 per cent. overall but Wakefield district council's allowance will be increased by only 1·25 per cent. because the council's existing allowance is already very close to our assessment of the council's relative need to spend.

  House Conditions Survey
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the reasons for the delay in publishing the English house conditions survey.

  Sir George Young
  There is no delay. The data are being analysed now and the results will be published as soon as they are available.

  Housing Association Lettings
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total of new lettings made by housing associations in England for each year since 1979; and what proportion of new lettings were made to tenants receiving housing benefits.

  Sir George Young
  Information on the number of housing association lettings in England is available from 1988–89, and information on lettings to tenants qualifying for housing benefit from 1990–91. The information is as follows:

  New lettings1 made by housing associations (England)

  Number

  1988–89

  56,800

  1989–90

  60,400

  1990–91

  62,600

  1991–92

  70,500

  Source: Housing Corporation HAR10/1 returns.

  1 Excludes transfers within an association and accommodation in almshouses and Abbeyfields.

  627

  Proportion of new lettings1 to tenants qualifying for housing benefit (England)

  Per cent

  1990–91

  56

  1991–92

  64

  Source: National Federation of Housing Associations "CORE" database.

  1 Excludes transfers within an association and accommodation in almshouses and Abbeyfields.

  Leighton Hospital Incinerator
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the timetable for the construction of additional road facilities to accommodate waste transport to the proposed waste incinerator at Leighton hospital in Crewe.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter for Cheshire county council.

  Hazardous Substances
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 and the 1992 regulations made under it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This legislation came into force in June 1992. My Department has been closely monitoring the operation of the new controls since then and will continue to do so. We will shortly be asking local authorities to provide detailed information about all applications for hazardous substances consent received up to 31 March this year.

  Service Pesonnel (Housing)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authority associations concerning the housing needs of personnel leaving the services; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Advice to local authorities about housing for people leaving the services is given in Department of the Environment circular 54/75 "Housing for Ex-Servicemen and Ex-Service Women". Much of that guidance remains relevant, but the circular needs updating to reflect, for example, the third—1991—edition of the homelessness code of guidance, Ministry of Defence housing innitiatives announced in 1992, and the increasing role of housing associations in the provision of social housing. We will consult the local authority associations and other interested parties on the draft text of a replacement circular shortly.

  Northumbria Water Laboratory
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will intervene to halt the transfer of the Northumbria River Authority laboratory from Washington to Leeds.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a management matter for the National Rivers Authority.

  Satellite Dishes
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the planning laws concerning the number of satellite dishes allowed on blocks of flats without planning permission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Revised planning rules affecting satellite TV dishes on flats came into force in July 1991, following a review. When the 1991 rules were introduced, the Minister for Housing and Planning made clear that they would be considered again should the Independent Television Commission license another significant direct broadcasting by satellite provider or should another major satellite service emerge that cannot be received by means of an Astra aerial.

  Housing Association Grant
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations which have made representations to him concerning the effect of reduced housing association grant rates on rent levels for housing association tenants; and if he will give the proportion of these organisations which expressed concern about increased rent levels.

  Sir George Young
  Ministers receive representations throughout the year on rates of housing association grant and rent levels, and on the relationship between the two. There is no analysis available of which bodies have made what type of representation, but the organisations which have expressed views on this subject include the National Federation of Housing Associations and other national bodies, as well as individual housing associations and local bodies.

  Council Homes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the first-year revenue cost in England of providing a two-bedroomed council home for rent

  Sir George Young
  The majority of new house building for rent is undertaken by housing associations and consequently the information requested by the hon. Member is not collected by my Department.

  National Parks
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the future funding and organisation of the national parks.

  Mr. Maclean
  Our policy statement on the national parks, published in January 1992, promised legislation to create independent authorities for the eight national parks in England and Wales currently run as county council committees. I fully recognise the importance of introducing national park legislation at the earliest opportunity and I have repeatedly said that we will do so. We cannot commit ourselves to a specific level of resources for the parks, but I believe that our record of funding should give confidence that the new authorities will be able to discharge their various responsibilities.

  Dumplington Development
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 189, on the proposed development at Dumplington, when he now proposes to announce his decision to the House.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's decision to grant planning permission for the development of a sub-regional shopping centre at Dumplington, was issued on Thursday, 4 March.

  "Helping the Earth Begins at Home"
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many telephone complaints have been received about the "Helping the Earth Begins at Home" campaign.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since the "Helping the Earth Begins at Home" campaign began in November 1991, one telephone complaint has been received by my Department.

  Homeless People (Deaths)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homeless people have been found dead on the streets of London in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in 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 1984.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Monday 8 March,Official Report, column 412.

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

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Statutory notices under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 were served on 35 local authorities between July and September of last year in respect of financial failure in 1990–91. I announced on 2 December 1992,Official Report, column 209 and 4 March, Official Report, column 265 decisions in respect of 26 authorities. The Secretary of State has now considered the responses of a further nine authorities on whom notices were served on 11 September 1992.

  He has decided to take no further action in respect of financial failure in 1990–91 by Boston borough council —highways and sewerage: Carlisle city council—new construction in excess of £50,000 and highways and sewerage; Chorley borough council—highways and sewerage; Gosport borough council—building maintenance; London borough of Newham—new construction of less than £50,000 and building maintenance; Newcastle
  630
  upon Tyne city council—building maintenance; Southend on Sea borough council—highways and sewerage; and London borough of Southwark—building maintenance.

  In all these cases the authority:

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

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

  Derelict Land Survey
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the next derelict land survey in England to be carried out.

  Mr. Redwood
  The next derelict land survey is being undertaken this year, with a base date of 1 April. The survey forms were sent out to the local authorities in England in February and I hope that they will all be able to take part. The previous survey was in 1988 and now we need more up-to-date information to enable the Department to allocate grant for land reclamation and to provide a starting point for the urban regeneration agency's work. The survey is being managed for the Department by the consultants, Arup Economics and Planning, and the results of the survey should be published in the summer of 1994.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average emission of lighting above horizontal, as a proportion of output in(a) trunk road lighting and (b) other street lighting; if he will estimate the amount of electricity used per annum in lighting above horizontal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  About 12 per cent. of the light output from most road lighting lanterns on trunk and other roads is reflected upwards from the road surface. It is this reflected light which provides safe visual conditions for drivers. It is estimated that about 2 per cent. of the light output from lanterns is reflected upwards by impurities in the air before it reaches the road surface and about the same proportion goes directly upwards.

  It is estimated that some 2,000 million units of electricity are used each year for road lighting in Great Britain.

  British Waterways Bill
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the British Waterways Bill on commercial shipping.

  (2) if he will list the British Waterways docks planned to be closed as a result of the Waterways Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 February 1993 c. 524]: British Waterways now advises me that a small amount of commercial shipping continues to use Weston Point docks for discharging and loading at facilities leased by a third party. I, and British Waterways Board, apologise for the error in earlier reply. It remains the case that the British Waterways Bill does not prevent the future operation of the docks for commercial traffic.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of members of the Countryside Commission, when they were appointed, the

  Commissioner

  Date appointed

  Date current term expires

  Number of meetings held in past 12 months

  Number of meetings attended in past 12 months

  Sir John Johnson (Chairman)

  1 April 1991

  30 March 1994

  6

  6

  Antony Jarvis

  1 July 1986

  30 June 1993

  6

  6

  Professor Bryn Green

  8 May 1984

  30 June 1993

  6

  6

  Earl of Swinton

  1 July 1987

  30 June 1993

  6

  6

  Rachel Thomas

  1 October 1987

  30 June 1993

  6

  6

  David Fletcher

  1 July 1988

  30 June 1994

  6

  6

  Sarah Ward

  1 August 1991

  30 June 1994

  6

  6

  Sir Richard Carew Pole

  26 September 1991

  30 June 1994

  6

  5

  Professor Allen Patmore

  22 September 1992

  30 June 1995

  6

  13

  1 Professor Patmore has attended the three Commission meetings held since his appointment.

  Enterprise Zone, Barrow
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards establishing an enterprise zone in the Barrow in Furness travel-to-work area; and if he will make a statement.
  632
  number of meetings held, the number of meetings attended by each member and when each term of office is to be completed.

  Mr. Maclean
  [ holding answer 8 March 1993]: The information is as follows:

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: I am aware of the case made by Barrow in Furness for a new enterprise zone. It remains Government policy that enterprise zones should be designated only in exceptional circumstances and where they can be most effectively deployed. Decisions on future designations of enterprise zones await the outcome of a review of the assisted areas map now being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

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

Wheel Clamping
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have given further consideration to the appropriateness or legality of the clamping of motor vehicles by companies operating a system of payment by results.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, a consultation paper on wheel clamping on private land in England and Wales was published on 23rd February 1993. We will consider the responses before reaching a view.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while fully appreciating my noble friend's appropriate caution in expressing a view, is it not clear that to give an incentive to a law enforcement agency in order to obtain further action to enforce the law and to profit from it must in principle be dangerous?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are reasons for doing that. We wish to have the responses to the consultation document before we make up our mind.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the consultation document deal with clamping on hospital premises? Is the noble Earl aware that when I took my wife to hospital for an operation yesterday, my car was very nearly wheel clamped? Does he not agree that such action is inappropriate on hospital premises?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if that were the worst thing that happened to the noble Lord when he went to hospital, I would think he was lucky. For the purposes of private land, hospitals would fall into that category.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for a very courteous letter which I received today. However, does he recognise that in the consultation paper there is no reference to the possible option of leaving the matter to the courts? That is what happens de facto in Scotland. Would not that be a possible option?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is certainly a possible option. However, there is much concern about wheel clamping both by the people who own the land who feel that their land is being violated and by the people who own the cars who feel that their property is being violated. We wish to find out whether there is any route that the Government should take in the public interest. Obviously, in the end it is a matter for the courts.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Earl was good enough to tell the House that the consultation paper
1054
has now been published. We are grateful for that. Can he give any idea of the timescale the Government are considering before they are in a position to produce recommendations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the consultation paper has been published. It has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and in a number of other places. The deadline for comments is the end of May.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there not an element of possible confusion? As I understand it, the paper on wheel clamping is concerned with wheel clamping on private land. Unless I misunderstood my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, he asked about clamping by law enforcement agencies. The two are as different as chalk from cheese.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes. The reason we concluded that my noble friend referred to private wheel clamping was because he referred to the appropriateness or the legality of the clamping. Of course, clamping carried out by the Metropolitan Police under contract is done so under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Act 1991. That legislation is the legality for it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the meantime excessive charges are being made on collection? Could that aspect be dealt with in a way which does not interfere with the careful consideration that ought to be given to owners of land and vehicles?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in the end, if anyone feels aggrieved by what has happened they can take the matter to the courts.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, pending the results of those discussions and consideration, will my noble friend undertake that no further contracts for clamping will be given on the basis of payment by results?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter refers to the Metropolitan Police or to contractors on private land. Obviously the Government have no control over contracts given by private firms about matters relating to their land.

Hyde Park: Queen Elizabeth Gate
2.42 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on completing the Queen Elizabeth Gate at Hyde Park Corner.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Queen Elizabeth Gate is being erected by the Hyde Park Appeal Fund. I understand that the fund is on course to complete the gate in time for its scheduled opening in July this year.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Can he confirm whether Westminster City Council has reservations about the details of the plan? If so, can he tell the House what those

1055
reservations are and whether that will lead to further delays? Can the noble Viscount also tell us whether the appeal fund is on target to raise sufficient funds?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, planning permission was agreed in May 1992 but was subject to a Section 106 agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I understand that Westminster City Council is discussing the terms with the appeal fund in respect of a number of subjects, particularly maintenance and the finish of the gates. We hope that agreement will be reached in the near future.
The cost of the project is estimated to be £1.5 million and we understand that the Hyde Park Appeal Fund is on course to raise that sum and the money for future maintenance from public donations and sponsorship.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for some length of time recently London motorists were irritated to find that the project blocked their way with long lines of red cones but there were no workmen in sight? Is he further aware that very recently, since the publication of this Question, much activity has been observed on the site? Would it assist the Minister, and the Queen Mother, if we were to put down a Question each week in order to secure the completion of the project?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the fact that work has started is proof that this Question has had a desired effect. The main part of the work is the building of the gate, which is taking place in Southampton at present. We think that the gate will be ready. I am glad to tell your Lordships that Her Majesty the Queen has agreed to perform the opening ceremony in July this year.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can the Minister say whether account has been taken of traffic considerations both while the gate is being constructed and once it is open?
Viscount Astor: Yes, my Lords. We and the appeal fund have had detailed negotiations with Westminster City Council, as the highway authority, to ensure that the roadworks are completed in a safe manner and meet traffic safety requirements. Although there is a single lane now and some traffic congestion, the final width of the gate will allow two queues of slow-moving cars to enter Park Lane. We hope that in future the park will revert to a cone-free zone.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that he thinks that the gate will be ready. Does he mean that he thinks it will be ready, that he hopes it will be ready, that he believes it will be ready or knows it will be ready?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I mean all the first three but not necessarily the last.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend see whether it is possible to use this most important development as a means of obtaining better facilities for bicycles at Hyde Park Corner, which is a particularly dangerous place to negotiate?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord has a particular interest in bicycling. I hope that when he bicycles through the park he will find that it is not one way and therefore he will not have to cycle the wrong way up any street.

Unemployment: Treasury Assumptions
2.46 p.m.
Lord Eatwell Lord Eatwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they reach the "assumption" on the level of unemployment in 1995–96, published on page 53 of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement for 1992.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the 1992 Autumn Statement followed the long-established convention used by all governments in assuming an unemployment path flat at around recent levels for the whole survey period.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. But is he aware that many of the expenditure estimates in the Autumn Statement, notably the estimates for the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security, are dependent on and functions of the unemployment assumptions, which he has attempted to display as virtually worthless? Since the noble Lord feels that the unemployment assumption is merely a projection of current levels and therefore not a forecast, does he also feel that the estimates for the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security are equally worthless?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. The Autumn Statement is published every year and is a very reasonable view of what will happen during the course of the survey period. The National Audit Office report on social security forecasting found that on average in the first year Treasury unemployment assumptions served at least as well as independent forecasts, and in 1988–89 were even better.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am trying to follow this discussion, but not being a professional economist it is difficult for a bear with little brain like myself to do so. Perhaps the Minister can help me. As I understand his Answer to the Question, the figures of 2.74 million, 2.8 million, 2.8 million and 2.8 million up to 1995–96 are not forecasts but are figures which the Treasury and everybody else can use merely to make sure that they can do the necessary arithmetic. If that is so, can the Minister tell us what the forecasts are as opposed to the working assumptions?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition knows very well that no government ever make forecasts of unemployment, neither this Government nor the previous one.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is not the assumption based on the estimated effect of the Government's economic policies? In this respect will the Minister say when the phrase "the ingredients are now in place for economic recovery" was first used?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the whole point of this year's Autumn Statement was to provide the ingredients for recovery. We have done that by providing extra finance for the construction industry, by reducing interest rates and by planning for long-term growth in a non-inflationary period.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would it not have been more frank if on page 53 of the Autumn Statement, which relates to the figures that have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, instead of inserting the figure 2.8 million for the three years under the heading of "Economic Assumptions" to have said, "We do not propose to make any assumptions at all because it is the convention that whatever we say is never regarded as truthful by anybody"?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord wants to disregard those figures, that is entirely up to him. But for many people the figures are very useful.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, do the assumptions include that the exchange rate will be the same in 1995–96?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to look at the Autumn Statement for the answer on that point.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Answer which he gave to my Question suggests that the Treasury believes that the future will simply be like the past? Does the Treasury therefore assume that the recession will continue?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord has totally ignored my first supplementary answer. It is a long-established convention used by parties of both political persuasions to set the unemployment assumption flat at around recent levels.

Special Constabulary
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the number of people offering their services as special constables.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, more than 27,000 applications to join the special constabulary have been received during the first two years of the national recruiting campaign, which was launched in January 1991. This level of response is very encouraging. Provisional figures indicate that the total number of special constables has increased by 3,300 during the same period.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reassuring reply. Does he agree that there are many people in this country who have retired at the age of about 50 who would be only too willing to help the police in their search for the maintenance of law and order, and that those people could play a big part if they volunteered to be special constables?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that many people are anxious to help the police by joining the special constabulary. That is why we have had a recruiting campaign. It is going very well; and the numbers in the constabulary now are considerably higher than they were, for instance, in 1980 when there were only 15,000. There are now 19,243. The Government's aim is to get the numbers of special constables increased and to a level of 20 per cent. of the regular serving officers.
Lord Renton: My Lords, special constables can be of great help on special public occasions such as agricultural shows, race meetings and even football matches. Is any limit set upon the number of special constables who will be recruited by the police forces? Is it not clear that we can do with even more than we are getting?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is right. As I said, our aim is to recruit up to 20 per cent. of the total amount of regular officers. At the moment, the level is up to about 15 per cent. I agree that many special constables do a great job of work and are enormously well regarded by the police service. Just at the moment they have an additional incentive. A trophy is to be awarded to them which for some curious reason comes under the name of the Ferrers Trophy. Oddly enough, the first consideration of it is to be given this afternoon. It will be an annual trophy and will be awarded to the special constable who makes an especially effective or original contribution. On that point, I can only say that such qualifications in no way reflect the provenance of the trophy.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that the existence of this great trophy will be a marvellous incentive to all Members of this House to join as special constables. Can the Minister tell us, in view of the sensitivity of what special constables often do, the arrangements for training them? Are they ever trained to deal with what might be called life-threatening situations? Are they trained to ride horses when on duty at football matches?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the training received by special constables is usually given in the police forces. They are put on all operational work other than special work. In other words, they do not go out with armed response vehicles, and they do not go out on horseback. But they carry out ordinary, normal policing.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the noble Earl give an assurance that, much valued as the work of special constables is, the Government will not use the numbers of special constables in order to keep down the establishment levels of the regular police force? Is he aware that it is those establishment levels, against the background of serious crime affecting the country, that rapidly require to be increased?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no question of special constables being used to keep down the numbers of full-time policemen. They are not an alternative to the regular force. They are an additional resource which, if

1059
properly used, can allow the greater experience and training of regular officers to be put to the best possible use.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in his first Answer to the Question I believe my noble friend gave statistics which implied that the take-up rate was slightly under one in nine. Did I understand that point correctly? Can he advise the House whether there is any significance in that rate, particularly in view of the question from my noble friend Lord Renton?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when people apply to join the "specials" one gets applications from a wide variety of sources. Not all applicants are suitable. Some have to be sifted out; some are already in the pipeline. The annual intake is bigger because some "specials" will have resigned. The figure of 3,300 which I gave is the increase in the numbers, not necessarily the numbers of new special constables.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House what is the upper age limit for becoming a special constable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I need notice of that question. I cannot tell my noble friend. I shall find out and let him know.

Lords' Expenses
2.57 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Your Lordships may recall that the additional secretarial allowance to which this Motion relates, was introduced by my noble friend Lord Belstead in 1988 in response to the case put forward by many Members of the House for the provision of some additional allowance towards secretarial work in Recesses. The allowance then introduced by my noble friend enabled Peers to claim the daily secretarial allowance for up to 18 days in addition to those days on which they attended a Sitting of the House. My noble friend explained that the calculation of the 18 days was based on a notional three days for any adjournment of one week, and six days for any adjournment of two weeks or more. In practice that equates to three days during the Easter and late Spring Recesses, and six days—three days at either end—during the Christmas and Summer Recesses.
I am conscious that since then the amount of work which some of your Lordships have had to carry out during Recesses, in relation to their parliamentary duties, has continued to grow. I believe that it is appropriate for secretarial expenses so incurred to be recoverable, subject to the normal daily limit. I therefore consider that the eligibility for the additional secretarial allowance should be adjusted to enable Members to claim for up to 30 days in any year, rather than 18 as at present.
While I am sure that such an increase in this allowance will go some way to meeting the legitimate
1060
needs of your Lordships—and I should mention that the existing requirement will remain in place that any noble Lord who claims for such an allowance should certify that his expenditure on secretarial costs during Recesses could not be met from the amounts for secretarial allowance already available for attending Sittings of the House—it is only right that I should point out to your Lordships that I consider it highly unlikely that any further increase in eligibility could be achieved without jeopardising the status of the allowance. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that point.
Perhaps I could also explain that, in view of the method by which the allowance is calculated, explained by my noble friend Lord Belstead in 1988, it will be possible to claim for only 28 days during the current year ending on 31st July. The reason is that, as it is an allowance in respect of costs incurred, eligibility for the allowance cannot be made retrospective. It will thus apply for the Recesses at Easter and late Spring and the first part of the Summer Recess this year.
Finally, perhaps I could take the opportunity to remind your Lordships that the daily secretarial allowance has been increased from £29 to £30. The increase calculated in accordance with the existing uprating formula is backdated to 1st August 1992. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Moved, That, in calculating in accordance with the Resolution of 23rd July 1987 the limit for any year on the expenses which a Member of this House may recover under paragraph (1) (d) of the Resolution of 22nd July 1980 (office, secretarial and research allowance), there shall, if that Member so requires, be added to the number of days of attendance by him in that year such number of days in that year on which the House does not sit as are specified by him but subject—

(a) in the case of the year ending on 31st July 1993 to a maximum of 24 days, and

(b) in the case of any subsequent year, to a maximum of 30 days; and that

in this Resolution "year" means a year beginning on 1st August.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches I should like briefly to express our appreciation to the Leader of the House for having been willing to involve himself in discussions on this and other matters in the recent past. We certainly recognise that what he suggested to the House is fair and reasonable. Nevertheless, the provision may not have come forward so comfortably without his interest and initiative in this matter. I and my colleagues are very grateful to him.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to join in those remarks. Anyone who is capable of squeezing money from the Treasury at the moment is a man of considerable standing, particularly in the eyes of noble Lords, as it enables us to pay some of the expenses that we have to incur in working, as many do, on behalf of your Lordships' House. We are grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for what he has done.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend for the personal efforts which I know he made to achieve this improvement, for which I am sure noble Lords are very properly grateful. Perhaps I may ask whether he is aware that, although it is a considerable improvement, it still means that many noble Lords incur heavy secretarial expenses, particularly in view of the volume of correspondence which recent developments have caused to pour in on us. It seems a little odd that we should be expected apparently to dispense with the services of our secretaries for quite considerable times during the long Recess. Although this is a considerable improvement for your Lordships' House, does it not compare very badly indeed with the much more generous provisions made in another place?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have said such kind things. However, I ask noble Lords not to congratulate me on getting money out of the Treasury. It will considerably damage my prospects in any further negotiations. I limped away well wounded at the time. But I did not rise to say that. Some of my noble friends tell me that I said that it is only possible to claim for 28 days during the current year. The Motion refers to 24 days. Twenty-four days is correct.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will recall that the last time this issue was brought before your Lordships, with other Members of the House I raised the point that it was incorrect to base our secretarial allowances on a three-day week. In fact we work on average four days a week. However, having seen the efforts that went into this enhancement, I should like to express my appreciation of the negotiations. The noble Lord the Leader of the House would do well to take note of the points quite rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We are grateful for what has happened but, having said that, it is for small mercies. Let us hope that there will be further consideration at the most opportune moment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that point, will he say whether the year referred to is a calendar year or a financial year?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it is a year to the 31st July.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House accept that this might be an appropriate occasion to record our thanks for the great help we receive from the office staff who deal with expenses. Problems arise from time to time and the staff could not be more helpful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food and Drink Industry
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles rose to call attention to the role of Her Majesty's Government in promoting the British food and drink industry and thereby reducing the trade deficit in food and agricultural products; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in focusing attention today on the British food and drink industry —one of Britain's leading industries—and the role of Her Majesty's Government in promoting that industry and thereby reducing the trade gap in food and agricultural products, it is implicit that industry in general can only flourish under certain general macro-economic conditions: low inflation and low interest rates (which the Government have already achieved), a climate of confidence in the nation's economy to encourage investment, and a strong domestic market. Also crucial to long-term success for the industry is a stable currency; indeed, that is true for any industry. Membership of the exchange rate mechanism provided the discipline to reduce our inflation rate from 11 per cent. to 4 per cent. As we are no longer a member, and with a devaluation of over 17 per cent. since September last year, the Government must give confidence that they will do all possible to ensure a stable rate for sterling. A short-term devaluation of sterling will not help to reduce the trade deficit except in the very short term.
We are facing a period of change, and so is the industry. There is the single market from 1st January this year, with open borders for transport of goods; the opening of the Channel Tunnel in due course; the GATT negotiations, which are still in progress; the reform of the CAP; the removal of the MCAs; the delayed formation of the European Economic Area, although certain agricultural deals will come into force on 15th April regardless of the conclusion of those agreements; and the opening of new markets in central and eastern Europe as well as in other parts of the world as their economies grow, especially in the Far East. There is therefore every reason to hope that the food and drink industry can seize new opportunities for growth and expansion, given the necessary support and backing from the Government, and can meet that challenge now.
A main challenge is to reduce the trade deficit, which at the beginning of 1992 stood at an estimated £5.9 billion and has changed little over the past six years. In accordance with the monthly review of external trade statistics that I saw recently, at the end of 1992 imports rose by £10.8 billion but exports rose by £6.2 billion. So my figure now shows a £4.6 billion trade gap between exports and imports.
A significant factor in that gap is the large amount of imports—about half the deficit—not, as some might expect, simply of non-indigenous products from southern climates but of products indigenous to the United Kingdom from countries of northern Europe with a climate similar to our own, countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Eire and Belgium. The "export or die" motivation has entered into the

1063
industries of those countries and has led them to export far more than we have been able to export, certainly in proportion to the size of country.
There are basically two ways very simply to reduce the gap. First, one can import less, and, concurrently and secondly, one can export more. Importing less implies effort in import substitution, with an increase in home production to meet the demands now being met by imports. To export requires both effort and promotional skill to achieve successful sales on the continental and world markets. Those are very obvious comments, but we must ask how we reach that position.
The five leading retailers, including Sainsbury's and Marks and Spencer, both of whom I regard as the mainstays of democracy in this country, have made a major contribution to the high quality, consistency and availability of food at competitive prices, filling about 36 per cent. of retail sales. While they are experts, highly skilled at marketing their own brands, there are nevertheless other areas where the support of Her Majesty's Government is needed.
We can be proud of our food safety standards in Britain. The Food Safety Act is a guarantee of hygienic British food products. But the minute there is a food scare—they happen here as they do in every other country—the offending or suspected product is removed and replaced by an import from another country, which possibly applies lower safety standards than those in Britain. The problem is that the general level may be observed by country B in accordance with European Community legislation. But if we in Britain demand a higher standard we should seek to ensure that the standard is raised by amended European Community legislation. Complaining that other countries do not observe our standards does not cure the defect. It is equally important that enforcement measures are applied throughout all member states in accordance with the legislation in force.
More rigorous application of existing regulations and the additional costs of the regulations imposed on the industry also create imbalances between producers in different states. A recent study by Mr. Gosling of the Harper Adams Agricultural College shows, for instance, that in the poultry meat industry, with regard to the broiler section, specific extra costs for feed, inspection, waste disposal and health and safety amount to a total of £30.4 million per annum. Those additional costs cause a price differential of over 5p per broiler. That sounds minimal in large terms, but it is a wide margin in such a competitive industry. Will my noble friend study the problem to see how more equitable treatment can be reached so as to remove that considerable imbalance? I should tell the House that I have notified my noble friend of some of the questions I shall be asking during the course of the debate.
Each sector has its own problems and individual solutions. There is not an overall solution for each of the different sectors. The dairy sector, with a gap of around £460 million deficit in 1990, is at a disadvantage since the basic product, milk, with the
1064
current quota system, provides around 88 per cent. of Britain's needs, compared with France which is more than self-sufficient in the product.
Many leading companies, such as Unigate, are concentrating on a policy of import substitution, producing higher value added products. That policy was emphasised in a recent publication by Food from Britain which shows that the use of 100,000 litres of whole raw milk can vary in value from £18,000 if exported as whole milk powder to £103,000 if made into yoghurt and butter. That is a measure of the stark differential.
Changes in the dairy sector include the ending of the Milk Marketing Board, which will give the farmer alternatives as to how he sells his milk. While the successor to the Milk Marketing Board—Milk Marque—may absorb a high proportion of liquid milk, farmers will have the opportunity of possibly forming small co-operatives, as in France, or selling direct to the manufacturer or retailer.
At this point I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who will be speaking in the debate. It is a subject on which she is an unrivalled expert. The noble Baroness informed me before I tabled the Motion that she would not be able to stay till the end. That is not her fault. If it is anybody's, it is mine.
Her Majesty's Government should give every encouragement to diversification of supply as well as to ensuring the hiving off of Dairy Crest from the Milk Marketing Board's successor. There are opportunities for British cheese exports which do not seem to have been realised in recent years. A more flexible market could meet that deficiency. I should perhaps say that, should any company decide to market a new cheese, first, it must ensure that it will last and be on a long-term basis and, secondly, it must not give it a name like Lymeswold. If one wants to export cheese the name should not contain a "Y" or a "W"; both those letters are generally missing from most of the European alphabet. It is not the best choice for export even if it is not "export or die".
Her Majesty's Government could also strive to seek changes for greater equity in the milk quota for Britain. We know that quotas are, in the long term, to be abolished—and they should be as we are in a single market. But at least alternatively member states should be able to transfer surpluses to countries which are not as self-sufficient. That may be unrealistic in the present climate but I hope that it will remain an objective of government.
The cereals sector is in positive balance of £160 million in 1991, with biscuits being particularly successful. One legitimate concern is the differentiation in VAT between member states. In Britain 17.5 per cent. is applied to all chocolate, sugar confectionery, chocolate-coated biscuits and other food products, whereas other European Community member states have varying rates of VAT on food. There is thus a considerable distortion in the market. That raises a general problem of policy on VAT, particularly in regard to food, but also it arises in the matter of whisky. The present system is slightly inequitable for those industries. I do not imagine that

1065
my noble friend will be able to reply in full to those comments because I know that at this time of the year he, like so many others, goes into purdah.
One sector where a major change could be achieved is in the fruit and vegetable sector, which together contributed an annual deficit of around £2.5 billion in 1991. In a letter to The Times on 23rd February this year the distinguished gastro-enterologist, Sir Francis Avery Jones, pointed out that that sum, or some of it, could be saved by heavily increased home growing, not only for the sake of the economy but also for the health of the nation.
The Government have a task to reintroduce nationally agreed nutritional standards for school meals applicable to all LEAs throughout the country. That duty was removed by the Education Act 1980 and there is no longer such an obligation. Development of vegetable and fruit growing could be encouraged with supplies to local outlets, organised through local marketing bodies, but co-ordinated through MAFF in the first place. That is perhaps a subject that might have been raised in the recent debate on the rural economy and would slot in quite well with some of the policies discussed at that time, particularly in relation to some of the organisations that exist in the sector. A greater supply of,
"the vital protective antioxidant vitamins and minerals and other essential micronutrients",
would help to provide resistance to many contemporary diseases. That especially applies to coronary diseases, of which there is a high incidence in this country.
I should like to refer to the publication by the Caroline Walker Trust on nutritional guidelines for school meals. It is a valuable source of information in that regard. Indeed, to import thousands of tonnes of cabbages to Britain seems absurd, and to have to buy foreign apples because Cox's are not available is equally so. So that is a matter not only for the economy but also for health and employment in those rural areas which could develop that sector—and it could be a comparatively cheap investment.
From a traditional importer 20 years ago, with trade agreements of around £1 billion with New Zealand (butter and lamb) and the Caribbean (sugar) still in force, the British food industry has made remarkable advances in growth, efficiency and service to its customers. The highly competitive world of the food and drink industry demands high quality products, consistency of supply and the right price. All those elements are obtainable given the right economic and financial environment. If our own agricultural structures are not efficiently co-ordinated, there will be movement of manufacturers to other Community states—indeed, that has already happened—where there is a more favourable environment as to product quality, price and distribution systems. Furthermore, with the single market we will see an increase in continental firms setting up in the United Kingdom. After all, competition is the basis of the single market. But it must be recognised that investment, structural organisation and effective marketing of our British products on European and
1066
overseas markets are essential not only to reduce the trade deficit but also to provide a flourishing food and drink industry.
The promotion of our raw material and manufactured products is crucial for success to meet the fierce competition in the industry. Food From Britain does an excellent job, but perforce extremely limited, with only 17 staff for overseas promotion—those who serve overseas—and a limited budget. Is my noble friend able to indicate the comparable government funding for promotion in other European Community states? Is he able to tell the House whether there is any European Community funding for promotion of European Community products which would be available to the United Kingdom producers for sales to third countries?
I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have examined the existence of overlap between the various bodies responsible for exporting; for example, the DTI, which spent around £167 million in exporting, MAFF, the British Overseas Trade Board and the British Food Export Council, which is part of the Food from Britain organisation. Marketing and promotion are the keys to success and no avenue should be overlooked. Catering particularly—the area where the tourist has first evidence of the quality and standard of British food, and, I would add, service—must not be ignored. After all, the first real impression of a country is when people visit a local restaurant or coffee bar and get the flavour of the month or of the country. The predilection for, especially, southern European food is surely the result of millions of British holidaymakers going to the Mediterranean and enjoying the local products. The image of brown Windsor soup and cabbage is not a sufficient inducement for foreigners to buy British food.
The industry is already successful in promoting its own brands, none more so than Scotch whisky and British biscuits. The optimum can be obtained and the trade deficit, if not removed, severely cut, but this must be achieved with close co-operation and partnership between government, producers, manufacturers, retailers and exporters. There are great opportunities for this industry. When we can go to a small town in France, Italy, or even further afield, and find a British delicatessen selling Scotch smoked salmon, Stilton, English cheddar, Welsh lamb and British bottled water, we shall be able to recognise some success. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Files for introducing this important debate about the British food and drink industry and the trade deficit in food and agricultural products. She has done so most ably, as we would all have expected her to, and I am certain that all speakers will wish to pick up the markers that she has laid down for us so pertinently. Her Motion specifically calls attention to the

1067
Government's role, and I welcome the opportunity at this point in the debate to tell the House what the Ministry of Agriculture has been doing.
It would be difficult to over-estimate the importance of the agriculture, horticulture, food and drink industries to the UK economy. They provide about 9 per cent. of GDP and give employment to some 3.6 million people. Our production, distribution and retail sectors are among the most efficient in the world and the range of wholesome, safe foods available to our consumers has never been greater. This expansion of choice, which enables us to walk into a supermarket or a restaurant anywhere in the country and select from a huge variety of high quality food and drink, is one of the most remarkable achievements of our economic system.
With this ever-increasing choice come opportunities as well as challenges for our industries. The large buyers are becoming increasingly competitive and demanding. British suppliers can respond to the challenge, and there are first-class examples in every sector. But the extent to which our industries do respond to the needs of the market, both home and abroad, is at the heart of this debate.
I do not want to quote a lot of statistics, but I should just like to put the food and drink trade gap into perspective. The United Kingdom has of course traditionally been a net importer of these items. Over the past 20 years, imports have grown to £13.4 billion in 1992, but exports have grown faster and now stand at £7.5 billion, excluding trade in live animals. In real terms the trade gap at £5.9 billion is less than it was 20 years ago. Nevertheless the Government accept that further improvement is needed.
Your Lordships may know that in 1991 my colleague David Curry carried out a ministerial review of the factors underlying the trade gap. He consulted producers, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, importers, consumers and others to hear at first hand how the market was operating and to see what the Government could do to help. The review highlighted areas where the Government were able to take action, and over the intervening period all of the principal recommendations have been acted upon.
The review drew a number of significant conclusions. First, it highlighted the fact that at the primary level, budgetary constraints and CAP reform meant that producers would have to look much more to the market for their future income and prosperity than to the classical support measures. This in turn meant that they would have to gear themselves up to meet quality specifications set by the retailers and other large buyers. The long tradition of individualism needed to be redirected—where appropriate—to-wards collaborative relationships with other producers and with buyers. Traditional marketing structures were not always relevant to modern circumstances, and some reappraisal was needed.
Manufacturers and processors were particularly affected by the European single market, which was likely to have a major effect in freeing up trade. Although there were striking examples of export success, some companies did not give it a high enough
1068
priority. Companies were tending to establish large single plants to serve the whole of the Community, instead of the previous pattern of a plant in every country. For all these reasons, it was clear that the food industry needed to think European and to treat the single market as its home market.
The big retailers, particularly the food retailers, had become formidably efficient, and had highly sophisticated sourcing and distribution arrangements. Their business demanded reliable suppliers, who would give a good level of service. They needed large volumes of consistent produce. And, although they would negotiate hard on price, this was not usually their most important criterion.
Last but not least, the review concluded that the Government needed to play a supportive and facilitating role, to take account of trade considerations when deciding or amending policies, and to continue working to reduce burdens on industry.
So how is the gap to be narrowed? Naturally any improvement, as my noble friend pointed out, has to take the form of import substitution or of increased exports. The industry needs to work at both. But it has to be recognised that the scope for import substitution is by its very nature finite, and that export development is at least as important, if not more so. Primary producers and processors both need to find new markets, in the single market and beyond. In many respects, not least the advent of the single market, and our currently favourable exchange rate, the opportunities for exporting have never been better.
So what have the Government been doing? The first thing we did was to set up a small market task force in the Ministry to make contact with all the key sectors and to act as a catalyst for action, in both industry and government. The Prime Minister has chaired two seminars with industry leaders to promote discussion and collaboration between all the sectors. Valuable initiatives have followed, including the appointment of David Naish to co-ordinate follow-up action.
In April last year we launched the group marketing grant to encourage producers to collaborate with one another and with others in the food production and marketing chain. We can give up to £107,000 per group to help with key management costs. Take-up has been encouraging, with 55 applications and 32 approvals in the first 11 months in all sectors from livestock to vegetables to cereals. In the light of experience to date, we are currently simplifying some of the rules to make the scheme easier to use.
We devised the idea of a trading code to give small suppliers the confidence to deal with large buyers. This should help to get over the reluctance that a lot of farmers have to deal with big companies. The idea has been widely welcomed and it is now being developed by the Institute of Grocery Distribution. We have encouraged retailers to declare country of origin on own-label goods. I am pleased that they have responded positively to this. We have taken two initiatives to encourage exporting. Food from Britain, the national food promotion body, is being reviewed by an independent consultant, Dennis Stevenson, to

1069
ensure that its range of functions best meets the industry's needs. His recommendations are due shortly.
Secondly, my right honourable friend the Minister recently launched an export initiative in which 150 companies from all quarters of the primary, processing and ancillary industries joined in a series of ministerial seminars. The object was to get them to think more seriously about exporting, and for them to tell us how MAFF could help. We are now digesting the suggestions they have made.
In this context, I should like to emphasise the key role of the food manufacturing and processing industry. This very diverse sector employs directly half a million people and contributes 2.6 per cent. of GDP. There are 10,000 companies ranging from the small family business to giant multinationals such as Unilever. Scotch whisky, with exports worth £1.9 billion, is a world beater: it is the most internationally-traded spirit drink.
Now, as we see it, this food and drink industry is the pivot on which all the other sectors depend—farmers and growers, retailers, caterers and eventually the consumer. If it is prospering, the others will benefit, too. We are fortunate in having dynamic and innovative companies. Sectors as diverse as confectionery, tea, breakfast cereals and petfoods are showing the way with new products and new markets.
In order that the food industry and other businesses should flourish, it is essential that the Government should moderate the regulatory burden they impose. I shall have more to say on this when I come to respond at the end of the debate. However, following my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's deregulation seminar last month, we have made clear that no further regulations will be put before Parliament unless the compliance cost has first been spelt out to business. Several task forces of businessmen will be scrutinising regulations in all sectors, including food, drink and agriculture. We are scrutinising the way we implement EC law at home, and will be pressing the Community to operate a much stricter deregulation policy in Brussels.
We are talking today about industries which are important to the well-being of both the consumer and the national economy. The onus is on them to reconquer the domestic market and, even more important, to develop their sales overseas. The Government believe that their policies will promote their success in both directions. And we are pledged to continue that effort.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for giving us the chance to debate this very important subject. In opening the debate on this side of the House, I shall deal with the promotional and agricultural aspects of the topic and my noble friend Lord Peston, when he winds up, will deal with the macro-economic aspects and particularly the effects on the balance of payments.
We say at the outset that the trade gap in food and drink is central to the problem, with 63 per cent. of the
1070
deficit accounted for by indigenous produce. We can all understand why we spend nearly £200 million on importing bananas; it is hard to understand why we have to spend the same amount on importing apples. The situation is further bedevilled by the workings of the common agricultural policy, that lunatic construction which has been visited on the European farmer, consumer and taxpayer. As has been well pointed out, it is not "common" because all the member states spend all their time attempting to divert it to their own benefit. It is certainly not "agricultural". If it is anything, it is "social". I am not sure that even its best friend would describe it as a "policy".
For example, the United Kingdom is forced to be a net importer of dairy products and sugar as the result of the restriction on home production through quotas. However, the fact that the UK is now a major exporter of cereals—the seventh largest in the world I believe—is largely if not entirely due to the export and restitution system in the CAP.
We are continually being told that the proposed GATT reforms are consistent with the MacSharry reforms of the CAP although the Minister's right honourable friend, the Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Gummer, seems to be uncharacteristically coy in producing the detailed figures to back up that assertion. Can the Minister say whether the Government have yet made any estimate of the effect on the trade gap in food and drink if GATT and MacSharry are implemented in full?
There has long been an ambivalence in governments of all parties towards financial support for the promotion of UK food and drink. I say that on the whole Labour governments in the past have been more interventionist. Indeed, if it were not now a dirty word, I would say that they have been more corporatist. In the 1960s there was AM DEC which was the Agricultural Marketing and Development Executive. There was then the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation. That was a body on which I had the honour to serve for a number of years with the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. The Agriculture Act 1967 set up the Home Grown Cereals Authority and the Meat and Livestock Commission. Indeed it was the Attlee government which in 1947 passed the Industrial Organisation and Development Act which has been used from time to time for the development of agricultural marketing.
The development council story is quite an interesting one as it illustrates the ambivalence of Conservative governments in recent years to the promotion of agricultural marketing. As noble Lords will know, if a development council is set up with the support of producers or of an industry, it is allowed to raise its funds by statutory levy on all producers in that industry. Indeed, in the early 1970s I was involved in working up the proposals for BAMDO (the British Agricultural and Marketing Development Organisation) which was to be part-funded by government and part by producers. The Heath Government rejected the proposals but the process of negotiation eventually led to the setting up of Food from Britain.

1071
I have always supported the idea of development councils. It seems to me that they are a sensible way to promote agricultural marketing. But now the wheel has turned full circle, if indeed a U-turn can be described as a full circle. We are now likely to have a milk development council and a potato development council as the result of the winding up of the milk marketing boards and the Potato Marketing Board. I would like to congratulate the Government on their new and pragmatic approach to this matter.
It has always seemed to me to be entirely reasonable that if a majority of agricultural producers on a poll support the setting up of a development council, the Government should then give power to the council by statute to raise a levy towards its activities. If all producers benefit from the activities, then they all should pay. The ambivalence of government towards the funding with government money of promotional and development activities is well illustrated by the comparative funding of Food from Britain, the CMA in West Germany and SOPEXA in France which are three equivalent organisations. It has already been touched on by the noble Baroness. In 1991 the number of employees with the three organisations were: Food from Britain, 63; the CMA, 160; and SOPEXA, 254. Their budgets for 1991 were as follows: Food from Britain was £7.5 million, of which £4.5 million was from the Government; the CMA budget was £45 million, which was all raised by parafiscal levies; and SOPEXA was £51 million, with almost half of that (£27 million) from the French Government.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that the funding of Food from Britain is now on the basis of £1 of government funds to £3 of industry funds. The ratio is 1:3. I know that the department is being pressed to change that ratio to 1:1, which would in fact increase the Government's funding from £4 million to £6 million. That is a small sum in terms of the total turnover of the food and drink industry which we have been discussing. I ask the Minister whether that is a possibility.
The Government's activity—or lack of it—in promoting UK food and drink is not the only way in which the Government can affect the comparative advantage of UK producers, manufacturers and retailers. We all know of what one would describe as the differential enthusiasm between member states in implementing European legislation and regulations which can give a marked cost advantage to those member states who are the most laggardly in implementation. I quote as examples the effect of the meat hygiene regulations on small slaughterhouses; the effect of food safety regulations generally; and the taxation differences between wines and spirits when Scotch whisky is one of the major contributors to our balance of payments.
Today we had a good example in a news release from the department of the other way in which the matter can be dealt with. There has been a study of the review of food labelling in catering establishments. I
1072
congratulate the Government. Having looked at all the proposals, the Food Advisory Committee recommended,
"that caterers should do more to respond to the needs of their customers, but concluded that it would not be appropriate to introduce legislation to this effect. The Government has accepted the FAC's conclusion".
There are many other areas where we wish that they would do the same.
Food safety is a prime example of an area where government activity can in fact be counter-productive. The salmonella-in-eggs saga is a prime example of ill-thought-out and panicky reaction by government leading to a substantial increase of imports with no possibility of the UK Government having in fact any control over the health status of those imports. We all know that food safety scares make good copy. They bring out every born-again food campaigner, loony-tune academic, publicity-seeking politician and sensationalising journalist in the business.
After slaughtering 3.25 million laying hens and spending tens of millions of pounds of public money, the relevant strain of salmonella food poisoning has increased by 82 per cent. Do the Government now wish that they had taken the advice of those of us—and I was one—who said at the time that the slaughter policy would not work? Indeed, the Government have now had to admit that cross-contamination in the kitchen and poor hygiene are the main contributors to the increase in food poisoning. Another factor is foreign travel. We know that the incidence of salmonella food poisoning fell substantially during the Gulf War because there were fewer visitors from overseas bringing the salmonella in and fewer British nationals bringing it back.
I have spent a little time on the salmonella story because, apart from the close personal involvement of my noble friend Lord Peston and myself, it illustrates very well the need for an independent food standards agency to be responsible for the quality and safety of the nation's food, both home-grown and imported. It is my party's policy to establish such an agency.
I have to say, with great regret, that following the scares over salmonella, BSE and listeria, if the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not lost the confidence of the consuming public, that confidence has certainly been substantially eroded. In my view and in that of my colleagues, only an independent food standards agency could restore that confidence.
So, what has to be done? Well, a start has been made. Obviously we welcome the Government's initiative on the marketing grant for producer groups, whether co-operative or otherwise. Can the Minister tell us the budget for those grants? How much is genuinely new money and how much of the money has been recycled internally from other activities? I repeat the question that was asked by the noble Baroness when she opened the debate: how much, if any, EC funding is available for UK food promotion?
There is the welcome initiative of the Strathclyde Food project, which is a major food industry initiative to boost the sales of British-produced food within the UK and abroad. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, serves on that project and we look forward

1073
to hearing him describe its activities. The most welcome feature of the Strathclyde project is the "bottom-up" rather than the "top-down" approach that it is adopting. It is looking at particular commodities, examining their sourcing and then considering exactly how to source more of that commodity from home-grown supplies.
So much of our approach to the improvement of UK food and drink promotion and marketing in the past has been based on what I would describe as the "blueprint" approach—deciding beforehand on a particular bureaucratic structure and then attempting to see how commodity marketing could be fitted into that preconceived structure. I have always felt that the correct approach is to examine the marketing characteristics of each commodity and then to devise a structure which fits those characteristics. Perhaps I may use oilseed rape and cereals—the two products with which I have had a lot to do—as brief examples. I have been involved for some 26 years in the marketing of oilseed rape as a director of a farmers' co-operative which operates nationally and has a substantial share of the UK oilseeds market. Oilseed rape is a pure industrial crop. One grows it, puts it on a lorry and moves it to a very few outlets—either to a crushing mill or to a port for export. In those circumstances, a single, national, producers' cooperative makes a lot of sense.
It would be very difficult to reproduce the same system for cereals. We know that they can be used as feed on the farm, sold for feeding to other farms, sold for processing or for export and, above all, they can be sold into many different markets for malting, milling and feed. With cereals, it makes much more sense to have more localised arrangements which suit the particular characteristics of the commodity.
Cereals also provide a good example of how a well-meaning but, with hindsight, a mistaken policy on the part of the Government—and this was a Labour Government—can affect efficient marketing. After the war, one of the many Anglo-American productivity teams which visited America looked at grain storage. Its recommendations on its return led to the policy of the substantial grant-aiding of on-the-farm grain storage. We are often told that French cereal marketing can be held up as an example of good marketing, but much of that is due to the simple fact that most French grain is stored in central co-op stores and not on the farm, thus making it easier to control its marketing.
I well remember when I was a member of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation that the economics of grant-aiding the central grain stores was very much affected by the residual value of on-the-farm grain stores where a substantial proportion of the cost had been grant-aided anyway by direct grants and through taxation. The farming company in which I am involved has a substantial grain storage capacity in silos that were built in the 1950s. There would be no financial advantage to us in investing in central storage, although that would appear to assist with orderly grain marketing.
If we are to make progress in the promotion of UK
1074
food and drink and thus reduce the trade gap, the Government must decide on a coherent policy and stick to it. I have already described the inconsistency of the Government's policy towards development councils. Another example is the Government's attitude towards the financing of producer groups. There was substantial grant-aid available for the formation of agricultural co-operatives, but that was wound down and eventually ended. Within two years of its demise, the Government announced a grant-aid system for producer groups, which did not have to be co-operative in character. Now, within a few years of frowning on producer groupings through co-operative systems—the Minister said so at the time—the Government are apparently prepared to welcome a single, voluntary, producers' co-operative which would be set up under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act to replace the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales. It is just a little hard to discern a coherent thread of a policy through all this. I suppose that it all comes down to the fact that one man's U-turn is another man's pragmatism.
We have a situation where the UK food industry is characterised by independent (some would say "cussed") farmers who apparently are not yet persuaded of the advantage of collective marketing action. Whenever I speak to an audience of farmers, I remind them that the consumer is not just our best customer, but our only customer. But it is sometimes hard to get that over to farmers. We have a network of manufacturers and processors who, through their concentration on the UK market, have tended to be less innovative than their overseas competitors (particularly their European competitors) who are much more geared towards export markets.
In addition, our very powerful multiple retailers now have an enormous influence on the marketing of food. The multiple retailers in the UK have 83 per cent. of the retail grocery trade in certain key markets. That compares with 70 per cent. in West Germany and 64 per cent. in France. The five largest UK grocers —Sainsbury, Tesco, Argyll, Asda and Gateway—have 60 per cent. of grocery retailing, compared with the five largest in France which have 35 per cent. It is no accident that the profit margins of the major UK multiples are the envy of their European competitors.
To conclude, it is clear that, although there are now some welcome signs of marketing initiatives coming from the Government, the National Farmers Union and the food industry itself, there is still a long way to go. The Government have a major responsibility in this—not just through the funding of Food from Britain and the marketing grants for producer groups, but also through such matters as food safety legislation and regulations generally. One could almost hear the word "corporatism" in the Minister's opening speech (with the involvement of industry and groups of businessmen acting as advisers, which is a very good thing). But from all that the Minister said, it seems that the Government have now reversed the "hands off" policy of leaving it all to the market, which was characterised in the Thatcher Administration. We look forward to the Minister's

1075
reply at the end of the debate when I am sure he will have the facts and the figures to show just how "hands on" the Government are prepared to be.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I greatly welcome the initiative shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in calling attention to the role of Her Majesty's Government in promoting the British food and drink industry and thereby reducing the trade deficit in food and agricultural products.
I am very sorry that a long-standing engagement may preclude me from staying to the end of the debate and I apologise, in advance, to the House. I shall read with great interest all the contributions to this debate, particularly the wind-up speech by the Minister. I am sure that during the course of this debate the Government will receive some valuable suggestions from your Lordships.
The whole subject of the food trade gap has concerned me for almost 14 years. I was appointed a member of a team of marketing advisers by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, at the time that he was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I remember the sense of amazement that I felt when I discovered that we were importing so much food that we could grow ourselves; import pineapples, yes, but surely not potatoes!
Sadly, although there has been some spasmodic progress in both export creation and import substitution, there remains a huge trade gap, as has already been identified—a significant part of which could be reduced. It is a crying shame that the food and drink sector remains the largest industry contributor to the national current account deficit.
The Government are aware of that, and to their credit they are constantly striving to encourage exports. In January of this year the latest effort by the Government to chivvy the industry took the form of a food marketing seminar in 10 Downing Street, chaired by the Prime Minister. Subsequent to that seminar, yet another investigation was started and is in progress, as we have already been told. Always the optimist, I wish the investigation well; I look forward to its recommendations and I banish from my mind the unworthy thought of, "Oh dear! here we go again."
The figures tell the story, and have already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and by the Minister: food and drink exports, £7.5 billion; imports, £13.4 billion; deficit, £5.9 billion. As has been said, the food trade gap can be reduced by export creation, import substitution or a combination of both.
In a debate one cannot hope to cover all the ground one might wish, so I shall concentrate upon the subject of import substitution, with only a passing reference to exports. I must say that I am in mild disagreement with the Minister when he says that exports are more important than import substitution. The subject of exports has been greatly and expertly dealt with by the noble Baroness; but I should not like it to be assumed that I have no faith in the industry's ability to export.
1076
However, I feel that the enormousness of the task facing the industry is such that effort should be expended in those areas where the possibility of success is greater, and the scale of possible success is more achievable. That is why I believe that the major effort should be directed towards import substitution.
There is a subsidiary point which steers me towards import substitution rather than export creation; namely, it has always been a tenet of international trade that a prerequisite for successful exporting is a strong home base. A domestic market which has imports of indigenous products to the tune of some £3.7 billion per annum does not strike me as having a strong home base.
It is important that we tackle that £3.7 billion which we currently spend on imports of food that we could so easily produce ourselves in the UK. It is important for at least four major reasons. First, as a consumer I believe that the fresher the food we can buy, the better it is. It is obvious that food supplied from our own farms and processing plants—distributed through the speedy distribution chain, that is the envy of other countries—must be fresher than food imported from hundreds of miles away on the European mainland, or even from New Zealand. I sometimes cannot believe my ears when I hear of London restaurant owners going to Rungis, Paris, twice a week to buy food that could be produced here. I say "could" advisedly. I suspect that the reasons they go to Rungis is that they cannot get what they want here, not that we cannot produce it, rather that we cannot be bothered to produce it.
Secondly, as a director of a grocery retail and distribution company I know that it should be much easier to source more product from the home market. Just a simple analysis of the hassle factor involved in communications in a foreign tongue proves that—not to mention the transport logistics with the Channel Tunnel not yet operative.
Thirdly, as someone who has an abiding interest in the future of British agriculture and in the long-term viability of British farmers, not to mention the need to ensure that there is no further depopulation of the rural areas, I believe that it is imperative that a new sense of consumer awareness, and willingness to produce what the customer really wants, is engendered.
Finally, as a citizen and taxpayer, I want to see this country becoming stronger economically and not incurring a huge, unnecessary trade imbalance in food, which will only exacerbate the unemployment situation if we continue to be a high indigenous food importer.
It goes without saying that the food industry in this country has been very successful. The agricultural industry has also been highly successful. Indeed, it is the envy of many other agricultural countries; but something is missing. Production is first class; husbandry second to none. So why is there this great food trade gap? Putting it simply, the agricultural and food industries suffer from inertia when it comes to marketing, lack of innovation and the apparent inability (in the case of farmers) to be members of co-operatives.

1077
The agricultural and food sectors are still production driven: "You sell what I produce"; and, even worse, "You purchase what I produce." The statements should of course be, "You tell us what you want to purchase and we'll produce it." New product development lags a long way behind that in other countries—just look at the supermarket shelves, look at the dairy cabinet. Where do all the exciting new products come from? The labels tell the story: Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere.
Of course it is so much easier to produce commodity products like bulk butter, bulk cheddar cheese and one or two varieties of potato, just as it was easier to produce fat pigs before the Danes stole our market by producing lean bacon. Today's consumer demands variety in food products. His or her palate has been developed by trips abroad, ethnic fast food, and an ever-increasing willingness to experiment with new foods, both purchasing them for home preparation or eating out.
Food from Britain was set up in 1983, and has achieved some remarkable success. The Government have encouraged increased product and process innovation and given large grants to co-operatives. Yet imports of indigenous food remain unacceptably high. I have heard it suggested that there is a move afoot to set up yet another body to co-ordinate agri-food marketing activities. I ask the Minister to think twice, three and many more times before succumbing to that suggestion. In my view, part of the problem which led to us giving our market to overseas suppliers on a plate was that there were too many bodies all thinking that they had responsibility for special bits of the whole, and nobody picked up the responsibility for the whole. The whole important, very important, subject needs consolidation, a firm direction and guidance from the Government.
Food from Britain was burdened from the start by having to have representatives from very many sectors on its council. As a result, the decision process was hampered; the programmes were the product of consensus and consequently reflected the lowest common denominator, rather than the highest common factor. I sincerely hope that the review now being undertaken will result in recommendations to strengthen Food from Britain, to encourage it to be much more adventurous, and to remove from its neck the yoke of burdensome bureaucracy.
Perhaps the funding of Food from Britain should be put on a different basis. Naturally, if a farmers' organisation—for example, the MMB—puts up a significant sum for promotion, it wishes to see that money spent on the products of its area; namely, in the case of the MMB, on milk, cheese, butter or other dairy products. Such farmers' organisations will jealously guard and monitor the "spend" and ensure that other product areas do not get a slice of what they deem to be "their" money. That only shifts the responsibility for the marketing onto Food from Britain for their own product areas, and does little to help the overall improvement in the sales of all home-produced food.
1078
I have never been an advocate of throwing Government money at those who can and should help themselves. But I fear that by insisting that the food sector part-fund the promotion of British food through Food from Britain we will never have the same success as do food promotion agencies in other European countries. If I were the Minister I would be sorely tempted to make a case to the Treasury to allocate a sum of, let us say, £12 million per annum to Food from Britain for the next three years to see whether or not that can make a significant dent in the import of indigenous food. With that sort of funding, coupled with an unshackling from vested interests, I am sure a big impact could be made and £12 million per annum is not a vast sum compared with some of the amounts we hear about in this House. Over the past three years Government funding for FFB has been at an average of £5 million per annum. We are talking only of an additional £20 million or thereabouts.
I know that that suggestion will not be welcomed by the Treasury or the farmers' organisations. The NFU has done a powerful job for farmers in the past. Indeed, long before I joined the agricultural and food sectors, I had heard about the most effective lobbying organisation in the country; namely, the NFU. But just because it has been so successful does not necessarily mean that it is the best body with which to entrust the marketing of British food. The NFU has also the problem of trying to satisfy competing interests: should lamb be promoted? The pig farmers would probably say no. Should we vigorously promote low-fat milks, although that causes a problem for the disposal of the residual cream? Those are just two examples. I firmly believe that the farmers are not the best people to see the whole picture. They are excellent at producing high-quality agricultural products but, despite valiant efforts, are not marketing experts.
Food from Britain needs to stimulate and pump prime new product development. It needs to get even closer to the major retailers but not in a committee ambience. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the University of Strathclyde food project which has brought together representatives from all parts of the British food chain, farmers, food processors and retailers, to work together to develop opportunities for British food supplies. It is a most worthy scheme, but I have to say that, unlike the noble Lord, my heart sank when I saw that there is a council consisting of chairmen of four major plcs, a joint managing director of one of the large supermarket chains, the president of the NFU and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Those are all extremely busy men, and all have so many other activities to which they must devote their attention, how can they spend any length of time on this project? Even the logistics of trying to get them all together for a meeting must be the diary secretary's nightmare of all time.
Beneath them is a steering group, composed of seven men—and, I am glad to say, women—and again all are very busy people. They are very senior in their own organisations, be they employed in food companies or in the NFU and ADAS. And beneath

1079
them again are seven working parties, one each for major product areas including soft fruit, bacon, hams and red meat and salads.
My fear is that by the time it takes for the ideas generated by the working parties to percolate through to the council those same ideas could be significantly watered down or else have missed the "window of opportunity". We need a fleet of foot, energetic, single-minded organisation with creativity and flair to tackle the big opportunity to bridge the food trade gap. I hope that the Minister has listened sympathetically to my pleas.
4.1 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Elles for initiating the debate. I congratulate her on having been able to arrange it when there are so many experts in the House. We were reminded that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, was one of the five marketeers employed by my noble friend Lord Walker of Worcester. Many years ago the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was on the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation. There is, therefore, a sense of déjà vu. Many of us have sat on committees and have become fossilised in our thinking, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, suggests we are likely to do in respect of the Strathclyde project.
I must explain that I am a producer and a farmer. I grow arable crops in the supported sector; I produce milk in the controlled sector; and I grow crops for the open market in horticulture. Of that range of crops, I have always felt instinctively more comfortable in the horticulture sector because the opportunity for government or for the European Community to change the rules and to move the goal posts is greatly reduced.
I am not a marketing expert; I am a producer. The conclusion that I draw from the efforts of those who have tried to help with various marketing initiatives is that if there were government intervention, which was always needed to help the marketing of agricultural and food products, there would be no problem. Surely of all the sectors in industry there has during the past 40 or 50 years been more government intervention in the agricultural sector than in any other. The marketing boards of the 1930s were probably worthy and important in those depressed times. They are still with us but perhaps only for a short time. There were the deficiency payments of the 1950s, the move into the Community with the CAP-guaranteed prices and now, what is the most horrifying development of all, there is the move to supply control through the common agricultural policy. We had that in the 1980s with milk quotas and now in the 1990s we see supply control in beef, sheep, and arable area payments, variable crops and the like.
All those measures are intended by the Council of Ministers and by national governments to secure farm incomes and the rural infrastructure. The only conclusion that one can draw is that by shoring up support in that way a socio-economic effect can be achieved. However, often the EC puts itself at a
1080
disadvantage. The implications of GATT and of the agreement between the EC and the United States are that we shall be more vulnerable to imports instead of being in a more advantageous position. It is clear that the French and the Germans are right, as are the British producers who do not shout so loudly about it. They are right to point out that liberalised trade means that Canadians will be able to export milk products to this country in a way that was previously not possible. The New Zealanders and Australians have done a great deal to liberalise their trade and they see enormous advantages.
Yet we have a common agricultural policy which is becoming more and more entrenched in supply control. It is damaging to European agriculture and, in the context of this debate, it is damaging to United Kingdom agriculture. It is not as damaging as modulation would have been; those were the aspects of the reformed common agricultural policy which gave support to smaller farms rather than to larger farms. That would have been blatant discrimination against our country where infrastructure is so much larger.
Nevertheless, in taking the wider view we shall, if we continue with supply control measures through the common agricultural policy, drive ourselves into a more vulnerable situation in our own markets and in the export markets, whether we look at ourselves as Europeans or as UK farmers. We have had experience of milk quotas for almost 10 years and it has become impossible to imagine any Minister proposing to abolish them. They have become an important part of the balance sheet of the individual farm business; yet they are stifling production. It is impossible for a young person to enter the milk industry, and while quotas exist we can provide only 80 per cent. of our own home market. When in our wisdom we agreed to milk quotas we effectively gave the Irish and others 20 per cent. of our share of the market. It is no good, therefore, trying to do anything about that particular trade deficit; we have institutionalised the trade deficit in that area.
I am bitterly opposed to all quotas. I speak from a position of some authority because at one time I was chairman of the Hops Marketing Board. If anyone worked quotas to advantage it was the hop growers. I can also claim that while I was on the board it abolished quotas. I refer your Lordships to a report which was published two years ago, which is before the reform proposals for the common agricultural policy were circulated by Mr. MacSharry. It is a report of the European Communities Committee of July 1991 and is headed Development and Future of the Common Agricultural Policy. I sat as a committee member under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Middleton. The report wisely states:
"Quotas arc not in the interests of consumers, manufacturers or the agricultural industry and should not he extended to any new commodity".
We all know that that is precisely what has happened.
As European producers, we do not have the courage to take what ultimately is the only safe long-term supply control measure; that is, ultimately to use the pricing system. That is not to say that one must not pay compensation. If one intervenes so

1081
massively over so long a period, clearly one will drive an industry into a dependent culture. One will, of course, have difficulty in moving it closer to world market prices. I entirely accept that we must do that progressively. However, I am afraid that if we believe that quotas are the long-term solution we are wasting our time even in initiating this debate.
We in the United Kingdom are operating from a position of strength. My noble friend Lord Howe was right to point out that we have something of a success story on our hands. We have a number of strengths which need to be repeated: we are good at our jobs as producers and retailers—we are probably among the best in the world; we have a strong manufacturing sector; we have a good infrastructure throughout the distribution chain; and, of course, we have natural advantages working in our favour. Our country is relatively small-scale as regards transport and the heavy concentrations of population make the distribution of fresh produce simpler. We still have a good research and development base, in spite of considerable changes in national policy in the near-market sector. Nevertheless, it is a strong base. I suggest that our strong food safety record and our ability to produce high-quality food works in our favour.
That may seem surprising to some, particularly in view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the need for a food safety agency. I wish that I could share his enthusiasm for that quango or organisation. The idea of yet another tier of regulation and bureaucracy fills me with dread. I do not believe that it would do more than focus further attention in a way which will rebound to our disadvantage. I do not believe that we need any regulation other than that provided by the Ministry of Agriculture whose job it is to ensure that we maintain our high safety standards.
If we are looking at the matter on an industrial basis and looking to see where our strengths and weaknesses lie, our weaknesses are that we do not co-ordinate very well along the chain between the producer at one end and the customer at the other, with the manufacturers and retailers in the middle. I rather doubt that formal co-operation is the answer, despite my experience of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation.
Another weakness which is self-evident is that, with the cocoon of marketing organisations, marketing boards and so on, producers have never had much incentive to get close to their ultimate customers. Where that has been done—for example in horticulture, pigs and poultry—it has worked very successfully. I do not believe that it is a "hassle factor", as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain suggests. I believe that we are all entrepreneurial if there is the encouragement or right to be so. If there is a marketing board, you are not allowed to do anything with your milk except sell it through a marketing board. As producers, I do not believe that we need lectures on avoiding the hassle factor.
Bureaucracy is a killer. As small businessmen, we are all aware of that. It is totally out of sympathy with our culture. Most farmers now operate their farm
1082
office from a tractor cab. That may seem a strange concept but if you have no help, that is what you must do. You have a telephone and hope that you can minimise the paper work. I do not believe that anyone in Whitehall has stopped to think of the implications. For example, as regards the requirements of beef passports, there is a whole wodge of paper for each individual animal. That makes one realise how far out of sympathy the Government have become with the needs of the industry.
I was glad to hear my noble friend say that when he winds up, he will tell us how the Government propose to moderate the regulatory burden. We shall all be delighted to hear what he has to say. There are opportunities for co-ordination, if not co-operation. I believe that the Strathclyde initiative bears further inspection. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is quite right to point out that if we have committees full of the great and the worthy at the top, including myself, we will get nothing whatever from them. However, the "bottom-up" approach works rather better.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I did not say that. I said that the members of those committees are all very busy people and, as a result, find it difficult even to meet together. I did not say that such people do not contribute anything. I have the greatest possible respect for the noble Earl and I thank him for giving way.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, the noble Baroness was right the first time. As a council we do very little and we must come clean about that. However, we encourage the "bottom-up" approach. I mentioned earlier that I am involved in horticulture and I chair the top fruit working group within that sector whose members are involved in the production, processing and manufacturing. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lady Elles referred to the strange fact that we are not able to meet our own market demand for varieties such as Cox's apples. That seems to me to be a project which the Strathclyde initiative can helpfully look at. Indeed, it is doing so.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a flavour of what I mean from the worm's eye view to demonstrate the practical problems which we face. Why is it that an apple grower like me does not grow more apples if there is a demand which is not being met? In practice, the reason is that often you can sell only a proportion of your crop to the supermarkets and so on. Their specification tends to be rather high, for good retail reasons. However, if those outlets could be persuaded that a Cox's apple is not naturally large, which it is not, but a smaller apple and that the flavour of smaller apples is rather better, you would suddenly increase your potential of putting apples into the first grade and onto the supermarket shelves by a significant factor. I fear that I am becoming rather technical; but if I tell your Lordships that I can sell my 65 millimetre apples for double the price of 60 millimetre apples you will recognise how significant those figures are.
Even the best growers are bound to have a proportion of second or even third grade apples which

1083
should not be put onto the retail market because that would do little for the reputation of British Cox's. Equally, those apples make perfectly good juice or are suitable for manufacturing. It is not the producers who provide that manufacturing capacity. They are no better at that than they are at serving on committees. Therefore, the requirement is to try to persuade others in the food sector to complement the initiative and investment of the producers.
I believe that the Strathclyde initiative has demonstrated that, rather than relying on government help and handouts from Food from Britain and everyone else, the sector is trying to get together from top to bottom, stop complaining about the exorbitant demands made on one sector or another and work out how to complement each other's efforts. It is early days and I am sure that the noble Baroness will look carefully at the results of the reports. I believe that that is a sensible approach, not because of the people who are involved on the committees but because of the number of practical people involved at the working level.
While the terms of today's Motion invite us to draw attention to the role of Her Majesty's Government, at the end of the day the industry must sort out its own objectives. We can be helped by the Government if they free up the market, abolish quotas and instil some sense in the long term into the common agricultural policy. They will certainly help if they can cut down the bureaucracy. Above all, I agree with the noble Baroness that we need no more umbrella organisations; we need to make better use of the facilities which we already have.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend is a hard act to follow. Noble Lords who were not aware of it already will realise that his copious and wide experience in so many areas of the subject under discussion make him a most valuable Member of this House and a most valuable chairman of the sub-committee of your Lordships' European Communities Committee which deals with food and drink. I am a member of that committee and I admire my noble friend more day by day as he chairs the sub-committee. He is an extremely skilled chairman.
I begin by referring to something which my noble friend Lady Elles said at the end of her speech. It seems to me that one important part of the Government's role at present is to emphasise and re-emphasise to food and drink producers in this country that they should not nowadays think entirely separately about the promotion of their products at home and their promotion of exports abroad. Years ago, when comparatively fewer people travelled abroad and food technology was less highly developed, eating and drinking habits were national and local. By definition, export markets were very different from home markets and very different from one another. It is obvious that nowadays trips abroad are a normal part of life for growing numbers all over
1084
the world. More and more, tastes and habits in food and drink are more and more crossing national frontiers.
However, it is not so well recognised that nowadays probably the best promoters of all United Kingdom food and drink are the business people, the holidaymakers and the students who come here from abroad and discover what they consider to be delicious locally produced goods to eat and drink. They return to their home countries and seek out those products there. If they can find them, they then start a fashion. High quality attractive food and drink products which are a success on our home markets not only satisfy United Kingdom consumers and reduce the need for imports but, because people are so mobile, they create export markets.
I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government could not do more to emphasise that fact to producers and hoteliers, restaurant owners, bed-and-breakfast people and all of us who entertain overseas visitors at one time or another. We can all be export promoters simply by making sure that visitors meet the best of British products which we can find while they are here. I do not believe that this involves spending a lot of money. It is a question of giving us all a lead and making plain what we can achieve.
The Government also have a role—this has been touched on in one context or another during the debate—in bringing together producers' own promotion, particularly when the producers are small firms in outlying areas. An excellent example of this is a booklet published by the government-funded organisation based in Inverness, Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The booklet contains details of nearly 100 small firms: producers of seafood, dairy produce, meat and poultry, drinks, bakeries, preserves and the like. It lists the types of products each firm provides, their seasonality, any quality assurance arrangements and current markets supplied at home and abroad. There are also details of trade associations that can be contacted and comments of appreciation by a number of well-known United Kingdom supermarkets.
This booklet is produced by highly skilled professional marketing people with a level of expertise which small or even medium-sized businesses cannot hope to command. It is primarily aimed at the home market but is used by Highlands and Islands Enterprise as part of its export promotion work too. The agency also assists firms, as does Scottish Enterprise, to exhibit on Scottish stands at major international food shows. It helps firms to make their own export arrangements and produce material in several languages. There is no question that government's role in setting up and funding that agency has born great fruit by bringing together the promotion of specialist products on the part of small producers in the Highlands. The agency has a thoroughly practical, unbureaucratic attitude to what it is doing. It has direct contact with producers, and the results are excellent. I hope that my noble friend can confirm the Government's commitment to this

1085
kind of funding because it seems to me the right way to spend public money in the public interest in this field.
Another role the Government must concentrate upon at the present time is that of encouraging livestock producers to look more carefully at their markets—several people have mentioned this—and to join together to try to identify what they can do about the demands of the market. I mention livestock farmers particularly because they have not been mentioned a great deal so far. They have become accustomed to devoting financial resources, energy and concentration to fending off the less sympathetic proposals of the common agricultural policy which my noble friend Lord Selborne has described so well. There now needs to be a change towards far greater effort in studying and meeting the demands of the real market. Farmers must spend less time trying to play the system of the Commission. It seems to me the Government have some educating to do in persuading producers that it is in their interest to put resources into that study. There must be a collective effort between the Government and the producers.
I shall give an example of this. Scottish producers of beef and sheepmeat have set up their own quality assurance scheme called the Farm Assured Scotch Livestock Scheme. It is funded entirely by their own membership. To belong to the scheme and for his product to carry the farm assured mark right through the marketing chain to the consumer, a farmer must maintain strict specified standards of husbandry and animal welfare. Animal feed must be free of contamination and the farm is subject to the scheme's inspection of its practices and records. That is just the kind of effort that is urgently needed if Scots beef and Scots lamb are to please the public at home and abroad. The more forward-looking farmers realise that and are prepared to put money into membership, but many are much more hesitant. Could not the Government do more to encourage and persuade people that it is in their interest to put a little money into the scheme in order to receive a lot more back?
My noble friend Lady Elles commented on whisky and the Government's role in its promotion. It is well known to your Lordships that but for the enormous value of whisky exports—I believe the Minister said that last year they were worth more than £1.9 billion; that is over a third of the value of the total United Kingdom food and drink exports —the trade gap would be much wider. The Government have worked hard in recent years, along with the European Community, to bring about the reduction or removal of a number of trade barriers across the world. It was reported in the press last week that the Foreign Secretary and his European Community colleagues had agreed with the United States of America that the name "Scotch whisky" can be used only when the whisky is manufactured in Scotland. I have not been able to check that report but I hope that it is true as I believe that would be a good move forward.
A number of barriers still exist in the Far East, South Africa, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, but it is the European Community that is now Scotch whisky's largest market. In almost all the member
1086
states there are excise arrangements which favour wine and beer against whisky. The Scotch Whisky Association tells me that by far the greatest difficulty in combating that situation is our own Treasury's example. Here whisky and other spirits are subjected to almost twice the level of tax per degree of alcohol than is the case with wine and beer. Where the tax is lowest, the increase in exports is largest. Last year exports of Scotch whisky to France and Portugal increased enormously. Those are low tax countries, but even there the tax system favours wine and beer against whisky. Would not the Government be wise to favour whisky in this year's Budget? The effect would undoubtedly feed through to the trade gap. I shall not ask my noble friend to answer that question as clearly that would be a waste of time.
Finally, there is much the Government can do by simply not making life difficult for small firms. I believe that my noble friend Lord Selborne said this in another way. The other day I was talking to the proprietor of a small business in the Border country of Scotland. He has 24 Jersey cows and produces a very special and delicious soft cheese of the Brie type called Bonchester cheese. I must inform my noble friend Lady Elles that that name does not contain a "Y" or a "W". His sales amount to some £80,000 a year. It is not a big business in terms of a cheese manufacturing plant. He sells mostly to the home market, although sometimes he exports the cheese. A number of United Kingdom and European rules and regulations of necessity apply to Bonchester cheese and the proprietor has consequently considerable dealings with the Scottish Office. He has not yet had dealings with any other safety committee. He reported to me that the officials in the Scottish Office are extremely helpful and supportive. That is good news as we do not often hear such reports of civil servants. The proprietor said that the civil servants were most helpful and did not waste time unnecessarily in ensuring that his procedures were correct.
Wherever it is sold, Bonchester cheese reduces the trade gap. It is potentially a most attractive export and when sold in the United Kingdom it acts as an excellent import substitute for the Brie type of cheese or for Camembert. Therefore, the Government have a role there simply in refraining from hindering. I think that my noble friend the Minister agrees with that.
I have four questions. Could the Government not do more to make sure that we all recognise that the home market matters when it comes to exports? Could the Government give a stronger lead to beef and sheepmeat producers to get together to promote quality assurance? Will my noble friend make sure that the Chancellor understands about this business of whisky discrimination in this country in terms of exports? Lastly, does my noble friend appreciate how small firms can be helped by the Government doing not too much?
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lady Elles for introducing this debate today, and by apologising to her—and to

1087
the whole House—in that I was not in my place when she spoke. I am afraid that I was unavoidably delayed at another meeting.
The debate today is important. There is a great anxiety at the size of our balance of payments deficit, now running at a gap in the food and drink industry of some £5.9 billion—an increase, I believe, of 8 per cent. on 1991. To many of us this is a puzzling deficit. Of course there will be many items of food and drink that we shall need to import. For instance, wines and tropical fruits; and vegetables and salads, which we all now like to eat all the year round. But the Food from Britain organisation estimate that out of our total food import bill of some £13 billion, at least £3 billion could be produced at home. This does not close the gap, but it would be a considerable help.
I enter this debate with some hesitation because I do not pretend to understand the intricacies of agriculture. It is a subject on which I never speak, and I would be hesitant to do so in the presence of so many experts here today. But, as I understand it, from the farmers' point of view the changes in the common agricultural policy funding from 1984 to 1991 have led to a great reduction in the growth rate of production and hence of income. The proportion therefore of the home market held by British producers becomes an ever more important factor in their considerations.
There is a great incentive from the point of view of all of us in this country, and for the economy, to do something about the deficit. Apart from anything else, it would have a knock-on effect on increasing employment, which is so important at this particular time. It would help producers; I believe it would help retailers; and not least it would help the consumer. Contrary to a lot of popular opinion and a lot of old jokes, British food, at its best, is excellent, and compares with any food that is provided in the rest of the world.
The question is: what can be done? There are a number of things that have already been referred to and which the Government can and should do. But I should like to say something from my own experience as a non-executive director of Marks and Spencer where, I may say, 80 per cent. of the food that is sold comes from Britain. I believe that there are many things that farmers and growers could do, as well as the Government. They must become more market-orientated. The fact is that we live in a world in which the consumer is king. Consumers seek variety and choice all the time. People want, and expect, consistent quality at a price they can afford to pay. Although I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Selborne about apples, the fact is that people like apples of the same size. Perhaps they should not but they do; and this is the kind of detail—or perhaps more than a detail—to which we need to pay attention.
I believe that many farms in Britain, although large by European Community standards, are not individually able to support the retail industry to the consistent standard that it requires. They are not producing on a large enough scale to interface comfortably with major retail groups. Perhaps I may
1088
just give one example of what I mean by this: the catering industry. I believe that chains of restaurants, for example, cannot get enough consistently high quality beef because different standards of quality from individual farms are the only things on offer in Britain.
Further, everybody who sits down to eat at these restaurants expects to have a tender steak. Hence, in many instances the catering industry imports beef from Australia or other overseas countries for their supplies. Therefore, there is a great need for market grouping. I understand that following a seminar in Downing Street recently under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, a market task force is to be set up. This must be good news; but of course it must deliver, and that needs effective leadership.
I said that there are things that the Government can and should do, but I should like to welcome the initiative of the Office of Science and Technology in promoting debate on the use made of research and development. The sad fact is, as I understand it, that too often the excellent work that is produced is not used by our own food producers. In one case, it is being used by the Dutch, who use it and then sell their products back to us.
On the side of the European Community, I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry should take all the necessary steps to ensure that the level playing field in Europe, about which we hear so much, is enforced throughout the Community. It is, for example, essential that Community member states do not introduce measures that become, effectively, non-tariff barriers, particularly in environmental matters and over consumer protection legislation.
I would not want in the course of my remarks to be over pessimistic, because I think there are a number of good things that are currently going on and which are good news and good practice and I hope can be built on. I have already referred to Marks and Spencer. They export each year some £30 million worth of food. This will increase each year as the company expands into Europe, and I have no doubt that we shall see ever-better results of this.
The House may be interested to know that 90 per cent. of all the food that we sell in France is supplied from Britain; 100 per cent. of the food we sell in Belgium comes from Britain; 95 per cent. of the food we sell in Eire is supplied from Britain; 80 per cent. of the food we sell in Hong Kong comes from Britain —and I could go on. It is quite an achievement. Some may say that it is something that might have been regarded as impossible—to sell our food so well in Paris—when one considers what the French think about food; but I know from my own visits to our store in the Boulevard Haussmann that sliced white bread, because of its long-keeping capacity, is very popular.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that we sell 75,000 muffins a week, and almost that many sandwiches, all of which are very popular. The reason why they sell well is that they are fresh every day, that their quality is of the highest, and that they are at a price that people are prepared to pay. All this should

1089
improve with the opening of the Channel Tunnel, which should make communications even easier. Apart from all this, throughout our franchise industries we sell a great many traditional English foods as well as recipe dishes. This has all come about because of a successful relationship with United Kingdom suppliers.
Perhaps I may give some examples of ways in which we have been able to use British products rather than those from abroad. For example, salmon is now supplied from the Scottish salmon industry, switching the source away from Norway. We are working very hard on the development of appropriate production techniques to match the quality and character of chocolate confectionery made in Europe and currently sourced from Europe. The poultry business was originally dominated by French producers. The present position is that production for Marks and Spencer comes entirely from the United Kingdom.
A very interesting success story is the marketing of strawberries. Two years ago Marks and Spencer bought one third of its summer strawberries from Holland, France and Belgium. However, as a result of investment and new technology, in 1992 sales of United Kingdom-produced strawberries were 70 per cent. higher than in 1990. That has reduced our imports from Europe by two thirds. It has resulted in a growth in total demand for strawberries because customers prefer to buy British.
In her Motion today, my noble friend asked what the Government can do. I have given some indication of ways in which the Government can, and I think should, help. But a great deal can be done and is being done by the industry. As in so many instances, we should build on best practice. We should ensure that it is possible to produce the food that British people wish to eat. With the advance of research, development and technology it is evidently possible to produce food for a longer season at a higher quality than was once thought possible. If we are to keep up as a country in the modern world we have always to look to the future. We have to put money into that technology and research, to develop food and to sell it. We should not sell ourselves short. Britain can produce some of the best food in the world. We should eat it ourselves and we should export as much as we can in order to reduce the balance of payments deficit.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the Motion and for the skilled manner in which she introduced the debate.
The current major trade deficit in food and drink is of significant concern, in particular that part of it that lies with northern European Community member states. In such a debate we are entitled to ask ourselves the reasons for that deficit. Those countries enjoy a similar climate. They operate under the same common agricultural policy regime. They are approximately equal in the economic conditions prevailing in each member state. The United Kingdom has a larger and more efficient farming system than many of those member states. Therefore the conclusion as to why we
1090
find ourselves in that position must surely be that there are significant deficiencies in marketing in the United Kingdom. That factor has come across plainly in most of the speeches today, the notable exception being Marks and Spencer. It was recognised when Food from Britain was established. Indeed in some ways it was the raison d'être for Food from Britain. I took the view at the time, however, that the creation of Food from Britain was a rushed job by politicians anxious to make a name for themselves and as a consequence it has operated since its inception with an uncertain financial base. To some extent that was due to the fact that the scheme was rushed. I shall say another word about that later.
The abolition of retail price maintenance in food and drink did not in the main produce the forecast competition in prices for brand leaders. Instead, the industry replied by introducing its own label. The own-label system has been such a success that in many major firms it represents 50 per cent. of their trade. The result has been to give the dominant food retailers of this country greater power over their suppliers. Comparisons are harder for consumers to make even with unit pricing. Consumer organisations are strangely silent about that factor in view of the fact that they pressed so strongly for the abolition of RPM.
It is also accepted by most people that planning consents for supermarkets now also favour national chains, which have therefore established a double dominance in both supplies and planning. Consequently, the buying policies of those supermarkets are vital and any preference for foreign goods, for whatever reason, will adversely affect our balance of payments. One cannot criticise the standards or stock ranges of United Kingdom supermarkets. The fact is that the most successful of those are now reporting net profits on sales of 7 per cent., which is higher than in the days of retail price maintenance in food. Admittedly, shops are larger. Economies of scale and operation are helping.
Supermarket operators argue that United Kingdom land prices and local authority demands for planning gain in return for consents necessitate net profits which are higher than the average in the United States and Western Germany. High United Kingdom net profits have attracted foreign competitors. We now have Aldi, Netto and Ed—an organisation which I have encountered in my county of Kent. Those stores offer a lesser range, a basic service and take a lower gross profit. Their appeal is for the supply of staple items of food. The buying policies of those organisations—they are growing—may have the effect of worsening the United Kingdom deficit in food and drink.
The role of Food from Britain is currently being reviewed, as the Minister stated in his opening remarks. As I said, I believe that Food from Britain has been under-resourced from the outset, partly because the system was introduced without much discussion with the trade as a whole, and producers, processors and retailers were confronted with it as a fact of life. That is not to say that it was not necessary; it is not to say that the people who recommended the

1091
Minister to go ahead were not competent people. Nevertheless, I refer to the speed of the operation and the failure to discuss it. Sometimes democracy, however depressing, is a necessary exercise, in particular if one is looking for money at the end of the day. The result is that the income for Food from Britain, apart from that supplied by government—and government periodically make noises about how much it costs—comes from such bodies as the Milk Marketing Board, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Home Grown Cereals Authority, semi-statutory bodies in the main. As has already been pointed out, its finances do not compare in any way its French or German equivalents. Given such limitation upon finance, any idea that it can perform as effectively as those organisations is fallacious.
There is therefore a need for fresh consideration of the basis on which Food from Britain is funded. That point was touched upon quite effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. In any case, if major United Kingdom retailers are now known for own-label products, as they are, how can Food from Britain be fully effective in promoting United Kingdom produced food in Europe and elsewhere? So far United Kingdom supermarket chains are not expanding in the European Community in similar fashion to the French, German and Danish company expansions in this country. Certain British operators are undoubtedly joining buying groups in Europe. However, that does not necessarily bode well for the future of our balance of payments. I believe that the review of Food from Britain which is now being undertaken needs to take account of both the funding and development intentions of British supermarkets.
The National Farmers Union is now showing some interest in food marketing. One welcomes attempts to persuade farmers at long last to look beyond the farm gate. United Kingdom farmers are not yet fully organised in food marketing. Farm marketing co-ops are limited in strength, certainly vis-à-vis giant supermarket organisations. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now appears somewhat lukewarm about promoting co-operatives. There is a reduced role in that area for Food from Britain, as my noble friend Lord Carter mentioned in passing in his speech. Nor does the present and proposed system for market grants make much provision for stimulating co-operatives. They rank equally for grant, but there is certainly no attempt in the document I have just read to promote them in any special fashion. Therefore one is entitled to ask what Her Majesty's Government's position is as regards the promotion of co-operatives. Do they see a future for voluntary organisations of that character?
The Ministry is also now disinclined to support marketing boards, which are in effect statutory co-operatives. On this side of the House we were rather sorry to see the Bill which virtually ends the Milk Marketing Board and may also in due course bring the Potato Marketing Board to an end. That is not to say that one was over the moon about the performance of those organisations or thought that they were incapable of improvement. Nevertheless,
1092
the attitude of the Ministry appeared to be that their days were numbered, they were finished and it was best to be rid of them. So with the Bill we had, in effect, a funeral service for both organisations.
In that area the reliance upon the edicts of Brussels as a justification for the abolition of statutory marketing boards in this country was excessive. It was an unwise decision to acquiesce to the dictates of Brussels because, in our view, powerful marketing bodies are the answer to some of the problems which we are discussing this afternoon.
Marketing boards of a statutory character apparently survive elsewhere in the world, for example in Canada. In Ontario, for example, there are 25 such boards with varying powers. They cover a range of commodities from milk, via fruit, cereals, eggs, poultry, sheep and potatoes, to name but a few. I should like to ask whether the Canadian marketing board system has been considered in all the research which the Minister described in his opening speech. For example, has it been considered by Food from Britain, or even the National Farmers Union? How successful are marketing boards in Canada in reality, and will they form any part of the current review which the National Farmers Union is undertaking in this area? I wonder also whether Canada will be able to keep marketing boards, if it so wishes, under the new economic trade area negotiated in North America covering the United States, Canada and Mexico.
The principle of subsidiarity announced at Maastricht and endorsed in Edinburgh extends to the common agricultural policy. I am grateful to the Minister for a Written Answer yesterday which tells me that, even if heavily qualified, it is possible under the regime of the common agricultural policy for a measure of subsidiarity to exist. I welcome that.
I ask myself whether it is not now time for the United Kingdom to take an objective look at the basis upon which food travels from farm to consumer. Forty or so years ago the first Lord Lucas of Chilworth chaired an inquiry for the then Labour Government which produced a report in favour of extending marketing boards, including one for meat, with adequate safeguards for consumers. I believe that the gravity of the present balance of payments situation in food and drink warrants a reconsideration of the whole question. I hope that as a result of today's debate the Ministry of Agriculture will not keep such a closed mind on this matter as it apparently has at present and will take a broad look at the whole question. There is certainly much more to the subject than we have heard hitherto in the debate this afternoon.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Elles for introducing the subject and for doing so so skilfully.
I must declare an interest, having been employed by the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance in varying capacities for more than 15 years. I shall therefore concentrate on conveying to your Lordships the views of the food processing industries generally and the biscuit, chocolate and confectionery

1093
industries in particular. Cakes are not yet exported extensively, although there is a growing market in the Middle East and in Europe. We hope to see that grow as time goes on.
There are three important points to make at the outset. First, food processors add much value to primary agricultural commodities. Their products are therefore potentially much more important export earners for the Community than primary products, a fact which DGVI of the Commission seems implacably resolved never to accept.
Secondly, as explained clearly by the Food and Drink Federation when giving evidence to the Agriculture Committee in another place on 19th February 1992, the concept of a trade deficit in narrow UK terms is inappropriate for the many food and drink manufacturers operating on a pan-European basis.
Thirdly, the trade deficit statistics do not differentiate between primary agricultural commodities and value-added processed foods. Taken across the board the food and drink products have a trade deficit but proportionately it is not nearly as great as the deficit for primary products. Some food and drink products, of which the United Kingdom biscuit, chocolate and confectionery industries are a prime example, have a positive trade balance. It is on the details of the export problems affecting those products, which I shall refer to as alliance products, that I propose to concentrate my further remarks.
Your Lordships may well ask what the industry is worried about if it has a positive balance of trade. There are three reasons why it is important that national and Community policies should be adjusted to ensure that the maximum opportunity is available for fair trading in processed food and drinks. First, the food and drink manufacturing industry as a whole is the single largest manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister mentioned that in more detail. Secondly, those products which are in trade surplus can earn even more money for the UK and the Community if more can be exported. Thirdly, on a narrower front, the multinational companies to which I have already referred may well switch production from the United Kingdom to other EC countries if the internal tax arrangements are more favourable elsewhere. The current UK trade surpluses in alliance products may then turn into deficits.
There are four areas in which greater assistance could be provided by governments. By governments I mean our Government and the European Community. Before mentioning those areas I must say that most of what my noble friend the Minister described as current government help does not seem to me to tackle the matters which I regard as important. Yet more committees can easily be an excuse for postponing action.
I turn now to the real needs of the food processors. First, as my noble friend Lady Elles told your Lordships, chocolate, confectionery and chocolate-coated biscuits bear value added tax at 17.5 per cent. Most other foods in the UK are zero rated Most other EC countries have a much lower rate of VAT on
1094
alliance products. In 1997 the origin system is due to come into effect when, if the VAT differentials are maintained, products sourced abroad will be able to be sold more cheaply in the United Kingdom than UK-made products. That is surely an encouragement to multinationals to shift production abroad. More immediately, in the United Kingdom the home market can be strengthened by bringing the VAT rate for chocolate and confectionery products into line with the bulk of United Kingdom foods at the zero rate. That is something that the Government could do now.
Secondly, the quota system operates against the alliance products. That system was touched on by my noble friend Lady Elles and was uncovered as harmful by my noble friend Lord Selborne. Two important industry raw materials, sugar and milk, have unnecessarily to be imported from other EC countries because the quota system prevents UK farmers from supplying all that is needed at home. The Food and Drink Federation explained the problem well in another place on 19th February 1992. It asked when the United Kingdom Government were going to attack quotas.
Thirdly, I turn to the question of GATT. There is a pressing need for a resolution of the outstanding differences in settling the Uruguay Round. In 1982 I led a delegation of biscuit and chocolate manufacturers to Japan. During our visit we were able to persuade the Japanese to halve the biscuit and chocolate tariffs, from around 30 per cent. to 15 per cent. However, even at the lower rate our products could only be sold as luxuries, whereas 100 years of development of chocolate and biscuit manufacture in the United Kingdom enables those products to be sold as quality items to the broad mass of the people if not excessively taxed. I told the Japanese that they should see the post-war development of efficiency among United Kingdom food manufacturers as equivalent to that of Japanese car manufacturers and should impose a tariff accordingly—which would have been around 5 per cent. We need to get low tariffs for processed foods and drink. We cannot expand into all our potential new markets without low tariffs. We must have a GATT conclusion.
Fourthly, on the question of trade wars, noble Lords will remember that in June 1992 the United States published a so-called hit list of items to receive 100 per cent. import duty in retaliation for the EC refusal to adapt its oilseed regime. In the event the alliance's representatives at subsequent hearings persuaded the US authorities to remove alliance products from the list. A key factor in that achievement lay in showing that CAOBISCO, our EC trade association, had consistently opposed the distortions and excesses of the common agricultural policy. Industry had to help itself without much support from government.
In conclusion, the food and drink processors—suitably helped more relevantly to their needs both by the UK Government and the Commission—could be an even greater money earner in the world-wide trading scene. I believe that help to be essential—perhaps noble Lords may feel that I am overstating the position, but I do not think so—in such a major

1095
exporting manufacturing area if we are to survive as an independent nation. For the European Community, our survival is essential to the cohesion of Europe.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, like my noble friend whom I follow, I must preface my remarks by declaring an interest. I am a consultant to a subsidiary of a very large and, I may say, very successful British company in the drink and food sector.
I welcome the renewed emphasis which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has recently placed on the importance of our manufacturing base. The health of our manufacturing industry is indeed vital to the wealth of this country. This debate—for which we are indebted to my noble friend Lady Elles —gives us an opportunity to stress that manufacturing means chocolate biscuits and ice-creams as much as it means widgets or power stations. The food and drink industry is the single largest manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone reminded the House. It employs some 600,000 people. Wherever the new fervour for manufacturing industry is to take us, it should certainly embrace the food and drink industry. But where will it take us?
I firmly believe that the primary role for government so far as industry is concerned is to establish and then maintain the conditions in which industry can flourish: low taxation; minimum government regulation; good industrial relations; minimum inflation—for it is the expectation of inflation which has in the past more than anything else destroyed long-term thinking by industry in this country and competitive markets at home and abroad. The Government have a supply side function of great significance to industry in raising educational standards, although industrial training needs primarily to be the responsibility of industry itself, which knows best what skills are needed. The Government also have a role in improving the functioning of markets. I shall come back to what the Government can do for that sector in that respect.
I do not think that the Government should be in the business of deciding which firms, sectors or even technologies are most worthy of support. I am even sceptical about the desirability of governments taking it upon themselves to decide what the right level of investment in manufacturing industry should be, and adopting fiscal incentives to encourage it if it is thought to be too low. One of the reasons for privatisation was that governments were not in the right position to determine proper investment levels; they would either under-invest or over-invest. If noble Lords doubt whether governments over-invest, I refer them to an interesting analysis of the European steel industry's problems in the Financial Times of 25th February, where that industry's parlous state today is (at least in part) attributed to over-investment by state companies during the past 10 years.
It so happens, however, that the food and drink industry could at several points be helped by
1096
legitimate government action; and the Government have shown gratifying signs of recognising that. In general terms, their pursuit of a completion to the Uruguay GATT Round and of continuing reform to the iniquitous CAP are both in accordance with the wishes and interests of the industry. One of the evils of the CAP is that it encourages farmers to produce for intervention without any interest in even ascertaining the demands of the market.
But it is not the CAP alone which stands in the way of a more interactive and constructive relationship between the farmer and the manufacturer. We are quite capable of producing our own home-grown impediments to free markets. It is surely absurd, for instance, that last year we ran a deficit approaching £600 million in the dairy sector, given our comparative natural advantages in that sector. The Government themselves firmly lay the blame for that situation on the persistence of the milk marketing board's quite archaic monopoly powers. I welcome the steps that they have taken to ensure the scheme's early demise.
It is surely equally absurd that alone among European countries we saddle ourselves with potato quotas, which have led to lower production and higher prices in this country. They have forced our manufacturers to resort to foreign suppliers and have produced a doubling of the imports of finished potato products over the course of the past 10 years. We would also be much better off without that market impediment.
The Government have also seen scope in trying to bring elements of the industry together—horizontally between producers to overcome their reluctance to enter co-operative arrangements and to encourage the development of bulk supplies to industry; and vertically between the different elements in the chain. The aim was to improve the industry's use of indigenous products.
As my noble friend the Minister told us, to that end the Government announced a group marketing grant in November the year before last which will contribute 50 per cent. towards the cost of creating producer groups. The Prime Minister's seminar in that same year and the Market Task Force within MAFF to which it also gave rise—I am not sure whether my noble friend told us how that had been proceeding and I should be grateful if he would say more in his wind up—were the first steps by the Government in what I hope will be a continuing campaign by them to bring together producers, manufacturers and retailers. I was greatly encouraged by what he told us about my right honourable friend's recent activities in holding export seminars in particular.
Export promotion is therefore a field in which the Government recognise that they have a role to play. In that context the Commons' Committee took the view that the Food from Britain organisation was significantly underfunded in comparison with its European counterparts. It wished to see the Government fund the last £1 million of their £4.5 million potential grant on a pound for pound rather than £1 for £3 basis. The noble Lord, Lord Carter repeated those criticisms.

1097
The Government reply was quite reasonable in pointing out that the government funding of Food from Britain amounts to 60 per cent. of that body's income. That is a much higher proportion than in the case of the equivalent French organisation SOPEXA; the equivalent German organisation receives no government funding at all—although the noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke of para-fiscal levies, which is a new animal to me. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister in winding up will give his comments on the noble Lord's description.
Nevertheless, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, made a plausible case for the Government to make a substantial increase in funding for Food from Britain, linking it to the task of reducing the deficit. It would be proportionately a large increase but absolutely a very small one. I hope that in due course my noble friend will seriously consider it. I also look forward to the results of the consultant's report.
A serious bone of contention with the United Kingdom drinks industry and in particular with the Scotch whisky industry, touched on lightly by my noble friend Lady Elles, is the prevailing level of excise duty. It seems extraordinarily unhelpful to one of this country's notable success stories to treat it more severely than many other countries do, or more severely than we treat the wines that we import, on which excise duty as a percentage of alcoholic content is almost half that on spirits. Surely it hardly helps in the task of securing fair treatment for our exports abroad. Moreover, with the single market opening up cross-border trade, our high excise duties are likely to lead to increasing loss of sales and hence tax revenues to this country. There are already signs of that happening.
The Government have stated their belief that a better balance in the taxation between wine, beer and spirits within the Community is desirable. I realise that now is not a time to expect the Government to forgo large sums in revenue. But I join with my noble friend Lady Carnegy in hoping that nevertheless my right honourable friend the Chancellor will use the Budget to start the process of unloading the dice against us in that area.
As my noble friend Lady Elles explained, the context for the future of the food and drink industry is the development of the single market, which will force the pace of concentration in the industry. It is essential that our companies achieve scale on a European basis. International alliances are forming and producer networks are developing very quickly. The Government must continue to encourage our industry to look outward so that it participates fully in the opportunities presented. I see no reason at all why the industry should not be able to do so.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, we have heard many expert speeches from noble Lords on the general and very large subject of our £13 billion food and drink industry. I thank my noble friend Lady Elles for introducing the subject. I hope your Lordships will allow me a few minutes' special pleading, in a still small voice, in the name of organic farming.
1098
In terms of our balance of payments, there is no doubt that there is room for import substitution benefits as well as benefits for organic farmers. I declare an interest in that I am a patron of the Soil Association which runs the symbol scheme ensuring the organic nature of members' farming activities over some 35,000 hectares of land in the United Kingdom. As noble Lords are aware, organic farming is a Cinderella among the big battalions of the farmers and in the agrochemical industry. I would not attempt to detract from the great export record of the cereal producers, for instance, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. However, there has been overproduction. Hence the CAP has been involved, and we now have set-aside.
I should like to point out that there is a remarkable connection between set-aside and the loss of production which is claimed to occur from organic farming methods. The present-day highly mechanised farming will reject the organic system because it takes about four years to build up and results in a 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. loss of productivity. That is no good to anyone's pocket. However, the organic farmer has taken that on board. It is perhaps ironic that the only subsidy he receives is that for setting aside 15 per cent. of his land which has already been set-aside 100 per cent. by being organic. The Soil Association has been in close touch with MAFF and papers have been exchanged. We expect the Ministry to make some positive suggestions in the immediate future. We hope for a generous grant per hectare but I am afraid we have been warned not to be too optimistic in that view.
I hope I have put a slight case for organic farming so that we come to the point where it can help the balance of payments, which is the subject of our discussion. The organic food and related products market is worth some £200 million. In terms of £13 billion that is not a lot of money. Nevertheless, expansion is in view. Of that £200 million, 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. is imported from Germany and Denmark and a smaller amount from the Netherlands and France. That shows an adverse balance of £140 million out of the £5.9 billion deficit we had in 1992. That £140 million is just 2 per cent. of the adverse balance. We only need 49 more 2 per cents and we have won the day.
All European governments subsidise their organic farmers to some extent but only in Germany and Denmark is the subsidy a direct grant of between £100 per hectare and £213 per hectare per annum. That is absolutely legal and above board. Indeed, it is paid 50–50 by the state and the European Commission. I have some details, and perhaps noble Lords will permit me to quote from information that I received from the Soil Association.
"The organic market continues to grow with some forecasts predicting that the market value could reach £1 billion by the year 2000. Assuming that the present ratio of home production remains static, this would result in an organic food import bill of £600 million by the turn of the century".
It appears that in Germany conversion grants have been available since 1989 at the rate of £213 per hectare per annum for arable land and £150 for grassland. United Kingdom farmers would be very

1099
pleased to have that in their pockets. The total amount to be spent by Germany in 1993 is estimated at £32.5 million which is either £200 per hectare on 170,000 hectares in Germany or £100 per hectare on 270,000 hectares of East Germany and West Germany combined. In Denmark the conversion rate is £100 to £180 per hectare per annum and in that small country the production has risen from 6,000 hectares to 18,000 hectares this year. The expansion is rapidly growing. All those countries are flooding food into Britain as organic food and our own organic producers are unable to compete.
The organic acreage of western Europe as a whole increased from 180,000 hectares in 1990 to 530,000 hectares in 1993. Therefore there is a real threat to our balance of payments. We are in the same old position of paying the Commission to subsidise the import of food to this country while our own organic farmers are left unsupported in the cold world of unfair competition. It is not only ridiculous, but it is also damaging to the balance of payments to the tune of £140 million a year.
In this country the Soil Association oversees around 35,000 hectares which are dedicated under the symbol scheme to organic methods of farming. That is 75 per cent. of the UK total. At £200 per hectare the cost would be £7.5 million to be split 50–50 between the Government and the Commission. There is a suggestion coming from on high that we may obtain £1.5 million. Twenty per cent. is better than nothing, but it is a derisory amount and will not enable our organic farmers to compete with European producers in the European Community which we joined. That is an extreme disadvantage. I gave those facts to my noble friend on the Front Bench and hope that in the course of his speech he will respond to some of them.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise to the House for not being able to be present in the earlier part of the debate, and to thank my noble friend Lady Elles for proposing it. I am grateful to the House for allowing me to make a short contribution, which I have been reminded I must do.
I have been in the business of trying to export British food, mainly British cheese, for the past 15 years. I must declare an interest in that I am now involved with a company which exports a large quantity of milk and milk products throughout the UK.
I should like to turn straight away to one specific issue. The debate calls attention to the role of Her Majesty's Government in promoting British food. It is unquestionable that those countries in Europe which are successful food exporters and which export more food than they import, have a clear government policy that that is what they want to do. I have attended all the fairs of the world trying to market British food. It is quite clear that those countries that are determined to redress their balance in that way and make food exports one of their major government policies, are the ones that are succeeding and offer the greatest competition to us.
1100
It is not something that happens quickly. It takes a long time to build up trade with a potential buyer in another country. My experience has been that it will take at least three years before one is likely to transact a sensible purchase. Therefore one of the drawbacks that this country faces is that one may have a window of opportunity when market prices are such that a particular commodity can be exported to another country, but unless one is confident that it is a product which will be available for quite some time, many people will be reluctant to take up the marketing. Clearly there must be an understanding that there is a long-term government policy to support the exports.
A number of noble Lords mentioned Food from Britain. I was closely involved with that scheme when it first started. I was always of the view that, unless it could receive an income in excess of £20 million, it would never be of any use and the money put into it would be wasted. In fact the money has been wasted. It would have been far better to have divided it among the people in the export business and for them to have used it as they saw fit.
If we are to raise that kind of money—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, may have referred to this—we must impose a levy on producers of raw material in the United Kingdom. A small levy in terms of cereal and milk would have produced a sum of money which would make food from Britain competitive with other countries in Europe. I am aware that last year Spain spent £4 million in the UK to promote Spanish food products. With that kind of competition £5 million or £6 million is ridiculous in the world markets in which we have to operate.
It is not necessary for the Government to foot the bill, but the Government should clearly indicate how industry and the basic food producers are to meet the cost. On the other hand, a few years ago if one had gone to the cereal producers and asked them for a levy, they would have been more than willing to pay because they wanted to increase the amount of cereal they produced. With the present 15 per cent. set-aside they are being held back from producing and would take a different view if also expected to pay a levy.
The milk industry is now finding it extremely difficult to secure the products needed to fill the markets that have been generated and developed over the past 20 years. There will definitely be a cut back on the amount of milk products to be exported from this country, merely from the shortage of milk. I suggest to the Government that they review the idea being pushed around that there should be two levels of milk production: one which is controlled by quotas and is at the price within Europe, and another where extra production is allowed at world market prices on the basis that the product will be exported out of Europe. That will give the industry greater impetus and allow it to maintain the export markets which have been developed over recent years.
Time is running out. I leave the Minister with one suggestion which I believe will have some impact. My noble friend behind me suggested that the last thing we want is to put more VAT on food; that we should convince other countries to take it off. I do not believe that that is likely to happen. I feel that any

1101
government will have to look to other sources of revenue. A small amount of VAT on food in the UK would be a positive decision. It improves the balance of importing because it is easier to export from a high VAT country to a low VAT country. One of the reasons that France, Holland and Germany export food is that balance. I suggest to the Minister that that is another point which he may like to consider.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Wade, I apologise that I was not here at the beginning of the debate. Indeed, I did not expect to be in the country as I was due to be in Madrid today. However, at the last minute the trip was cancelled and I hastened here to listen and ultimately participate in this fascinating debate on an important subject.
I should like to intervene briefly to mention the last stage in the added value of the food and drink industry; that is, the restaurant and catering trade. I declare an interest in that, first, like everybody else, I am a consumer in the industry. I also happen to be the honorary patron of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain, which is a small trade association which recently celebrated 25 years of life —no mean feat. I want to mention one specific aspect of the work which is the one that affects the debate; namely, the work that it has done in pioneering improved standards in catering.
After the war British restaurants and food had, generally speaking, a poor reputation. Over the past 25 years standards in the industry have risen to such an extent that Britons in the restaurant trade can hold their heads up and compete anywhere in the world. Indeed, many British chefs operate and work in France and elsewhere.
The restaurateurs association has played a major part in that, as have other associations. It has held national competitions for young chefs and waiters. It is an industry which employs an enormous number of people and offers job opportunities not only for work in all aspects, but notably an ability to advance for anyone who has talent and drive. Success stories in the industry are legion. I am glad to say that restaurateurs prefer minimum action and regulation by government, but they certainly welcome recognition that they play an important part in the life of our nation.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to talk about food and drink, especially in the presence of such expertise as I have listened to today. I cannot claim any expertise on the subject. The best I can do, as the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and others have done, is to reflect largely as a consumer on some of the matters that have been placed before us. I wish also to make one other preliminary remark. The debate is couched in terms of food and agricultural products. There is one agricultural product which gets into the trade statistics—namely, tobacco—but I do not propose to talk about that subject today. Indeed,
1102
the presence of tobacco rather distorts the statistics anyway. I shall concentrate on what fellow noble Lords have referred to.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Files, for introducing the debate. I note that she introduced her excellent survey of the whole subject with some remarks on the state of the economy. Again, I do not want to go into too much detail on that but I wish to say a few words about two matters which she raised —devaluation and a stable currency. I for one, as noble Lords will be aware, do not resile from the position I held some time ago which indeed was the one stated most forcefully by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; namely, that it was right to be in the exchange rate mechanism; it was right to have a stable exchange rate for the sake of industry; and that it would be a catastrophe if we were driven out of the exchange rate mechanism and were forced to devalue. My view is that what they said then was correct and that what they are saying now is incorrect. What industry requires—I include agriculture in industry—is a stable financial framework; and, as this is an industry of which the international dimension is of the essence, a stable exchange rate is vitally important.
Secondly, and in connection with that point, it is not obvious to me—I put it mildly—that devaluation of sterling will be beneficial to agriculture in the long run or to the food industry more generally. A headline in the Financial Times yesterday stated:
"Pound slide brings an arable bonanza".
But that is a very short-term view of the matter. It is not obvious to me that the devaluation of sterling will help us to close the deficit. This is partly a matter of what economists call elasticity of supply and elasticity of demand. It seems to me that the elasticities in this case are both so low that the trade deficit could actually worsen in the area we are discussing rather than improve as a result of devaluation. I would certainly be interested in the Minister's comments on that matter.
On the deficit generally, we ought to take a rather longer view than just looking at the figures of the past year or so. As an amateur, I decided that I had better look at the figures. What strikes me about the deficit in this area is that it has been on an upward trend for quite some time. The deficit has been relatively stabilised for a couple of years but over the past 10, 12 or more years the deficit has been rising. In particular, it has been rising in absolute terms. The position looks less bad as a fraction of GDP, but nonetheless when one is in deficit what matters is what one owes as a result of the deficit. The absolute figure is what you owe. To say that it is a small fraction of some other large number is not necessarily very helpful. We have to take the view that the problem is a serious one that has lasted some time.
To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in many ways it is puzzling that this should be so. It looks as if this is a deficit that "ought to be smaller". I do not take a mercantile view of this. I am not one who says that intervention to prevent people selling to us is good. On the contrary, I am a fairly passionate free-trader except for one or two obvious special cases.

1103
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, and others reminded us that when we go into our supermarkets the range of products available is enormous compared with what we saw when we were all much younger. Indeed, when I am dragged into Waitrose or elsewhere by my wife and I am bored out of my mind, I wander around looking at the countries of origin of all, say, the fresh fruit and vegetables. Naturally, given my frame of mind, I add up the number of different countries from which one can buy these products. The number is enormous—30 or 40 countries quite easily, as one is looking across Waitrose.
In many cases it is inevitable that those products come from abroad—I do not want to suggest that we would be better off if we prevented them coming in —but in other cases one is mystified as to why foreign products are being stocked in season—it is not merely an out-of-season matter—when this is an opportunity for our own producers. I speak as a consumer. I just do not understand why that should be so.
I could refer in particular to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on apples. It is a very good example. I have not the slightest doubt that the Cox is the best apple that one can buy. There is no argument about it. I find it a mystery, however, that, if one is meeting consumer demands, consumers prefer to buy Golden Delicious, an apple which I find has no taste whatever. But I am told when I inquire about this that the consumer wants look and shape and does not seem to care about taste. I despair if that is the nature of our consumer. I could make a similar remark about tomatoes. It is ages since I tasted a British tomato that had any taste. I regret to say that the only decent tomato I have had recently came from Italy, but it tasted like something. When I inquired why no one else had such tomatoes I was told that it was because they come in different shapes and not standard sizes and that the industry and the consumer do not seem to like that.
These are consumer moans. My main point is to agree entirely with the view that all of this represents an opportunity for the agricultural and food processing industries and that we ought to be upbeat about it in exactly the way the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that Marks and Spencer is; namely, it is determined to get its products from British sources and it is determined to be a success.
In that connection perhaps I may say that I too was puzzled by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on export promotion versus import substitution. Clearly, if one wishes to narrow the deficit, one must both export more and import less. But, given the scale of importing, I should have thought the better bet was import substitution by a long way. That is also true of many aspects of British industry. Only a few days ago the Daily Telegraph devoted a whole page to products —Sheffield cutlery is an example but there were many others—where it is not at all obvious why we are not meeting our own demands in our own markets.
I should like to be more persuaded by the Minister about his remark, which I may have misheard—if I did, I think other noble Lords must have misheard it in the same way—that the export side is the better bet.
1104
I am not going against the view that we ought to be trying to export more but there is a clear market at home which our people can win. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned biscuits, an industry with which he is involved. I am sorry to be so anecdotal but as I wander around our supermarkets I see biscuits coming in from Germany, Denmark and so on. I repeat my point. I am not against any of that but
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that he did not look very far. The percentage of imported biscuits is of the order of only about 5 per cent. of the total market in the United Kingdom.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord and I am also glad to have that piece of information. The shelves that I have in mind have a rather larger fraction, but it may well be that I tend to shop in the wrong stores. I do not know. My real point is that all these areas are open to our own industries to get in and grab the markets; and I take it that that is why the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has introduced the subject for us.
That leads me to the Government's policy. There are some differences between us—I do not think we can doubt that. Some people are less interventionist than others. I wish to support what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said about the Government being a facilitator. However, I hope that we do not hear the usual cliché of the level playing field or talk about fair competition when there seems little doubt in my mind that we are playing with not quite the same rules as our foreign competitors. I believe that other governments promote their food processing industries more than we do. I would like to see our Government operate in a more positive way, which I believe is what the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, was saying.
I return to the question of quality. I remain convinced that a country like ours in all areas, and not just the one we are discussing today, can survive only if we set the highest quality standards. I do not believe that we should be in the low-cost, low-wage business in any area at all. We have to be a high-wage country because it is something we strongly believe in. Therefore, we have to be a high-productivity and high-quality country. I believe that in so many areas we show that we can be. I take the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and I also declare an interest. I too have at least some connection with the restaurant business. The restaurants in our country are now outstanding. The Michelin Guide to restaurants in this country is a ludicrous publication. It does not recognise the outstanding quality of our restaurants, and we put up with that nonsense instead of ourselves pushing our own quality. That brings out why quality is so important and why we should have confidence in other areas. Without wishing to be too personal, the cheese of the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, is as good a cheese as one can possibly get. We all know that he gives us some at Christmas-tide and we look forward to some more. Perhaps we can have some earlier in the year as well. Again, we do not have to be ashamed, but we must make sure that we sell those products and compete vigorously.

1105
I believe that I have covered as much of the ground as I want to. One matter I have always been keen on —I do not say this in an acerbic way—is to view agriculture and food processing as an industry. For example, I have never understood why we have MAFF. I have never understood why that particular set of activities is separated from everything else which is called industry. Of course, I do not want civil servants to be unemployed or anything of that nature. There is an oddity about that situation. One of the factors from which I have gained a great deal of pleasure and interest in today's debate is that we have not approached it as a narrow agricultural or food debate. We have tried to set it in a broader context.
I end with something of which I also wish to be supportive; namely, the Strathclyde Food Project which my noble friend Lord Carter and others drew to our attention. Not only is that project worth supporting in the context of the present debate, but I would like to see the so-called "bottom-up" approach adopted throughout British industry. I refer again to the Daily Telegraph article. I would like to hear people in area after area saying, "Why are we importing this product? What is there about British suppliers which accounts for why we are not producing and supplying it?"
One reason was supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, when he said that to do anything is a long-term commitment. Therefore, one needs an economic and financial framework so that if one begins today on a project, one does not get a pay-off for three or four years; therefore, one does not want the economy to turn down again, and so on.
However, I do not like to end on too much of an up-beat note because, as an economist, gloom is the business which I thrive on. I shall be interested to hear the noble Earl's reply to my final point. The deficit is quite large and the economy is still in recession. I said earlier that I was less optimistic about the outlook than some. If and when—and I hope that it is "when" rather than "if"—the economy starts to move forward again, I believe that the deficit will grow even larger. What interests me is whether the Government have anything to say about the likely size of our deficit, not now but in a year or two when we hope that the economy will be booming again.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have sometimes heard it asked—I believe more in sorrow than in cynicism— whether general debates in your Lordships' House are accorded by government the degree of attention which they deserve. Having listened to speakers this afternoon and the depth of knowledge which is so apparent, I would like to say first of all that I found this an outstandingly helpful debate and that the Government will look positively at the many constructive suggestions which have been made to see what further action we might take.
First, I am grateful for the many comments which have been made by speakers about Food from Britain. These are very timely because, as I mentioned earlier, Dennis Stevenson is still working on his independent
1106
inquiry. The Government are keen that Food from Britain should play a prominent role in the future of this area, particularly in export promotion.
Food from Britain was created in 1983 as a "resource for the industry", which is what it is, and we want to keep it up to date. I shall see that the comments made about Food from Britain are drawn to Mr. Stevenson's attention.
My noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, urged better co-ordination of the various export bodies. The Government recognise that industry wants Food from Britain to devote more resources to export promotion. Currently, two-thirds of its resources go into that, including the UK-based staff, and there are also 21 staff overseas. That is why we commissioned the independent review of Food from Britain by Dennis Stevenson. He is looking for a solution which will command industry support. The Government are looking forward to receiving his recommendations.
The Government do not accept that Food from Britain should receive a larger contribution from the taxpayer. It exists to promote the interests of the industry, which should pay for any increase in resources. It is true that there are several government agencies promoting exports. The DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office work together in a joint directorate to provide overseas trade services. The British Overseas Trade Board provides advice on markets in that context. Those arrangements cover most sectors and most markets.
Food from Britain is of course a specialised food promotion body which is designed to provide a more expert service in its own field. Most customers are well satisfied with its export promotion work and especially the help provided by the overseas offices. Co-ordination among the various export promotion agencies takes place in the Whitehall export promotion committee which meets regularly under DTI chairmanship.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether there should not be funding for Food from Britain on a pound for pound basis. The Government already provide some 60 per cent. of the cost of Food from Britain. That amounts to £4.8 million out of a total of £7.8 million. A number of noble Lords have urged that the Government should contribute more. Moving from matching £3 of industry funding with £1 of government money to a pound for pound basis would raise the Government's share by £2 million, or to about 69 per cent. of the total. As my noble friend Lord Reay pointed out, that is a much higher proportion than SOPEXA receives in France, where the contribution by industry is rising. The German body (CMA) is entirely industry funded.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I am sure that he will accept that SOPEXA in France has only 50 per cent., but that amounts to £27 million. One can do a great deal more promotion with £27 million than one can with £6 million.
Earl Howe: Yes, if the money is used properly. I like to think that we get good value for money from Food

1107
from Britain. When that body was set up, the understanding was that the Government would pump-prime and that industry would later take over the funding. Nevertheless, the Government have always paid for the bulk of the funding. The review of Food from Britain is intended to see that it does what the industry wants. I hope that the industry will be prepared to provide more support if it wants Food from Britain to do more.
In the same vein, my noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Government help is not limited just to Scotland. Food from Britain helps small food processors—which was a particular concern shown by the noble Baroness—under the speciality food scheme. The export efforts of small firms are also aided under DTI schemes. My noble friend urged a policy of minimum interference from government. Deregulation is particularly important for small companies.
My noble friend Lord Carter—I mean, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, although in other contexts he is my noble friend—asked about EC funding for food promotion, as did my noble friend Lady Elles. It is worth remembering that part of the co-responsibility levy on milk is directed to promotional activity for that commodity. The levy is due to be abolished soon, although money will still be available from that source for the 1993–94 milk year. On beef, the Agriculture Council agreed a quality beef promotion scheme as part of the reform of the CAP. The Commission's detailed proposal is expected in the next few weeks and some 10 million ecu is likely to be available for the Community in 1993 for the promotion of quality beef. There is also a scheme to encourage the consumption and utilisation of apples and citrus. The Community provides up to 60 per cent. towards the cost of these measures, which include surveys, consumer tests, nutrition and diet campaigns, new forms of market presentation and research.
My noble friend Lady Elles asked whether there is specific EC funding for sales of food in third countries. The EC already spends large sums on export restitutions on food that is sent to third countries. These apply to most primary commodities and to manufactured foods. A GATT deal would mean that that aid would have to be reduced. Therefore, it is unrealistic to believe that we could introduce new subsidies into this area.
There have been many comments today—not least from my noble friends Lady Elles and Lady Carnegy —on the theme of regulation and deregulation. This is not an easy area, and as much of the legislation was put in place for good food safety reasons these considerations cannot simply be discarded. Nevertheless, the Government are determined to lift the burden when it is at all practical to do so. A top-to-bottom review is taking place in MAFF at the moment. An example of action already in hand is the Agriculture Bill, which will provide for change on both milk and potatoes. For milk, where we are less than self-sufficient, it is vital that our production should be able to go into the products which are
1108
genuinely of high added value. I fully agree with my noble friend Lady Elles that it is not satisfactory to export skimmed milk powder, butter and commodity cheese—all of which are products at the bottom end of the price spectrum—only to import yoghurt and fromage frais, or substitutes for Bonchester cheese, which are at the top.
On potatoes, we have in the UK a system which, uniquely in Europe, limits our production, and we import not just fresh potatoes, but also value-added processed products, for which the market is burgeoning. As my noble friend Lady Elles pointed out, processing is already occurring abroad which should be happening here to the benefit of British jobs and investment. It is not difficult to imagine the outcry if the Government were to negotiate a regime in Brussels which placed quotas on UK producers alone and allowed other member states to produce what they liked and to exploit new markets in this country. I agree fully with my noble friend Lord Reay on that. The Government understand the concern of growers, but change is inevitable in this sector as a result of the proposed EC regime. We have some of the most efficient growers and processors in the world and I do not think that they should have anything to fear from greater market freedom.
Several of your Lordships have touched on the international dimensions to this issue—CAP reform and GATT. To take up a point raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the Government have long sought to bring the Community's support policies into line with the needs of the real market. The CAP reform agreement reached last May was a step towards this goal. By cutting prices and reducing the role of intervention buying, notably for cereals and beef, this agreement will bring farming closer to the market and encourage farmers to pay greater attention to the demands of customers. Externally, it should also enable Community produce, including that from the UK, to become more competitive on the world market.
No agreement is perfect and, in common with my noble friend Lord Selborne, we are not overenthusiastic about individual producer quotas and compulsory set-aside. Quotas bring with them many problems, not least of which is complexity of administration. The introduction of direct payments and the extension of supply controls were bound to mean more bureaucracy. But the Government question whether all the demands that the Community is now making on farmers are necessary. This is a point which my right honourable friend the Minister intends to raise shortly with his colleagues in the Agriculture Council in Brussels.
The settlement, when one is reached, on the Uruguay Round of GATT will also have a major international influence on our agriculture and food industries. Although the final package has yet to be agreed, it seems clear that the agricultural part of any eventual deal will follow closely the proposals put forward by Mr. Dunkel, the GATT Director General, in December 1991, subject to the compromise reached last November between the Community and the United States—the Blair House accord. Such an

1109
agreement will lead to reduced levels of agricultural subsidies, open up markets and reduce the impact of subsidised exports which depress world markets.
CAP reform will put the Community and the UK in a strong position to take advantage of these market openings as Community support prices fall and as world prices rise in response to the removal of subsidised exports from world markets. Overall, this is a good agreement for the UK food and farming industries.
We should not, in any case, lose sight of the broader picture: the UK economy needs a comprehensive GATT agreement, as does the world economy as a whole. Without one, the world will slide increasingly towards protectionism, which will hit trade in food and agricultural products as much as any other sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked what the effects of CAP reform and the GATT settlement would be at the end of the day. Clearly, there are many variables in trying to calculate the macro-economic effects of CAP reform and the GATT settlement. Many of the commodity regimes are only just beginning to settle into their new patterns and it is too early to predict any effects on the UK balance of payments. Restricting output may have a short-term negative effect on the deficit but, in the long term, reform of the CAP should create the conditions for competitive industries such as ours to flourish. With regard to GATT, it would be unwise of me, and perhaps a little pointless, to make detailed predictions about the effect on the trade deficit of an agreement that has not yet been reached. However, I think that everyone agrees that a GATT deal would be good for world trade and for Britain.
As I have said, the Government intend to play a supportive and facilitating role to help the industry to make the changes needed to achieve its potential. The initiative for change nevertheless rests with the industry—with all the enterprises in the agriculture and horticulture, food manufacturing and processing, retailing and catering sectors. These need to work together as never before if opportunities for British food suppliers are to be expanded to their full capacity.
There are welcome signs that the industry is facing up to those challenges. Manufacturers and processors from meat to confectionery to biscuits are operating increasingly successfully in export markets. Some of our retailers are opening stores abroad——my noble friend Lady Young mentioned Marks and Spencer —while others have connections with continental retailers. All these avenues need to be exploited more to promote UK exports.
There are some excellent collaborative ventures within the UK. The Strathclyde Food Project, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, embraces producers, processors and retailers and is seeking to identify real action which can be taken to improve the opportunities for British food suppliers. Some retailers have their own initiatives to promote collaboration with producers.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy mentioned quality assurance. In that vein, I believe that our industry needs to look carefully at the new EC regulations on
1110
certificates of specific character and protection of geographical designations. With effect from July of this year, producers of traditional, regional and speciality foods will be able to have their products recognised under the new registered denomination system as authentic, high-quality British products, easily recognisable in export markets around the world. Food from Britain will be administering the scheme. It provides an opportunity to create a marketing advantage which competitors in other member states will not be slow to exploit.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy said also that everyone should emphasise the quality of UK food. I agree with her. Of course Food from Britain already promotes our food at home and abroad. When EC Ministers and officials visited the UK during our presidency we showed them the best of British food and drink. Many of them were frankly amazed at their excellence. Their comments were favourable. My noble friend also mentioned the farm assurance scheme for beef and lamb. Producers, with the assistance of the Meat and Livestock Commission, are developing the farm assurance British beef and lamb scheme in England. The industry is also developing a farm pig assurance scheme.
As I said earlier, I am pleased that David Naish has accepted the Prime Minister's invitation to lead an industry initiative on food marketing and that all sides have pledged their support. Mr. Naish is doing that in a personal capacity rather than as president of the NFU. The Ministry is providing back-up, and I am sure that your Lordships will wish him well with that important task.
My noble friend Lady Elles asked a number of questions, and I am grateful for the prior notice of them that she gave me. She referred first to food safety regulations in the UK. The UK has high standards which are of considerable benefit to British industry and consumers. All EC countries have food safety legislation with broadly similar principles. The official control of foodstuffs directives requires all member states to enforce EC food law. Additional measures before the EC Council would provide for a small EC food inspectorate to check up on the effectiveness of national arrangements.
My noble friend referred also to broiler costs. There has been much discussion between MAFF and the industry about the differences in production costs between the UK and France. Before the sterling realignment, the figure was 5p to 6p per bird. Less than half of that difference was attributable to factors under government control. Only about 1p per bird related to meat inspection and the ban on bovine offal in feed. A bigger effect was caused by the ban on poultry offal imposed voluntarily by major poultry buyers. The Government have nevertheless taken action to reduce poultrymeat inspection costs by allowing plant staff to do the work. We obtained a new directive in Brussels and we issued guidance to local authorities to facilitate the use of plant staff in the interim.
My noble friend also mentioned milk quotas. A number of speakers referred to quotas generally. As I said, the Government have no love for quotas. They

1111
are bureaucratic and inflexible. They are, however, a fact of CAP life. We shall do our best to ensure that they apply as flexibly as possible in this country. My noble friend referred also to the trade deficit in fruit and vegetables. Imports of fruit and vegetables were £3.1 billion in 1992 and exports were £0.3 billion, leaving a crude trade gap of £2.8 billion, which is the largest individual sectoral deficit. Much of the imports are of non-indigenous or out-of-season goods, but the Government accept that there is scope here for the industry to improve its performance. Horticulture is not constrained by CAP limitations and there is no reason why growers should not increase their exports. We are currently holding seminars and conferences with growers in all sectors of horticulture to ensure that they have full information about market opportunities and the single market requirements; for example, on plant health.
My noble friend referred to the recent report on the nutrition of children. I recognise the importance of nutrition for children and the need to establish good dietary habits early in life. The Health of the Nation White Paper sets targets for dietary changes for the population as a whole. A reduction in the consumption of fats and saturated fats, which is to be achieved within the context of the whole diet, will require the increased consumption of starchy staples: bread, cereals, pasta, potatoes and vegetables and fruit. A nutrition task force has been set up to draw up a programme of action to achieve the targets. It will be looking at the nutrition of children within that programme.
With the benefit, and perhaps I may say the luxury, of hindsight, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, questioned the wisdom of the salmonella controls on poultry in 1989.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I said that at the time in the House. It is not a matter of hindsight.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Select Committee in another place was fully in accord with what the Government then did. We must remember that those measures were introduced following an increase in the number of cases of human food poisoning caused by salmonella enteriditis linked epidemiologically with eggs and egg products. It was followed by a catastrophic drop in the demand for eggs. The measures aimed to reduce infection throughout the production chain, from the supply of feeding stuffs to the production of healthy breeding and laying stock. We believe that that integrated approach minimised the risks to public health. I believe firmly that the controls have contributed to restoring consumer confidence in British eggs and that without them the egg market would have collapsed completely, resulting in even higher imports.
The noble Lord asked whether the Government have a blueprint for collaborative ventures. The Government do not have blueprints for industry sectors. The deregulation of the milk and potato sectors will permit the establishment of structures which are most appropriate to the needs of those sectors. The group marketing grant is administered
1112
flexibly. We have no blueprint for the right business structure, nor do we look with disfavour on co-operatives. Applicants come to us with the structure that suits them best. The old co-operative grant scheme was wound up because of a lack of uptake. The success of the new scheme, with more applications incidentally than we originally forecast, shows that our flexible approach is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked how much of the group marketing grant is new money. All the finance is new money. There is £5.4 million allocated for the first three years of the scheme. The old scheme no longer appealed to the industry. We had to negotiate new money with the Treasury upon the basis that there was a new need. The noble Lord also raised the possibility of an independent food standards agency. It is not right to divorce food safety matters from food production. MAFF looks at all sectors, from farmers and growers, through the processors and manufacturers, to retailers and caterers. We have set up the food safety directorate within MAFF to pay all due attention to food safety.
My noble friend Lady Young referred to research and development. Over £300 million of public money is being spent in 1992–93 in support of government R&D policy on agriculture, fisheries and food. The MAFF element amounts to £124 million. Agriculture, fisheries and food R&D has always been, and will continue to be, an essential part of the Government's R&D programme. The Government plan to continue spending substantial sums to enable them to fulfil their statutory obligations and to address and resolve, for example, food safety and hygiene issues of interest to consumers, producers and industry.
My noble friend Lady Young said that caterers import beef because they cannot obtain consistent quality from home sources. Caterers say that regularly. They tend to import steak from the southern hemisphere. We are encouraging caterers to work with UK suppliers to develop a UK supply. Whitbread, which is the second largest caterer, has recently joined the Strathclyde food project.
My noble friend Lady Young also made the point that small farmers are not big enough to interface with large retailers. I agree that this is a problem. The aim of the group marketing grant is to encourage groupings which can deal with big buyers. The trading code will also help to give them confidence to do that. My noble friend Lord Mottistone said that the food trade gap was less pronounced for manufactured goods. It is correct to say that the trade gap in highly-processed foods is significantly less pronounced than for unprocessed foods.
Nevertheless, there is scope for greater exports and the Government are anxious to help. In addition, a GATT deal should help and no one is keener than the UK Government for a settlement to be reached. My noble friend Lord Reay asked about the work of the market task force. The task force has a number of functions but the most important are the development and administration of the group marketing grant. Incidentally, the turnover of the groups which are assisted is projected to be more than £200 million. There are initiatives such as origin labelling, export

1113
seminars and the trading code, the arrangement of the Prime Minister's seminars, the encouragement of producers, retailers and processors to collaborate and the encouragement of government colleagues to take account of marketing considerations as their policies develop.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam drew the attention of the House to organic farming. Organic food is a small market and like all other markets it responds to consumer demand. However, there is a trade deficit in organic produce. The group marketing grant is available to organic food producers. We have received and approved two applications in that sector. As my noble friend said, consideration is being given to aid schemes to encourage organic production under the EC agri-environment package. We shall issue a consultation document on that in the near future. In the background Food from Britain runs the UK register of organic food standards. That register maintains the standard for organic food and is an important safeguard for the industry.
My noble friend Lord Wade said that Food from Britain should have been funded by a levy on all producers. I do not believe that it is a simple matter to tell people to pay a levy. In fact, cereal producers and the meat and livestock industry already pay levies to the MLC and the HGCA. Levies are acceptable only if the great majority of producers want them. I am afraid that there is no sign that industry is prepared to pay such a levy.
My noble friend raised the interesting idea of a two-tier market for milk. Unlike the sugar industry where there is only a small number of processors, it would be difficult to make such arrangements for the dairy industry and it would be costly to administer. The world market for dairy products is limited. Since the EC already has a 50 per cent. share of that market, any non-quota exports will be likely to displace existing exports. If that happened, in order to avoid increasing EC expenditure on intervention, EC milk quotas would need to be cut, which rather defeats the object.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the excellence of Cox's apples. He also referred to the effect of devaluation on the trade gap in the light of elasticity of demand. I do not wish to comment now on the elasticity of demand or on foreign apples. However, I agree that in the short term depreciation may make the trade gap worse because it immediately makes imports more expensive. However, in the longer term the industry should respond to more favourable trading conditions and that should make it easier to export and to substitute for imports.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, also bemoaned the absence of tasty tomatoes. It is not true that there are no tasty tomatoes in the UK, and I speak from personal knowledge. British retailers and producers have recently been working to develop new and tastier varieties.
The noble Lord also asked me what I meant by my remarks on import substitution as opposed to export growth. I sought to make the simple point that the scope for import substitution is limited. Many imported goods cannot be produced here and there is
1114
no such limitation on exports. The Government believe that action needs to be taken on both sides. The point that I was trying to make is that export promotion has not always been a high priority and we believe that exporting needs more effort.
The noble Lord said that the deficit will grow when the economy picks up again. I do not believe that there is any need for the food deficit to increase because people will not eat more food—I take it that that is what the noble Lord was referring to when he mentioned elasticity of demand. As economic conditions improve for our industries, they should be able to export more and I believe that the noble Lord will agree with that—
Lord Peston: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl because that was the most brilliant answer I have heard for a long time. Perhaps on reflection he will believe that as incomes rise, people will consume more food—possibly, some imported food.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it will be interesting to observe what happens when the economy revives, which I believe is already happening.
I have sought to explain what the Government have done, are doing, and intend to do in this important field. We are seeking to encourage collaboration, better marketing and a higher priority for exports. We shall be doing everything possible to lift burdens on the industry so that enterprise and initiative can be released. We approach the issues with an open mind and will consider all ideas and suggestions raised in the debate. While the Government have an underpinning role, the responsibility for action still rests with the industry. I hope that it too will take note of what has been said today.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend Lord Howe for the way in which he responded to the debate tonight and for the care with which he answered the many questions that were put. I thank him too for the encouraging way in which he pledged Government support for the industry, and for taking note of all the comments which have been made in the debate. I hope that he will take particular note of my proposal for school meal nutrition. It is an important aspect not only of import substitution but of the health of the nation. It might also help my noble friend Lord Selborne to get rid of his 60 millimetre Cox's apples. The Cox's apple was the one issue which united all sides of the House in agreeing that it is the best apple. We should like to see more of them in this country and I should love to be able to buy a Cox's apple on the Continent.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has shown once again the high level of expertise, knowledge and wisdom contained in this House. I hope that the industry has benefited from some of the comments which have been made from noble Lords on all sides. There has been a great combination of good will and hope for the industry. I hope that will be carried outside this House. It will help the nation in employment, in its health and in the economy. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

1115
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Housing (Fitness Standard) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
6.18 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Higher Education: International Co-operation
6.20 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking in response to the recommendations in the report Education without frontiers published by the Overseas Students Trust.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this Question primarily to draw the attention of your Lordships and the Government to the new European Community dimension on education and to the absolute importance of education and training in Britain if Britain is to face up to the opportunities and problems of the European single market.
Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I shall not mention the word "Maastricht" this evening beyond reminding the House of something which is sometimes forgotten in the current debate. Whatever happens to the Maastricht Treaty, the European single market is here to stay. For British education the single market has massive implications. We must organise our education to ensure that people have the skills and qualities which enable them to be competitive in the world's biggest single market of 340 million consumers.
We have the great advantage that English has become the world language in both commerce and technology. However, we are handicapped in making the most of our business relationships because we are the most linguistically illiterate nation in Europe. Also, in a world of fast changing technology our education system is still ill-adapted to provide flexible training facilities throughout a working life.
This useful report on these issues comes from the Overseas Students Trust. It is the last report from its retiring director, Martin Kenyon. The trust has now become part of the Centre for Educational Research at the London School of Economics. I had the honour to chair the Ditchley Park Conference which was the culmination of three years of seminars on those subjects. The report is the work of many distinguished educationists including Sir Albert Sloman and Sir Kenneth Berrill. So much for the non-partisan character and authority behind its analysis and recommendations.
The situation that the report addresses is serious. At its best, British education is as good as education anywhere in the world, but we suffer from a number of competitive disadvantages. For example, in 1988, the latest year for which I have comparative figures,
1116
the proportion of 16 to 18 year-olds in full-time education and training was 35 per cent. in Britain compared with 47 per cent. in Germany and 66 per cent. in France.
I offer a couple of relevant examples of the problems for our secondary schools where the number of teachers has fallen from over 224,000 in 1986 to 198,000 in 1991. First, 25 per cent. of those teaching maths in our schools have no qualification in mathematics. In computer studies the percentage is 69 per cent. As regards foreign languages, which are so essential for an island nation like ours doing business with the mainland of Europe, 18 per cent. of those teaching French in our schools have no qualification in French; in German the figure is 25 per cent. and for other modern languages it is 35 per cent. Those figures are for all schools in England and Wales, but if the independent sector is excluded the figure is significantly higher for schools in the state education system.
It seems clear to me that to compete in Europe we must give top priority to increasing investment in education and training. The world of employment—and, sadly, the world of unemployment—is changing at an unprecedented rate. Britain's economic success in the future depends on the brainpower, abilities and creativity of the total workforce. No longer does one pay for muscle. More and more, the whole business environment is databased and is global. Even small and medium-sized businesses find themselves with foreign competitors. Economic success cannot be left to senior management. It impinges on the total workforce. In the light of all those characteristics of modern industry, it is not sufficient for the education system to produce a set product, turn people out of schools and colleges and leave it at that. Industry wants people with an ability to adapt and absorb new skills and to have the educational means to do so several times within a working lifetime.
Distance learning has an important part to play in that. It is flexible and can cater for mature students, young students, part-time students and people in or out of work. All can undertake further education at times convenient to themselves. The notion that formal educational instruction normally ceases when one enters the workforce is a totally outdated concept.
I turn now to the European Community dimension. Increasingly in the past five years businessmen in the EC have been taking decisions in a European context. Their staff must be able to sell, to manage and to take tactical and strategic decisions in the multinational, multicultural context of the new Europe. Inevitably the whole of education, and not just vocational training, forms an essential ingredient in the creation of the single market.
The European Commission's Memorandum on Higher Education in the European Community states:
"the success of the Internal Market depends on having people who have the capability to operate across national and cultural boundaries".
Throughout the European Community there is pressure on institutions of higher education to produce graduates whose training, skills and vision are increasingly European in content and focus. There is nothing new or frightening about that. The old

1117
medieval universities of Scotland and England were inherently international. Their degrees gave graduates the licence to teach anywhere in Europe. The libraries were international in character. Mutual recognition of diplomas did not begin with the haggling over this matter in the 1980s in Brussels but over 600 years earlier in Paris, Bologna, St. Andrews and Oxford. Indeed, what hindered that mobility in those years was not the structure and style of the universities of Europe but wars and rumours of war which so often made travel hazardous or impossible. Who can say, when we look at the former Yugoslavia or listen day by day to the events unfolding in Russia, that history is not in some danger of repeating itself in that regard?
The Treaty of Rome made no mention of education. It was considered too sensitive a national responsibility, and still is to some extent. Jean Monnet said, when asked whether he had any second thoughts on the way in which the European Community was created, that he wished that he had started with education. Nearly 40 years later that defect is being remedied by the reality of the single market. Post-school education has unquestionably become a European Community concern.
As a consequence, the European Community has launched a series of programmes to assist in the promotion of mobility through educational exchange. The ERASMUS Exchange Programme is already a major operation, with a budget of £135 million over the three-year period 1990 to 1992. There are other schemes with strange Bruxellois acronyms to come from the Community like COMET and LINGUA. There is also the TEMPUS scheme, which is the EC's response to the hopes and expectations of eastern and central Europe. That has a 1991–92 budget of £46 million and the programme helps staff and students from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Romania to come to higher education institutions in Community countries.
At present there are 70,000 students currently involved. That is still a small proportion—about 2 per cent. of the appropriate age group of the student population. However, it is hoped that before too long 10 per cent. of the total number of students in the Community will be undertaking those exchanges. Qualitatively that would be extremely significant and represent a major change from the conditions of the immediate past.
But these programmes are by no means the totality of what is happening in the development of education across frontiers within the Community. The European regional development fund, which I helped to found, provides educational funding, as do the other so-called structural funds. I find it exciting and satisfying that those funds serving the regions of Europe now in real terms total more than the post-war Marshall Fund. In the UK institutions of higher education have been quick to see the need to extend their tuition and training beyond national boundaries and to focus on cross-border degrees and distance learning.
Through bilateral arrangements separate from EC schemes, joint degree courses are being developed with comparable institutions in other European
1118
Community countries. These arrangements produce graduates who have spent typically two years at another European university. They emerge as fluent in two languages and are familiar with the style and culture of two European countries. The university with which I am most familiar, Heriot Watt in Edinburgh, of which I had the honour to be Chancellor for a number of years—I had the even greater honour to be succeeded by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—has been particularly good in ensuring that our technologists and engineers are emerging increasingly with degrees that have a language aspect which will enable them to play their full part within the European Community.
What do we look for from the Government? The report has a series of sensible recommendations. I hope that the noble Viscount will respond positively to them. First and foremost, we hope that the Government will put their heart into meeting the educational challenge of the single market both within Britain and in terms of Britain's contribution to the Community as a whole. Within Britain the report emphasises that Britain must change fast in its attitude to learning languages. European languages should be at the centre of United Kingdom education from primary schools to universities. I cannot tell noble Lords the satisfaction I felt the other day when I discovered that my grandsons, aged five and seven, could count up to 30 in French. I thought that was a useful, if modest, beginning.
Secondly, there should be priority for continuing education for adults including distance learning and retraining of those in the workforce. Within the Community itself, student and teacher mobility should be extended. ERASMUS and the other Community programmes should be strengthened. British institutions should be enabled and encouraged to participate fully in the European Community TEMPUS programme for meeting the educational know-how needs of east and central Europe and the former Soviet Union. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in the Chamber. I hope she was nodding her head. She knows so much about these matters.
The truth is that educational exchanges can be one of the most constructive forms of development aid, and indeed they are the best form of influence whether it is to the former communist empire or to the former European colonial empires. Incidentally, the report is right to utter the caution that expanding education across European frontiers should not be done at the expense of providing educational aid to third world countries with whom we have longstanding relationships.
In the run-up to 1992 and the single market, the Government mounted a useful major campaign to alert industry to the changes and the challenges. Is there not now a need for a comparable campaign on the educational front to create a national awareness in schools and colleges, in businesses and trade unions so that the opportunities and developments in higher education and adult training can be fully exploited

1119
and so that Britain can play her full part in these exciting new Community schemes of Education without frontiers?
6.33 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for bringing this report to our attention. I wish strongly to support him in his plea to the Government to take seriously the recommendations which the report contains. We should also be grateful to the Overseas Students Trust—I support what the noble Lord said about that body—for taking hold of this important but under-recognised subject.
It is not the first time that the Overseas Students Trust has stepped in at a critical moment in British educational policy and action. It did so in the 1980s when the then government—I must be careful as regards the strength of the words I use—foolishly rushed in and abolished the then system governing the entry of overseas students to this country. They were not foolish in abolishing the old system but they were foolish in doing so without first having thought about what to put in its place. A débâcle occurred and the Overseas Students Trust stepped in and gathered together people of goodwill from various sides who were committed not to campaign to reverse the political decision but to construct a proper policy to take its place. I had the privilege and honour of playing a part in that exercise that was somewhat similar to the part the noble Lord has played in this recent exercise. I wish to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Pym, who at that time was Foreign Secretary, for taking that report seriously and translating some of it into concrete action. He did not take as much action as we would have liked, but he did enough to provide the nucleus of a new role for Britain in overseas education.
The Overseas Students Trust has a long and honourable record in this field and it is sad that this report is its swan-song. I wish to add my tribute to those paid by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to the trust and its director, Martin Kenyon, and also to express great pleasure that its research work will not just die away but is now to be incorporated within the London School of Economics centre for educational research.
Educational activity on an international scale was originally traditionally thought of principally in terms of its importance as aid to developing countries. That role was immensely important. When, 30 years ago now, I became a Minister for aid responsible for technical co-operation, it did not take me long to develop a strong feeling that £1 million of aid delivered effectively in the field of education and training did more good to the developing countries receiving it than £100 million of capital money. I still feel very strongly that it is in this field of technical assistance and educational and training aid that a great contribution can and should be made.
However, it was also true that the giver of that aid, Britain, was gaining much benefit for itself. There is no doubt that when we receive students here or when we
1120
send our teachers overseas, we build a connection with this country which is of lasting value to the interests of this country as well as to the countries aided. Educational and training aid is still important to developing countries in the third world. But now, as we all know, it is also immensely important in eastern Europe. One of the first things we have to realise is that we simply must gear up our efforts of giving to meet the larger need for aid in the educational and training field that exists in eastern Europe and in the third world. It would be tragic if we failed to help in eastern Europe as much as we should and if we did so only at the expense of not doing what is needed in the third world. There is an urgent need to gear up education across frontiers as a vital instrument of development.
But if the educational effort across frontiers has become of even greater importance rather than less, it is also true that it has developed a much greater self-interest for the giver than was the case in the past. The report brings out the fact that it is in Britain's own interests to be extremely active and expansive in this field. The report's highlighting of that aspect is probably its most important feature.
As the noble Lord has said, over the past year or two there has been a deliberate and fairly successful attempt to concentrate our minds on the business opportunities resulting from the European single market. But the educational and training implications of the single market have so far been not sufficiently well recognised, let alone tackled. To tackle them fully and urgently is a vital part of the action which is needed to make Britain fully competitive in the new single market. We shall only be competitive if we can raise significantly the scale and the quality of British education and training when judged by international standards and when we become much less parochial and much more international in our approach to these subjects.
The report identifies seven areas in which change is required. To bring about this change demands, I believe, strong government recognition, commitment and leadership.
I shall say before the Minister says it (because I shall agree with him when he does) that much of the action has to come from people and organisations outside government. I hope he will also accept that leadership, commitment and action from the Government are also essential. The two must go together. I only intervene in this debate to seek from the Government an assurance that we shall get it, because getting it is of great importance if British industry is to be competitive, and, to mention a matter of topical interest, if the manufacturing part of British industry is once again to grow and flourish. It is essential in the interests of the British manufacturing industry that we pull our weight—to use the Home Secretary's phrase, that we, "punch more than our weight"—in this area, as in others, otherwise we shall fail, and we must not fail.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I come bearing apologies from my noble friend Lady David, whose wholly inadequate substitute I am, for her quite unavoidable absence tonight.
That wise and good man, Mr. Enoch Powell, was once asked on "Any Questions" what he would do if he could instantly introduce one, and only one, educational reform, and he replied, "Restore compulsory Latin". Think what a shining utopian vision he had in mind. Schoolchildren able to learn modern languages easily; able to explore the literature, the history and the philosophy of Greece and Rome; and a European community of university people with the possibility at least of a common language. Of course we must all say to Mr. Powell, "There's not a hope, sunshine", but we must also try to realise his vision by other means, which would be a practical possibility even for this present Government and even at this late hour. The Dutch renaissance scholar, Desederius Erasmus, was equally at home in Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, or Louvain, and our aim must be to make that possible again for today's students and today's scholars.
The report which is the subject of our debate tonight is the climax of the work of the Overseas Students Trust, and this House must be deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, to Mr. Gordon Wilson and his fellow trustees, and to the director of the trust, Mr. Martin Kenyon, for the splendid work that the trust has done for overseas students and for the enrichment of British university education.
The report makes seven recommendations, and nothing would give me greater pleasure than to speak at length and in detail about all seven of them, because they involve a delicate balance between the needs of the European Community, the third world, and the newly-liberated countries of eastern Europe. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I shall confine myself to Recommendations 1 and 3 on languages and student mobility, for no better reason than shortage of time.
After some 40 years in university education I find now that I know quite a lot of people in departments of modern languages. So I consulted some of them about this report and their reaction to it last weekend. One head of a department in a large university said: "Being a starry-eyed European I subscribe to the ideal of a European academic community. The problem is that the standard of British Arts degrees has fallen so far that no respectable European would dream of enrolling in Britain for reasons unconnected with learning to speak English properly. Most of our modern language students have no idea about grammar, and have lost the will to work in order to achieve accuracy and fluency. Lektors and exchange students are bewildered by the lack of achievement and ambition".
Is the noble Viscount who is to answer aware that more than one British university has had to introduce remedial classes for first-year students in modern languages because their linguistic skills are so imperfect?
1122
Another academic, an administrator, said: "People are quite keen to try exchange schemes, but the future is so uncertain. They are only running on a three-year agreement. Students have all had to eat into their savings or depend on parental support. They involve a lot of administrative work which won't be easier until the credit transfer system is completed".
Or again: "Modern languages staff have been worried about the ability of our students to cope with European university courses. As standards fall that worry becomes increasingly real. All foreign universities want to have links with Oxbridge; getting them to sign up for other universities involves strenuous salesmanship".
And this at a time when increased student numbers mean language teachers are stretched on the teaching front as never before, and their institution's money depends on their improved performance in these perpetual research selectivity exercises. As one teacher put it: "We have made a considerable effort to establish ERASMUS links. What incentive have we for going any further? Not a lot. These exchanges mean a lot of administrative effort, and it is not obvious that the rewards are worthwhile for us".
All those whom I consulted agree that, if the study of foreign languages is to improve in Britain, there needs to be a very big change in the way in which languages are taught in schools. Sir Albert Sloman, in the course of this splendid report, said about the recommendations that "foreign languages are something which children should be learning from the word go". To say that from now on all children between 11 and 16 will be required to study a foreign language is simply not enough for the needs of commerce, industry, or academe in the 21st century. Study must start earlier.
May I ask the Minister, when he comes to reply —and I have given him at least a few hours' notice of these questions—how many state primary schools in England and Wales now teach any foreign language? What percentage of the total of such schools is it? What has been the increase in numbers, not percentages, of primary schools teaching a foreign language in each of the past five years, and how many of such schools teach any language other than French? May I also ask him to tell us what targets the Government have set themselves for developing modern language teaching at the primary stage, whether or not these will be made public, what monitoring of progress will be introduced and what the time-scale and phasing will be?
If, as I strongly suspect I shall, I find his answers reveal a somewhat less than bright and sunny prospect, then the strongly-worded recommendation 1 of this report becomes all the more urgent. It reads:
"The first change required is to Britain's attitude to learning and speaking foreign languages and it must change fast. This change needs to take place throughout primary, secondary and higher education with language training starting at the earliest possible moment".
This is not a cultural imperative. Britons must be able to move easily in the European languages not simply so that they can regurgitate Goethe and recite Racine, but because they will not succeed in competitive commerce in Europe unless they do.

1123
Commercial negotiators sitting round a table must be able to understand what their opposite numbers are saying not only to them but to each other.
Last week we were talking about the Welsh language in your Lordships' House. I was reminded of my noble friend Lady White. She is not a first language Welsh speaker, and has been present sometimes when some of us have been conversing yn yr hen iaith; in the old language, in Welsh. Somebody once asked her, "How much Welsh do you actually speak, Lady White?" She said, "I speak and understand a dangerous amount". Our negotiators in Europe, our businessmen, must be able to speak at least a dangerous amount of the European languages. Your Lordships may remember the German statesman—whose name has eluded me all day—who reminded English businessmen, "If I am selling to you we must speak in English, but if you are selling to me wir müssen Deutsch sprechen."
The report makes several linked recommendations about educational mobility. It begins by nagging on that there should be better language training. That cannot be unrelated to the statement in paragraph 3.9:
"ERASMUS is a considerable success. Nevertheless"
—it then advocates the lengthening of the period abroad to a minimum of six months, the concentration of ERASMUS students into those institutions able to offer adequate facilities, and the provision of more generous financial assistance to participating institutions.
The ERASMUS scheme should not be a "considerable success"; it should be a runaway success. Why is it not? I have already given some reasons. Students have to obtain extra money to participate. Universities have to take on a burden of administration for no reward. Departments have absolutely no incentive to promote the scheme. Hear now the sober and measured tones of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals commenting on the ERASMUS scheme. In a memorandum it states:
"While most if not all universities believe that there are clear benefits to be gained from the presence of ERASMUS students in classes and in the student population as a whole, several institutions have drawn attention to the fact that these benefits can be costly, particularly in terms of lost fee income, and additional administrative costs.
"It is generally considered that the levels of funding provided by such schemes as ERASMUS are inadequate. Many students have suffered financially and there is little equality of treatment throughout the Community with students from some countries receiving less funds than those from other countries. The current imbalance in the number of ERASMUS students coming into the UK and those going from the UK to study elsewhere in the EC has caused particular financial difficulties for UK universities which can only be solved through increased funding and improved language provision for UK students which might persuade more UK students to study abroad".
Let us hear again those deadly final words,
"which might persuade more UK students to study abroad".
Why do they need to be persuaded? It is because they do not trust the Government or the European Commission to provide the resources to enable them to study abroad; and who can blame them?
Education Without Frontiers is an excellent report, clearly and powerfully written, positive and—dare I
1124
say it?—visionary. The Government should immediately, publicly and enthusiastically adopt all seven of its recommendations and pledge themselves tonight to find the resources necessary to implement them right away. If they do so, we on these Benches will rise up and applaud the Government. That is something that we do not do very frequently. If they do not, if they act half-heartedly, then British students and British businessmen of the future who will be miserably undertrained in European languages will point to this Government and say, as Shakespeare's Caliban says to Prospero in The Tempest,
"You taught me language; and my profit on't
Is, I know how to curse".
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord in particular since he ended his speech with a quotation from the play which I know best of all Shakespeare's works because I had to learn it for my school certificate many years ago. I could have given him the quotation.
I wish to reiterate what my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley said when he referred to the quality of the report, and the gratitude of the House to the noble Lord for drawing the subject to our attention. It is a brief, concise report written in beautiful English with some good ideas in it. That is more than one can say about many reports that we discuss in this House.
Of all the existing and potentially beneficial opportunities opening up to the United Kingdom as a result of the single market, and in particular the single market in education, the area in which the UK stands to gain and to contribute most is as pioneers and leaders in the field of open and distance learning. I wish to speak on that issue, in particular.
A growing number of our higher education institutions are involved in that field. However, the implications of the report for the Open University are outstanding. For some years I have been an enthusiastic member of its governing body. I wish to tell noble Lords a little about how the Open University is responding to the situation at present.
At paragraph 2.13 on page 16 the report states:
"Student mobility will increase but it is expensive and not always appropriate. Distance learning is another method whereby national barriers can be surmounted. With the strides taken on information technology, it"
—that is open and distance learning—
"is now a major industry".
The European Community is aware of the great possibilities which need exploring. As noble Lords will know, the subject was considered during the Portuguese presidency; and during the British presidency the Council of Ministers confirmed its interest and made some proposals for supporting member states in developing that field. Just as in the United Kingdom, so across the Community it is clear that the opportunity for far more people to gain access to a benefit from higher education cannot be achieved —I have to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Morris —by means of conventional higher education institutions alone. That would be very difficult indeed. It is also a fact that demographic change across Europe has brought about a sharp decline in the

1125
number of school-leavers going on to higher education. For the first time in the United Kingdom, for example, there are now more mature students than those under 21 years studying at our universities. We are not the only country in which that occurs.
If people's aspirations are to be met and economic life is to flourish, not only in the UK but right across Europe, higher education arrangements will need to cater increasingly for mature students—women returning to work, people with few formal qualifications, those who seek vocational qualifications, those who wish to upgrade or update existing qualifications and professional people who wish to qualify to work in another country.
On all those issues, the Open University has already shown a little of what can be achieved by means of open and distance learning, and open access and flexible education and training course arrangements. Let us take 1992 as an example. A third of the university's intake lacks the formal entrance requirements of most conventional universities. Almost 50 per cent. of its entrants are women. There is considerable potential in those areas.
It is not always recognised that the Open University works with about 7,000 organisations in the United Kingdom. Those range from small and medium-sized businesses to multinationals. It helps them with needs shared by employers all over Europe. It assists them to improve employees' literacy and numeracy, with employment training, management education and training, the upgrading of working skills and in enabling older people to replace the diminishing number of young people entering the workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, will be glad to hear that the Open University is shortly and at last about to embark on language teaching.
In recent years the university has begun to recognise its particular potential as a European as well as a United Kingdom provider. The completion of the single market means that the whole of Europe can now be seen as home territory for the Open University and it has become much easier to export and import open learning materials. There are already nearly 4,000 Open University students based outside the United Kingdom and a network of co-ordinators and 25 small study centres are already in place in mainland Europe and Eire.
Noble Lords have spoken of the ERASMUS programme, which encourages students to move from country to country. It is excellent. Of course it has limitations, partly limitations of cost. So far, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, the number who have been able to take part is small. It is important to note that for less developed countries there is also the problem that mobility can mean a brain drain to countries where expertise is less scarce. One of the many advantages of distance learning is that it enables study without leaving home and without leaving one's job, provided that one has a job.
Encouraged by our Government and the Community's TEMPUS programme, which several noble Lords have mentioned, the Open University is now in a position to begin to respond to the education and training needs of Eastern Europe. The Open
1126
Business School, aided by the Know-How Fund, has growing numbers of students in Hungary and Slovakia and is beginning to work with local partners in Russia, Romania and Bulgaria. Another new initiative known as EDEN (European Distance Education Network), a forum for exchange between Eastern and Western Europe of open and distance learning expertise, is also an involvement of the Open University.
The report takes the view that open and distance learning is now a major industry. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the small amount of evidence that I have been able to provide this evening suggests that our United Kingdom Open University will have a lead role in that industry.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise with great diffidence because I have not put down my name to speak. Had I realised how early the debate would end I would have done so because it is important to mark this excellent and lucid report. I should like to pick up just one theme.
The report concerns education. The constituents of education are knowledge and attitude. We have spoken principally about knowledge this evening but attitude determines what people do with their knowledge. It also to a great extent regulates what knowledge they are prepared to absorb. Children acquire those attitudes very early in their lives, largely at the hands of teachers. What the report has to say about teachers, both in the main body and in Appendix B, is extremely relevant to the extent to which the report will be effective.
The attitude with which we should be concerned this evening is the attitude of the citizens and future citizens of this country to Europe. Among adults that attitude is conditioned by the attitudes of the press, which are almost universally—certainly in all but the most intellectual of newspapers—anti-Europe and anti-foreigner. The motto of the tabloid press of this country could have been coined by one of the characters of Evelyn Waugh, to wit: abroad is a bloody place and all foreigners are fools. One constantly reads stories angled to give that impression. How much did your Lordships learn during the Gulf War of the very gallant action of the French on the Left-wing? Did your Lordships know that at the end of the conflict they were closer to Baghdad than anybody else? I doubt it, because much of our knowledge comes from channels which angle information to make us hostile to our neighbours.
The attitudes of children are formulated by their teachers. The attitudes of the teachers are largely formulated by their training colleges. That is why I hope that my noble friend and his right honourable friends will pay attention to the Commission's Sienna conference, held in 1990, and the Commission's Green Paper which followed in 1991, the executive summary of which appears in Appendix B. On page 49 there is a passage relating to the training of teachers, a little of which bears repetition. It says that it is essential:
"that a European experience should form part of the professional education of all teachers. The structure of teacher education and other constraints limit the extent to which this

1127
need can be met through study abroad schemes within existing programmes and special measures covering the initial and continuing education of teachers are necessary. Means of providing European experience for teachers who cannot avail themselves of a study abroad programme should also be developed".
I heartily endorse that line. In that respect distance learning is no substitute. I believe that our teachers need to stay in foreign countries long enough to come to understand their people at more than a superficial and touristic level. Therefore, I echo the support of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for the increase in the length of visits abroad in the ERASMUS scheme. Since anything of that order must be extremely expensive, I wonder whether my noble friend and his right honourable colleagues will consider whether it is possible—and I do not know enough about the subject to know whether it is possible—to tailor the ERASMUS scheme to take in an element of extended trainee teacher placement abroad in European countries. That would mean that the cost would be shared. As it is something that ought to be done in other countries as well, it would be appropriate for the cost to be borne by a Community budget—whether through ERASMUS or some other means—and not a national budget.
I do not wish to speak longer. However, as it relates also to my past experience, I must pause for a moment to endorse what my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley said about training teachers abroad. I have done a certain amount of work in the Far East, particularly in the ASEAN countries. I was struck by the extent to which the countries which sent students in large numbers to this country ordered British machine tools, British pharmaceuticals, British clothing and all the other goods which we have to sell in order to survive.
This is a highly practical report and I hope that we adopt as many of its recommendations as possible.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. As one who is new to the subject I particularly welcome the clarity with which the book we are discussing put forward its arguments so that I could get up to speed quickly with the questions at issue.
I wish to address two main elements: first, the mobility of students within the European Community; and, secondly, the access of students from outside the European Community to British universities and EC universities.
With the single European market we have seen the birth of a group of some 340 million people who operate with virtually free movement of goods, labour, capital and services. That is a remarkable achievement which, if we are to make the most of it, needs an outward-looking population, confident in living and working in countries other than their own.
It seems to me that the education initiatives already under way, together with the proposals contained in the report, would work towards creating the
1128
international awareness which would support Britain's interests in the single European market and hence Britain's position as a trading nation.
I hope that the Minister will address some of the proposals put forward in the book to aid educational mobility. I shall touch on them briefly. There is, first, the extension of credit transfers so that students can continue to gain credits while studying in other universities; secondly, a Community-wide code of good practice—I believe that Britain may well have a lot to offer in the elements of good practice; and thirdly—this matter was referred to by several noble Lords—the extension of the ERASMUS programme to a minimum period abroad of six months. I welcome the extension of the programme to the EFTA countries.
The document also highlights the importance of integrating the business community into higher education at a regional level. It is extremely topical to remind the Minister that Maastricht regional matters received a boost with the decision to establish an advisory committee of the regions. Regional organisations, whether made up of businessmen, universities or solely of locally elected representatives, need to exploit the opportunities provided by the possible establishment of that new Community institution.
I turn to access of students from outside the EC to British and EC educational institutions. Here we have a separate set of problems, although the goals which we set ourselves are surely the same; those of generating a greater awareness of the cultures of other peoples. There is a fear that greater student mobility within the European Community will marginalise students from the third world who come to EC institutions. There is also a fear that the implosion of the command economies in eastern Europe will further marginalise students from the third world. Those fears need to be considered.
Conventional wisdom asserts that it is better to educate third world students in their home countries and if possible support their educational institutions. I am pleased to say that I agree with conventional wisdom in this case. But the approach needs to be flexible and the question of resources inevitably arises. The document being considered makes several suggestions for the European Commission to help the countries within the Lomé convention. Perhaps the Minister will address some of those suggestions.
Turning to immigration, again there is a particular problem for students from non-European countries. When applying for visas, students often have to make long journeys to capital cities, embassies and high commissions. That involves them in considerable expense and time. The techniques used by entry clearance officers when interviewing visa applicants are not always even-handed and may lead them to make erroneous assessments of students' intentions. As a result, the students may be refused a visa and, as a result of a simple misunderstanding, may have to go to appeal or simply abandon their plans. They lose their application fee and gain an unfavourable impression of the UK.

1129
Clause 10 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill threatens further to discourage those who intend to study for a period of six months or less and those who wish to enter without already having arranged a definite place of study, who will lose their right to appeal if the Bill is passed.
Finally, I turn to the subject of language. There seems to be a general consensus that the English-speaking world is truly pathetic when it comes to the subject of speaking foreign languages. I must say that I am as guilty in that as others; though I have a wholly atypical experience, as all my professional life I have worked in the international oil industry and have lived and worked abroad for several years. The business of that industry is conducted solely in English. I believe that it is unique and atypical. The oil industry only buys when it goes abroad. It never sells. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, so eloquently said, if one is buying things, one can always do that in English; if one tries to sell things, it is much more in one's own interest to speak the native tongue. I might say that I am trying to further my own career in that I am taking my first tentative steps in the Russian language.
Once again, I thank the Overseas Students Trust for this document. I find it extremely interesting. I should also like to thank Mr. Martin Kenyon for all the sterling work that he has done for the trust over the years.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has given us this evening to consider the conclusions of the Overseas Students Trust report: Education Without Frontiers. As a former EC commissioner the noble Lord is able to comment from a perspective denied to most noble Lords.
The report from the Overseas Students Trust was its final publication after many years of activity in the service of overseas students' interests. But the mantle of its research activity has been picked up by the London School of Economics. This final publication, the culmination of a series of seminars and a conference which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, chaired, is wholly in keeping with the trust's work over the years.
Before I turn specifically to the report's conclusions and the points raised by noble Lords this evening, it may be helpful if I first reflect in general on this country's record in the developing pattern of international co-operation in higher education.
In 1990–91 a record number of students from abroad—some 84,600—came to this country to study. The number of students from abroad attending United Kingdom universities and colleges has shown a rising trend since the mid-1980s. While the greatest rate of increase has been among students from other EC countries, the numbers from the Commonwealth and non-EC countries are also rising. I must differ from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I do not believe that Clause 10 of the asylum Bill will threaten genuine students. We had that debate in this House quite recently.
1130
That trend is most welcome. The Government value the presence of overseas students in British universities and colleges. As my noble friend Lord Carr said, as well as economic benefits, most importantly they bring academic, social and cultural enrichment to the institution that they join and to the wider community. That the students who come here find a benefit is demonstrated by the increasing popularity of our universities and colleges among overseas students. That is an endorsement of the quality and attractiveness of British education, its flexibility and responsiveness to students' needs.
The Government for their part provide substantial sums for scholarships to assist students from abroad. In 1991–92 this amounted to some £138 million and helped more than 22,000 students. This support is targeted where the need and benefit are greatest: predominantly Commonwealth and developing countries.
With regard to the European Community, the Government value our universities' and colleges' growing links with higher education institutions in other member states. We shall be glad to see those academic connections develop further, with appropriate support from the European Community and from national governments.
During our recent presidency of the Community we promoted conclusions of the Council of Ministers on measures for developing the European dimension in higher education. Conclusions on criteria for actions on open and distance learning were also adopted. The Government will continue to provide a supportive framework for universities and colleges to develop the European dimension, within and outside Community programmes, with due regard for academic freedom, institutional autonomy and the diversity of systems within the Community.
At the level of the Community, the Government will look to build on the success of the existing education programmes. The Government believe that the Commission best adds value in its role as a catalyst. The aim for both the Government and the Commission should be to support universities and colleges in integrating the European dimension into their policy and practice at all levels so that it becomes part and parcel of their culture.
The current Danish presidency has made an interesting suggestion for the development of a European open space in higher education. The aim is to work toward a Community where students can more easily choose their place of study without barriers and obstacles and where a European dimension is combined with respect for the richness and diversity of the national higher education systems and institutions. This would be achieved by co-operation rather than harmonisation. It would involve such features as enhanced links between higher education institutions, co-operation on quality assurance, co-operation on admission requirements, portable student grants, credit transfer, joint degrees and lecturer exchanges. Education without frontiers —to pick up the title of the Overseas Students Trust report—certainly presents many challenging problems to be resolved. But the Government find the

1131
philosophy of the open space attractive and we will be working in and at the heart of the Community to secure a positive conclusion.
British higher education is well placed to respond to these challenges. We are a leading participant in the Community education programmes. They will shortly fall due for renewal, and the Commission will bring forward proposals for their future. The Government will seek to ensure that the UK may continue to participate fully.
The Government were quick to implement the first EC general directive on the recognition of higher education diplomas. They are keen to implement the second diplomas directive within a similar time-scale, as it extends coverage to a broad range of regulated occupations. This will make a valuable contribution to freedom of movement within the single European market.
As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, we are pre-eminent in the provision of high quality open and flexible learning. The Open University, which is publicly funded, is the major provider of part-time higher education at a distance and is an international model for such provision. Last November, EC Education Ministers' conclusions establishing criteria for action at Community level in that field were the result of an initiative by this Government. As I said, we look forward to playing a full part, with our European partners, in the further development of open and distance learning at Community level.
Our universities and colleges have a solid record of involvement and achievement in contacts with the other EC countries. They are well placed to rise to the challenges and opportunities of the single market.
Having set the context, I now turn briefly to the report from the trust. The report highlights the need for action to improve language competence across the board. The position is rapidly improving. Through the national curriculum all secondary school pupils will study a modern foreign language until the age of 16. Through a range of measures, including retraining, the supply of modern foreign language teachers is increasing. The Government welcome the response of many further and higher education institutions to the growing demand for foreign language provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked me about primary schools. We do not have comprehensive data about the number of primary schools currently teaching a modern foreign language to some of their pupils. It has been estimated on the basis of data in the 1987 primary schools staffing survey that some 3,500 (15 per cent. to 20 per cent.) of English primary schools were doing so at the time. When all secondary school pupils are learning a language and the national curriculum has had a chance to settle down in primary schools, we shall be able to look at this matter again. In the meantime, a modern foreign language as a compulsory part of the primary curriculum has to be an objective for the longer term.
The report highlights the need to give priority to those already active in the workforce. Retraining is, and continues to be, a priority for the Government. In
1132
this year alone some £27 million of earmarked funding was made available to universities and colleges to meet the costs of developing new courses of continuing education.
This country also participates fully in the EC COMETT programme. This promotes the continuing training of workers, involving consortia of universities and companies, making appropriate use of distance learning, so that workers can study in their own time, at their own pace and at a convenient location, which is often either at home or in the workplace.
The report suggests measures to improve the quality and benefits of educational mobility. The Government welcome the involvement of UK universities and colleges in educational mobility both within and outside EC programmes. In many ways our universities' and colleges' provision for students from abroad provides a benchmark for our Community partners. The report suggests a code of practice on the reception of overseas students. The British Council already does that. The report also highlights the importance of credit transfer for mobile students. The Government actively support the wider development of credit transfer both domestically and in the international forum through Community activity acting as a catalyst for contacts between higher education institutions.
Turning to ERASMUS, the Community's main mobility programme, the report recommends improved integration of the study period and lengthening its minimum duration from three to six months; and concentration on selected institutions, with more generous financial assistance to them. In setting the minimum period of study and the range of universities and colleges eligible to participate it is necessary to strike a balance between accessibility and quality. These issues, and the best allocation of the available resources to participating universities and colleges and students, will be at the heart of the forthcoming discussions on the future of the programme.
I understand the view that funding for students going abroad in the ERASMUS programme is inadequate. An evaluation study carried out for the European Commission found that British students with support from the domestic system and an ERASMUS grant on top were relatively well funded compared with students from other countries. However, I take due note of what my noble friend Lord Elton said on that subject.
The report highlights the need to overcome the traditional distance between business and higher education. Within our largely decentralised system, the Government recognise and support the growing links between higher education and industry which can play a vital role in improving this country's overall competitiveness. The COMETT programme brings together universities and industry into mutually beneficial partnerships, and the newly established funding councils are encouraged to forge even closer links with business. Employers throughout business and industry should continue to make their requirements known: they will find the colleges both responsive and flexible.

1133
The report notes the need to take account of developing European Community and European free trade association relations and the changes in central and eastern Europe. The Government share the view that we should be helping to train key personnel for the new democracies in central and eastern Europe. In 1992–93, some £49 million is available through the know-how fund, including funding to support projects designed to transfer administrative, financial and legal skills.
The British Council has a large programme to promote English language training in the region, for which the Government have made available an extra £5 million from 1991–92. The Government's scholarship programme for central and eastern Europe, which includes generous contributions from British industries and universities, amounts to well over £3 million in 1992–93.
The report welcomes the TEMPUS programme and suggests that government assistance to universities might be increased. The Government congratulate universities and higher education colleges on their willingness to help their counterparts in central and eastern Europe and to take in students from there under the TEMPUS programme. It is particularly creditable that universities and colleges have forgone their right to full cost tuition fees and taken a great deal of trouble over the well-being and accommodation of these students.
I turn to the third world. The report's conclusions are mainly directed to the Commission. For the UK Government the training of people in new skills continues to be a priority in all areas of sustainable development. The type and level of appropriate training will vary. After the 1991 conference and world declaration on education for all there is more emphasis being placed on primary and basic education, both by donor countries and recipient governments. However, this does not mean that higher education can or will be neglected.
It is sometimes suggested that the European Community should establish programmes like TEMPUS or ERASMUS for third world countries. However, training is not necessarily best delivered through student mobility. Moreover, community programmes are designed to operate principally within the Community and to bring benefits that are not available from activity by member states individually. There exists a range of valuable bilateral programmes and projects in support of countries outside the EC. It is not clear to the Government how an additional layer of Community activity could add value.
Finally, the report suggests that an awareness campaign is needed. In general, there is a high awareness of EC action programmes; teachers receive training to include themes such as the European dimension in their teaching; many schools are developing innovative joint curriculum projects with partner schools abroad; and there is already a range of guide books describing higher education in the UK,
1134
including handbooks compiled by the admissions agencies and materials issued by the institutions themselves. Still more information is available electronically from the education counselling and credit transfer information system, which is capable of expansion to include courses across the EC. With those initiatives we believe that lack of access to information is not an obstacle.
Much of the activity I have described is on the same lines as recommended by the Overseas Students Trust report. The Government agree in broad terms with its conclusions. I am encouraged that all noble Lords who spoke this evening apparently take a similar view. The thought of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, rising up is enough to make any Minister pause for thought. However, the Government have a good record. We are committed. It is important to build on that foundation. The Government will continue to refine our policies in those areas and will contribute to the development of Community policy in co-operation with our EC partners and the Commission. I can assure your Lordships that the points made this evening will inform that process.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I can thank him for the answers to those of my questions which he felt able to answer this evening. May I take it that he will write to me with answers to those questions which he understandably was not in a position to answer on his feet tonight? Once again I apologise for the short notice that I gave him.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I will answer the questions that I am able to. We do not actually possess the comprehensive data and therefore it may not be possible to answer all the noble Lord's points.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, which in theory he has not yet done, perhaps I can ask a question. I thought I heard him say earlier, as is indeed the case, that the budget for ERASMUS ran from 1990 to 1993 at 192 million ecus and is about to be reset for 1994 onwards, and that we will seek to participate in the results of that. Can the Government be a little pro-active in the matter and seek to bring pressure to bear on the Community to increase that budget at the expense of less profitable expenditure in Community money so that we will therefore obtain a larger share of the larger whole?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said, the issues of allocation and resources will be at the heart of our forthcoming discussions on that programme. I can assure my noble friend that we will press as hard as we are able.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, before the noble Viscount finally sits down, perhaps I can say for my part that I am grateful for the positive and authoritative way in which he responded to the recommendations in this excellent report.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  PLUTONIUM STOCKS, SELLAFIELD: SAFETY
  PLUTONIUM STOCKS, SELLAFIELD: SAFETY
  NHS SPECIALTY REVIEWS
  NHS SPECIALTY REVIEWS
  INCOME TAX COMPARISON
  INCOME TAX COMPARISON
  GREATER MANCHESTER BUSES
  GREATER MANCHESTER BUSES
  DEFINITIVE MAP ORDERS; INSPECTORS' REPORTS
  DEFINITIVE MAP ORDERS; INSPECTORS' REPORTS
  FLOATING HELIPORTS: PLANNING CONTROL
  FLOATING HELIPORTS: PLANNING CONTROL
  HOUSING REQUESTS FROM HIV POSITIVE APPLICANTS
  HOUSING REQUESTS FROM HIV POSITIVE APPLICANTS