Sitting of 11 March 1993

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

RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 March.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Thursday 18 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Extradition (India)
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the names of those persons India has sought in recent years to extradite from the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): There has been one extradition request from India in recent years. The application was withdrawn and it would not therefore be right to name the individual concerned.
    Mr. Madden: As the Indians have sought to extradite only one person in recent years, what is the justification for asking Parliament to approve an extradition treaty between Britain and India? Why is Parliament being asked to approve this wretched treaty, bearing in mind the appalling human rights violations that are being committed in India each and every day? Thousands of extrajudicial murders are being committed, including that of the leading lawyer Kulwant Singh; thousands of people are being held in detention without trial, including the Kashmiri leaders Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik and two Britons.
    Will the Home Secretary agree to meet United Kingdom-based Indian organisations to discuss the human rights position in India and defer the orders asking Parliament to approve the treaty?
    Mr. Clarke: I regret that the hon. Gentleman should choose to use his question to make a partisan and rather wild speech about Indian politics. The fact is that India is the largest working democracy in the world, has a legal system based on ours and is both a very close ally of this country and a leading member of the Commonwealth. It is plainly right that we should have up-to-date extradition arrangements between India and the United Kingdom. It is particularly important that the so-called political defence should not be cited in criminal charges that turn on terrorism, from which both our countries suffer. I will commend the orders to the House in due course.
    Mr. Allen: The Home Secretary may be aware of the problems surrounding extradition. Will he act now to end the difficulties highlighted in the immigration and nationality section of his Department which were exposed by the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs? Does he agree with the Committee's conclusion that the delays are being used as an unauthorised and unofficial means of control? As the Conservative Government are seeking to hide behind the citizens charter, will he press for the charter to redress some of the appalling delays that are now evident in his Department?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that we are making satisfactory progress in reducing delays in both the immigration and nationality divisions. We shall continue to do so, by improving the management and control of the workload. We are also very near to completing parliamentary discussion of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, which will enable us to handle many cases

    1089
    much more speedily, not just in the relevant areas but in many others. If the Opposition had not opposed the Bill and protracted discussion of it for so long, we would have made still more progress in reducing the delays about which the hon. Gentleman now has the nerve to complain.

    Drug Trafficking
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the maximum penalties available for trafficking in class A drugs; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The maximum penalties available to the courts in cases of trafficking in class A drugs are life imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both.
    Sir Roger Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that that threat of life imprisonment and the Attorney-General's right to appeal against lenient sentences represent two of the most crucial weapons in the battle against drug smuggling? They would not exist but for a provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which the Labour party opposed. Is not it disgraceful that Labour should oppose that measure, as well as many other law and order measures introduced by the Conservatives?
    Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Conservative Government increased the maximum penalty from 14 years' imprisonment to life imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. Opposition Members have voted against every major piece of law and order legislation since 1979.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister will know that paramilitary organisations are deeply into drug trafficking as a means of raising funds and are doing so in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Is there any evidence that they are involved in similar activities in England and Wales and, if so, what are the Government doing about it?
    Mr. Wardle: The Government are well aware that drug trafficking is an international business. That is why we have bilateral agreements with 28 countries, why we ratified the United Nations convention in 1988, along with 70 other countries, why we are a major donor to the United Nations drug control programme and why we provide 33 liaison officers who are working in various countries to fight drug trafficking.

    Safer Cities
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the main achievements of his Department's safer cities initiatives; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): The main achievement of the 20 safer cities projects has been successfully to implement the partnership approach to crime prevention, where local agencies work together to tackle crime problems. Through this approach, the projects have supported more than 3,000 local crime prevention schemes.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the safer cities programme is an excellent example of the Government working with town halls and police forces to cut crime? Will he make safer cities funds available to Bolton for my campaign against crime and will he ensure that town halls do not follow Labour's soft line on crime, because juvenile criminals should be in special schools, not playing truant, robbing and thieving?
    Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his personal lead in and endorsement of crime prevention in Bolton. He is an assiduous Member of the House and takes these matters seriously. I thank him for underlining the case for Bolton and I will certainly bear its credentials in mind when we come to make those decisions.
    Mrs. Roche: If the Minister is so keen on the partnership approach to crime prevention, why have not the Government implemented the recommendations of the Morgan report, which has been widely acclaimed and which is all about partnership between local authorities and the police?
    Mr. Jack: With no disrespect to the authors of the Morgan report, we have already implemented the partnership approach through safer cities, which is very different from the Labour party, whose manifesto did not even contain the word "community". The only difference between our approach and that of the Morgan report to partnership is that we do not believe that local authorities should have a statutory duty to do what is common sense.

    Sunday Trading
    Dr. Hampson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he is giving to the discretionary powers given to local authorities in registering shops for Sunday opening in the preparation of his legislation; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We will bring to the House a Bill containing the three main options for reform of Sunday trading. One of those, the option put forward by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign, may give some limited discretion to local authorities to decide which of those shops meeting specified criteria should be allowed to trade on Sundays. We are discussing this with the KSSC.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be no service to customers at large and, indeed, would seriously inhibit trade if as much discretion were given to local authorities as provided for in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)? Does he also accept that, while we wait for the precise drafting of the Government's Bill, there is a risk of a serious and unhealthy vacuum being created, so will he publish the various options as soon as possible, in advance of the Bill itself, to inform public debate?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is a good suggestion and we intend to do just that.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that it is not good guidance to give to other lawbreakers that if they break the law often enough, the Home Office might become lenient?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, it is not good guidance. We change the law in the House on the merits of the case, not according to whether the law is obeyed or otherwise. I have condemned the breaking of the law in the past and am happy to do so now. The law as it stands should be obeyed until it is changed.

    Surveillance Techniques
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to increase the range of surveillance techniques to catch criminals.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Various surveillance techniques are being developed to aid the police in their fight against crime. It would not be in the public interest to disclose details of them.
    Mr. Banks: In putting the police and the public on a vigorous offensive against criminals, will my hon. Friend ensure that every available technique, including the use of electronic devices and the deployment by the police of decoys, will be widely practised and encouraged? Will he assure the House that the police will be provided with all the latest technology so that they can catch the criminal in the act and detect and hunt down the others?
    Mr. Wardle: As my hon. Friend says, surveillance technology has been advancing rapidly and provides an improved new means of detection. The use of surveillance technology and the amount of money spent on it in each police force is a matter for the chief officer. In the private sector, closed-circuit television and video recordings have been used to good deterrent effect in car parks, sports grounds and shopping centres.

    Neighbourhood Watch
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reduction in levels of recorded crime have been achieved by the introduction of neighbourhood watch schemes.
    Mr. Jack: Many factors influence recorded crime levels and, generally, it is not easy to isolate the influence of neighbourhood watch overall. However, detailed studies in parts of the Kirkholt estate in Rochdale and in a council estate in Wythenshawe in Greater Manchester have shown that neighbourhood watch schemes can have an effect on the rate of recorded crime.
    Mr. Hunter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most successful neighbourhood watch schemes are those that draw on the energies of local people and local police and that any statutory requirement on local authorities to promote crime prevention could stifle those successful schemes with red tape?
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. When I previously looked at work done in 1987 on the cost of crime to local authorities, it came to £500 million. I am sure that the thought of saving that money would appeal to local authorities and encourage them to play their role in the partnership approach to crime prevention.
    We wish to encourage the development of neighbourhood watch. A new neighbourhood watch co-ordinators'
    1092
    manual is to be produced soon and further Home Office advice will be available on local crime prevention panels to encourage that partnership approach.
    Mr. Corbett: How does the Minister square his claimed support for neighbourhood watch, which Labour Members strongly suport, with the current freeze on police manpower in England and Wales, given that the most successful schemes involve large amounts of police time? Will he examine that matter?
    Mr. Jack: I am delighted to have some endorsement of our partnership approach to crime prevention. The neighbourhood watch scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the police, but he and many of his hon. Friends do not talk about the effective use of the police. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is looking to improve the peformance of the police.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is insufficient work coming into Uxbridge magistrates court to enable the five courts to sit as they usually do? Is that due to a dramatic fall in the level of recorded crime in Uxbridge or some other matter?
    Mr. Jack: I am certainly aware of some of the issues that have been discussed recently in relation to police clear-up rates. In the case of Uxbridge, I doubt whether crime is going down in total terms, but we are looking carefully at that analysis. I know that the Metropolitan police are looking at it. One of the values of good management information is that it shows up certain trends and encourages analysis of them.
    Ms Ruddock: The Minister is familiar with neighbourhood watch schemes in my area, but he has drawn most attention to the impact of the Lewisham safer cities project in terms of crime prevention. Does he recall the summer youth challenge, which cut youth crime in Deptford by 28 per cent. and the Deptford business security scheme, which cut crime by 25 per cent? Where is the sense in cutting the Lewisham safer cities grant by two thirds when it delivers such results?
    Mr. Jack: I remember the summer youth challenge. I was delighted to see the result and I have inquired into how it is continuing. The hon. Lady knows that at the outset of safer cities there was never an assurance of limitless funding from the Home Office for the first 20 projects. The job now is to use the £100,000 grant fund for the next financial year, together with the £500,000 fund from which safer cities projects can draw, to develop an exit strategy to put in place a lasting, locally based partnership in places such as Lewisham. The hon. Lady has demonstrated the effectiveness of the concept of safer cities and I am sure that the community in Lewisham would wish to continue it.

    Child Cruelty (Law of Evidence)
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the NSPCC research on the law of evidence in child cruelty cases.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have asked the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to let me have the results of its research in this area. I will assess its contents once I have received the reports.
    Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the concern of the police, the general public and others about the right to silence? Does he agree that it was the Conservative Government who increased the maximum sentence against cruelty to children from two to 10 years and that it was the socialists in the Opposition who opposed the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which allowed for that provision and allowed tougher sentences generally? How does that square with the conversion of the socialists in the Opposition to law and order, as was demonstrated by the disgraceful scenes in the Chamber last night?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, first, that the time has come to look again at the so-called right to silence in all criminal cases. However, it must be looked at with care. I have given evidence on the subject to Lord Runciman's royal commission. We should all wait for the report of the royal commission before we come to conclusions on that subject.
    On the second question, it is the case that we increased the maximum penalty for child cruelty to 10 years in the 1988 Act. The Labour party voted against that Bill, as it has voted against every Bill that we introduced in the 1980s to strengthen the powers of the court. Judging from yesterday, its track record will continue in the same negative vein.
    Mr. Olner: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the ultimate cruelties that can be done to a child is for one of its parents to abduct it from its other parent and take it abroad? Will he keep up the funding for the organisation called Re-unite, which is the National Council for Abducted Children? Does he agree that that organisation does a tremendous job not only for parents who have their children abducted but for his Department? The timing is crucial for keeping up that funding.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the cases to which he refers and the devastating effect that abduction can have on families. We have received an application for funding from the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman refers and we are considering it carefully.

    Criminals (Public Castigation)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce provisions for the public castigation of criminals in their own communities.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: It is already the case that the judge or magistrate passing sentence in open court is giving public expression to society's condemnation of the criminal behaviour that has led to the conviction.
    Mr. Field: In view of the dastardly attack on an 81-year-old widow by three 10-year-old girls on Monday this week, has my hon. Friend had time to read the ten-minute Bill that I introduced in 1988 which imposed penalties on the parents of young criminals? Is not it time
    1094
    that the names and addresses of young thugs were exhibited in their community so that their families shared in their actions and the penalties that they have incurred?
    Mr. Wardle: I recall my hon. Friend's ten-minute Bill. It was an important contribution to the debate on truancy, vandalism and young offenders. Of course, it was entirely unsurprising that so many Opposition Members voted against it. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it would be right to label children publicly as criminals. It would tend to glamorise what they had done in many cases. However, he will be aware that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 involves parents more closely in the misdemeanours of their children and in paying fines for under-16s.
    Mr. Soley: In the context of general wrongdoing, is not there a great deal of evidence to suggest that, rather than castigating people in the community, offenders should be made to compensate the community? That is better for both the offender and the community. For example, if people had their pond cleared out and wrongly benefited from that, or built an extension on their house wrongly, they could be made to dig out the village duck pond or build an extension on the community hall. Would not that be a good moral example to set the country?
    Mr. Wardle: That depends largely on the crime, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, community penalties under the 1991 Act are tougher than they previously were and, more importantly, are subject to national standards of enforcement and control.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that humiliation is an important element in deterring the commission of crime and that if all that happens to delinquent children is that they are privately cautioned time and again, that element of humiliation will never deter them from further crime?
    Mr. Wardle: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, 87 per cent. of juvenile offenders who are cautioned are not reconvicted within the next two years. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is addressing the more fundamental problem of persistent juvenile offenders which no doubt will be considered in legislation that will come before the House in this Parliament.

    Crime
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to reduce crime in districts outside the designated inner-city areas.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government support and have encouraged the police and other agencies in the development of effective crime prevention programmes in all parts of the country. We support a combination of good policy and community-based crime prevention activity such as neighbourhood watch, which, with national initiatives such as Car Crime Prevention Year, can make an impact on local crime levels.
    Mr. Lewis: How does that square with the comments of Earl Ferrers in another place that Greater Manchester police have 227 too many policemen? How does it square with the cancellation of the safer cities project or with the apparent lack of co-operation between Departments, which is distorting public spending and revenue support grant and not helping outer-city areas that have inner-city

    1095
    problems? Westminster city council receives £500 per head more than Salford and Wigan. How can that be right and how will it help those on the ground, including neighbourhood watch, to deal with the problems that the Secretary of State mentioned?
    Mr. Clarke: Police manpower is up by 30,000 compared with 10 years ago and since taking office we have increased real-terms spending on the police service by 81 per cent. In addition, we have backed projects such as safer cities in Salford, which has been a great success in reducing crime in parts of the borough. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, it was never the intention that the safer cities initiative should concentrate set sums of money in particular places indefinitely. We are moving on to a second phase of projects elsewhere and I expect that the Salford safer cities initiative will become self-financing, like similar initiatives elsewhere. We have spent £20 million on safer cities in the past three years and have made provision for a further £20 million over the next three years.
    Mr. Lewis: Why scrap it if it is working?
    Mr. Clarke: I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the success of our safer cities initiative, which, as he said, has reduced crime in parts of his borough.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way of reducing crime is by appropriate and rigorous punishment? When he considers amendments to the criminal justice system, will he bear in mind the fact that punishment should be aimed as much towards deterrence and protecting innocent members of the public as to rehabilitation of the offender? The Labour party obviously has not learnt that lesson, because in its manifesto for the last election it devoted only 155 words to law and order, which was less than it devoted to national heritage.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree that one aspect of combating crime must be effective punishment. During our term of office, the length of sentences for violent and sexual offences has increased, which has given the public some relief from the activities of the most serious offenders. We tackle crime in other ways, such as Car Crime Prevention Year, safer cities, drug prevention teams and so on. The Labour party has not added much to those 160 words. It may have added verbiage, but, so far it has not made a single policy proposal since the election.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Home Secretary agree that the massive increase in crimes against the person from 7,500 in 1955 to more than 191,000 last year is, in some small measure at least, attributable to the large amount of violence that is shown on television programmes? Has he seen today's report from Lord Rees-Mogg and the Broadcasting Standards Council, which mentions excessive levels of violence being shown, including an attack on an elderly lady that was screened just after 9 pm? Does he agree with Lord Rees-Mogg, rather than with Alan Yentob at the BBC, that excessive violence on television is one of the factors in the level of violence in society today?
    Mr. Clarke: Personally, I agree with that—certainly up to a point. The increased propensity of young people to contemplate violence and growing insensitivity to violence have been encouraged by the extremely realistic violence to which they are more regularly exposed on television. Lord
    1096
    Rees-Mogg's group was set up to monitor that and to give strong advice to television companies. The best way to proceed is for the television producers and television authorities to show more common sense, good taste and restraint. I particularly agreed with Lord Rees-Mogg's strictures on Central Television for showing the interviews with the serial killer who is in prison. I tried strenuously through the law courts to prevent that action.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the public are particularly at risk in residential areas with a high incidence of burglary, in shopping centres and on public transport? Will he encourage the recruitment of many more special constables to protect the public in those places?
    Mr. Clarke: Certainly; we are conducting a drive to recruit more special constables and we are experimenting with the introduction of modest payments for some special constables when they might otherwise lose earnings by participating. We very much value the contribution that special constables make. That will enhance the already increased manpower of the fully professional police force. It will also enhance everything that we are doing to reduce burglary in residential areas and, through business watch and other schemes, to make business premises safer as well.
    Mr. Blair: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that, as crime has more than doubled in the past 14 years and has risen by more than 50 per cent. in the past three years, now is the last time that we should be cancelling safer cities projects, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) said, have actually been working? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman also understand that as crime is not getting better, but is getting worse, his message that there must be a freeze on police numbers is the worst possible message that he can give to the country? Would it not be better if he lifted the police freeze and allowed more policemen and women back on to the beat where they are wanted?
    Mr. Clarke: The safer cities initiative had been one of the most successful things that the Government have done to tackle and reduce the level of crime in particularly difficult parts of cities. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports that policy. However, he is wrong to say that we are cancelling it. Some £20 million has been spent over the past three years and another £20 million is to be spent over the next three years. We are not continuing the central Government financing that we started with. We always made it clear that we were going to move on to other cities and we are doubling the number of projects.
    I have already said that police manpower has increased by 30,000 since we took over from the former Labour Government an under-resourced, underpaid, undermanned police service and transformed it into a service which has been given a unique priority by this Government ever since we have been in office.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the proposals to which he should give more urgent consideration is that which relates to the responsibility of parents in controlling their children? Does he accept that it is absolutely crucial that parents do not abandon all responsibility for their children, that they ensure that their children are at home and supervised in the evenings, that their children do their homework and that

    1097
    they spend more time talking with their children and entertaining them, instead of letting them go around our streets and towns at night, bored out of their brains, causing mindless acts of vandalism and crime?
    Mr. Clarke: I endorse all that and I am sure that the progress of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education in establishing closer links between parents and schools and in tackling truancy and, I hope, involving parents in tackling truancy and confronting their responsibilities will help. Where parents fail to do that, and where they could make a better contribution, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 now gives power to the youth court to have parents brought before it, be bound over if necessary or obliged to pay their children's fines. As I recollect it, that was another strengthening of the law which was opposed by the Labour party.

    Vehicle Security
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the representatives of the motor car industry to discuss improvements to vehicle security.
    Mr. Jack: I will be meeting representatives from the motor car industry later this month when they will be attending the second meeting of my advisory committee on car crime prevention.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he impress on the vehicle manufacturers when he meets them the need for vehicle immobilisers and deadlocks to be fitted as standard to all vehicles? I appreciate that the manufacturers are doing all that they can, but the time has come when those devices should be fitted as standard. Will the Minister also discuss with the manufacturers the reasons that they have put forward in respect of European car crime and will he try to discover why this country suffers more car crime than the rest of Europe?
    Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those supportive comments. After my visit to the motor show and seeing what is happening on the ground, I believe that many more manufacturers now have a wide range of models with the very equipment that the hon. Gentleman identified. Double locking or deadlocking are now available as standard on 25 per cent. of all models. I should certainly like to see that extended much further into model ranges. I will draw the attention of the vehicle manufacturers to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that not only is deadlocking required but immobilisers are essential? That is the only way to deal with the national scandal of car crime. Will my hon. Friend tell the manufacturers that if they do not respond, he will introduce regulations, as he did for safety belts?
    Mr. Jack: It is interesting to look at the figures on immobilisers, which are currently available as standard or at point of sale on 97 per cent. of all United Kingdom-produced models. The message is getting home. Good common sense is enough to persuade manufacturers and it is clear in much of their advertising that security pays and security sells.

    Police Cells
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made to reduce the number of prisoners in police cells.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Since 12 February the Prison Service has not locked prisoners out of prison, except on one occasion on 4 March. Of course, police forces have continued the normal practice of detaining in police cells prisoners who have been taken into custody after it is too late to transfer them to prison that night.
    Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister confirm that prisoners who ought to be in prison are still being held in police cells in Greater Manchester and that following the Strangeways riot over £200 million was spent on containing prisoners within police cells rather than in prisons? The money could have been far better spent on putting more police on the beat. The scandal of the way prisoners were dealt with after Strangeways was a disgrace to the Government.
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course prisoners ought not to be kept in police cells. We have made enormous changes to the system to ensure that does not happen. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that police forces have been paid £200 million over the past two years for looking after those prisoners. That operation has been brought to an end, but we still need the co-operation of the police and the other criminal justice agencies to make sure that the rising number of prisoners now coming into prison does not again spill over into police cells.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Will my hon. Friend have further discussions with the prison officers about these matters because there is resistance to taking in prisoners at late hours, which means the police have to look after them in cells? I do not believe that it is the job of police officers to guard prisoners in cells, except before they appear in court.
    Mr. Lloyd: No, it is not. The courts generally finish by lunchtime or early afternoon and in most cases there is plenty of time to get people to prison. Prison officers do not organise to refuse to receive them if there are places in the prisons. There are now places in prisons. Where there are difficulties and courts sit late, there should be flexibility and communication from the police to the prisons warning them that they will be arriving with prisoners rather later than usual.
    Mr. Hood: Is the Minister aware that the number of absconding prisoners in Scotland has doubled over the past two years? Has that anything to do with the changes in working practices and the indoctrination of prison officers?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have no idea, as I have no responsibility for prison services in Scotland.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people believe that individuals should be sent to prison when they have done wrong? Many people believe that too many are being granted bail and welcome the decision by the Court of Appeal that the south Wales rapist should be sent to a detention centre.
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend's views will be shared by many. All I can say to him on the part of the Prison Service is that we take those whom the courts deliver to us.

    Juvenile Crime
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to the Exchequer of research into the causes of juvenile crime since 1979.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Since 1979, my Department's research and planning unit has spent some £1.4 million on external projects and, in addition, has undertaken 16 internal projects, whose cost cannot be separately quantified, into juvenile crime, its causes and prevention.
    Mr. Etherington: The Home Secretary will be aware that my constituency has the highest car theft rate in Great Britain. Much of it is carried out by young people and some of them are persistent offenders. In view of what the Home Secretary said yesterday about the benefits of prevention as a separate issue from punishment, does he agree that there should be proper resources to find out through in-depth research what motivates such anti-social behaviour? It would be of great benefit to the nation and would be one of the best investments ever to be made in Britain to help ameliorate the problem.
    Mr. Clarke: Certainly we devote as much attention to the prevention of crime as we do to the equally important matter of how to punish or deal with people who commit it. As I have already said, we engage in a large amount of research, especially into the criminality of young people. That research demonstrates that parental attitudes, quality of discipline and lack of educational attainment all play a large part in encouraging young people to become juvenile delinquents. That is why I felt it necessary to bring forward some fresh proposals to deal with the most persistent juvenile offenders so that they can be kept in secure accommodation, properly educated and cared for by people who seek to instil a proper sense of values in them.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is all right having research and royal commissions but the general public want some action? It is no good telling television companies and the media research people that a 16-second advertisement on television sells so many million products and then asserting that sex and violence for hour after hour on television does not have an effect on young people. I honestly believe that my right hon. and learned Friend is getting down to the job, but we have been failed by successive Home Secretaries.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend may have heard me say that I believe that the level of violence on television has a significant effect on altering attitudes among the young. I hope that those who are responsible will take action on that. As for Government action in respect of what is available to children and young people through the media, the written word and other sources, some of the responsibility is mine. The broadcasting side of it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will put equally pertinent questions to him.
    Mr. Michael: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that Ministers will be more successful if they work harder at understanding the problem of juvenile crime? His Department has told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that juvenile crime is decreasing, but does he
    1100
    realise that there has been a major increase in the theft of cars, theft from cars and home burglary, three crimes in which research shows that young people play a major part? The right hon. and learned Gentleman praises many local projects, but will he now provide the strategy and resources so that crime can be prevented, with the result that every city, town and village will become safer?
    Mr. Clarke: First, juvenile crime is not declining, as we all know from our own experience. The number of juvenile offenders is said to have decreased, as shown by some of my Department's statistics. In part, that is true. There are fewer juvenile offenders coming before the courts, but those who do tend to be committing a higher proportion of offences—and more serious offences. It is difficult to disentangle from the figures the effect of diverting young people out of the criminal justice system, which has been done in recent years. We put resources into research and we come up with proposed remedies, which is more than the Opposition do. We have designed our proposals with objectives such as safer cities in mind. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends now pay tribute to them.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that further research costs to the Exchequer and the British taxpayer could easily be saved if common sense were adopted? Juvenile crime flourishes because of lack of parental discipline, truancy from schools, far too much violence on television and videos and, most important of all, the absence of corporal punishment, which is the greatest deterrent to young thugs.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance place that common sense has to play in all these matters and how that should be put alongside academic research. In considering the problem of persistent juvenile offenders, which I have been doing since becoming Home Secretary, the best research that I was able to follow was the result of talking to chief constables, magistrates and judges, and being told how powerless the courts felt when dealing with the hard core of the most persistent offenders. We have responded to that by bringing forward proposals.

    Prisoners (Northern Ireland)
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in relation to the new arrangements governing the transfer of prisoners to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Those prisoners who previously expressed an interest in transferring to Northern Ireland have been advised of the new arrangements and invited to apply. To date, 28 transfer requests have been referred to the Northern Ireland prison service for its consideration. In addition, six prisoners are currently on extended temporary transfer in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that one of the essential elements of the rehabilitation of prisoners is close and frequent contact with their families? Does he accept that, in the case of Northern Ireland residents who are in prisons in Britain, transfer is desirable for the purpose of rehabilitation? Can

    1101
    he confirm that since the publication of the Ferrers report the only prisoners to be transferred have been the six he has just mentioned? What is the current stage of the work of the new committee that is addressing the complex nature of permanent transfers, temporary transfers and extended temporary transfers?
    Mr. Lloyd: The committee is still considering permanent transfers. I agree that, for the purposes of rehabilitation, transfer is a good move, so long as the prisoner is prepared to co-operate fully with the regime to which he is transferred and so long as prisoners who have rightly been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment here do not have their periods of detention reduced as a result of transfer.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Mudie: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how today's distressing news that 5,000 Rolls-Royce jobs are to be lost and how the fact that since he became Prime Minister 750,000 manufacturing jobs have been destroyed fit in with any supposed strategy for manufacturing industry? And can he tell the country when it can expect this industrial carnage to end?
    The Prime Minister: Let me respond first to the hon. Gentleman's point about Rolls-Royce and the distressing announcement this morning of job losses at Derby and elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman will know that Rolls-Royce has two main international competitors, Boeing and Pratt and Whitney. He will know also that Pratt and Whitney has plans to cut 10,000 jobs over the next year or so and that Boeing will cut a total of 28,000 jobs. In both cases, the job losses have the same cause as those at Rolls-Royce—the state of the international market and of international demand. As to what is being done, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not forgotten the long list of things that I set out the other day. If he wishes me to do so, I shall willingly repeat it.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to have discussions with the leader of the Labour party about the deplorable behaviour of the official Opposition last night, which was clearly encouraged by the Front Bench? Is it not pathetic that the Opposition have to resort to such tactics, instead of using effective debate, as these inevitably bring the House into disrepute?
    The Prime Minister: Any discussions are for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and his Opposition counterpart. I condemn what apparently happened last night, although I was not in the House. I have to ask why the Leader of the Opposition did not stop it and, more relevantly, why his deputy Chief Whip seemed to be organising it.
    Mr. John Smith rose—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Smith: If manufacturing matters to the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down and listen to what hon. Members have to say and to the responses.
    Mr. John Smith: If manufacturing matters to the Prime Minister, as he would have us believe, what action does he intend to take to prevent the loss of 5,000 jobs at Rolls-Royce?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman still lives in a world in which the Government do everything and everything is the Government's fault. That may be his vision of the future, but for most people it is their vision of the past, and a past that was not successful. He should remember, for example, the national enterprise board. It picked losers, not winners, it cost millions, and many of its investments, taking the sort of action that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would advocate, subsequently went into liquidation or receivership.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not remember that an Administration headed by one of his predecessors took Rolls-Royce into public ownership, otherwise it would not be there today? Does he recollect that only last week he told us in his The Independent interview that we have undervalued engineering skills? What on earth is the point of his talking about the value of engineering skills when, as Prime Minister, he does nothing about the loss of 5,000 skilled engineering jobs?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may also recall that we put many industries into privatisation, without which they would not be in profit and creating jobs today. The way to create engineering and other jobs is to make sure that we have a growing economy and the right sort of international competitiveness. We have intervened to get the single market running and we have improved export credit guarantees. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly forgotten all the matters that were contained within the autumn Budget. It is not nannying intervention of the sort that the right hon. and learned Gentleman advocates that this country needs; it is the sort of supply-side measures that we are taking.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand that this litany of self-serving excuses gives no comfort to the 5,000 people who are to lose their jobs, let alone the 10,000 Rolls-Royce workers who have lost their jobs in the recent past? Does he not understand that in France today the Government are giving temporary help to the aerospace industry precisely to keep skilled engineering groups together? Why does not his Government back British industry the way other Governments back their industry?
    The Prime Minister: If France is so successful, why are there 3 million unemployed there? Here is the right hon. and learned Gentleman again with his perennial gloom. He might welcome some of the new jobs announced

    1103
    recently: Digitals move for 1,100 more jobs at Ayr; the prospect of 3,000 more jobs in Staffordshire; the new jobs won yesterday in Cambridge; the 6,000 jobs to be created in Manchester. Why do these always bypass the right hon. and learned Gentleman on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons?
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bates: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is vital to the success of the security services that they are kept free from political interference in operational matters? If so, does he agree that the remarks made yesterday by a Labour spokesman on Northern Ireland were a total disgrace and a slur upon the courageous and dedicated way in which the security services carry out their duties on behalf of all of us?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those remarks were absurd. They were a slur on officers whose achievements must have saved many people from death or injury. The Opposition would have done better, rather than attacking the police, to join us last night in attacking terrorism. The Leader of the Opposition might tell us whether he stands by what his hon. Friend said or by the police in what they have to do. He cannot do both.
    Mr. Ashdown: On this bleak day for job losses, will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that, while there are 3 million unemployed in Britain, there are also 3 million small businesses in Britain, and a real, extra boost for small businesses could provide a real, extra boost for jobs? Will he cut the uniform business rate and penalise the late payment of bills, or is he simply content to continue to let small businesses go to the wall, as at present, at the rate of 250 a day?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no idea that more than 400,000 new small businesses were formed last year. If he really wants to help create small businesses in future, perhaps he will stop joining others in delaying the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and putting at risk the inward investment that has totalled £100 billion in the past five years. If we have to choose between the right hon. Gentleman's principles and his action, we had better be careful not to decide on his action until he has done it.
    Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend will have struck a chord with most of our constituents when he recently drew attention to the corrosive effects of violence on television. Will he now go a stage further and direct the Cabinet's attention to the further effects of paedophilia created and transmitted by computer which, at present, is not covered by the law? Will he ensure that controls are included in the next criminal justice Bill?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that that is covered by the law. But notwithstanding that, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is well seized of the difficulties raised by my hon. Friend and is examining them.
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that it is now time to release the capital receipts, long held by local authorities, in order to bring skilled building workers back into work to provide decent homes for the homeless and for elderly people?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may recall, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer released many of them in the autumn statement and those that have been released are currently being underspent by local authorities.
    Mr. Marlow: We are told that we are winning the arguments in Europe. Does that mean that Mr. Delors, the Commission, Benelux, Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand are now enthusiastic decentralisers? Does that mean that the principle of subsidiarity will allow the House, and this House alone, to make a decision on whether we have a 48-hour week?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, article 3b specifically puts subsidiarity into the EC treaty and changes the situation in the future about that matter. He himself should vote for that instead of obstructing it.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why he has tabled a motion again today to allow debate to continue on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, a motion which has been tabled many times in recent weeks and never moved? Has he made a deal with the Liberals and nationalists this evening, or will he be running away from his second defeat this week?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly is as keen as I am to see progress on the Bill.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the latest excellent figures for new house sales which were 20 per cent. up in the first eight weeks of this year? The Opposition concentrate on talking Britain down, but is that not good news for Britain?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity. He is quite right about housing. He will know that mortgage rates for first-time buyers are lower today than they have been since 1956, and that is before many families yet feel the benefit of the interest rate cuts since the autumn. Many people are clearly deciding that now is a good time to buy, and I welcome that.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thurssday 11 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that prices in the South West Water region have risen 77 per cent. since 1989, faster than in the rest of the country, and are due to double over the next few years, faster than in the rest of the country? When the right hon. Gentleman recently visited Cornwall and Devon, he told the Western Morning News on 5 February that he was looking at action to help people with those problems. He told me last week on 4 March that he defended the price increases that we have seen. Which is right—what he said here or what he said in the west country?
    The Prime Minister: I told the hon. Gentleman last week that the prices were broadly the same as those of Anglian Water, and they are. I can tell him again this afternoon that I am examining the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a joint media campaign in my area called Action Desk, involving the Bournemouth Evening Echo, the Dorset chamber of commerce and Two Counties Radio, which is designed to beat the recession in our area by encouraging the spread of good news about our economic recovery and encouraging a positive approach by business and individuals?
    1106
    Will my right hon. Friend commend this initiative and recommend it to other areas and above all, will he recommend it to the national media in order to counter the doom and gloom coming out of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It certainly is time that we started talking more positively about our good successes and about the opportunities we now have with low inflation and low interest rates.
    Mr. Lewis: What about jobs?
    The Prime Minister: And, in answer to that seated intervention, about the new jobs, many of which I listed a few moments ago. Exports are up; manufacturing productivity is up; car sales are up; house sales are up, and one day Opposition Members opposite may begin to acknowledge that.

HIV Testing (Medical Stall)
3.30 pm
Mr. David Blunkett(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on issuing fresh guidelines in relation to key medical staff found to be HIV positive or who die from AIDS-related diseases and further consideration by the advisory group on the testing of medical staff involved in invasive surgery.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): All health care workers have an overriding ethical duty to protect the health and safety of their patients. The relevant professional bodies—the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council and the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting—have issued guidelines which make this absolutely clear. The guidelines tell health care workers what they must do if they know, or suspect, that they may be infected with HIV.
It is absolutely essential that these guidelines are scrupulously observed. My Department's chief professional officers wrote to the heads of the GMC, GDC and UKCC on Monday stressing this messge. I have now asked them to summon those leaders to the Department to make clear our concern that the guidelines ae up to date and sufficiently robust and to examine whether any further steps can be taken to ensure that they are known and understood by all health care workers.
It is also the duty of all health authorities and trusts to ensure that the health care workers that they employ are aware of the guidelines and that they follow them to the letter. My Department has given guidance as to the correct procedures for handling incidents involving an HIV infected health care worker in the past on a case-by-case basis. This guidance is now being urgently reviewed and will be issued this month to all health authorities and trusts.
The Department's guidance already requires that the relevant professional guidance should be shown to prospective NHS employees. I intend to re-emphasise the need for this, particularly for those workers who may be involved in invasive procedures. They must be asked to confirm that they have read and understood the professional guidance.
All health care workers who believe that they may have any condition, including HIV infection, which might put their patient's safety at risk must seek medical advice. They must put their patient's safety first. Failure to do so would be a serious breach of professional practice.
As regards routine testing of health care workers for HIV infection, this is not a requirement anywhere in the world. The expert advisory group on AIDS, which met again on Tuesday, has reconfirmed its previous advice that routine testing of health care workers is not justified.
It must be stressed that the cases recently reported should be seen in the worldwide context. There are no reported cases of any doctor, nurse or midwife transmitting HIV infection to a patient.
I shall continue to keep the House fully informed of the progress of discussions with the regulatory authorities and I will place the advice that I will be issuing to health authorities and trusts in the Library of the House.
Mr. Blunkett: May I thank the Secretary of State for her statement? Will she accept that in asking her to make a statement we seek a bipartisan approach to the most important and sensitive issue that faces us—allaying fears, putting the protection of patients at the forefront of our actions and overcoming an atmosphere of worry and concern which does no good to patients and which reduces the likelihood that those in the NHS who believe themselves to be HIV-positive will come forward? Will the right hon. Lady join me in deprecating the unnecessary and provocative headlines and coverage given to those issues?
In welcoming the review announced by the Secretary of State and the chief medical officer, may I ask her to ensure that it is clear and unambiguous so as to avoid the situation which arose in Mid Glamorgan, which created fear and concern rather than reducing it? Will she assure the public of openness and clarity in the NHS so that staff and patients may feel protected and supported if they come forward for advice and treatment?
Despite her statement on the advisory committee's deliberations earlier this week, will the Secretary of State ask the committee to look again at the circumstances in which patients are asked if they will take a test but those involved in invasive surgery are not? Will she ensure that cash for HIV and AIDS education and health promotion work is not cut by the 10 per cent. projected for the coming year, but is restored and improved?
Will the Secretary of State accept the support of the whole House in putting the events of the past few weeks behind us and assuring the people of their safety and protection?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his approach to the subject, which is of understandable concern to our constituents and patients. I make it clear that the safety of patients must always be paramount. At the same time, within the health service we must be sure that all health care workers understand the guidance and that it is scrupulously followed.
The hon. Gentleman is right to make it clear that, if a climate of fear is generated, the danger is that HIV and AIDS will be driven underground and people will be reluctant to come forward for testing, whether they be patients or health care workers.
I shall certainly continue to make the maximum information available. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are much more effective when the mass media understand the issues involved and help spread the message that HIV and AIDS are extremely serious threats to life and have to be tackled effectively, sensibly and responsibly. That is exactly my intention, and I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking a similar approach.
Dame Peggy Fenner: Will my hon. Friend accept that, while the guidelines produced by her Department are good, I am not wholly satisfied with the way in which the risk is assessed in this country? In my view, people will not come forward if they are instructed that they should alter their life style if they know that they are at high risk. This is their chosen life style. Assuring patients that all is well is accepted because there has never been a proven case, but there is suspicion if the statistics come from the same Department which assures us that the risk to heterosexuals is as great as to homosexuals. Can my

1109
right hon. Friend say whether her guidance specifically includes the high-risk nature of homosexual life, because I fear that patients will not be wholly satisfied until it does?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. There is no room for euphemisms in spreading the message about HIV and AIDS. Our health education messages must be direct and meaningful, particularly to those involved in high-risk behaviour. That is clearly the case from the statistics. At the same time, HIV and AIDS are an issue which affect the whole population, albeit that the incidence is higher in particular groups. My hon. Friend is right to make it clear that we should focus our messages on the particular groups involved. For patients, the risk of infection from a health worker is minimal. Unless some invasive procedure is undertaken, the risk should not cause anxiety to the public or hon. Members.
Ms Liz, Lynne: What guidelines has the right hon. Lady issued to health authorities and trusts about the best way to inform patients that their health worker has been infected by HIV? Will she mount a campaign to raise awareness of how HIV is contracted, particularly in the medical context, to stop patients panicking when their health worker is diagnosed HIV-positive?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady asks some pertinent questions. Only in cases where there has been an invasive procedure—in other words, where blood is involved—is HIV likely to be contracted. In any other tasks within the health service there is no risk of HIV infection. The guidance that we have provided from the centre is that a small incident team should be established, that a helpline should be introduced and that there should be a search of cases to see which may have involved invasive procedures. That has been done so far on a case-by-case basis. I have made it clear to the House today that we shall issue that guidance so that it is available readily to all health authorities.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend share my perception that the Medway health authority and British Telecom jointly reacted with commendable speed and efficiency when the problems first became apparent of Mr. Shuttleworth working in the hospital? Will she take special heed of the fact that there still exists throughout the health service a curious kind of deference being paid to consultants which often weakens the effectiveness of management in applying rules to consultants which are applied rather more easily to junior staff?
Mrs. Bottomley: I commend the approach taken by the Medway health authority and the way in which it responded to the issue. I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about all health care workers and I quote from the guidance from the General Medical Council to doctors:
"It is unethical for doctors who know or believe themselves to be infected with HIV to put patients at risk by failing to seek appropriate counselling or to act upon it when given."
Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are many families in Mid Glamorgan like my own, who use the district hospitals and who are worried not so much about the medical implications of the
1110
case—because it seems that HIV will not be transmitted in any case—as about the pointless secrecy that was practised by the administration of Mid Glamorgan area health authority? Who will be brought to account for that secrecy and for the botch-up that occurred when the news filtered out and appeared in the newspapers?
Mrs. Bottomley: The Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister are here today and I know that they are still examining the circumstances of that incident. It is also a fact—I refer to cases that have occurred in England—that there is a distinction between informing patients who may have been involved and informing the public. That judgment is sensitive and in some earlier cases of which we have experience in England, we sought to make contact with patients before the matter got into the public domain, simply to reduce anxiety.
Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is a two-sided matter? While it is of immense importance to protect patients and save them from unnecessary fears, doctors and nurses in the health service should themselves have protection from patients who, like the staff to whom she referred, might have reason to suppose that they have AIDS. Does she recall that I recently reminded her of the case of surgeon who cut himself during an operation and the patient refused to have an AIDS test? It takes some time for AIDS to become obvious. In such a case, the surgeon is unable for months to operate, to sleep with his wife or to follow his normal professional or private life. Does she think that that is correct?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend reminded the House of that case recently. I believe that we should all adopt a determined and practical approach to the fight against HIV and AIDS. I am pleased to say that the guidance relating to people coming forward for tests has changed over the years; although counselling is required before a test is performed, I feel that people throughout the country should be encouraged to come forward.
The expert advisory group on AIDS continues to review this and other matters. If at any stage we find a better way of protecting the public, we shall not hesitate to take further action. At present, the choice is between a somewhat coercive approach which would drive HIV and AIDS underground and a vigorous, determined approach, whereby we encourage people to come forward for tests and provide appropriate services to meet their needs if they prove to be HIV-positive.
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the risk that may be posed to health-care workers by HIV-infected patients.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, if a surgeon or any other health worker contracts AIDS, it is crucial for the health authority to be absolutely open, not only with the patients but with the public? Keeping such matters in the dark heightens fear rather than allaying it.
Will the Secretary of State look at the guidelines again? If patients are told of such cases, the issue must then be in the public domain. Perhaps a simultaneous announcement is the answer.
Mrs. Bottomley: In my view, fact is much more effective than fantasy and usually less alarming. I believe that openness about such matters is very important. Questions

1111
arise about confidentiality in regard to both patients and health care workers. We are satisfied that all health care workers understand and abide by the guidelines, I hope that it will be possible to take appropriate action without alarming the public unduly. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no known case in this country of any patient being infected by a doctor, nurse, midwife or dentist.
Mr. James Couchman: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in congratulating Medway health authority, together with the regional health authority and, indeed, my right hon. Friend's Department, on the actions that they took when the Shuttleworth case became known last week? They have done much to assuage the worry and concern of the many people who have been Mr. Shuttleworth's patients over the years.
Will my right hon. Friend reiterate yet again that routine testing would only give us a series of snapshots showing the position of key workers infected by HIV? It would take no account of the three-month period before HIV becomes identifiable, and the results could become out of date within a few days.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is very well informed. I endorse his recognition of the skill and sensitivity with which Medway health authority handled the case.
My attitude to the testing of health care workers is one of practical common sense, as opposed to any theoretical or ideological commitment. Routine testing would involve three-monthly testing at vast numbers of health care workers and a huge risk of driving the matter underground. We shall, of course, continue to review the best way in which to tackle the issue: that is what the expert advisory group is for. At present, I share the concern of hon. Members who wish to be absolutely certain that all health care workers are aware of the guidelines and that the professional authorities will take appropriate action against any who have wilfully flouted those guidelines. They are there to protect patients.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Should not the Secretary of State have begun her statement by pointing out that there is no known case in this country of a health worker having passed on HIV? [Interruption.] She said that as a secondary piece of information. It is very important that she should point out that by far the greatest risk for those involved in invasive surgery is from patient to health care worker. Would not it have been helpful for her to have pointed out the absurdity of the hysteria and bigotry which is being deliberately whipped up in these circumstances because there have been no clear statements from her Ministry?
Mrs. Bottomley: It is not often that the hon. Lady makes the same statement as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), but this is one such occasion. I thank the hon. Lady for reiterating the point that I may not have made first, but which I made several times: that there is no known case in this country of any patient being infected by a doctor, nurse, midwife or dentist.
Mrs. Marion Roe: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and welcome her commitment to putting patients first. Does she agree that common sense must prevail and that there has been only one reported
1112
case of a health worker having passed HIV to a patient and that that case involved a dentist in America? Will she confirm that the panic witnessed in this country is wholly unfounded?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for her responsible attitude. It is right that we should reassure the public that patients can be confident of their safety. My hon. Friend referred to the one case in America of a dentist whose patients were infected by contaminated equipment. I must make it clear to the House that there were special factors in that case.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the one-day conference held earlier this year at the Royal College of Surgeons at which one surgeon, Miss Katherine Mills, pointed out that a survey in the county of Gwynedd had shown that only 25 per cent. of dentists regularly autoclaved handpieces between patients, that as many as one in four never autoclaved their handpieces at all and that only 29 per cent. sometimes wore gloves? Miss Mills' conclusion was that, these days, cost deterred dental practitioners from disposing of gloves between patients and from autoclaving their handpieces. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that, from this day forward, all dentists will have to use a different pair of disposable gloves for each patient?
Mrs. Bottomley: I was not aware of the conference to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall ask the expert advisory group on AIDS to have regard to that point.
Mr. Roger Sims: But, after all aspects of the issue have been considered, does not my right hon. Friend agree that responsibility must lie with members of the medical profession? Should not they report it to the appropriate authority if they believe that they are in any way a risk to their patients, in accordance with the professional guidance that they have already been given?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the General Medical Council, is absolutely right. I have already referred to the guidance from the GMC and now refer to that from the General Dental Council. Its guidance to dentists states:
"By failing to obtain appropriate medical advice or to act upon the advice that has been given to them, dentists who know that they are, or believe that they may be, HIV positive and might jeopardise the well-being of their patients are behaving unethically … Behaviour of this kind may raise a question of serious professional misconduct."
Those are strong points. I want to ensure that all health care workers are aware of the clear guidelines published by the professional associations.
Dr. Tony Wright: While agreeing with the general thrust of what the Secretary of State said, may I ask her not to close her mind completely to all routine screening of some medical staff? I ask her to think for a moment not of HIV but of hepatitis B, of which we had an outbreak in Staffordshire only a few weeks ago.
Although the Secretary of State rightly says that there has been no known case of transfer of HIV from doctor to patient, in the Staffordshire case there was transfer. Certainly, there was a strong feeling locally—I think that it is shared more widely—that all the existing guidelines were followed in that case. The doctor was offered screening, but rejected it. That was an entirely proper

1113

procedure, but it had serious consequences. On that specific point, will the Secretary of State reconsider what she said about non-routine screening?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to conditions other than HIV and AIDS. There are a number of conditions which may have an adverse effect on the ability of health care workers to undertake their tasks. As for hepatitis B, we have consulted on further guidelines which we hope to issue shortly.
It is for the General Medical Council and other professional bodies to decide whether to take action in the face of a health care worker who has flagrantly disregarded advice which is there to protect patients. The chief medical officer will be discussing that subject with Sir Robert Kilpatrick when they meet shortly.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mere fact that no other country in the world tests its health workers is no reason why we should not test our health workers? Does she also agree that the small number of health service workers who are involved in invasive procedures and who know that their sexual proclivities or non-drug abuse do not in any way mean that they will be a risk would have no reasonable or understandable grounds for refusing to take a test? Therefore, is not the case for taking a test made out? Although it would not be politically correct, it would at least have the virtue of being morally right.
Mrs. Bottomley: I am not bothered about being politically correct or incorrect: I am interested in saving patients. It is the interests of patients, purely and simply, which motivate me as the Secretary of State for Health, and the chief medical officer, working with the head of the General Medical Council, Sir Robert Kilpatrick.
If the advice changes and there appears to be merit in screening health care workers, I will have no difficulty in introducing such a policy. The present advice is that it would be counter-productive. There is some suggestion that Cuba has some compulsory screening, but Cuba is the only country which I have been able to identify. The issue is that health care workers who believe that they may have been at risk should report the matter. That is strong advice and they should act on it.

Business of the House
3.57 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 MARCH—Second Reading of the Disability (Grants) Bill, followed by motions relating to the National Health Service Amendment Regulations, details of which will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 16 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 17 MARCH AND THURSDAY 18 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 19 MARCH—Debate on tourism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 22 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 17 March to consider European Community documents relating to Serbia and Montenegro trade embargoes.
[Monday 15 March:
NHS amendment regulations:
National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (SI 418);
National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (SI 419);
National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (SI 420).
Wednesday 17 March:

Relevant European Community documents:

(a) 7150/92

Trade embargo: Serbia and Montenegro

(b) 7945/92 parts I and II

(c) 8365/92

(d) 8409/92

(e) 10528/92

(f) 11236/92

Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee:

(a)

HC 79-vi (1992–93);

(b)

(c)

(d)

(c)

also HC 79-xii (1992–93);

(e)

HC 79-xiii (1992–93) and HC 79-xxi (1992–93);

(f)

HC 79-xv (1992–93).]

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Lord President for that statement, particularly the riveting information about the European Community documents.
We all recognise that next week's business is likely to be dominated by the Budget, but I remind the Leader of the House that Opposition and even Conservative Members anxiously await statements on several issues. The most obvious and important is perhaps the coal industry. I

1115
remind the right hon. Gentleman that contracts will expire on 1 April. We are anxious that an early statement be made so that we can have an opportunity to move the matter forward.
In the light of the appearance today of a report from the Social Security Advisory Committee about the position of Maxwell pensioners, many hon. Members would welcome a clear statement from the Secretary of State for Transport about whether the Government intend to make Mr. Maxwell's crime pale into insignificance by robbing millions of pounds from the British Rail pension fund.
I also ask the Leader of the House to seek a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland which might clarify the position on Scottish water in view of the rather different statements made yesterday in the House, first by the Prime Minister and then by the Secretary of State.
May we seek some clear advice from the Home Office about the boundaries for the European parliamentary seats that will be contested in 1994? There has been some suggestion that the Boundary Commission will not be able to carry out the proposed redrafting of boundaries in time. I understand that that is not the case. The Opposition would consider it an outrage if the Boundary Commission was not allowed to carry out an examination because the Home Secretary preferred to do it himself. I hope that a statement can be made soon about that.
Will the Lord President arrange for a debate in Government time, which might be a Friday—that might be helpful to him—on the affairs of London? I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to address several pertinent local issues, such as transport, the health service and so on.
Mr. Newton: In recent weeks we have shown our willingness to respond to suggestions of subjects for debate on Government Fridays. A debate on tourism was announced in the statement that I have just made. I shall bear in mind the request that the right hon. Lady has made. I shall also bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary her remarks about European constituency boundaries.
The right hon. Lady referred to pensions and transport. She may have failed to notice what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said recently. He assured hon. Members that they could take it that the Government would in no way countenance the funds of British Rail pension schemes being used for purposes other than paying pensions to those entitled to them. He went on to say clearly that recent reports in the press were mischievous and unwarranted scares which showed no concern for the pensioners. I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept that and will do nothing more to encourage those unwarranted scares.

On water in Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in an interview in The Scotsman this morning, with which the right hon. Lady may not have had time to catch up, that the Government would take full account of Scottish circumstances and that all the responses would be carefully considered. We will, of course, await the outcome of consultations before taking any proposals forward.
Lastly, the right hon. Lady referred to coal. I shall not attempt to add to what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said in the debate a couple of days ago. However, I make the general observation that there
1116
would be more time for debating matters if the Opposition did not behave in the way in which they behaved in the House last night.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, at an early date, we shall hold an urgent debate on the links between violent offences against the individual and violent scenes on television and through the agency of the video machine? Does he agree that, to many young people, violence shown on television is seen as a form of entertainment, and has therefore become part of accepted behaviour? We need to debate not the definition of the problem but the need to curb the showing of violent scenes on television.
Mr. Newton: As this matter has been raised on a number of occasions recently by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, only this afternoon, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend will know that the Government share his views. It is absolutely right that my hon. Friend should once again articulate the feelings of many people in the country. I cannot promise an early debate on precisely the lines that he seeks, but I assure him that the Government will do everything that they can to advance responsible consideration of those matters by those concerned.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House realise that it is now nearly five years since we had the last debate on tourism, during which time hon. Members on both sides have expressed considerable concern about the discrimination against England? The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that the figures per head for the promotion of tourism from Government funds are more than £8 in Northern Ireland, more than £5 in Wales, more than £3 in Scotland and only 42p in England. In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentlemans consider whether, under Standing Order No. 100, he should reconstitute the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs to examine this question?
Mr. Newton: I take the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question as congratulation on arranging such a debate. Like many others, I look forward to the contribution that he will seek to make on Friday week.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is the Government's defeat on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill on Monday night likely to affect the dates that my right hon. Friend has already announced for the Easter and Spring recesses, and will it affect the date on which the House will rise for the summer recess?
Mr. Newton: Recess dates are always announced with the well-known phrase, "subject to the progress of business". It cannot be said, however, that every hon. Member shows much sign of wishing to make such progress. I should not wish to advise hon. Members to book an early summer holiday.
Ms Jean Corston: Of the 5,000 job losses that Rolls-Royce announced today, 1,400 are in Bristol, which has been recognised by the European Community as the most defence-dependent urban area in Europe. Male unemployment in part of my constituency is now 43 per cent. Will the Leader of the House find time for an emergency debate, the effect of which would be to give assisted area status to the county of Avon?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will perhaps not be surprised that, despite the fact that she has understandably raised the matter, I cannot promise the early debate that she seeks, but she will know that the assisted areas map is being reviewed, and no doubt she will ensure that her representations are taken into account.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his last reply? Does he recall that the Procedure Committee, bearing in mind Scottish Members of Parliament in particular, urged that we should not run late in the summer? If there is a need for extra Government business, we should reduce the recesses at Easter and Whitsun rather than putting Scottish Members at a disadvantage.
Mr. Newton: I note my right hon. Friend's point. At this stage I do not wish to add to what I have said, but many other hon. Members may be inconvenienced by changes to the provisional dates that have been announced. I meant no more in my earlier remarks than to make the obvious point that, if large groups of people in the House set out to frustrate the progress of business, the Government will inevitably have to take that into account when planning the progress of business.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the Leader of the House consider initiating a discussion of early-day motion 1570?
[That this House notes the utter chaos and confusion between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland over the future of Scotland's water and sewerage services; recalls that on 9th March the Prime Minister stated that he had no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, Official Report, column 783, and that less than one hour later the Secretary of State for Scotland denied any such commitment; further notes that more chaos was created when the Prime Minister, in reply to the same question, refused to rule out the disconnection of water supplies being legalised in Scotland, despite repeated public assurances by the Secretary of State for Scotland that he had no plans to do so; believes that the Government's so-called consultation on the future of water and sewerage services has now been exposed as a sham; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to clarify its position and to recognise that the overwhelming majority of Scots strongly oppose the privatisation or franchising of these services; and expresses the hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not further exploit the opportunism of the SNP by negotiating any behind the scenes deals on this vital issue.]
The Prime Minister mentioned the matter yesterday, and said when Scottish water would be privatised. In view of the mistakes that have been made south of the border when we were misled and were told that the people who would invest in water would not invest in casinos or hotels, and in view of the 50,000 disconnections south of the border, we do not want privatisation or franchising in Scotland. We want the Prime Minister to get that message good and clear and not to adopt a dictatorial attitude.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will, in his usual well-considered way, take account of the hon. Gentleman's representations as part of his consultation.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, perhaps as we speak, an
1118
awesome tragedy is unfolding in Russia? If the situation in Russia continues to deteriorate, serious repercussions may affect us all and dwarf virtually any other subject for discussion in this House. Is this not the time to send a clear signal to Boris Yeltsin and the Russian people—
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that the House may have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, we are dealing with next week's business. If he can put his comments in that context, we would like to hear them.
Mr. Butcher: I would welcome a statement, because the subject could not be more topical or more urgent. Is it not time that we sent a signal from this House to the Russian people that we admire them, that we want to see them part of Europe, that we admire their culture and science, that we want to send a trade mission and that we want to welcome them into the international community? If we do not act now, we may have a very serious international situation on our hands.
Mr. Newton: In his own way, my hon. Friend has perhaps sent that signal by what he has said. On behalf of the Government, I can say that we believe that President Yeltsin has embarked on courageous, democratic and economic reforms. We strongly support them, and we want to see reform continue.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Although I welcome the announcement that European Standing Committee B will meet next week to examine a raft of papers relating to Bosnia-Herzegovina, may I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that that Committee has not met for more than three weeks and that there is an enormous backlog of European documents for it to examine? Why are the Government so dilatory in organising meetings of European Standing Committee B? Does the Leader of the House consider it to be unimportant? Will he ensure that it meets regularly to catch up on the backlog of scrutiny with which it is charged?
Mr. Newton: I certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's representations. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman no doubt listened to the long list of documents that I read out today. I am glad to say that European Standing Committee B should at least be kept busy next week.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Would it be possible to fit in a debate next week on Rolls-Royce Aerospace? While all Conservative Members deeply regret job losses, it is worth pointing out that that is a highly successful company which has doubled its share of world markets in the past 10 years. That is in stark contrast to the situation in the 1960s, and 1970s, when the company was in deep trouble and had to be taken into state ownership because of its problems as a result of intervention by the Wilson Government to make the company provide engines for the Tristar. That was a totally unsustainable contract. The last thing that we want to do is to provide the kind of subsidies which have created a huge, bloated and corrupt state sector in Italy and France and which have created unsuccessful, loss-making national champions like Philips in Holland.
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend was speaking, it struck me how much his remarks chimed with some of the points

1119
that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made just under an hour ago. My hon. Friend might well find an opportunity to make further and more extensive comments during the Budget debate next week, should he be successful in catching your eye, Madam Speaker.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise that he has a responsibility when organising the business to ensure that there is full and proper consideration on such a vital constitutional issue as the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? If there is any abuse by the Government through deals with the Liberal Democrats or anyone else, scenes such as those last night are bound to be repeated because the Opposition have an absolute right to the consideration that we demand, whether we are for or against Maastricht. The Leader of the House should bear that in mind if he is proposing any deal over Friday's business. There is a strong rumour that the Government are out to destroy Friday's business as it is embarrassing to them.
Mr. Newton: I cannot remember, although it sounds likely, whether the hon. Gentleman was present last night. However, whether or not he was here, I can tell him that I shall not listen to lectures about the responsible conduct of public business in the House from people who took part in what happened last night.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 1222, which has been signed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House deplores the growing number of vicious and mutilating attacks upon horses; notes the appalling suffering this causes to the dumb animals in question; and calls upon all who have a responsibility for or care about the welfare of horses and other animals to spare no effort to stamp out this sick and evil practice forthwith.]
It concerns sexual attacks on and mutilation of horses which are now becoming more widespread. Horses are being killed in the most disgusting and disgraceful and meanest possible way. The House should discuss the matter, and something should be done.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate, but I share my hon. Friend's abhorrence of these vicious and horrific attacks. I am glad to say that the Hampshire constabulary has set up a special squad of officers in an attempt to carry forward the prevention of such offences and the discovery and prosecution of those who commit them.
Mr. John McFall: is the Leader of the House aware of magazines such as US Cavalry, featuring illegal and offensive weapons, which is being sent as unsolicited mail through the letterboxes of homes in the United Kingdom? At the same time as we are introducing legislation in Scotland on knives, people can now buy illegal weapons from the privacy of their own homes, using a dedicated telephone number and credit card system. Therefore, to ensure that our streets are safer, will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on illegal weapons such as Italian stilettos which are described in the magazine as having a convincing and sophisticated action? That is wrong.
Mr. Newton: I was not aware of that magazine. Apart from mentioning to the hon. Gentleman that we provided
1120
time for a debate on crime in the House very recently, I will undertake to draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the magazine to which the hon. Gentleman has adverted and what he says about its contents.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the appalling conduct of Opposition Members yesterday and their demonstration of verbal violence? Will he endeavour to ensure through the normal channels that, if such conduct is repeated in the House, it should take place after 9 o'clock when the watershed on television ensures that the public are mature enough to see demonstrations of that nature?
Mr. Newton: The same thought occurred to me as has evidently occurred to my hon. Friend. What happened last night did rather less than nothing for the attempts of the Opposition to parade themselves as the party of law and order.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Whatever may have appeared in The Scotsman or any other newspaper, is the House not entitled to a personal statement from the Prime Minister explaining his reply to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on Tuesday that water privatisation in Scotland would be effective and efficient, as elsewhere? Does not the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland that a final decision on water privatisation would not be taken until all the responses to the consultation document had been fully considered demonstrate yet again that, with his phoney stock taking exercise and his prejudicial reply on water privatisation, the Prime Minister is treating the people of Scotland with absolute contempt?
Mr. Newton: I understand why the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to make that sort of remark. I shall simply say that I do not accept it for a moment.
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is refreshing to hear my right hon. Friend announce business for next week that is entirely British in nature and content. Will he look into the urgent necessity for a debate on the Royal Navy? Apart from one single-service day in June 1991, there has not been a debate on the Royal Navy in Government time or more than three years. Given the proposed transfer of sea training to Portland and the necessity to order an LPH for the Royal Marines, we need parliamentary backing for the sort of naval programme that the nation requires.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request and the reasons for it. I have not done too badly in recent weeks in finding time for debating both service and foreign matters. There are obvious difficulties in the near future, but I would not wish to rule out a response at a later stage to my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I press the Leader of the House on the need for a statement next week on the future of the coal industry? Is he aware that the miners of Taff Merthyr want to dig and win the economic reserves that are available at the pit to supply Aberthaw power station to enable it to provide the energy that the nation needs? At the moment they are

1121
being paid to do nothing. Instead of procrastinating, why do not the Government make a statement to reprieve profitable pits such as Taff Merthyr?
Mr. Newton: I have already referred once this afternoon to the remarks in this context of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a couple of days ago. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend will be in the Chamber to answer questions next Wednesday.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will my right hon. Friend draw the Opposition's antics last night to the attention of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, perhaps with the help of Madam Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker? Does he agree that the extraordinary antics of last night—wearing paper hats, moving around as votes were being taken and so on—demonstrate that Opposition Members hold the House in complete contempt? If such antics were shown on our television screens as happening in Parliaments in Spain, Portugal and Greece, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends would be saying that that was evidence of how incompetent and stupid those Parliaments were.
Mr. Newton: I am bound to observe that I saw some pictures of the Italian Parliament yesterday that might relate to some of my hon. Friend's comments. I have already made several comments about the basic thrust of her remarks. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), has had his attention drawn to the matter because he heard my hon. Friend's remarks; and he nodded wisely when he heard them.
Mrs. Irene Adams: Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the decline of manufacturing industry in Scotland? Given today's announcement that Rolls-Royce is to shed a further 500 jobs in my constituency and the decline of manufacturing jobs generally in my constituency—78 per cent. between 1979 and 1989—it is most urgent that the Secretary of State gives the House an assurance on the future of manufacturing in Scotland.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady would perhaps be rather surprised if I were to respond in the way that she would like, given that we have recently had a full day's debate on manufacturing industry. I understand why she has raised the matter, but I remind her of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's Question Time about redundancies at Pratt and Whitney, a major engine maker. It needs to be recognised that the redundancies are part of much wider problems than the hon. Lady recognises.
Mr. Roger Sims: It was helpful of my right hon. Friend some weeks ago to give the dates of the Easter and spring recesses. Is he aware that the Admission Order Office has been given instructions to take no bookings post-Easter until my right hon. Friend has formally confirmed the dates of the recesses? He has not done so today. Is he now in a position to do so? If he is not, will he be able to do so next week?
Mr. Newton: I am somewhat puzzled by what I have just heard, and I shall make further inquiries about the matter. As I understand it, the situation is as it has always been. The dates of recesses are announced by the Leader of the House, using time-honoured phraseology referring to the fact that recesses are subject to the progress of business. What confirms the arrangements is not a further statement by the Leader of the House but the acceptance of an Adjournment motion by the House itself, usually only a day or two beforehand.
Mr. Richard Burden: I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of the fact that, after a good deal of pushing yesterday by Opposition Members, the Secretary of State for Health finally agreed to publish a number of reports on financial scandals surrounding the West Midlands health authority. In view of this decision and of the increasing public concern about the way in which health authorities, not only in the west Midlands but also in Wessex and elsewhere, are operating and about financial scandals, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the need for health authority accountability? Or are the Government interested in accountability only if it is not their own political supporters who are involved?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman refers to the action that has been promised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend's promise indicates both openness and accountability. I take note of what the hon. Member has said, but I cannot promise a debate in the near future.
Mr. Richard Tracey: May I underline the request made from the Opposition Front Bench for an early debate on London? I expect that the reasons for my request are different from those of the Opposition. First, there is the lingering and rather large problem of corruption in local government, especially in London, about which we have still heard nothing from the Department of the Environment. Secondly, there is the question of the totally needless disruption of bus services in London this week by strikers.
Mr. Newton: I note the points that my hon. Friend would clearly wish to raise in a debate. I made what I hope was a tolerably forthcoming reply to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), but I cannot be sure when it will be possible to provide time for a debate.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will have heard concern expressed from all quarters about the decline of manufacturing industry. Could he organise for next week a statement about how the Government's policy affects British shipbuilders and repairers, who are not benefiting from the same subventions as their European counterparts?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware that in all countries of the Community help of this kind is supposed to proceed in line with similar rules. However, I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are directed to the attention of my right hon. Friend. As for debating time, I should point out that virtually the entire programme that I announced today is concerned, in a sense, with economic matters. Thus, the hon. Gentleman may get his opportunity next week.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether, in the light of previous questions, my right hon. Friend agrees that, bearing in mind 1,000 years of history, the submerging of unconsulted people in an unwanted and unstable European union is much more important than when, or whether, this House has any recesses.
Mr. Newton: I have to confess to my hon. Friend, who is an understandably persistent questioner about these matters, that I am a little surprised that, following weeks of complaint about debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—that is how I interpreted his questions in previous weeks—he is now complaining about the absence of such debate.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Lord President arrange for a statement to clarify exactly who is in charge of the privatisation of Scottish water? Is it the Prime Minister, who on Tuesday confirmed privatisation, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who on Wednesday denied that a decision had been made, or the house journal of the Tory party—the Daily Express—which on Thursday referred to franchising? Who is in charge of this policy shambles?
Mr. Newton: Earlier I referred to a matter that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned—an interview given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, published this morning in The Scotsman, which I have not normally heard described as the house magazine of the Conservative party.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention back to the events in this Chamber last night, when Labour Members sought to defeat orders relating to Scottish business. Had they been successful, the cost to Scottish business, in terms of jobs, investment and rates, would have been horrendous.
Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for a debate on this matter next week to find out, first, why the Opposition bleat day in, day out, about jobs. but threatened Scottish jobs by their action last night; and, secondly, why, although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), as her party's spokeswoman, when the statutory instruments were debated in Committee gave every one of them her full support, in the Chamber the Opposition sought to defeat them?
Mr. Newton: That is a very helpful question. It is quite proper that the House should be reminded that, had the Opposition succeeded in frustrating the passage of the orders last night, the effect would have been that the mining and quarrying industry and some other industrial sectors in Scotland would have experienced a 20 per cent. increase in their rates, and the oil-related and petrochemical plants in Scotland would, I understand, have had an 85 per cent. increase in their rates.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on racism in British society? Has he seen my early-day motion 1527 about the conduct of his hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who last week on television talked about niggers in a woodpile?
[That this House is appalled by the use of the term 'nigger in a woodpile' by the honourable Member of Bridlington on BBC Television's Westminster Live
1124
Programme on Wednesday 3rd March; is reminded of the derogatory origins of this phrase, and is aware of the offensiveness of such language to Britain's black community; and calls upon the honourable Member to make an apology to that community for his racist language.]
Does the Leader of the House agree with me that that is a derogatory term which is offensive to black people? Will he take this opportunity of dissociating himself from his hon. Friend's remarks?
Mr. Newton: While I did not see that interview and must therefore accept the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put it, I can only say that, knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), I am quite sure that he did not intend to give racist offence in the way that is suggested.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Could time be found next week for an urgent statement about the plight of people who work in the mining industry? Every day they are breaking productivity records, but the Leader of the House will know that their extended redundancy scheme ends on 27 March—16 days away. Is it not time to back the people who are making those records and back off closing down the mining industry?
Mr. Newton: This is the latest of many occasions on which the problems of the coal industry have been raised during business questions. I do not complain about that, but I cannot add to what I said on earlier occasions.
Mr. Mike Hall: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1158.
[That this House recognises the valuable contribution made to the well being of the United Kingdom over many years by senior citizens; furthermore notes that many of Britain's pensioners will find the television licences priced at £82·88 from April an expensive price to pay; and therefore calls upon the Government to exempt pensioners from the television licence fee with effect from 1st April.]
It calls for recognition by the House of the contribution of pensioners to the well-being of this country, notes that from 1 April pensioners will face an increase in their television licences to £82·88, and calls upon the Government to exempt all pensioners from buying a TV licence from 1 April. Will the Leader of the House bring the motion to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he completes the preparation of his Budget?
Mr. Newton: Since the hon. Gentleman has related his remarks to the Budget, he will not be surprised when I say two things: first, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend; and, secondly, it is not a matter on which I am prepared to venture just a few days in advance.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Traditionally, business questions are an opportunity for Back Benchers to make legitimate demands for debates. I notice that during today's business questions there have been far more hon. Members present and rising on the Opposition Benches than on the Government Benches. You have allowed questions to run on a little to exhaust requests from Government Back Benchers. Do you not think it would be fairer if every hon.

1125
Member who wished to put a question could do so? That would result in extending business questions by only about 10 minutes and would give us an opportunity to raise matters.
Madam Speaker: I time business questions very carefully indeed. It is not often that I am in a position to call every Member on both sides of the House who wishes to speak. When Members on the Government Benches have been satisfied and are no longer rising, I continue to call Members on the Opposition Benches; but I also have to keep in mind the day's business. There are occasions when I am able to call all Members who wish to speak, but there are occasions when I have to call a halt. Regrettably, this is one of those occasions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that what the Opposition did last night was strictly in accordance with the rules of the House; that it was quite proper to vote on the statutory instruments and that we were in number more than we are at present? In 1975 I raised a question about invoking Standing Order No. 39 when only 13 Liberals were voting continually. I was told by the then Speaker that 13 was a sufficient number to justify voting in the Lobbies. Why is it that last night we were stopped from voting in the Lobbies when 40 Members were marching through them, Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike? It is time the record was put straight. The Opposition have got the Government on the run, and we have every right to hound them until we drive them out of office.
Madam Speaker: The Chair of the House never conducts reviews of the previous day's business.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that, under
1126
the Standing Orders of the House, any affirmative resolution on statutory instruments which are allowed to go upstairs is not a resolution on the instrument itself but is only to report to the House that the instrument has been debated—that and no more? If hon. Members have any doubt, there is the alternative under the Standing Orders that they can insist on a debate being taken on the Floor of the House, in which every hon. Member can take part, with a vote at the end.
In view of the unwarranted criticisms flowing from Members on the Government Benches, it seems a good alternative that we should deal with affirmative instruments on the Floor of the House on every occasion.
Madam Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman has said about procedure is correct. Over the years he has had a great deal to do with statutory instruments, and still has. He knows the procedure very well.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that, during Prime Minister's Question Time, in reply to the first question about redundancies at Rolls-Royce, the Prime Minister —inadvertently, I am sure—misled the House by saying that Boeing and Pratt and Whitney were the main engine competitors of Rolls-Royce? Will you kindly call in the Prime Minister and tell him that Boeing manufactures airframes, not engines? Clearly someone who does not know the difference between his Boeing and his General Electric should not be Prime Minister of this country.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman credits me with more authority than I have. I suspect that he is attempting to continue the debate, particularly as I recognise that he did not catch my eye during questions.
Mr. Banks: I do not mind; I do not complain.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps next time.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 8 March]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
      Amendment proposed [8 March]: No. 29, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
      '(except Article 3(b) on page 10 of Cm. 1934 relating to the principle of subsidiarity.)'.—[Mr. George Robertson.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I remind the Committee that we are also considering the following amendments: No. 77, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(other than Article 3b)'.
      No. 105, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(except Article 3b on page 10 of Cm. 1934).'
      No. 126, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(excluding Article G B(5) on page 10 of Cm. 1934).'.
      No. 340, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except the second paragraph of Article 3b on page 10 of Cm 1934'.
      4.38 pm
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Have you had any intimation from Ministers that a statement is to be made to the Committee about the discussions and the decision in the European Parliament this week arising from the De Gucht report? On a vote of 207 to 80 it was agreed that there should be a uniform electoral procedure to the European Parliament by a system of proportional representation. Such a statement would be relevant to our consideration of the Maastricht treaty. Have you received any word about that from the Government, or is it appropriate that the Government should make a statement about whether they intend to use the British veto?
      The Chairman: I have received no such request.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We are about to debate the subject of subsidiarity—one of the most important aspects of the treaty and something the Government say secures the interests of the United Kingdom. I asked the Prime Minister during Question Time whether the principle of subsidiarity would allow this House, and this House alone, to make the decision on the 48-hour week. The Prime Minister, understandably, was unable at that time to answer the question. There is no complaint about that, but as it is the kernel of this debate, would it be possible to have the Attorney-General here so that all questions of this sort, on these vitally important matters, can have an authoritative reply?
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should open his eyes.
      Mr. Bill Walker: When the debate ended on Monday evening, I was agreeing with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that subsidiarity will in no way arrest the growing centralisation of decision-making within the European Community. I shall hope to demonstrate that that statement is a fact. Amendment No. 29, the leading amendment in this group, properly calls for the removal of article 3b. Why properly? I shall endeavour to explain my view. I put the question to my hon. and right hon. Friends: what is the legal meaning of subsidiarity? We know that the Edinburgh declaration explained:
      "Subsidiarity is a dynamic concept and should be applied in the light of the objectives set out in the treaty. It allows Community action to be expanded where circumstances so require."
      But I would say that that is everything to everybody and to all people it can be whatever they want it to be. I was told at a dinner the other evening by a lawyer that he has never seen anything quite so impossible to define in law.
      I submit that subsidiarity, as explained in Edinburgh, instead of being purely a decentralising concept, is, as stated in Edinburgh, and can be, used—I claim, will be used—to widen Community powers.
      Based on experience, can anyone seriously deny that the effect of the Single European Act has been the widening of Community powers? Was this not all about the achieving of the objectives of that Act? I say that because it is objectives that come in with article 3b. When matters have gone to the European Court of Justice, have we not seen the court decide in favour of the objectives? That is very important.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), has already conceded that the court has traditionally been a centralising institution. We did riot need him to tell us that. We all knew that. I know that my right hon. Friend now has a vision of a changed European Court of Justice and that he believes
      "it is not fair to assume that the court will necessarily and at all times make centralising judgments." —[Official Report, 27 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1058.]
      He claims that he can see clear signs of a change of emphasis and he believes that the trend will be reinforced by the Maastricht treaty. I for one do not believe that. Nor have I seen any evidence to support my right hon. Friend's view. It is like going before a hanging, pleading for mercy and for a change of his standard hanging policy and saying in mitigation—Scots will understand me—"I didnae ken, my lord," and the judge replying, with great compassion, as they always do, "Weel, ye ken noo."
      The plain truth is that I think that is what will happen when we come before the European Court of Justice. Does anyone seriously believe that the court will not take note of what is happening under the social chapter in the other 11 states? If by chance we had another Hoover experience and the Commission or the aggrieved state losing the jobs, decided to take the case to the court, would not the court be persuaded in favour of that aggrieved state?
      I submit that subsidiarity will be no defence in these circumstances. On the contrary, it strengthens this treaty basis and the court is more likely to decide that the United Kingdom should conform because it is
      "necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty"
      as stated in article 3b.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case he mentioned, but is it not probable that many people, including even our own Prime Minister, were misinformed initially, some time ago, about the nature of subsidiarity. The Prime Minister said:
      "an article that specifically enshrines the crucial concept that the Community should undertake only those measures that could not be achieved at a national level."—[Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 278.]
      That was the Prime Minister's view of what it was about, but does the hon. Member agree that that applies only when there is no exclusive competence and only when it is thought to be better achieved? That is a matter of judgment.
      Mr. Walker: I hope in the course of my remarks to amplify that very point. It is because of these matters that that article 3b should be seen in that light and the amendment to remove it supported.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Has my hon. Friend read the Daily Mail this morning, which says that the European Parliament voted last night to outlaw the culinary use of lettering on Blackpool and Brighton rock? With the study that he has made of the subsidiarity clause, can my hon. Friend tell us how we go about preventing the EC outlawing the culinary use of lettering on Blackpool and Brighton rock? I am not sure. Will my hon. Friend give me some guidance as to how we can go about this?
      Mr. Walker: I am grateful for that helpful comment but I cannot give my hon. Friend any guidance because we cannot find any means by which guidance can be introduced or implemented and that is another reason for supporting amendment No. 29. If that is not enough justification, I suggest that we look further at what was said at Edinburgh:
      "Only to the extent that the treaty gives the institution concerned the choice of when to act"
      We all know that the Commission, led by Jacques Delors, will make proposals to the Council of Ministers. That body will effectively decide, when it enacts legislation, how to implement subsidiarity. I suggest that that will happen because nobody will or can deny that the council has the will, and with the qualified majority, it will find the way. All experience shows us that that is how things are achieved.
      Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend and to what was said about colouring matter in food. Is that not the very reason why we need subsidiarity? Are not all the examples he has given those of problems caused by not having subsidiarity in the first place? It will have been written in had we been involved in the first place. We now very much need it and he should vote for it.
      Mr. Walker: If my hon. Friend will be a little patient, I will continue and then I shall ask her to consider whether what I have been saying is distorted and wrong. I am always prepared to mend my erring ways. My wife will confirm that.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Would my hon. Friend remind our hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that, sadly, the clause makes it clear that
      1130
      subsidiarity, even if it did work—and I do not see that it will—only applies in areas where the EC does not have exclusive competence. As food is obviously an area where the EC does have exclusive competence, this could not apply. It is down here in black and white, unless the Lord Advocate can tell us differently. It seems quite clear, but even if it did apply, what we want to know is how we go about saving Blackpool rock.
      Mr. Walker: I believe that we will see many more examples of that. I cannot believe that article 3b as worded will do other than strengthen the Council's hand. Where the Council has the will, it will have its way. That is our experience.
      In such circumstances it is not realistic for a member state, particularly the United Kingdom, to invoke subsidiarity to prevent a directive being forced upon it. The court will simply throw it out. Once the Council has decided, there will be no case for a member state to make. That is particularly important in regard to the social chapter where the so-called United Kingdom opt-out will not protect British employers from the combined effect of the Single European Act and article 3b.
      When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote in a letter to The Sunday Times on 22 November that subsidiarity is
      "an important legally binding constraint on Community action",
      he should have explained that the only constraint that subsidiarity provides is that which the Council is prepared to impose upon itself.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not instructive to read the terms under which the European court was set up, because they make it clear that the court has one single duty above all: to ensure that the treaties are applied? Far from subsidiarity being clear, it is obvious that the court will interpret it narrowly as requiring all member states to do exactly the same.
      Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Lady.
      As we now know, there is no protection from the working-time directive through subsidiarity, nor is there any protection for the bilateral and important civil air agreements, about which I shall have more to say.
      The protocol on social policy provides that the other 11 states should enact their social chapter policies through the Council of Ministers. If the other 11 vote to impose social costs upon themselves, subsidiarity will be no protection for the United Kingdom and will not stop the other 11 from out-voting the 12th state, the United Kingdom, thus ensuring that we have to face the same costs and bear the same burden. If the other 11 satisfy themselves that the proposed action passes the subsidiarity test, there will be no reason to allow the United Kingdom to be an exception, particularly if we have more Hoover-type experiences.
      I remind the Committee that articles 2, 3 and 5 provide the base context for Community objectives, which are economic and social cohesion and solidarity among member states. So it is simply a question of going to one of the majority voting provisions, such as article 118a, and asking the court to stretch the meaning, as has happened in other areas of Community law.
      Also, the protocol, or so-called opt-out, is not part of the main body of the text in one regard. It says nothing which affects essentially the means by which people will

      1131
      import social provisions. Words to that effect are not there, but that is what is meant. That cannot be a basis for anyone to suggest that articles 2, 3 and 5 will not be used; I believe that they will be. Consequently we are not opting out of any social provisions contained in the Single European Act or the treaty of Rome.
      My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, a man whom I admire greatly and who has a better understanding of what is happening with the people of Europe than many of his colleagues, said in the debate earlier this week:
      "I do not think that there is any great disagreement. Of course, we have had problems with the legal reach of the existing treaties in the social sphere. The working; time directive is one example. However, the fact that there are problems with the existing arrangements does not mean that one should multiply—double, triple, quadruple—those problems by adopting a treaty base that would turn what is now an exception into an everyday affair."
      He went on to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)
      "is making a fascinating and able speech. It is fascinating because it is outside the debate that has been taking place inside the Community for the past two years…
      The point is that it is not so long ago when what my hon. Friend is challenging, objecting to and saying is inevitable was orthodox. People believed in the centralising tendency. Every advance made towards Community jurisdiction was judged a good thing in itself. That has changed. I accept that the change is not perfect and that there are people around who hold to the old view. However, it is a little out of date for my hon. Friend to look from outside the institutions of the Community and say that things cannot he challenged or changed by member states. Of course it is only member states who give power to the Community, as my hon. Friend acknowledged when he explained the first sentence of article 3b.
      What is happening now, however—I ask my hon. Friend to take my word for it—is that the different institutions are changing. That is reflected in article 3b, the Edinburgh declaration, the activities of the Commission and the sharp reduction in the number of legislative proposals coming forward. That is political fact before it is a legal obligation."
      It is important that I read this, Mr. Morris; you will understand why when I make my next observations:
      "We have the option to say that such changes are not any good, to be cynical and to say, 'They would say that, wouldn't they?' We have the option to reject the changes, but that would be a mistake, because our arguments are beginning to bear fruit and here they are."—[Official Report, 8 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 746–7.]
      So said my right hon. Friend on Monday. In shorthand, he asked us to look at what was happening and to take his word that the institutions are changing. I agree with my right hon. Friend that in the last two years there has indeed been change. The people of France, Ireland and Denmark have voted, and they have changed. Sadly, I do not believe that the political leaders, who compose the Council and the Commission, have changed.
      Why do I say that? Several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North, paid a recent visit to the Commission, where they discovered that no one believes that the opt-out would prevent the United Kingdom from being forced to accept most, if not every, aspect of the social chapter. My hon. Friends also discovered that officials and politicians believed that the move towards union was continuing, regardless of what was being said by Ministers in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Stephen Milligan: My hon. Friend says that the Commission has not changed. Is he aware that in the last year the number of proposals put forward to the
      1132
      Council by the Commission has diminished by more than 50 per cent., that the Commission has drawn up a list of more than 20 directives that are to be scrapped and that the Commission is scrapping many other existing proposals? Does he not welcome all that as a step in the right direction?
      Mr. Walker: Of course I welcome it, but I draw attention to critical and important key areas. We all know that politicians endeavour to put on an acceptable front during periods of uncertainty, such as periods immediately before general elections; I suggest that the passing of the treaty has a similar impact throughout Europe.
      If my earlier comments have not been enough to cast doubt on the view that the centralising tendency has been reversed, let me give another concrete example. Everyone who has studied the treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, is aware that transport, particularly in article 3f of Maastricht, is an area of European competence. Hon. Members will also be aware that in transport in Europe the move towards open skies has been, and still is, slow and painful. They will also be aware that a United Kingdom success story over the last 20 years or more has been the completion of many valuable bilateral air service agreements.
      All have been negotiated by United Kingdom Ministers and Department of Transport officials. The Commission and its officials have not been responsible for those important and highly prized aviation freedom rights. Because we have had such effective and efficient negotiators, the United Kingdom has probably the best air transport operations in Europe, if not in the world.
      5 pm
      Enlightened civil aviation policy in the United Kingdom has created more viable and profitable airlines in this country than in any other Community state. Skilled negotiations via bilateral agreements have created at Heathrow the world's busiest international airport. That is a splendid example of subsidiarity in operation. It should be used in the new enlightened Europe as a model for every other member state.
      Based on the comments by my right hon. Friend to which I referred, I would expect our new and enlightened Community friends to support that continuing subsidiarity. Sadly, experience leads one to a different conclusion. The Commission, no doubt encouraged by enlightened members of the Council of Ministers, is determined to take over the negotiations for air service agreements.
      I attended a conference on open skies in Europe and listened to a lady representing the Commission. She had spent three years working on the paper that she presented. At the end of her presentation, I felt it necessary to tell her that I had heard a better paper given by a sixth former. If that represents the level of negotiations, I shudder. Even so, the Commission has the power to take over, as my right hon. Friend said, because of the legal reach of existing treaties. So where is the example of the new, non-centralising action of the Commission in that important sphere for the United Kingdom?
      Mrs. Currie: I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment, but does he agree that the success of air travel in Britain has been due to the fact that we privatised the airlines and the airports, which is not common practice in most countries, particularly in Europe? Does he agree that it would be wise for us to encourage that type of

      1133
      monumental change, which results in better business practice and awareness of the interests of customers? If so, how shall we he able to encourage our European colleagues to follow our example if we are not at the heart of Europe?
      Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend has a great gift for jumping feet first into areas of which she has little knowledge, as she just demonstrated. I referred to enlightened aviation policy, in which I included the privatisation of British Airways and so on. I did not go into the detail of the matter because I am anxious not to filibuster. I am concentrating on the facts. Bilateral negotiations are conducted by Department of Transport Ministers and officials, who are the best chaps in the world to conduct them. We should not allow such activities to be taken over by the Community.
      Where is the example of the new, non-centralising action of the Commission? The truth is that nothing of substance has changed in the institutions of the Community. Subsidiarity and opt-outs were, and are, designed to give the impression of change. In reality, just as many of the concerns which were pooh-poohed during the passage of the Single European Act will come hack to haunt us, so that the so-called opt-outs and subsidiarity will be found to be of little substance.
      Amendment 29 should be accepted because subsidiarity, like most things to do with the European Community, has been oversold. Anyone with experience of selling knows that, when a product or service is oversold, the consumer backlash can be dramatic. I fear that we face that danger. So those of us who have doubts about the legal validity of subsidiarity working in favour of decentralising should not be subject to abuse.
      I have a long record of actively trading throughout Europe. I want trade to flow freely. I want eastern Europe and the Scandinavian countries to enjoy trade throughout Europe. I want the European Community to trade freely with the world, and I do not support protectionist views or policies. I do not want, and have never wanted, Europe to have a federal or unitary state structure, and I know that the Foreign Secretary holds the same view; he has said so many times in my presence, and I do not doubt his word.
      I could support subsidiarity if I were persuaded that it was a legally binding vehicle for repatriating powers from the Community back to the nation states. Sadly, it is not. Subsidiarity and the Union are important to Scots, which is why I hope that the Prime Minister will read my comments. I have admired and supported him, particularly in the way he understood and grasped the Scottish nettle of the Union—[Interruption.] I refer to the Union of 1707 and, as I have said many times in the Chamber, we Unionist Scots know and understand what it meant by the Union.
      Sadly, others—including a previous Conservative Prime Minister—have embraced another, meaningless, description, which goes by the word "devolution." Devolution, like subsidiarity, can be properly assessed only when it is adequately legally defined, as the Scotland Act was. No such legal definition of subsidiarity exists in the treaty of union or in the Bill.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: As my hon. Friend says that subsidiarity and the Union are important to
      1134
      Scots people, may ask him to say which is more important, subsidiarity or the Union? If he is in favour of the Union—because it has brought great benefits to Scotland—why is he not in favour of European union, which might bring great benefits to Britain?
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) should not be tempted down that path.
      Mr. Walker: I hope that the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government will grasp the European nettle just as they grasped the Scottish nettle and admit that union means union of the kind in Europe which we in the United Kingdom created in 1707. It was union that the people of England and Scotland wanted, rather than an unwanted union as contained in the Maastricht treaty. The group of amendments would, if passed, remove article 3b, and thus subsidiarity, from the treaty.
      I submit that subsidiarity as originally defined by the Roman Catholic Church is the desirability of devolving power, and the exercise of power, to the lowest level in the hierarchy of the Church. So it assumes initially that all power is vested at the top, for the top to be able to devolve downwards—that the top decides how much, and what, power shall be devolved and that the bottom accepts as much or as little power as the top decides to give it. None of that is subject to democratic control. It is all perfectly proper for the Roman Catholic Church and for the institution that is that Church, and I have no quarrel with that. But as a Presbyterian, I am forever grateful to a gentleman named John Knox.
      We are tonight not dealing with a church but with separate nation states and their parliaments which rightly consider themselves to be equal in law with each other and with the Community and in no way subservient to the Commission or the Council. We are not dealing with Jacques Delors as the Pope with all the power, and with Prime Ministers as the bishops who accept what power the Pope gives them. Nor are we the humble laity who accept whatever power is passed down to us.

      As the group of amendments would remove article 3b, we must examine what that article says. First, it concerns action taken by the Community under the treaty of Maastricht and earlier treaties, such as regulations and directives. Subsidiarity is not defined in a way that covers interpretations of the actual provisions in the treaty.
      Secondly, subsidiarity applies only to areas that do not fall within the Community's exclusive competence. That means that all areas in which the Community has assumed competence are already excluded from the principle of subsidiarity. That interpretation is confirmed by the doctrine of the "occupied field" in the 1988 report of the European Commission versus the United Kingdom.
      Thirdly, the Community still acts instead of the member states if, because of the
      "scale or effects of the proposed action",
      the objectives of that action will be
      "better achieved by the Community."
      The Community—which means the Commission—will decide.
      Subsidiarity might be thought to apply if the matter at issue were solely internal to the United Kingdom, and did not affect any of the other Community countries. Again, that is not so: the justification for Community action lies in the objectives of the proposed action. If those objectives

      1135
      are listed somewhere in the Maastricht treaty, or in earlier treaties, the Community can pursue a course of action to achieve them, even if it applies to only one member state.
      Let us take an example that was discussed earlier. A certain level of social protection is an objective within the treaty, and we have subscribed to that. Under article 3b, the Community—that is, the Commission and the Council —is entitled to take action to impose on the United Kingdom measures that the Commission considers will achieve a high level of social protection in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Ray Whitney: My hon. Friend keeps saying "the Community, which means the Commission"; but he has just said "the Community, which means the Commission and the Council". There is a fundamental difference. The decisions that matter are made in the Council of Ministers: I think that my hon. Friend has overlooked that basic principle.
      Mr. Walker: I am trying not to say the same thing too often. I apologise for using shorthand when I should probably have gone into more detail. I accept that the Commission will initiate legislation, but all that legislation must be approved by the Council of Ministers.
      Under the Single European Act—with which I did not agree—we introduced qualified majority voting. We can be out-voted. If the other 11 states want to go ahead with social protection, we shall be in no position to prevent that from happening, in the United Kingdom or anywhere else.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but I feel that he should point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) that today, in a Lobby briefing by one of our Ministers, a major change in British law was announced. That change, involving the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1988, will knock privatisation on the head, and could involve massive payments by firms that have been privatised since 1977. It was not secured by the Council of Ministers; it was not achieved by a democratic body. It was brought about simply because the Commission took infraction proceedings—in other words, someone in the Commission wrote a letter—
      The Chairman: Order. This does not have much to do with subsidiarity.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The Government have said—it is in today's Financial Times—that they hope to use subsidiarity to get out of this mess. I have the cutting here.
      The Chairman: Order. In future, will the hon. Gentleman explain what he is referring to at the beginning of his remarks, rather than waiting until the last word?
      Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend has made his own point very well. I thank him for his useful intervention.
      It will be argued that enforcing such restrictions as the 48-hour week on the United Kingdom is within the competence of the Community under article 3b, which puts the whole matter of competition within the single market very much within Community competence. The restriction on working hours—or the lack of it—affects competitiveness. Never mind what the social chapter has to say; I believe that the Commission can act under article 3b.
      The same argument applies to the social chapter. No protocol or agreement is needed: the Commission and the
      1136
      Council can impose their will in the whole field of social cohesion, simply by using article 3b. The objectives are already in the treaty, and we have accepted them. This is the same article 3b that, according to Ministers, protects against such Community impositions.
      Let us suppose that action were taken by the Commission and the Council against the United Kingdom under article 3b. Let us suppose that the United Kingdom objected to that action, claiming that it contravened the principle of subsidiarity. We could take our dispute to the European Court of Justice, provided that the Commission had claimed in its original proposal that it had considered the principle of subsidiarity, but had decided that it was proper to act, for the various reasons contained in article 3b—had decided, that is, that the "scale or effects" of the action to achieve its objectives justified central action.
      In such circumstances, the Court of Justice could not possibly find in our favour. I suggest that the whole interpretation of article 3b is within the competence of the Commission. Provided that the Commission has gone through the motions of considering subsidiarity, there is no provision for the court to substitute its opinion for that of the Commission.
      5.15 pm
      Let me make an obvious political point. It is in the interests of the Commission, and of individual Commissioners, to exercise as much power as they can. Their very existence depends on their building and maintaining their empire. Similarly, it is in the vested interests of the permanent officials of the Council to fight their individual corners. In the same way, Members of the European Parliament want to build up the prestige and authority of that Parliament. Was it not our own hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—who is seeking to stand for the European Parliament—who described it as
      "the youngest, biggest super-power in the world"?
      She may well be disappointed.
      Mrs. Currie: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that the European Community now accounts for 340 million people, as many as the United States and Japan together. Its gross domestic product is 20 per cent. higher than that of the United States alone. In the remark to which my hon. Friend refers, I was identifying the way in which other countries—especially those on the eastern fringe of the Community—see the Community. I implied no more than that, except that the Community—which means all of us—has certain obligations. Various of my colleagues have referred to those obligations: my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), for instance, referred to them when he was talking about Russia earlier today.
      Mr. Walker: I do not doubt the hon. Lady's sincerity. She has a view of Europe, and she believes in sharing it. I defend her right to hold that view; I hope that she will be as considerate about my views.
      Most important of all, it is in the interests of the President of the Commission, whoever he or she may be, to corner as much of the decision making as he or she can. None of the Community institutions that I discussed when we were discussing the last group of amendments had any interest in devolving powers back to national Governments or Parliaments; yet those very institutions are charged with interpreting the doctrine of subsidiarity

      1137
      in any particular case. As I have shown, they can easily use article 3b to their advantage, deciding that, in any specific case, Community action is preferable.
      Did not the summits at Birmingham and Edinburgh shift the balance towards national Governments when they clarified the principle of subsidiarity? That is what I will be asked, but my answer is no. On the contrary, the declaration at Edinburgh reinforced the interpretation that I have given—namely, that the Community and its institutions remain supreme.
      The Edinburgh declaration states that the principle of subsidiarity
      "does not relate to and cannot call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty as interpreted by the Court. It provides a guide as to how those powers are to be exercised at the Community level, including in the application of Article 235. The application of the principle shall respect the general provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, including the 'maintaining … of the acquis communautaire', and it shall not affect the primacy of Community law nor shall it call into question the principle set out in Article F(3) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policy".
      That surely takes us in exactly the opposite direction to that in which Ministers say it takes us.
      I have three questions for members of the Government Front Bench. First, does the principle of subsidiarity mean that we need not apply a 48-hour week? Secondly, under subsidiarity, can we decide our own Sunday trading laws even if the goods traded are made elsewhere in the Community or, on the ground that they are Community goods, and for the sake of competition, can the Commission and the Council dictate the terms? Finally, if the Commission decides that the subject at issue falls within its competence, pursues the objectives of the treaty and is of a scale or effect touching on more than one country, and if the decision whether all that is true is to be taken by the Commission and not by us, where does that leave the principle of subsidiarity?
      If anything, the Edinburgh declaration reinforces the view that the interpretation of subsidiarity will in practice be left to the Commission. As the Edinburgh summit did not amend article 3b at all, as we are now seeking to do, how can Ministers claim that it gave more power to national parliaments? Given that the interpretation of article 3b rests ultimately with the Commission, which has the sole right to initiate Community legislation, does that not give it the power to cover anything that it wants—the social chapter, economic union, education, cohesion, transport or anything else?
      Mr. Marlow: A good test of whether subsidiarity will be effective is the important question of the 48-hour week. Will it be possible for European institutions to apply the 48-hour week to the United Kingdom, or will it be a matter for the House to decide? According to my hon. Friend's reading of subsidiarity within the treaty and the Edinburgh declaration, will the House be allowed to make the decision, or is it in the hands of Mr. Delors and the European court?
      Mr. Walker: Sadly, I believe that the House will not be able to affect the issue one way or the other. We shall have to accept what majority voting brings, in this and many other respects. Lord Mackenzie-Stuart called subsidiarity
      1138
      "gobbledegook". As a former President of the European Court of Justice, he should know. He said that subsidiarity would render the court's task almost impossible.
      The treaty on European union, and article 3b, is all about creating the legal entity of union. At the general election, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed that he knew and understood what union meant. On Tuesday, he and the Secretary of State for Scotland declared their support for the union. They recognised that the union and the unitary state were indivisible. They set out to strengthen the Union and did so because they have the statutory powers to do so. I believe that under article 3b and previous Acts, the European institutions will enjoy powers similar to those that the Prime Minister enjoys within the United Kingdom.
      The White Paper on Scotland stated:
      "To honour that pledge"—
      to undertake a detailed consideration of Scotland's constitutional issues—
      "the Government embarked on a lengthy and wide-ranging examination of the Union of 1707 and the way it works for Scotland."
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
      "The Government are deeply conscious of the importance of the Union to Scotland and of Scotland to the Union. We believe that the integrity of the Union is critical if Scotland's prominent role within the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom's key role in the outside world are to be maintained."
      I now draw the comparison. The White Paper continues:
      "The Act of Union contained 25 Articles providing for the unification of the Kingdoms, the Act of Succession and the creation of one Parliament of Great Britain with a set number of seats for Scottish members."
      However, it then states:
      "Other Articles"—
      I ask you, Mr. Morris, to listen carefully to this—
      "provided for a free trade area and economic and fiscal union, and the Treaty as a whole brought Scotland and England together in a full economic and political Union."
      Does not that sound very familiar?
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: Is not that a wholly different union? I cannot understand why my hon. Friend is comparing the two structures and concepts. Is he not reassured by the common provisions in article F(1), which clearly states:
      "The Union"—
      completely different from the English and Scottish Union—
      "shall respect the national identity of its Member States, whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy."?
      Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into an argument. Three hundred years ago, it would have been nonsense to talk about democracy as we know it today. One must study the treaty of Union of 1707 in the circumstances in which it arose. I have read it and I invite my hon. Friend to do the same. I do not want to bore the Committee, so I shall not give details of all 25 articles in the treaty of 1707. [Interruption.] Let me make it clear that, north of the border, my comments are considered to be important. If my hon. Friends do not think so, I remind them of the stand taken by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister during the general election. They spoke about union, and

      1139
      made no qualifications. They accepted the 25 articles in the treaty of 1707 and the powers that those articles bestowed on them.
      I shall draw the Committee's attention to the similarities between the powers of the treaty of 1707 and those contained in this treaty, especially those in article 3b.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and confirm that the Union with Scotland allowed the Scottish people to keep their own £1 note, in exactly the same way that, as a result of the triumph at Maastricht, we shall be able to keep a separate British £1 note? However, will he make it clear to him that having a Scottish El note does not mean that the people of Scotland have control over their economic and monetary policy?
      Mr. Walker: Exactly, but I do not want to digress into such matters. I am always delighted to debate the details and technicalities involved in the Act of Union between Scotland and England. I have read that treaty, just as I have read the Maastricht treaty. I understand both where I can or where it is legally possible to understand. When I have asked people for legal advice, most have been unable to tell me what the Maastricht treaty means.
      I was referring to the White Paper. In response to a question on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
      "I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for my announcement. The number of seats in the House derives form the Act of Union, which guaranteed Scotland a certain number of seats. However, I entirely agree that it is high time the boundary commissioners got down to work on the relative size of constituencies."—[Official Report, 9 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 796.]
      That is important if we bear in mind what is happening to European constituencies, which is why I draw the Committee's attention to it. He also said:
      "The Act of Union of 1707—
      Mr. Devlin: It is not in the treaty.
      Mr. Walker: I know what is in the Act of Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) should not get into an argument with me about it. He should go to the Library and get a copy of the amended Act of Union. I suggest that he goes to the Scottish library and gets a copy of the Act of Union, which was passed in Scotland, accepted by this Parliament and subsequently amended. The important issue is the 25 articles in the original Act which were accepted. My hon. Friend has not read them.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland also said:
      "The Act of Union of 1707 secured for the Scottish people a strong and special place within the United Kingdom. It guaranteed the continuance of Scotland's separate legal, educational and local government systems." —[Official Report, 9 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 787.]
      5.30 pm
      I remind the Committee that article 3b says:
      "Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty."
      I submit that the creation of one parliament in 1707 and the articles of that treaty, which provided for a free trade area and economic and fiscal union, combined with full political and economic union, were much the same objectives as those contained in the treaty of union which we are debating today.
      1140
      My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the Single European Act presented problems with the legal reach of that treaty. During the passage of that Act, I asked about the definition of ever closer union.
      Mr. Devlin: Could my hon. Friend explain why he thinks that the Act of Union has been good for Scotland and why a further Act of Union would not be good for Britain?
      Mr. Walker: If we put it to the people and they said that they wanted it, I would accept that, because I am a democrat. I have never made my position on that uncertain. The comparisons are odious in that one is being told that we are getting certain things built into a treaty which others, who are better equipped legally to analyse such things, tell me is legal gobbledygook. Surely, I, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, have every right to protect the interests of the Scots, who joined the 1707 Union which was profitable for both parties, because that union is being changed by this union. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) shakes his head. He should tell me that when Scotland separates from the rest of the United Kingdom. I am determined to maintain the Union.
      I must draw attention to the probable hazards because we must accept that there will be a backlash if we sell a prospectus which does not live up to the sales pitch. On 23 April, 1986, I said:
      "My right hon. Friend will be aware that union means something north of the border, and certainly in Northern Ireland; it is something we care deeply about. This afternoon an explanation was given why it was right to call the European Assembly a Parliament. Would it not be correct to assume that, if we continue to use the word 'union' in the way it has been used and is being used, we Scots will be justified in thinking that the word means union as we understand it?"—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 334–335.]
      At that time, I was told that I was wrong, but today we know that I was right. I also said:
      "The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have been in my place from the moment that the debate began and that I have not been called to participate in it. He will be aware also that, being a unionist, union means something to me. But if talk about union within Europe is in the same context as union in Scotland, even the hon. Gentleman will understand that that is not quite what we in Scotland believe should happen."—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 383.]
      I draw attention to that because there is a suggestion in some quarters that one is being disloyal.
      I have demonstrated that subsidiarity as contained in the union treaty can and will give powers to European institutions which are not dissimilar to those contained in the 1707 Act of Union. Consequently, it is wrong to claim that the current evidence from the Community is against centralisation or ever closer union. The evidence on air service agreements is testimony to the movement of decision making and negotiations from the United Kingdom Government to European bureaucrats.
      We know that, on the past record of the European Court of Justice, it will decide in favour of the treaty's objectives. Community institutions will use the union objective powers as contained in article 3, just as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and former United Kingdom Prime Ministers have used the powers contained in the 1707 Act. The objectives and articles in that Act are not dissimilar to those contained in the European treaty of union.
      It is not good enough for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to say that attitudes have changed. The

      1141
      bureaucrats are still in place. New centralising politicians can and probably will emerge. We will not always have my able and talented right hon. Friend to protect our interests, and that aspect worries me.
      Subsidiarity, as contained in article 3b and defined at Edinburgh and Birmingham, will not reduce or remove the centralising powers of the treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and the treaty of Union. At best, it is unwise to leave such powers to future politicians. At worst, it is foolhardy to hand over such powers without the full-hearted consent of the people. Next year or 10 years from now, it will be too late and our children and our children's children will not thank us for giving away their power to change the law within the United Kingdom by voting out a Government with whom they are unhappy or changing the incumbent Government's attitude to a specific policy.
      Every week in the House, we hear Scottish Members complain about the powers exercised by this Parliament and by the United Kingdom Government in Scotland and Westminster. That is after almost 300 years of political and economic union, of free trade and of economic and fiscal union. Does anyone seriously believe that we will not see, in this age of mass communications, early evidence of disillusionment, especially when it becomes evident that the so-called opt-outs and subsidiarity have little or no impact on the way in which the Community institutions and the European Court of Justice move to implement the objectives contained in titles I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII and in article 3? I shall not read those articles because I am sure that everyone knows them by heart.
      I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench why they are reluctant to debate the details of the treaty. Why are they unwilling to admit that the Single European Act, the single market and the treaty of Rome will still be in place even if the treaty fails to be ratified? We will still have a single market. Why are they trying to make out that people such as me and other hon. Members are being disloyal? I remind my right hon. Friends that, on constitutional matters affecting Scotland, I have not changed my position over the past 40 years. My party and my Government have changed on more than one occasion.
      I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that, during the debate in the country in the late 1960s and early 1970s, I asked questions about union and its legal meaning, and I continued to ask such questions in Parliament during the passage of the Single European Act. I remind them that I opposed entry to and membership of the exchange rate mechanism. It was the Government who changed their policy. At what time was I being disloyal? I remind them that, as a Scot, I have constantly striven to get the House to address what the meaning and practice of political, economic and monetary union would be within Europe if it followed the experience of almost 300 years of union within the United Kingdom.
      Subsidiarity is legal nonsense. The objectives of the treaty, the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act are legal and binding, just as the articles in the 1707 treaty of Union were legal and binding. If we are to accept such a commitment, the people must be consulted. We must have a referendum. In the absence of a referendum, article 3b
      1142
      should certainly be removed from the treaty. That is why I support amendment No. 29 and the other amendments in this group.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: It is good to see the Foreign Secretary present for the debate. I mean that properly. He feels strongly about subsidiarity. He sees it perhaps as something for which he has worked hard, although, of course, it has been in the treaty for 40 years. I remember that on one occasion he made a speech—he makes good speeches—in which he said that he had no intention of seeing the House of Commons become something like Oxford county council. I mean no disrespect to that body. The Secretary of State may feel that subsidiarity is his contribution to ensuring that the House does not become something like Oxford county council. I fear that he is mistaken.
      I do not believe that the concept of subsidiarity will stop the centralising progress and process of the Community. It may arrest it in certain areas, because such things ebb and flow. If one reads about the American constitution, one finds that from time to time the Supreme Court upholds state rights against federal rights. But in general the movement is towards the centre and away from the states.
      Indeed, a study of the jurisprudence of the European Court shows that there was a time in the 1950s and 1960s when the judges paid attention to the concepts behind subsidiarity, if not subsidiarity directly. But then, as we moved through the 1970s, and certainly now, the court is moving in the other direction. We shall debate the European Court next. It may take congnisance of the notion of subsidiarity.
      The Solicitor-General is here. It is nice of him to come here. I do not criticise him, but he does not have too much work to do on subsidiarity. I agreed with the Commission when it said in its paper to the Edinburgh summit that subsidiarity was essentially a political principle. The European Court does not have much part to play. That is purely a personal view. I would not pretend to be a lawyer with any great knowledge of subsidiarity, but I suggest to the Committee that the only area in which the court might invoke its jurisdiction is a judicial review.
      The European Court might examine decisions made by the Commission, but I do not believe that it would tell the Commission that it was wrong and should not have made a certain proposal because subsidiarity applied. It would not do so because that would be to arrogate to itself a political and administrative decision. I know that it is a political court in one sense, but I do not believe that it would go that far.
      The European Court might apply the principle of reasonableness—one of the great principles of British law. It might rule that the Commission had arrived at a decision which a reasonable official would reach and had followed the principles of natural justice, so its decision was not wrong. Many lawyers who have given evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, such as Mr. Jeremy Lever, whom the Solicitor-General knows well, have reached the same conclusion. It is probably the safest conclusion that one can reach.
      We are talking about an essentially political principle. It will ebb and flow, as indeed the views of people in Europe ebb and flow about this strange, not federal but European union which is basically a union of institutions. We are talking about institutions coming together and having different competences and powers. The three most

      1143
      important institutions are the European central bank, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. I hate to describe them as a troika, or, if that is not correct, a triumvirate. They will continue whatever negotiations take place.
      There will be more negotiations and perhaps more treaties. Institutions will fight among themselves to gain more power. The power of the Council of Ministers will decrease a little. The European Parliament will receive a little more power. But the Court, the Commission and the bank will continue and will arrogate to themselves more power.
      We shall have a Europe of institutions, as we have now. Attempts will be made at the fringes in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to inject some democracy. The Foreign Secretary looks perplexed, but that is the basic danger to democracy of the European state or super-state. People may call it federal, but I do not believe that it is federal or confederal. It is institutional power. That is the real danger we face.
      5.45 pm
      I wish to ask a few questions about subsidiarity. I obtained from the Library the conclusions of the presidency reached at Edinburgh on 12 December 1992. I read them merely in an effort to understand. Under "Basic Principles" the document says:
      "European Union rests on the principle of subsidiarity."
      That must be a typing error—it must mean "recognises" the principle of subsidiarity. It continues:
      "as is made clear in Articles A and B of title I of the Treaty on European Union."
      One has to read those articles right to the end. At the end they say that the treaty also recognises the principle of subsidiarity. I hope that the Foreign Secretary can put my nit-picking Welsh lawyer's brain at rest by telling me that the conclusions of the presidency contained a typing error. European union cannot "rest" on the principle of subsidiarity. It recognises that principle and perhaps seeks to incorporate it, but it does not rest on the principle of subsidiarity.
      Then we are told that the principle of subsidiarity
      "contributes to the respect for the national identities of Member States and safeguards their powers."
      I do not know what the phrase
      "contributes to the respect for the national identities"
      means. It does not mean anything very much. I shall come back to the question of safeguarding the powers of member states. Subsidiarity may safeguard those powers, but it does so only in the limited areas in which the powers do not rest within the competence of the Commission, the court or the Community and its institutions.
      We have heard about article 3b. Indeed, it is mentioned in a footnote to the conclusions of the presidency. We are told in the conclusions:
      "Article 3b of the EC treaty covers three main elements."
      I am surprised that the Government could write such meaningless nonsense for the conclusions of the presidency at the Edinburgh summit. The document says that the first element is
      "a strict limit on Community action."
      The use of the word "strict" is odd. The Government try to say that the Community's powers are strictly limited. The powers are limited by the treaty. I suppose that that is a strict limit. The Foreign Secretary nods his head. Why write that at all? Everyone knows that any institution, unless it happens to be the Soviet Communist party, has
      1144
      strict limits. Even the Soviet Communist party was limited by something or other. Every institution in the western world, if it exists within a democracy, is not—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) wishes to have a discussion of the limitation of the powers of the Soviet Communist party, I am happy to do so.
      Mr. Marlow: Is not the problem that the institutions are limited not by a strict limit but by a vague limit? The essence of the treaty is its vagueness, which allows the institutions of the European Community to apply power in whatever area they want.
      Mr. Davies: Strict or vague—perhaps a bit of both. The point is that there is a limit and the limit is the treaty. How one interprets it and what it means in a given circumstance is work for lawyers. I am sure that the Solicitor-General agrees about that. It is a splendid treaty for lawyers. Lawyers are doing well out of this European nonsense. Of course there is a strict limit, but why bother to tell us something that is fairly obvious and does not add anything?
      Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend mentioned competence, but as he knows from article 3b, subsidiarity—whatever it be—applies only outside areas of exclusive competence. When I asked the Attorney-General to list those areas which were within the exclusive competence of the Community so that we could find out where subsidiarity operated, he declined to do so. He said:
      "The answer to the hon. Member's question about exclusive competence is the same as to his question about exclusive jurisdiction, mutatis mutandis: the European Community has exclusive competence where that is conferred upon it by treaty provision or measures … Current examples include the common agricultural policy, the common commercial policy and the external tariff."—[Official Report, 19 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 67.]
      There are many other examples, but he could not define the areas of exclusive competence.
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right; there are many other things.
      Paragraph 2 of the conclusions of the presidency paper says—I am sorry to bore the Committee—that "the three paragraphs", by which it presumably means those in article 3b,
      "cover three distinct legal concepts which have historical antecedents in existing Community Treaties or in the case-law of the Court of Justice."
      That is fair enough. The first principle is
      "that the Community can only act where given the power to do so".
      Again, that is understandable. It then develops quite an interesting argument:
      "implying that national powers are the rule and the Community's the exception."
      The Commission paper that was considered at the Edinburgh summit advances the same proposition. The original thinking was probably correct: a few powers went up to the Community, but most of the important powers stayed with nation states.
      The Maastricht treaty proposes a reversal of that thinking. Now, if one includes stage 3 of economic and monetary union, most of the important powers—certainly those for domestic and economic legislation, but leaving aside foreign affairs and defence—are held at Community level. Once stage 3 is achieved and we have a common currency—as, no doubt, we will—with the powers of the

      1145
      European bank, of the European Court of Justice and all the economic powers, national powers will be the exception.
      That change has been taking place over the years, and it is crystallised and almost codified in the Maastricht treaty. That is how I see it, but I may be incorrect. That is why we are debating a substantial sea change under the Maastricht treaty.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the definitions that he has just read as vaguely strict or strictly vague?
      Mr. Davies: I was reading not a definition but the conclusions of the presidency and of the Commission's paper. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman should ask the Foreign Secretary.
      The paper continues:
      "An agreement shall be sought to this effect"—
      that is, the relationship with subsidiarity—
      "between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, in the framework of the interinstitutional dialogue"—
      these institutions talk to each other all the time—
      "which is taking place among these Institutions."
      I have not followed this closely, so will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether there will be some kind of an agreement? Are we working on it now? Is it ready? What is the agreement supposed to do? The conclusions of the presidency refer to it.
      The paper continues:
      "The principle of subsidiarity does not relate to and cannot call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty as interpreted by the Court."
      There is very little left. The Foreign Secretary no doubt put his name to this or negotiated it. It continues:
      "It provides a guide as to how those powers are to be exercised at the Community level … The application of the principle shall respect the general provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, including the 'maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire', and it shall not affect the primacy of Community law nor shall it call into question the principle set out in Article F(3) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
      That does not mean much.
      Rather typically for such a document, it continues:
      "Subsidiarity is a dynamic concept".
      Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will give some examples of this great dynamism outside acquis communautaire, outside the treaty, outside the court, outside the competence of these institutions, outside the bank. Where will this dynamism come from?
      The last paragraph says:
      "The principle of subsidiarity cannot be regarded as having direct effect; however, interpretation of this principle, as well as review of compliance with it by the Community institutions are subject to control by the Court of Justice, as far as matters falling within the treaty".
      Perhaps the Attorney-General or the Foreign Secretary will tell us what that means. Can an individual who believes that subsidiarity has been breached bring an action in the British courts or European Court of Justice? My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was a Member of the European Parliament and will know the answer, so I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: An individual can bring an action if he is directly affected by the decision that he is challenging.
      Mr. Davies: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will confirm that my hon. Friend is right. An individual can challenge a decision taken by the Commission in respect of subsidiarity, which is good to know.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not one of the worrying aspects the fact that European people who are unhappy with decisions made by institutions which, for example, are responsible for the common agricultural policy, are taking direct action, as fishermen have done not in one country but in several?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I do not know whether I should follow it, but if we have a Europe of institutions with no democratic outlet, people may take such action. Some of the posher British newspapers may be upset about our making fools of ourselves in the House by putting on funny hats, but doing that and trying to assert the rights of the Opposition is preferable to chucking cobblestones. Perhaps it is our way of throwing cobblestones. There is a danger that people will take such direct action, especially when they feel very little allegiance to those institutions.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that subsidiarity will enable an individual to take his case to the European Court of Justice? No doubt the Foreign Secretary will answer that, but subsidiarity is not new. Commission officials will claim that the committee already acts in accordance with subsidiarity. Are there any precedents of an individual making a challenge under the principle of subsidiarity? An individual might challenge a matter under something completely different, but I have not heard of an individual taking an action to the European Court of Justice under the principle of subsidiarity.
      Mr. Davies: I defer to my hon. Friend, who is a great expert. Unless the Attorney-General says that my hon. Friend is wrong, I am happy to accept what he says.
      Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the conclusions of the presidency at the European Council in Edinburgh. Subsidiarity is fundamental to the Government's case that things are moving in our direction, that we will have more control over our own affairs and that Europe is now being decentralised. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, the Edinburgh Council concluded that the interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity, as well as the review of compliance, are subject to the control by the European Court of Justice.
      What is the possibility that the Government have sufficient influence over the European Court of Justice to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is applied in the way that the Prime Minister and the Government are suggesting to the country that it is being applied?
      Mr. Davies: We must leave that to the court. Whatever may be the mood of the Foreign Secretary, it is clearly the present mood of the European Court of Justice to interpret everything for the benefit of the union. It has always done that. The court threw out the arrangements in relation to the European Free Trade Association and the EC in the

      1147
      first place. It stated that it should interpret the directives for the benefit of the furtherance of the union, because that is what the court is there to do.
      6 pm
      Over the past 10 or 15 years, the European Court of Justice has been moving rapidly towards the concentration of the power of the union at the centre and away from the rights of the states—if one can use the example of the United States. That may change, but I would be surprised if it happened.
      I believe that the European Court of Justice will not decide questions of subsidiarity. It will simply decide a judicial review procedure. It will say, "Yes, the Commission officials sat down, had a meeting and could reasonably have reached the decision that they did. They followed the procedures that were laid down." As I understand it, there may be a proposal in the intergovernmental and inter-institutional arrangement for rules which the Commission must follow when deciding whether to apply the principle of subsidiarity.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: My right hon. Friend has made a good point. If the principle is to be applied politically, we do not know what institutional procedures will be used to determine whether a particular policy or area of activity is to be judged as subject to subsidiarity. Will that be achieved by qualified majority or through the Council of Ministers? If my right hon. Friend could enlighten us about that, it would be very helpful.
      Mr. Davies: I cannot really do that. However, I assume that the Commission will take a decision. It may be easier for the Commission to do that than the Council of Ministers. Within its area of exclusive competence, presumably the Commission will have to decide whether it should act or leave it to the principles of subsidiarity. If it takes that decision, so far as I can tell, only the courts can question that. My point is that the courts will be likely to question only on the basis of judicial review.
      Mr. Marlow: I think that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. If a matter is to be decided by majority voting, the decision as to whether that is a matter for subsidiarity will also be decided by majority voting. If a matter is put through, and the United Kingdom is in a minority, we can do something about it only by taking the matter to the court. If we take it to court when the matter has been decided on the basis of majority voting and subsidiarity has been decided by majority voting, our chances of making a challenge would be zilch.
      Mr. Davies: If the Council of Ministers has exclusive competence over the matter, subsidiarity does not apply. If the Council of Ministers decides by majority voting and it reaches a decision, that is the end of the matter if that matter if within the exclusive competence of the Council of Ministers. As I understand it, the question of subsidiarity arises only if there is a division of responsibility or there is seen to be such a division of responsibility.
      Frankly, one could go on for hours referring to the areas that are within the exclusive competence of those institutions. We can identify many of them. However, so far as I am aware, no one has worked it out. If the matter is not within the exclusive competence of the Council of Ministers, presumably a nation state can make a challenge. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield said, even an
      1148
      individual can make a challenge through the courts on the basis that subsidiarity should have applied and the nation state should have been allowed to take a decision on its own.
      Mr. Spearing: Even if it is conceded that a nation should be able to act on its own, are not the proponents of this extraordinary doctrine forgetting that article 3b does not say, "If the nation can do it, let the nation do it." Instead, it states whether it should be "sufficiently achieved"—whatever sufficient is—or, if it can be achieved, whether it can
      "be better achieved by the Community"
      in future. As the whole thing is a proposition, surely it is an hypothesis and, as my right hon. Friend said much earlier, wholly a question of political judgment, which is a matter of opinion and not of legal fact.
      Mr. Davies: It is mainly a political matter, although there may be legal consequences.
      In paragraph III, headed "Procedures and Practices", of the conclusions of the presidency, we are told under (a), which refers to the Commission:
      "The overall monitoring by the Commission of the observance of the provisions of Article 3b in all its activities is essential and measues have been taken by the Commission in this respect."
      What happened to that idea? Quite a few people put that idea to the Foreign Office. Sir Jeremy Lever QC produced a paper for the Select Committee on Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I understand that he wrote to the Foreign Office. He wanted to know why the Commission should be entrusted with monitoring whether the Commission itself was carrying out the guidelines on subsidiarity. In his paper to the Select Committee, Sir Jeremy Lever said that he did not receive an acknowledgement to his letter. Why was it necessary to allow the Commission to carry out the monitoring? There was no need for that.
      The monitoring could have been carried out by another organisation. Indeed, we could have had another institution to perform that task. The monitoring could have been carried out by a body comprising Welsh nationalists, councillors or community councillors. We could have had another institution because no doubt by 1996 there will be many more such institutions. A sub-group or perhaps the court of first instance could have carried out the monitoring. If we are really striking a blow for the nation state, why allow the Commission to monitor its own progress?
      No doubt those matters have been considered. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary lost the argument. Perhaps he did not put the argument. I cannot get much more out of the presidency paper. Therefore, I will briefly refer to 'the Commission's paper and to a letter dated 5 November 1992 from Jacques Delors to the Foreign Secretary in his capacity as President of the Council of the European Community. That document is very interesting because the Commission tells us what it thinks of subsidiarity. It states:
      "the powers that a State or a federation of States wields in the common interest are only those which individuals, families, companies and local or regional authorities cannot exercise in isolation."
      I do not know why the Commission bothered with that first paragraph. It likes to write things like that. The document continued:
      "In the Community context, subsidiarity means"—

      1149
      one then gets very excited, as we expect the Commission is about to tell us what it means—
      "that the functions handed over to the Community are those which the Member States, at the various levels of decision-making, can no longer discharge satisfactorily."
      I did not think that subsidiarity meant that. Member states have handed over functions to the Community and the Community states that they can no longer discharge them satisfactorily. I do not know about that.
      Surely subsidiarity does not mean that the functions handed over to the Community are those functions. I thought that it was the other way round. However, we are back to the anomaly. The Commission is still operating under the old jurisprudence, acquis communautaire, and the belief that a few powers are handed up and then everything fits in. That has changed. The Commission has the powers now and it may allow a few to dribble back down through the principle of subsidiarity. That is how I read it.
      It then says in paragraph 3:
      "For more than 40 years the subsidiarity principle has satisfied two requirements."
      So it is nothing new; it has existed for a long time, as has proportionality in the way in which the court interprets the necessary part of the article.
      The document goes on to delineate certain policies:
      "The common policies"
      within the exclusive competence of the Community—
      "the creation of a frontier-free area and the flanking policies provided in the Single Act—all these initiatives have been fully justified by the imperatives of European integration. Everyone accepts that these tasks could only be effectively undertaken at European level. The results speak for themselves."
      The letter also states:
      "national powers are the rule and the Community's the exception."
      What a load of nonsense. That appeared in a letter that Jacques Delors sent to the Foreign Secretary. Has the Foreign Office questioned it? Does anybody go through these things? Of course, that is no longer true. National powers are not the rule, and if Maastricht goes through, Community powers will certainly not be the exception. We have to examine how things are evolving and in my opinion that old jurisprudence has gone.
      The letter continues in the same vein until paragraph 2 on page 6 where it talks about
      "The block of exclusive powers".
      That is the block on subsidiarity. It states:
      "So that the Community can attain its objectives, certain obligations to act have been imposed upon it"—
      poor Commission to have had such terrible powers imposed upon it.
      "These include, in particular, the creation of an area without internal frontiers, the strengthening of economic and social cohesion"—
      we now return to the point about 48-hour weeks—
      "and the establishment of economic and monetary union."
      All those powers provide the block of exclusive powers, again outside the competence of subsidiarity. We then have a long list of all the other powers.
      In conclusion, perhaps the Foreign Secretary thinks that he has done well and obviously there has been an attempt to nibble away at the extended powers that have given to the Commission, the Community and the bank by the Maastricht treaty. A little will come back for
      1150
      subsidiarity, but it will depend on the political climate at the time, the strength of the Commission and the feeling in member states.
      The centralisation process will continue. As those institutions gather more power to themselves and as nation states cannot bring themselves to transfer democratic powers to them, we will have a hybrid of Community institutions with little democracy and people will react and demonstrate against it. They will feel that they have no part to play in it and that is the danger for the people of Europe.
      The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I apologise to some right hon. and hon. Members, certainly to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), for not having been here at the beginning of the debate on Monday. I have read what was said, and I shall try to pick up some of the points that were raised.
      The principle of subsidiarity, as its critics and supporters have acknowledged, lies at the heart of our idea of the Community. We joined the Germans in negotiations to ensure that there was proper provision for it in the treaty. We put our case, we won the argument, and we are now putting it into effect.
      The existence of article 3b, and much else that has been said and done in the past 18 months, illustrates a change in the nature of the debate on Europe. In an opposite sense I am following the point that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has just made.
      The old orthodoxy with which many of us grew up, although we did not all accept it, was that Europe would be built by doing more things together and transferring decision making in a steadily increasing number of areas to Brussels. Every such transfer from national to Community action was hailed as a success and as progress. That principle imbues the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. There are still priests of that orthodoxy, and from time to time they restate the doctrine to themselves and to others.
      6.15 pm
      The negotiations for Maastricht, the treaty and what has happened since signify a change in direction. The principle of subsidiarity is now for the first time enshrined in the treaty as a substantial and legally-binding decision.
      At Edinburgh we agreed procedures and guiding criteria for ensuring that subsidiarity is applied rigorously across the board of Community activity. That is why I believe that article 3b is one of the significant parts, and I would say gains, of the Maastrich treaty.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was absolutely right to say that it is dangerous to oversell an argument, and I do not want to oversell this one, but I believe that the article offers the chance to arrest the centralising, harmonising tide. I do not claim that it marks the end of the debate; the debate will continue and it is crucial that Britain should play a full and central role in it. We will not do ourselves any service if we stand aside from the debate and the decisions that will powerfully affect us.
      Mr. Leighton: The Foreign Secretary knows that the great new area of Community competence that the Maastricht treaty provides is economic and monetary

      1151
      union and a single currency. What subsidiarity is there in monetary policy? As far as I know, there is absolutely none at all.
      Mr. Hurd: The treaty provides for a single bank and a single currency. Obviously, we could not have several banks and several currencies. That is one reason why we have an absolute opt-out on that part of the treaty.
      Let me deal with one point that was raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who is not here today.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: Yes, I am.
      Mr. Hurd: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is not in the seat from which he spoke on Monday. I do him an injustice.
      The hon. Members for Hamilton and for East Lothian tried to read across the question of subsidiarity to relationships within the United Kingdom. They are entitled to a view on that, but it is not relevant to the debate.
      Mr. Home Robertson: It should be.
      Mr. Hurd: No. The hon. Member for Hamilton said on Monday:
      "we must ensure that national identities and decision making are protected"—[0fficial Report, 8 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 727]:
      That is exactly what is done in the treaty. Article 3b refers only to the relationship between the Community and member states, and the Birmingham declaration states that it is for each member state to decide how its powers should be exercised domestically. Whatever the case for or against devolution in the United Kingdom, it has nothing to do with the treaty of Maastricht, and that is made clear.
      Were we having a domestic debate, I would say that transferring powers to parents in schools and to patients in the national health service is a substantially better effort at bringing decision making closer to the citizens than to play about with legislative assemblies in Cardiff and Edinburgh. As we are not having a domestic debate, it would be out of order for me to make that point.
      Mr. Marlow: Can my hon. Friend say at this early stage whether the House of Commons will be able to decide whether we should have a 48-hour week in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Hurd: I shall come later to the working time directive and related matters.
      Mr. George Robertson: The Secretary of State is making a pedantic point about nation states. The fact that the United Kingdom is made up of nation:; and not simply regions should not escape him, but is he not aware that the concept of subsidiarity was first used in the European Community in an attempt to resolve the problems in the Federal Republic of Germany between the federal level and the Milder state level and it was convenient then to do so. For the British Government alone to say that subsidiarity is confined to a relationship between the nations of the Community and the Community itself puts Britain in a class of one. Everybody else sees the subsidiarity principle as one that takes decision making to the level closest to the citizen. That must have implications for the internal organisation of the states.
      Mr. Hurd: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot have understood what I was saying. I quoted from the Birmingham declaration—not from the Government's view but from the Community's view, which is that inside a nation state the arrangements are for that state to decide. The United Kingdom was not alone. Spain, for example, was strongly in favour of the declaration, and it prevailed. As for the treaty, the discussions and the signing of the treaty, the position is clear. It does not affect the pros and cons of devolution and it has nothing to do with the treaty of Maastricht.
      Mr. Peter Shore: I intervene to fortify, in a sense, what the right hon. Gentleman says. Surely it would be a wholly unacceptable extension of Community competence to allow European union to decide the structures of government within the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Hurd: Precisely. The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual robust attitude to these matters, has hit the nail correctly on the head.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hurd: I am anxious to get on, but as I referred to the hon. Gentleman I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Home Robertson: My intervention may be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman. If he is having difficulty in grasping the dangers of failing to acknowledge the status of nations within the United Kingdom, he may care to read an interesting novel called "Scotch on the Rocks", which he wrote himself.
      Mr. Hurd: It was a cautionary tale. Various lessons can be drawn from it, but not the one that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) discussed in an interesting speech the levels by which society structures itself. He asserted that the sense of national identity is one of the deepest levels. Indeed, I think he said that it is the deepest level. There is much truth in that, and that truth has reasserted itself in the past year or so. It did so, indeed, in the Maastricht negotiations. That is one of the purposes and points of subsidiarity.
      I am not saying that that is a solution to the problem. Again, I do not wish to oversell the argument, but interdependency, as it has developed in the modern world, means that there is some discussion and some tensioning between the different levels that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne was talking about. By means of the article and the procedures adopted as a political fact before there is a legal obligation, we are trying to ensure that within the Community we shall do our best and be careful to assign actions to the level where they can best be taken.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) made a well-researched speech. I think that he was rather the victim of a doctrine of historic inevitability, rather as the communists used to feel that there was an inevitability about the triumph of communism. My hon. Friend seems to feel that, if we remain in the Community, we are on a sort of conveyor belt that inexorably, whatever is written down and

      1153
      whatever people say or pretend, will sweep us into oblivion as a nation. Many hon. Members feel that. I shall respond to their position before I resume my place.
      I do not think that there is such inevitability. Those who hold the defeatist view of inevitability underestimate our influence and the instincts of many people throughout the Community. A draft treaty was submitted to us which reflected that view. There was a time in the negotiations when the Dutch presidency felt that we were straying too far from the traditional orthodoxy. There is the business of the three pillars, two of which do not give the Commission a monopoly of initiative. Two of them are specifically outside the jurisdiction of the European Court.
      The Dutch presidency felt that this was unorthodox, and it tabled a draft that re-established the orthodox. If it had been in the treaty, it would have given substance to what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North was talking about. In fact, it was rejected in September 1991, three months before Maastricht, not because we objected but because the majority of member states saw that it was not on. That is a substantial piece of evidence that change is taking place.
      We moved on to the treaty as it stands, with the three pillars that I have described and the principle of subsidiarity. Article 3b does not represent an attempt to prevent all forms of Community action or to repatriate powers that have been given by nation states to the Community. There are many activities that can best be undertaken at a European level.
      Let us take the single market, for example. Left to themselves, member states are hardly likely to blow the whistle on illegal aids or other breaches of common rules that give their companies an unfair advantage over the companies of their partners. That is why so much of the pressure for Community action comes from our companies and interests. Britain gains from the existence of strong institutions and can enforce the disciplines of the single market and help to forge common solutions to common problems, such as transnational pollution.
      What we need—it is something that we have not had, but we are trying to create it—is a proper mechanism inside the Community to ensure that it, the Community, does only what it should do and can properly do. That is why we argued for an effective definition of subsidiarity. The final wording of article 3b bears the imprint of that effort. As the right hon. Member for Llanelli rightly said, it is a threefold test.
      The three paragraphs deal with three separate matters. The first question is whether the Community can act. Does it have a legal base to do so under the treaties? The first paragraph underlines that the Community acts within the limits of its treaty powers and objectives. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Why say that? It is obvious." It is not obvious to many right hon. and hon. Members.
      I have so often heard the argument that subsidiarity is merely a gracious delegation by a Community that has grabbed all the powers. It is asserted that it is a delegation outwards and downwards in certain particular instances to national institutions. It is necessary to say that that is not the position. The powers that are available to the Community's institutions are those granted by treaty.
      The second question is whether the Community should act. That is taken up by the second paragraph of the
      1154
      article. Can the objective of the proposal be sufficiently achieved by member states? If not, can it be better achieved by the Community?
      Thirdly, how much should the Community do? That is a question that covers all Community activity. Is it using the lightest possible form of legislation, leaving as much as possible to the discretion of its member states, consistent with achieving the objective?
      I return to the first question, which is whether the Community can act. It is sometimes said that the doctrine of subsidiarity is flawed because the presumption is that the Community should act unless the power to act is delegated to subsidiary bodies. That is the exact reverse of the true position. I shall quote, as others have done, from the Birmingham declaration, which we all agreed:
      "The Community can only act where the member states have given it the power to do so in the Treaties. Action at Community level should happen only when proper and necessary: the Maastricht Treaty provides the right framework and objectives for this."
      I shall use an anecdote to explain the position. I remember the discussion that took place at Birmingham. One participant was a veteran of Community discussions who had been away for a bit. He had returned after an interval of years. He took the microphone and said, "We cannot say this." He had realised suddenly that orthodoxy had changed and that the old idea that the more the Community did the better was out of date. His view did not prevail; it was considered to be out of date. We went on to agree the words which I have quoted. That illustrates the change that has taken place.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend give us an example of how the provision could be used to protect Britain against a majority vote directive that we believed infringed the principle of subsidiarity? How do we go about it? What do we do? How can we use the provision if we believe that something is being done that infringes the principle?
      Mr. Hurd: I am dealing now with the clause itself. In a moment I shall come to what is being done to make this a political fact before it is a legal obligation, which is where my hon. Friend's point will become relevant.
      The Edinburgh statement refers to
      "the principle that the Community can only act where given the power to do so—implying that national powers are the rule and the Community's the exception".
      [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman does not believe that, but it is stated and restated. National powers are the rule, and Community powers the exception.
      Then it is said that this
      "has always been a basic feature of the Community's legal order."
      That may be so, but I do not believe that it would have been said two or 10 years ago. This is another sign of the way in which the debate is flowing in the direction for which all parties in the House of Commons, with the exception of one or two individuals, have consistently argued.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, as I believe that I can say something to facilitate the debate.
      In respect of one element, we are talking at cross purposes. My right hon. Friend keeps talking about actions that the Community may take, whereas the

      1155
      principal concern is the extent of legal competence of the Community's institutions. The Council of Ministers might have a political argument about whether particular action should be undertaken centrally or by individual member states. However, my right hon. Friend is not arguing with my basic thesis, which is that the development of the legal competence of the Community is a one-way street.
      Competence tends to expand. What we have here is the doctrine of the occupied field. Nothing about subsidiarity begins to reverse the trend. Moreover, the way in which subsidiarity is framed with reference to the objectives of the treaty demonstrates that Community competence will continue to expand and that we shall be able only to make a case that things should be delegated from that legal structure. The legal basis for unilateral action by member states is not strengthened.
      Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is dealing with the question of competence. What is laid down on subsidiarity deals, in the first paragraph, with competence by saying simply that the Community does not have powers that are not yielded to it by treaty. It goes on to say that within the areas where there is mixed competence, where one can argue about whether action should be at Community or at national level, the presumption should be for national action. In real life, that is very important. It is very important in the way in which the Community operates.
      I shall come in a moment to the third paragraph about which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North is wrong. The first and last questions—"Can the Community act?" and "How much should the Community do?" —apply to all areas of Community activity. The second question—"Should the Community act?"—applies only to areas of mixed competence, where there is a choice between Community action and national action. Within areas of exclusive competence, where the treaty itself requires a comprehensive body of rules covering a whole field—for example, the common commercial policy—there is no such choice. The question there is how the Community should act—in what way and in how much detail.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North not only asserted that the test introduced in the third paragraph of article 3b—
      "Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty"—
      was flawed but argued that it actually strengthened the centralising tendency of the Community by opening up new fields of possible action. I regard that as a perverse conclusion which indicates misunderstanding of the context of the quoted sentence.
      This part of article 3b is concerned not with the scope of Community action but with its intensity, establishing that, where the Community does act, it should use the least constraining instrument available to achieve the common purpose. For example, there is no reason why the Community should use a regulation that is directly applicable in member states when a directive that leaves the method of implementation to member states would suffice. It is precisely this over-regulation of action that causes much ill feeling towards the Community. Too often in the past, over-regulation has been continued in Whitehall.
      The Committee will know that one aspect of policy at which we are looking is intended to tackle the habit, which has grown in some quarters, of introducing extra zeal,
      1156
      extra effort and extra complication into this country's implementation of Community rules and legislation. This question of proportionality—choosing the lightest type of action compatible with objectives—is very important.
      Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as the Attorney-General is with him.
      Is not the nub of the problem the fact that, in this treaty, there is no separation of powers whatsoever and that, therefore, we do not know what subsidiarity applies to, outside the very extensive area of exclusive competence? Even in the case of the mixed area, to which the Foreign Secretary has just referred, we have the words
      "where the scale or effects of the proposed action can be better achieved by the Community".
      But as the action is being proposed by the Council or the Commission collectively, surely it is a matter of pure conjecture whether what is desired could he achieved better collectively at Community level or at national level. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has said, surely that is a matter of political faith or belief.
      Mr. Hurd: That is why, in a few minutes' time, I shall come to what is actually happening. At the moment there is not a legal obligation. What is being provided for is political action—a matter to which I shall come as it bears on the hon. Gentleman's point.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The Foreign Secretary is quite right not to oversell article 3b. At the end of the day, there is not all that much to sell. The third paragraph, to which he has just referred, deals with proportionality. That doctrine has been developed by the court over the past 20 years or more. There is nothing new about the third paragraph. It is about proportionality in action.
      Mr. Hurd: What is new is that the position is clearly stated in the treaty. Also new are the steps that are being taken to implement. This is the result of the change that is taking place inside the Community. I shall give some examples in a minute.
      Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend has quoted copiously from the Edinburgh declaration. He took issue with my assertion that subsidiarity could be used to expand the legal competence of the Community. The Edinburgh declaration says:
      "Subsidiarity is a dynamic concept and should be applied in the light of the objectives set out in the treaty."
      It allows Community action to be expanded where circumstances permit.
      Mr. Hurd: Let my hon. Friend continue to quote.
      Mr. Jenkin: The declaration goes on to say that there may be delegation downwards, but that does not alter legal competence, which means that the Community, once it has the legal competence, cannot give it up.
      Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend quotes, he ought to quote in full. The balance of the whole sentence, the second part of which he has indirectly quoted sotto voce, completely alters the thrust of his argument.
      The three questions that are raised and dealt with in article 3b are the article's essence. This is a legally binding provision requiring that whichever of the questions apply should be answered satisfactorily for all proposals for Community action. It is binding in the first instance upon

      1157
      the EC institutions engaged in the legislative process—the Commission as it proposes; the European Parliament as it is consulted and suggests amendments; and the Council as it decides.
      As with other provisions of the treaty, the ultimate arbiter in case of dispute about whether the principle has been complied with will be the European Court of Justice. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was perfectly correct in answering a question from the right hon. Member for Llanelli about the ability of an individual to have recourse to the court if he feels that he is directly concerned by the decision in question.
      Much has been made of the apparent difficulties that the court may encounter in interpreting this provision. In this debate, lawyers have been quoted. I should like to refer hon. Members to the answer given by the Lord Chancellor in another place on 8 July last year. The noble and learned Lord said that he believed that the principle was
      "perfectly enforceable by the European Court of Justice, as it enforces other principles of general application.'—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 1992; Vol. 538, c. 1140.]
      The court takes notice of the purposive character of Community provisions. Once the treaty has been ratified, article 3b will be in it. It will be a powerful expression of the purpose and intentions of the treaty—to reduce the scale and intensity of legislation.
      In the past, all the signposts put up by member states have encouraged the court down the path of centralisation. Article 3b is different; it points the Community and the court in a different direction. Member states have made a conscious shift of direction and the court cannot, and I am sure will not, ignore that.
      Those who say that the court simply implements the treaty have to accept that once the treaty is ratified—not now, when we deal only with the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, but when the treaty of Maastricht is ratified—the court will have a signpost in a different direction. That is the crucial point for those who have difficulties about the court.
      I do not believe that it is the court that will be crucial. The court is there and it will be the legal underpinning for subsidiarity. But, if it were constantly invoked, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli, I think, said, the principle would not be working properly. It is a fallback, an underpinning.
      What we have to do, and have begun to do even before the treaty is ratified, is to make this principle a working fact in the life of the Community. If the institutions at which the principle is primarily aimed abide by it, there will not be cause to challenge any Community action as having violated it. That is why we have begun to establish the procedures.
      New procedures were agreed at Edinburgh by the Council to ensure that the subsidiarity aspects of every proposal are fully examined. Any member state will be able, for example, to insist that a proposal which raises issues of subsidiarity should be put on a later Council agenda for a specific debate including those aspects. All new Commission proposals will include justification on grounds of subsidiarity, and that has already begun to happen in practice. So these procedures will provide the
      1158
      focus for a debate in the Council as to whether Community action is really necessary before there is a debate on what form it should take.
      The next question is, what are the tests; what form does this kind of discussion take? The European Council has agreed a set of rigorous criteria to guide the Council in making these decisions. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli that the result of Maastricht is to strengthen the institutions that he mentioned—the bank, the court and the Commission. The body that will be most strengthened by Maastricht is the European Council, because it is the apex, the architrave, of the three pillars. The foreign affairs pillar and the home affairs pillar have nothing to do with the Community, or the monopoly of the Commission, or the court. This is a side issue, but the right hon. Gentleman raised it, and I believe that it is the European Council, representing the Heads of State or Government, that will be the chief gainer from Maastricht.
      I come back to the criteria to guide the Council in making these decisions. When there is a choice between Community and national action, the judgment will be made against such criteria as whether there is a significant cross-order effect; can the objective proposed be sufficiently met by national action alone; are there economies of scale involved; would the absence of Community action damage member states' interests, for example, by distorting the level playing field and giving competitive advantage?
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Council of Ministers would consider whether there was national or Community competence. Who decides that first question? Is it the advisers of the Council who will decide whether there is exclusive competence, because, if there is exclusive competence, subsidiarity does not apply? Who decides whether there is mixed competence—the court?
      Mr. Hurd: In the end it is, of course, the court. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that subsidiarity does not apply. The proportionality part of article 3b, the third paragraph, applies right across the field. That is why we specifically had the third sentence of article 3b as a separate paragraph and not as part of the second paragraph. That was a deliberate part of our negotiating stance.
      Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman is putting forward a very reasonable and reasoned argument, but I put to him a question which he rather dodged and which was put to him a bit earlier. Does not the whole balance of the argument about the tendency to centralise, as opposed to what he would like to see—the tendency to decentralise —crucially rest upon whether there is to be a central European bank and economic and monetary union? His only defence against that so far has been to say that there is an opt-out protocol, but does he not agree, in his judgment of the balance of the treaty, that, if we do not exercise that opt-out protocol, it is clearly a centralising measure?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Hurd: Certainly, if there are not several banks and several currencies, it is a centralising measure; I do not think that that can be refuted. But, as I say, that would be

      1159
      relevant to the House of Commons if and when there was a proposition before it that we should adhere to and adopt a single bank and a single currency.
      Even when it is accepted on these and other criteria that the Community should act, it is also agreed—this is following the proportionality point—that the Community should not do any more than is required to address the problem, that is the last paragraph of article 3b. Here again, criteria were agreed, including, for example, that measures proposed should minimise financial and administrative burdens on member states and leave as much scope as possible for national action, and that there should be a preference for setting a minimum standard rather than for harmonising across the Community.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: On proportionality, is it possible that the interpretation of the amount of proportionality that should apply should in some cases be nil, so that it would not be a case that should be dealt with by the Commission, but one that should be left to the nation states? Is that a legal possibility?
      Mr. Hurd: It is a legal possibility, of course. There are areas, such as agriculture, which are exclusive competence, but there are all kinds of agricultural matters which are dealt with by nation states, and I think always will be, under the doctrine of proportionality.
      There has been a lot of questioning on the commitment of the Commission to this principle. I believe that, no doubt reaching the conclusion by its own intellectual route, it now take this principle very seriously indeed. Early in 1992, the Commission's annual work programme said:
      "If a success is to be made of Maastricht and the Single Market, the Commission will have to comply fully with the principle of subsidiarity. Indeed, its future existence depends on this. Beginning in 1992 the Commission, working with the other institutions, will have to establish how subsidiarity is to operate and devise procedures to ensure that no attempt is made to regulate matters that are best dealt with at national level and to avoid a surfeit of legislation."
      Those are not just words; this has happened to the extent that, whereas in 1990 there were 162 legislative proposals from the Commission and in 1991 there were 145, in 1992 118 were planned, but only 50 actually came forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) has already made this point. This shows that there has been a very sharp falling off of the volume of legislation coming out of the Commission for consideration by the Council.
      Mr. Marlow: Is it just possible that less legislation came out of the Commission last year because it is waiting for ratification, and that once ratification takes place there will be a rush of directives, regulations and other issues by the Commission?
      Will my right hon. Friend address himself to the point in the guidelines that subsidiarity is said not to apply if any member state takes action which conflicts with the principle of cohesion? Is that not a fairly powerful area? Does it not mean that a lot of things that we might wish to do in the United Kingdom could be taken as interfering with social cohesion in the Community and therefore as matters not for subsidiarity but for regulation and legislation at the European level?
      Will my right hon. Friend come back to the point which
      1160
      I made earlier about the 48-hour week? Under the principle of subsidiarity, is that a decision that we would be able to make in this country, in the House of Commons,
      Mr. Hurd: It may well become a matter for the European Court to decide whether the working time directive is ultra vires. It has nothing to do with the treaty of Maastricht. I will come back to that point in a moment, because I believe that it underlines a weakness in my hon. Friend's position.
      The hon. Member for Hamilton said that we must try to work out a flexible method by which subsidiarity can be taken out of the statute books and made to work in political practice. Exactly.
      That is why the Commission was asked to produce, by the end of this year, a full review both of pending proposals and of existing legislation, with suggestions for amendment or even repeal on grounds of subsidiarity. At Edinburgh, it produced the first fruits of the exercise. For example, it accepted that environmental legislation needs to be simplified and updated, in particular, directives on air and water.
      On agriculture, the Commission will give more responsibility to national authorities for applying Community legislation. A proposal for the regulation of zoos will be scrapped. The bathing water directive will be revised, and many similar irritating, bureaucratic directives on food will go. That is relevant to the news that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) reported from the European Parliament today.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend please address the point that I made about air service agreements?
      Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend made a cogent and prolonged argument on that point. I shall come back to him on it rather than answer off the cuff.
      The Commission, in action and in words, has shown that it is conscious of the need to legislate by setting minimum requirements rather than resorting to heavy-handed harmonisation across the board.
      That is only the beginning. It is not enough for the Commission to act in that way, although it has to do so. Member states should also come forward with their own idea of where proposals and existing legislation might fail the subsidiarity test, and during our presidency we encouraged them to do so. We are doing that.
      The proposal for European works councils, for example, seeks to impose a uniform system for informing and consulting workers. The British ask why that is better accomplished at a European level rather than being left for member states to adapt their procedures to national and local conditions.
      Measures relating to speed limits and alcohol levels in drivers' blood are two other ideas which we believe and which we are pressing should be abandoned forthwith on subsidiarity grounds. We shall maintain pressure on those and other proposals in the months ahead.
      This is not a paper or a theoretical exercise. The Community—no doubt not with the speed that we would wish—is turning that principle into a political operating fact even before it is a legal obligation.
      Mr. Michael Lord: I am sorry to have to take my right hon. Friend back briefly to a point that was made a few moments ago. I think that he conceded

      1161
      that the idea of a single currency and a central bank made the treaty a centralising treaty for those people who sign up for that. Does that therefore mean that this is a centralising treaty for 11 nations but not for us?
      Mr. Hurd: I was asked about that aspect of the treaty, not all the other aspects on which the Committee has spent so much time.
      I was asked about the proposal for a single bank and a single currency. Obviously, by definition, if one has a single bank and a single currency, one does not have several banks and several currencies and therefore one does not have several monetary centres.
      The Community has to decide whether to do that. We in the House of Commons will, or may eventually, have to decide whether we want to do that. That decision will be taken by the House. It does not affect the general movement in the Community which I have illustrated and, I hope, documented—not just what is proposed in article 3b but what is happening on the ground in the institutions of the Community.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: My right hon. Friend referred to the speed with which subsidiarity is being applied and to a proposal on the conditions in which animals are kept in zoos, but even that has not yet been agreed. Can he confirm that the only three directives that have been withdrawn are one on the compulsory indication of nutritional values on packaged foods and two on radio frequencies? With due respect, that is not exactly the white-hot heat of politics. Some of us fear that it must be left to national Parliaments to decide what powers they wish to give away, not vice versa.
      Mr. Hurd: It is for national Parliaments and Governments to decide what powers they yield to the Community. My hon. Friend is right. He is also right to be impatient at the pace of change. As I have said, we are constantly pressing for that to be accelerated. What we had at Edinburgh was the first fruits, but the first fruits before the treaty was ratified, before the Commission was under any legal obligation. It has begun to act.
      I agree that the speed with which the Commission is acting is too slow, but my hon. Friend has shown, even in his small examples, that those are movements in the right direction, not movements in the direction which is constantly prophesied and feared in the House of Commons. All right, it is a slow movement, it is only the beginning, it is only the first roots, but it is happening. It is not a myth, and it should be the instinct and interest of the House to encourage and develop it.
      Mr. Marlow: The point of the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is that the power to decide on the speed of the move towards subsidiarity is in the hands, not of the House of Commons, but of the European institutions. At the moment, we are waiting on potential ratification. Does my right hon. Friend really think that, once that is out of the way, the European institutions will surrender their powers back to this House?
      Mr. Hurd: They are going to. The powers are those that have been granted previously or now by national Governments. How they are used is what subsidiarity is principally about. I have illustrated the change that is
      1162
      happening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) documented. It is in our interests to move that forward.
      I pause for a moment on the attitude of those who criticise the clause, the Bill, the treaty. There are some in all parts of the Committee who have, throughout, opposed our membership of the Community and would like us to withdraw now. I see them around me in different places. That would be disastrous, whether for Britain's prosperity or for its place in the world, but at least that is a logical and understandable position, which has been sustained by some right hon. and hon. Members for many years.
      What to me is far less understandable and lacks logic is the stance of those who are in favour of our membership of the Community but against the clause, against the Bill and against the treaty. Where would they end us up? We would have torn up a treaty which, with the approval of the House, the Government had signed. We would thus, I promise the House, have robbed ourselves for a number of years of any effective influence in the future of the Community to which we would continue to belong.
      We would be left with a treaty of Rome and the commitment to the ever closer union of peoples. We would be left with a whole system of Community law, which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North and many others have criticised. We would be left with the monopoly of initiative of the Commission in all areas of Community competence. We would be left with the jurisdiction of the European Court. We would be left with the argument about the working-time directive. That would not be altered in any way. We would be left with article 235 and the possibility of the extension of competence. All that would remain if we remained in the Community but rejected the treaty.
      We would have lost the possibilities of subsidiarity, which I hope that I have documented, we would have lost the exclusions in article L of the role of the European Court from the areas of the pillars for foreign and security policy and home affairs matters. We would have lost for the foreseeable future any possibility of enlarging the Community. We would be left with all the things which so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members most dislike and most criticise.
      We would be left with those aspects of Community life on which hon. Members base their criticism of the treaty, although they are the result of existing treaties and obligations. We would have lost our influence in Europe and the hopeful aspects of the Maastricht treaty and, in particular, of article 3b. I cannot imagine a more feeble and foolish posture.
      Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would also be left with free access to the single European market?
      Mr. Hurd: Yes, of course—policed by the Commission with all the difficulties and all the arguments about regulations and directives. We would be left with the single market and all the associated structure of Community law. My right hon. and hon. Friends have sat through many of these debates and they will know that so much of the criticism is based on the existing structure. That is what has turned many people—understandably—against the Community and its works, but that is not an argument for refusing to ratify the treaty.

      1163
      It is an argument for moving forward. That is what the House of Commons and this country ought to do. The debate is not over. I am not claiming that it is over in Europe, in our favour. There are different views in Europe about the future development of the Community. That is inevitable.
      7 pm
      The member states are a heterogeneous bunch, seeking to protect different interests. There has long been a view of the Community as a system of centralised institutions, with responsibility for all fields of policy. That 'view has now been checked. It is checked by the structure of the treaty, by the pillars and by this article. I am convinced that we should now, whether we are talking as a party, as a Government, as a House of Commons, or as a country, ratify the treaty and move on, working out for ourselves our own ideas as a country which we should put to the next conference, to the next set of discussions with, I hope, an enlarged Community, ideas that we put forward positively, and not simply react to those of other people. They would be ideas based on what most people in this House want—an open, expanding, free-trading, decentralising Community.
      That can be built only on the basis of this treaty and on the principle of subsidiarity.
      Mr. Barnes: The Secretary of State made an interesting distinction between the three paragraphs in article 3b. He described the first as setting out action that could be taken on a legal base. Could action be taken? Secondly, should it be taken? Thirdly, in the paragraph on proportionality, how much action should be taken?
      In an intervention, I asked the Secretary of State whether it would be possible for no action to be taken on proportionality at all, even though the Community could act according to the provision in the first paragraph. If that is the case, the second paragraph which contains the term "subsidiarity" is unnecessary, because the nil proportion is something that could apply from the third paragraph.
      I ask hon. Members to look at amendment No. 340, which does not seek the deletion of the—[interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but there are far too many private conversations going on. If people wish to engage in those, they should leave the Chamber.
      Mr. Barnes: I do not seek to delete the entire article, but only the second paragraph, which applies to subsidiarity. From the position that was put forward by the Secretary of State, logically the second paragraph is unnecessary and counter-productive. It is important that we should have an understanding, which we do not have from this debate, of what subsidiarity is, its full definition and how it is to apply.
      I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which has now received a letter from the Leader of the House stating that in future all measures coming before us on regulations and directives will contain a paragraph on subsidiarity. The Government will be putting it to us whether measures meet or do not meet the provisions on subsidiarity. On that Committee, we need to be in the position to judge whether the paragraphs being
      1164
      put forward meet the criteria which, it is argued, are now being adopted by the Commission and other areas of the Community institutions.
      Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman, who sits with me on the European Legislation Committee, recall that we already have these paragraphs in the reports presented to us, but that they say nothing, other than the assertion that, in the opinion of those who have prepared them—Ministers—in that particular instance the situation falls within the subsidiarity rule? It is a meaningless exercise and does not get us anywhere.
      Mr. Barnes: I agree that it is a meaningless exercise. All it is at most, even though it is more detailed, is a retionalisation of a decision already determined by the Commission and in the Government's response to Commission proposals.
      We can continue to have this check list thrown about all over the place, but all it will do is reinforce decisions that would have been made in any case. It seems that we should have been having the subsidiarity provisions throughout the time the Select Committee has been operating, because what is said in the letter that was read out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Denzil Davies) is that, for 40 years, the principle of subsidiarity is one on which the Community is supposed to have been acting.
      This debate follows a debate that we had on the institutions. The two are related. I argued in the debate on the institutions that the institutions of the Community which were developed, especially from Maastricht, were undemocratic, centralised and highly bureaucratic and were leading us down the road to a unitary state or a state of the institutions.
      It is often argued now on subsidiarity that there might be something in that when related to the institutions, but that it is all okay because there is the sacred principle of subsidiarity which now begins to correct all that and means that the tendencies contained within the institutions can somehow be overcome by applying this notion. It will restore democracy; it operates forms of decentralisation; it tackles over-bureaucracy; and begins to return areas of sovereignty to nations.
      If it is a concept like that, it is highly important and significant. If it were to be so, it would have to be a constitutional and legal notion and not merely a social and philosophical set of ideas with some possibility that it might operate in the future. We should have to tie things down in that area. That would run contrary to the arrangements contained within the institutions with terms in legal and constitutional provisions that take us in the opposite direction.
      We are faced with a notion which is nonsense and meaningless; it sounds as though it is saying something, but it is intended to mean different things to different people. There is no way in which the terms contained in it can be effectively checked in any area.
      There is a principle in philosophy called verification, by which one seeks to verify what has been said in different areas. How can one verify the correctness of subsidiarity and whether it is applied in a particular area? Anyone can agree or disagree that it is applied. It is merely the wildest form of value judgment to say that it is operating.
      Mr. Spearing: Is not that wholly borne out by the words of the article? While in a court of law one verifies what has happened or what is, the essence of subsidiarity, as defined

      1165
      or attempted to be defined, is that one is trying to look into the future and come to some conclusion about which way the dice will fall. That is almost impossible in the modern world.
      Mr. Barnes: That is an extra aspect to the points I am making—what is being applied to developments and progress in the future. It is not merely a judgment of what a set situation is, which is what people would normally be trying to apply when they were operating laws.
      It would be nonsense to have a measure before us containing the concept of subsidiarity. Many Scottish and Welsh Members have argued strongly to have the principle of subsidiarity applied in the United Kingdom. If that notion is meaningless for the whole of Europe, including this nation and its links, it is nonsense to operate within this system. We would find ourselves in the most difficult arrangements if we had in front of us a measure affecting Scotland, for instance, which included this term. It is a value-laden notion that we would not normally be concerned with in constitutional and legal matters.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman seems to be treading on thin ice. The House constantly trades in exactly the kind of concept which he is vilifying because it is difficult to verify. The word "devolution" is but one example of such a concept. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out how this arguable concept might apply in practice. That made it much more tangible than the hon. Gentleman is arguing it to be.
      Mr. Barnes: I agree that we deal with matters in which value judgments come to the fore. In legislation we often have the word "reasonable", and there is much argument about whether the word should be included, or whether we should be more precise. In regard to devolution, if there is not a clear definition problems would emerge in various areas. Things change according to changes of degree. If a term is so shot through with value considerations that it cannot be cashed in, we are in serious difficulty in dealing with legislation. Of course, we can put anything we want, however nonsensical, in a Bill, but we may find ourselves in considerable difficulty in carrying out the law.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that devolution means all things to all people, particularly in Scotland, where there are so many ideas, including the declaration of Perth to which I listened a long time ago? It is all a question of who is talking about it, when, what they are talking about, and what it means to them.
      Mr. Barnes: Legislation would have to spell out exactly how devolution was to apply. In regard to Northern Ireland, we would have to establish in the legislation whether there was to be a parliament in Northern Ireland and whether a Bill of Rights was to be associated with it.
      Recently I introduced the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill. I went through it word by word to see whether it included anything of a value nature which was anywhere near the concept of subsidiarity. Nothing begins to approach it. There is a reference to access for disabled people and various audits being done, as well as terms which begin to nudge near value judgment considerations, but there is nothing as sweeping as the provision with which we are dealing, which involves all the nations in the
      1166
      European Community. We should not have to deal with nonsensical provisions. That is why I want to delete the term.
      Never have so many hopes been based upon such a flimsy and inadequate concept. Maastricht tells us that subsidiarity means that the Community is only allowed to act when member states cannot officially achieve a Community objective and that this is better achieved by the Community itself, provided that the European treaties do not already give the Community exclusive competence in the areas concerned. The exclusive competence area expands and grows all the time. There is exclusive competence in regard to the common agricultural policy. Last night we voted on a measure which added the potato regime to the CAP. So competence in that area has been extended very recently.
      7.15 pm
      Who is to judge when conditions of subsidiarity apply? None other than the self-same institutions to which I have referred and which were discussed in earlier debates—the Commission, the Council of Ministers and perhaps, if it can find a way in by consultative processes, the European Parliament, which is mentioned very little in any of these discussions. There is a great democratic deficit in Europe which should be before us all the time.
      In cases of dispute, the European Court might be called in to make a judgment, but its judgments will be purely arbitrary because it will have merely the undefined principle of subsidiarity before it. We have the agreement made by the heads of state at Edinburgh and the document which has been quoted from at length in our debates. But those are not part of the Maastricht treaty. Nor does the treaty contain provisions acceptable in international law which would have some feedback into arrangements under the treaty.
      Nobody has suggested the use of mechanisms to ensure that those provisions are added to the treaty. In the end we have little legal guidance about how this vague, obscure motion is to be dealt with, yet, when judges make decisions, those decisions will be constitutional and should be made under the provisions of the treaty. They will be of such significance that they should be acted upon only if adopted by referendums in all the member states.
      The recent European Council meeting of Heads of State at Edinburgh attempted to elaborate on subsidiarity. Far from deciding to devolve powers to national or regional levels throughout Europe, they stressed the centralising nature of subsidiarity. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) quoted at length from the document that was agreed at Edinburgh. We should be fully aware of its contents.
      The centralising aspects of the provisions in the document are considerable. It states that it
      "cannot call into question powers conferred on the EC by the Treaty",
      as several hon. Members have mentioned. It says that it shall
      "not affect the primacy of Community law nor call into question…(that) the union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
      It continues:
      "it allows Community action to be expanded where circumstances require".
      Someone will have to judge what the circumstances are which will allow the area to be expanded. It also says:

      1167
      "the more specific the nature of a treaty requirement, I he less scope exists for applying subsidiarity".
      Let us consider the documents in front of us. There are many areas in which there are specific requirements. Yet subsidiarity cannot apply to any of those areas. In the end subsidiarity is to be no more than an item on a checklist. It is like the plaque which some people have on their walls saying that everything is well in the home. It is compatible with what is happening in the home, where everything is peaceful, and we expect it to influence behaviour. There are similarities with the principle of goodness. We are all in favour of goodness, but its definition occupies some people for considerable periods of their lives. Subsidiarity is a moral and philosophical notion that has been given no legal or constitutional application in the Maastricht treaty. It means whatever the institutions of the Community wish it to mean.
      We must contrast that with the concept of federalism. A form of federalism that was democratic would define the different areas in which the federal and nation states would be involved. We are bound to wonder whether we are being offered federalism by the notion of subsidiarity. In other words, are we engaged in a development towards federalism? Is it a subterfuge or con trick designed to move us towards federalism? I would like to see the establishment of a democratic federal Europe with, among other things, a social agenda, but I do not want a half-federal arrangement creeping in without the necessary democratic institutions.
      Constitutional documents must contain terms that are clear, precise, open and democratic. After all, a number of alternatives could be adopted in developing collective arrangements. Nations could come together in voluntary co-operation under general treaties from which departures could be made at later stages, nations could move into a unitary system in which they surrendered their sovereignty entirely, or nations could move into a federal or confederal arrangement.

      The only other possibility would be a mixture of those alternatives. Is it suggested that the European Community will be such a mixture, with some areas of exclusive competence representing unitary provisions, with areas outside involving nation states. In that event, would, say, local government taxation issues be for national parliaments, with other large areas between being covered by mixed competence? We should be told just what are the different areas and what applies to them. We need clear terms defining the principle of federalism which would allow those areas to be divided.
      The Secretary of State said that we were being presented with something entirely new from the point of view of the European Community. Apparently, the traditional concepts of unitary states, federal arrangements and voluntary agreements between nations do not apply because something totally new is being constructed. If so, the details should be spelled out precisely and related to what might be called the old notions, so that we may understand exactly what is being proposed.
      I doubt whether, even though the issue may be examined in general, political, constitutional or democratic terms, there is anything new under the sun. It might be possible, as I say, to arrive at a combination of arrangements. If that is being proposed, the details must be spelled out. We must be sure that any provision containing anything as constitutionally obnoxious as the notion of subsidiarity is defeated.
      Sir David Steel rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:
      The Committee divided: Ayes 34, Noes 289.

      Division No. 193]

      [7.24 pm

      AYES

      Ashton, Joe

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Cann, Jamie

      Parry, Robert

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Cummings, John

      Redmond, Martin

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

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hanson, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Janner, Greville

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Leighton, Ron

      Wise, Audrey

      Livingstone, Ken

      Loyden, Eddie

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Madden, Max

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Mahon, Alice

      Mr. Harry Barnes.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Colvin, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Congdon, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Conway, Derek

      Amess, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Ancram, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Couchman, James

      Ashby, David

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

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Baldry, Tony

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Day, Stephen

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bates, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Booth, Hartley

      Dover, Den

      Boswell, Tim

      Duncan, Alan

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Dunn, Bob

      Bowden, Andrew

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bowis, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Eggar, Tim

      Brazier, Julian

      Elletson, Harold

      Bright, Graham

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Evennett, David

      Burns, Simon

      Faber, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Fabricant, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Forman, Nigel

      Carrington, Matthew

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Forth, Eric

      Churchill, Mr

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Clappison, James

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      1169

      Freeman, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Madel, David

      Gale, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gallie, Phil

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Malone, Gerald

      Garnier, Edward

      Mans, Keith

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Marland, Paul

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gorst, John

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mates, Michael

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hague, William

      Merchant, Piers

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mills, Iain

      Hannam, Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Harris, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hawkins, Nick

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hayes, Jerry

      Needham, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Nelson, Anthony

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hendry, Charles

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hicks, Robert

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Norris, Steve

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Horam, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Paice, James

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

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Redwood, John

      Jack, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Richards, Rod

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Key, Robert

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Sackville, Tom

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

      Shersby, Michael

      Knox, David

      Sims, Roger

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Leigh, Edward

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lidington, David

      Spring, Richard

      Lightbown, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Luff, Peter

      Steen, Anthony

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stephen, Michael

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Stern, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Allan

      MacKay, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Maclean, David

      Sumberg, David

      1170

      Sykes, John

      Ward, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Watts, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Thomason, Roy

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Whitney, Ray

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wigley, Dafydd

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

      Willetts, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Trend, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Trotter, Neville

      Yeo, Tim

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tyler, Paul

      Viggers, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Walden, George

      Mr. Nicholas Baker.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. John Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(except Article 171 on page 46 of Cm. 1934 relating to the European Court of Justice.)'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 228, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 172'.
      No. 329, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert `(except Article 168a on page 46 of Cm. 1934)'.
      No. 330, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert `(except Article 171 on page 46 of Cm. 1934)'.
      No. 331, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert `(except Article 172 on page 46 of Cm. 1934)'.
      No. 411, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert '(except Articles 32, 32(d) and 33 on pages 64 and 65 of Cm. 1934)'.
      No. 416, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert '(except Articles 137, 140a, 143 and 146 on pages 73 and 74 of Cm. 1934)'.
      No. 152, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert `but not Article 143 in Title IV thereof'.
      Mr. Morris rose—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please leave quickly and quietly? The noise that they are making is very discourteous to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who has the floor.
      Mr. Morris: Amendment No. 32 is a probing amendment, but a number of questions arise from it. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are concerned about the powers of the European Court, and about the way in which it exercises those powers. We must give careful consideration to any transfer of power from elected representatives to the judiciary in Europe, which is not elected. We must also give careful consideration to any increase in power, including the power to impose penalties.
      The test is this: is such action necessary, and is the present system deficient? Does the proposed remedy meet any deficiency in the system? Are there any disadvantages? The European Court makes important decisions; when additional powers are sought for it, we must examine them carefully—given, that is, that my basis premise is valid —and decide whether Europe, and the United Kingdom as part of Europe, will be better off at the end of the day.

      1171
      Perhaps the Minister can tell us something of the philosophy of the European Court. Is it an interpretative court, maintaining the status quo and defining situations as they arise? Or does its track record suggest that it is an innovative court? Will it lead to centralisation?
      I listened with interest to the last few minutes of the debate on subsidiarity. In due course, the European Court may have to interpret that difficult concept; that, too, will be interesting. Eminent lawyers have given very different views. If the matter became the cause of litigation, I fear that we should have to wait for an interpretation of that important concept, which is of interest to us all. Only a few moments ago, the Foreign Secretary said that the signposts are now pointing in a different direction. If he is right, it would he interesting to anticipate or perhaps hear the Minister of State's views about how the court might interpret those signposts.
      When the court began its operations, and with the coming of the Single European Act, there was concern about whether it would operate on the basis of judicial restraint, or whether its aim would be further to strengthen the Community legal order. Early in 1991, the learned editors of the Common Market Law Review said:
      "Some time ago the thought was widespread that the coming into force of the Single European Act would more or less coincide with the onset of a period of judicial restraint on the part of the Court of Justice. It was thought unlikely that the Court could continue to hand down judgments of major institutional importance. Would the Court not be overstepping the limits of its authority if it were to take decisions which were liable to further strengthen the Community legal order, e.g. by specifying the effects which Community provisions must have within the national legal order and by identifying the type of judicial remedies and procedures which the national legal order must make available to private individuals in order to secure 'the useful effect of the direct effect' of the Community provisions?"
      Since 1991, and the coming of the Single European Act, I wonder whether that prophecy has been fulfilled. Is there judicial restraint, or is the court an innovative court? Perhaps the Minister of State might tell us something about the philosophy of the court so that we can judge the proposal to give it additional powers.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In the light of what the shadow Attorney-General has been saying, am I right in thinking that we should have a response not from the Minister of State but from the Attorney-General? It seems incongruous for a Minister to give opinions on a matter such as the Court of Justice, which is of great legal importance, in which he has absolutely no competence.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am looking forward to the day when I can deal with a genuine point of order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Morris: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) follows these matters very closely. We have the benefit of the presence of the Attorney-General as well as having the wise words of the Minister of State. We were all encouraged by his remarks on 20 January and further encouraged by the Attorney-General's remarks some weeks later. If we add the two lots of encouragement together, and take into account the fact that they are both present in the same place and sitting on one and the same Bench, I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed. We may have one contribution from the
      1172
      Minister and another from the Attorney-General, although I cannot guarantee that they will be of the same order or along the same lines. There is plenty of time.
      Mr. Cash: In the light of the experience that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just described, does he agree that it is rather like the case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking-Glass"?
      Mr. Morris: I have been a Member of this House for a while and I should not want to be so offensive as to describe two distinguished Members, who approach matters from a different legal standpoint, in that way. However, the hon. Gentleman made a very good point— not the last point but the previous one. I am sure that we shall hear the Minister's advice based, as he told me in answer to a parliamentary question only a week ago, on the authority of his legal advisers because he consults them before he—
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now.
      Mr. Morris: Well, he did on 20 January. I asked him a week or so ago, and on a Friday he gave me an answer to my question as to whether he had consulted his legal advisers. His short answer was yes. On that basis, I rely on him. [Interruption.] I am being diverted from the main tack of my speech and being seduced by hon. Members of both parties. I must restrain myself or I shall be out of order.
      7.45 pm
      The new article 171 states:
      "If the Court of Justice finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the … Court of Justice."
      It is now sought to give additional obligations to that requirement by providing that if the defaulting state fails to comply with the judgment of the Court, the Commission shall, after giving the defaulting state
      "an opportunity to submit its observations, issue a reasoned opinion"
      setting out the points on which the defaulting state has failed to comply. I do not think that anyone could seriously quarrel with that. It is part of the principle of our courts that before reaching decisions, we should give reasons for them. Indeed, there has been a growing tradition for that to be done.
      Secondly, under the new proposal, it is suggested that the Commission have a power to bring a defaulting state back before the court with a recommendation that it pay a specified
      "lump sum or penalty payment".
      The Committee will want to study that suggestion very carefully. In addition, the court is granted the power to impose such a lump sum or penalty payment on the defaulting state.
      It could perhaps have been explained in fewer words than used in the two separate paragraphs, but we must take them as they stand: they provide the power to bring the state back to the court and then to impose the penalty.
      We want the help of the Minister and, in due course, that of the Attorney-General on this issue, because the new proposal gives the court some teeth by substituting more precise powers for the words
      "to take the necessary measures".

      1173
      If one accepts the principle of the European Court having jurisdiction to adjudicate on European matters, there is clearly a strong argument for such a provision to ensure that there is a better and more precise power of enforcement than that provided by the ambiguous words "necessary measures". Those words do not appeal to me, because they are far too open-ended and not sufficiently precise.
      The Committee would be glad to hear why the new power is necessary. That is of the utmost importance. How did the existing powers fail? It is interesting that actions under article 170, by which one member state can bring proceedings against another member state for failure to fulfil an obligation, are rare. There has been only one notable case, which involved France and the United Kingdom in a dispute over the size of fishing net mesh. The United Kingdom was found to be in breach of treaty obligations by the Commission. France took the case to the European Court, which upheld the Commission's opinion.
      Article 170 has tended to be used as a threat rather than as a means of vindication, thus avoiding major confrontations between member states. In the section "The Contentious Jurisdiction of the Court" in "Law and Institutions of the European Communities", the learned authors, Messrs Lasok and Bridge said:
      "in the last analysis the success of the Communities depends upon the good faith of member states. A member state's failure to implement a judgment given against it would also be likely to have an unfavourable political effect on its relations with its fellow members."
      Against the background of the reliance on good faith in the past, one is intrigued by the words:
      "One of the innovations of the Maastricht Treaty would be to give the ECJ the right to fine member states for Treaty infringements, a sanction the court has hitherto not been able to apply."
      Unhappily, the cases in which member states generally—I said that the United Kingdom is not among them—failed to comply in the correct way are not isolated incidents. In 1990, which is the last date I have, the number of court judgments with which member states failed to comply was 83. In 1989, it was 82. Most cases involved failure to transpose Community directives. More than a third of the cases—33—involved Italy. Perhaps that may be an indication of something. It may be an indication of why this specific provision is required.
      Is this additional provision—or these new teeth—necessary because of countries such as Italy? What level of lump sum or penalty is envisaged? There may be other cases in which judgments were made against us, but that one has been drawn to my attention. I am not aware of any failure on our part to comply. I suspect that the United Kingdom is one of the most diligent countries in the European Community.
      Given our history of compliance with the court's judgments, what will be the likely exposure of the United Kingdom to such penalties? That may be an unfair question to ask the Minister. I anticipate that we might be in difficulty. There must have been a great deal of consideration before adoption of that part of the treaty dealing with the level of punishment which is envisaged.
      The court has a useful function in resolving uncertainties. In view of the court's interpretative role and its powers of interpretation by way of preliminary advice, and in view of amendment No. 27—which we have spent a great deal of time debating in Committee—I wonder
      1174
      whether, if there continues to be uncertainty between the eminent legal advisers who are advising the Minister and the Attorney-General, it might be useful for the Government to refer such a matter to the court.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously studied this matter carefully, can he tell us whether any guidance is given to the court in article 171 as to the factors that it should take into account in assessing what might be an appropriate fine? Is any guidance given to the judges, or will they simply have to take pot luck?
      Is any guidance given in article 170 as to what the court can do when a member state such as Italy, which is a free country in such matters, decides not to pay the fine? I am confused and I would appreciate it if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could explain it to me.
      Mr. Morris: Fortunately, I do not have to advise the hon. Gentleman on the Government's views. I am sure that his point will have been heard by them. I suspect that the court will have only the provisions which deal with the setting up of the court itself. If there are other political factors of either a centralising or non-centralising nature, the Committee will be interested in them. I share the hon. Gentleman's curiosity.
      If political influences are to be brought to bear on the court, it is necessary for us to consider the new powers. Against that background, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. It is not for me to clarify his curiosity. He has a second point which I have forgotten—I have not been a Minister for some years.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: One of my hon. Friends who knows about these matters—the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is one of those clever people —told me that the clause simply said that the court should impose fines which it considered appropriate. There was no guidance as to how the court should make that up—whether it should consider damage, political threat or whatever. I do not know whether any other court in the world has such a power. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can tell me whether it is a case for establishing a court which will simply determine fines on the basis of what it considers appropriate.
      What guidance is contained in the treaty as to what the court, the European Community, or indeed, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs can do if a country does not pay the fine?
      Mr. Morris: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not remembering his second point. I am not interpreting the treaty, but I shall add my voice to his concern. It would appear that the authority to impose a fine is unlimited.
      The hon. Gentleman should read article 172, which I shall come to later. I want to have the advice of the Minister and the Attorney-General on the words
      "unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the penalties".
      I am sure that we will receive advice on that. If I am wrong in my interpretation, or if the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is wrong, it will be a great pleasure for him to hear from the Minister that there is a limit to the powers.
      On my reading of the article—I am not advising the Committee, but querying the provision—it seems that the court will have the power simply to impose lump sums or penalty payments which are regarded as appropriate in the circumstances. When articles 171 and 172 are coupled

      1175
      together, jurisdiction is certainly "unlimited" with regard to the penalties. I wonder what jurisdiction means in that context.
      Mr. Budgen: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give his opinion about what would happen if a member state refused to pay the fine imposed? Would there be a system, which might be described as a sort of European attachment of earnings order, by which money would go out in some other fund for—shall we say for argument's sake—a well ordered, stable country such as Italy? Let us say, for argument's sake, that Italy said specifically that it felt that it would not pay the fines but, naturally, wanted to receive the tiny subventions which are so generously and willingly given to it. Will there be a system by which the court will be able to say that, if the member state will not pay the money directly, it will deduct the fine out of the country's subsidy, the regional fund or whatever? Will that be possible?
      Mr. Morris: I am always delighted to give advice to hon. Members.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: How much do you charge?
      Mr. Morris: I would prefer it if I could charge but I cannot, I fear, in the circumstances. That is my personal regret. It matters not for the moment.
      Mr. Skinner: Is it still guineas?
      Mr. Morris: No. We are operating under the metric system.
      It appears to me that there is no legal power of enforcement. There is certainly nothing similar to what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) thought of in his wildest moments as an attachment of earnings order. There are no court bailiffs or periods of imprisonment in default. The political will of the other countries would have to bring to bear whatever pressure they could on the defaulting country. In the treaty there does not appear to be any machinery for enforcement.
      8 pm
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Morris: I will give way to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in a moment. I ask hon. Gentlemen to restrain themselves because otherwise I shall find myself replying on behalf of the Minister. I noticed one of my colleagues doing that in the previous debate and I do not intend to tread along that path.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I am interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view on unlimited fines. Let us take the example of Welsh lamb. Let us suppose hypothetically that the French Government decided not to allow imports of Welsh lamb into France, heaven forfend. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying from the Labour Front Bench that fines should be limited in such a case? Or does he agree with me that the court should have the power to fine on an unlimited basis so that Welsh sheep producers were entitled to see the French Government pay compensation?
      Mr. Morris: As the son of a Welsh sheep farmer and the brother of more than one Welsh sheep farmer, I must declare an interest. I am simply asking the questions which the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting in his own way.
      1176
      Whether the penalty is for preventing the import of Welsh lamb or any other product, should we not be worried about the extent of the penalty? We shall now hear from a much better prophet than me, the Minister of State, to be followed by the Attorney-General.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm, for the benefit of the Committee, that it is not uncommon in the United Kingdom, where there is no fixed penalty for an offence, for the fine to be at large? We look to the courts to exercise proportionality in such matters. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been kind enough to tell the Committee that amendment No. 32 is a probing amendment, I would be grateful if he would say whether he regards such an arrangement as appropriate for the European Court, as, indeed, it is for the British courts.
      Mr. Morris: I am sure that the Minister will want to consult about whether it is appropriate with the Attorney-General, who will give a much better view than me.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view?
      Mr. Morris: I am coming to that. If the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, of course I shall tell him.
      Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Morris: No, I am sorry, I cannot. I am replying to the Minister. One at a time.
      Of course—[Interruption.] If the Minister would listen —in our courts we frequently have provision for fines at large. But we have the advantage of knowing what the courts have regarded as reasonable in the past. We have procedures for appeal if the fine is too large. Or indeed, as the Attorney-General will advise the Minister, where the penalty is too lenient the Attorney-General can refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. However, we have the advantage of precedents. We do not have precise precedents for each particular case, but we know how our courts have operated in the past and are likely to operate in the future on the basis of what would be upheld either on appeal by a defendant or on a reference by the Attorney-General.
      However, we are giving a new power to the European Court of Justice to impose a penalty. The only power that it previously had was the power which I have referred to as "necessary measures". We are moving from "necessary measures" to fines and lump sums. There are no precedents for a court which is being given a new power. What discussions took place between the participating countries before the provision was agreed? Or did they come to it blind? If they came to it blind, without any idea what the court would impose, a frank and honest answer —which we expect from the Minister—will help the Committee a great deal. Did the countries come to it blind?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I simply seek to ascertain whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party support this provision in the treaty of Maastricht. The Committee would be interested to know that. I shall certainly give the Government's view when I catch your eye, Mr. Lofthouse.
      Mr. Morris: Obviously—
      Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Morris: No. I have given way a great deal and I am grateful for the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
      I suppose that we shall have to wait for the answer to my question. It may well be some hours. It might have helped the Committee to have a preliminary view from the Foreign Office. If it was wrong, it could be corrected by the Attorney-General later. We would then have the advantage—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view?
      Mr. Morris: If the right hon. Gentleman was listening, as I am sure that he was because he is a courteous gentleman, and if he took me at my word, he will know that I said that amendment No. 32 was a probing amendment to discover the extent of the power and what thought was given to an apparently unlimited power. What were the views of the participating powers or did they come to it blind? When he quotes as a parallel what happens in our country, he must learn that we have a system of precedents in our courts. We know from recent and past history—I hope that it will operate in the same way in future—that we have a machinery for appeal.
      I cannot see any machinery in the treaty for appeal. If a penalty were imposed which was so great as to bankrupt a country, would the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery be willing to see imposed a penalty which might bankrupt a country?
      Mr. Alex Carlile: The right hon. and learned Gentleman gives me the opportunity to reply to him with a good constituency point. The answer to his question, if Montgomeryshire lamb is being burned at Calais harbour, is yes.
      Mr. Morris: Well, we know where the hon. and learned Gentleman stands. I have the utmost sympathy with him about the destruction of any food, and particularly Welsh lamb. He may want to develop that argument. I have asked certain questions and we should be interested in the Minister's advice on that aspect.
      Mr. Skinner: There is a problem here. Let us suppose that a country decides to break the law and the penalty could bankrupt it. Then the learned people in the Common Market get together and say, "Well, we have a problem here. That country is bankrupt already." It is like this country. We have a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement. We are up to our neck in debt. We have a balance of payments deficit. People will say, "We would like to make this Tory Government bankrupt but they have already done it." How do they go on then?
      Mr. Morris: I am not answering on behalf of the Government.
      Mr. Budgen: He should be; he is supporting them.
      Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman should not jump to too many conclusions.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could we go back to the interruption by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who, like me, is not a lawyer? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the people who are
      1178
      appointed from this country—and, indeed, from other countries—are extremely distinguished lawyers? The idea that Judge David Edward or his Scottish predecessor Lord Mackenzie-Stuart would be subject to political pressure is far-fetched. Having had experience of the Court of Human Rights, in a case in which the present Lord Chancellor was counsel, I can say that any political pressure from me or any other body would be dismissed as snash. We would not have dared to do that because it was a formidable operation and it would have been counter-productive. These are impressive people. Is not that part of the answer?
      Mr. Morris: I concur with my hon. Friend. Members of the court are extremely distinguished and would do what they could in accordance with their oath. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) put a particular point and I was seduced into answering it. He was not suggesting that members of the judiciary would have their arms twisted but he was asking a serious question about what guidance would be available. My answer was simply that it is not in the treaty.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reassure the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that if a fine were imposed that could bankrupt a country, under the convergence criteria of the Bill that country would be entitled to a substantial grant from the cohesion fund? Will he therefore make it clear that if an excessive fine were imposed a country could get its money back under the cohesion fund?
      Mr. Morris: I shall not pursue that argument. I am sure that you, Mr. Lofthouse, would rule me out of order if I were to do so. That matter can be raised in the debate.
      Amendment No. 228 deals with article 172—an important article that we have already begun to consider. The article contains a curious phrase:
      "Unlimited jurisdiction with regard to penalties"
      I should like the advice of the Attorney-General on this matter. If unlimited penalties could be imposed under the article, it is a draconian measure. What concerns me—this is where we need clarification—is whether article 172, interpreted with article 171, confirms the view that I have expressed that there does not appear to be any power to limit in any shape or form the amount of the lump sum or the penalty. That needs to be justified.
      Article 172 proposes an additional restriction:
      "Regulations adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council … pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty, may give the Court of Justice unlimited jurisdiction."
      8.15 pm
      That introduces the European Parliament for the first time and makes the application of the unlimited jurisdiction dependent on its adoption by both parties, Parliament and the Council. I would find it very difficult to support amendment No. 228, but I know that concern has been expressed and we should be reassured about what "unlimited jurisdiction" means.

      The new article 168a creates a mandatory obligation that a court of first instance shall be created and the Council's power is limited. After consulting the Commission and the European Parliament, and acting unanimously, the Council shall determine the type of case that a court of first instance is to hear, and its constitution.
      Why has a mandatory power been substituted for the existing discretionary power? What has changed? I recall some years ago, if my memory is correct, that the

      1179
      machinery of the European Court was clogged by it having to take up so much of its time resolving domestic disputes arising from the rights, duties and obligations of its employees. Against that background, we should like to know a little more about the court of first instance. If it is the same as the one that is functioning already, perhaps we could be less apprehensive, but it would interest the Committee to learn why this new mandatory power has been substituted and what the background was to the agreement of all the parties.
      I need not comment on amendment No. 330 because it is the same as amendment No. 32; likewise amendment No. 331 is the same as amendment No. 228. Amendment No. 411 proposes that the European Court of Justice should be required to sit in plenary session—attended by all its members—
      "when a Member State or a Community institution is a party to the proceedings".
      It is proposed to add the words:
      "When a party to the procedures requests it to".
      Under existing provisions, it is required to sit in plenary session in such a case regardless of the wishes of the parties. The Committee would like to know why this new requirement has been inserted in the treaty, what caused it, whether there were any specific problems with the operation of the existing article and why it is proposed to come into effect.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman remind me—I am sorry if I did not hear him correctly—which amendment he is referring to?
      Mr. Morris: I am referring, unless the order has changed, to article 32 and to amendment No. 411, which proposes that the court should
      "sit in plenary session when a Member State or a Community institution that is a party to the proceedings"
      requests it. I hope that I have referred to the correct amendment.
      Mr. Garel-Jones indicated assent.
      Mr. Morris: I see that the Minister acknowledges that I have. If that is the case, why was that change made? What was the background?
      I repeat that amendment No. 32 is a probing amendment. I hope that I have not wearied the House unduly by commenting on some of the other amendments. We would be grateful for the Minister's view about these matters.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for making it clear that amendment No. 32 is a probing amendment which has been moved by the Opposition Front Bench to allow us to discuss these important matters.
      Amendment No. 32 seeks to delete from the Bill article 171 of the Maastricht treaty. That article gives the European Court of Justice a new power to impose fines on member states which do not comply with earlier judgments by the court in respect of their carrying out their Community obligations.
      Although the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon has quite legitimately raised several issues, as amendment No. 32 is a probing amendment, I take it that the Opposition are broadly content that article 171 should be included in the treaty. The power in the article is perhaps the most important new power to be given to the European Court of Justice by the Maastricht treaty. That
      1180
      power was given to the court on the initiative of the United Kingdom Government. The provision of that new power for the court is something that we regard as one of our achievements in the Maastricht negotiations.
      It would not be unfair to say that one of the aspects of the European Community that has caused justified anxiety among our citizens and among successive British Governments is that, while as one of the Marx brothers would have said, "Nobody's perfect", the British Government seek internationally, in general, and in the European Community, in particular, to comply as rigorously as we can with our legal obligations.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon was good enough to quote figures to the Committee. Perhaps I can amplify those figures by quoting the number of references to the European Court of Justice between 1987 and 1991. I will not read out the whole list, but Italy heads the list with 87 references. Greece has 52 and Belgium 47. At the bottom of the list there is Portugal with five references, Denmark with eight and the United Kingdom with nine. While I have not worked out the proportion of references bearing in mind the relative sizes of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Portugal, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon was right when he said that United Kingdom Governments, as a general proposition, seek to be diligent in complying with the law.
      There is general agreement, certainly on the Conservative Benches, that the single market and the free trade area that is the European Community matters very much to Britain. If that single market is to succeed, we need to ensure that the European Court of Justice has the ability to enforce that single market. We must ensure that there is a system of justice in the European Community which is capable of enforcing that single market which matters so much to the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: As a matter of interest, can the Minister give us some idea of what the nine referrals, in relation to the United Kingdom, involved?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I cannot provide that information off the cuff. However, if I can provide it after advice before conclude my remarks, I will do so.
      The Committee would expect any United Kingdom Government to behave in the way that I have described. In the list to which I have referred, the United Kingdom has never been taken to the European Court of Justice twice. I regret to say that, on occasions, member states have been taken to the court, have been found to be not in compliance, have not then complied and have been taken to the court once again. Such cases have rightly caused indignation in the House and in Britain as a whole. That is why this most extensive new power for the court was brought forward on a British initiative. We make no apology for that. Indeed, we regard it as one of our achievements in the negotiations that the court should have the new power.
      Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that the term "enforcement" has a special meaning for lawyers. If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, he is saying that there is an additional penalty which is a fine. The problem is that there is no method of enforcement.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: What about Wolverhampton magistrates court?
      Mr. Budgen: For the sake of argument, the European Court of Justice can say to the Italians, "We hereby fine you 3 million ecu." However, there is no reason to suppose that the Italians will be any more willing to hand over 3 million ecu than they have been to disclose the number of olive trees that they possess. The difficulty is that the European institutions have half the pretensions of a state, but they do not have all the means of a state.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: What about an army?
      Mr. Budgen: Exactly. If the Wolverhampton magistrates court, to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has just referred, fines me £1,000 and I do not pay it, in the end a policeman can come and feel my collar and take me to the Wolverhampton magistrates court—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a lengthy intervention which is very nearly a speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of what I have said.
      Mr. Budgen: In the end, the Army can enforce the fine. If I refuse to deal with the police, the Army can be brought in. In the end, the state depends on force. As I was saying to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, those institutions have the pretensions, but not the means, of a state.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that short speech and for the fact that he inadvertently, no doubt impressed by the legal skills that I have already demonstrated to the Committee, described me as his right hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that he would wish that to be corrected. If I may say so mischievously, my hon. Friend has been giving the House the benefit of his views on enforcement in another context. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon also touched on that point and I shall deal with it later in my speech.
      Mr. Dalyell: The mind boggles at the thought of the Shropshire light infantry being sent south to sort out the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—[Interruption.] His own regiment would doubtless not comply. However, it is a serious issue. Can we have a comparison like for like, because neither the figures for Germany nor those for France were given? Either on advice, or from his brief, can the Minister give us the comparisons? Those of us who have experience, albeit of the indirectly elected European Parliament, know that Italy is sui generis and comparisons with France or the Federal Republic might be more relevant.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I did not want to weary the Committee, but I have the figures to hand. They are Italy 87; Greece 52; Belgium 47; France 34; Germany 34; Netherlands 20; Ireland 18; Luxembourg 16; Spain 12; United Kingdom nine; Denmark eight; and Portugal five.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Garet-Jones: I am responding to the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
      The cases against Britain were two cases on the internal market, two cases on environment, three on statistics, one on the customs union and one on employment. I regret that I do not have the details on each individual case.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister give way? Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall make a little progress and then I shall give way.
      The first point that I would seek to establish—I do not think there will be any difference between myself and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon or the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that Britain took the initiative to give the court those powers—is that we feel, not over-boastfully, that we are diligent in seeking to comply with the law. We feel that some member states are perhaps not as diligent as they should be and therefore it is right that the European Court should have the right to back up its judgment with a fine.
      Mr. Marlow: We have a problem with Greece. Europe has a responsibility for trade policy and has decided to take trade sanctions against Serbia to prevent arms, fuel and other supplies of war from getting into Serbia. Yet Greece is pouring the stuff in as if there were no tomorrow. Under the existing trade policy, is it mandatory that Greece should impose sanctions, or is it voluntary? Will it be mandatory or voluntary under the Maastricht treaty? In either case, what will the court do about it and, if the court does nothing, what can we do to make sure that the court does something—and in quick time because there is a war going on?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: First, any decisions taken now under European political co-operation and later, when the Maastricht treaty is ratified, under the common foreign and security policy, would not come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. My hon. Friend is quite right that decisions that have a trade implication are often taken under European political co-operation and eventually under the common foreign and security policy. Therefore, a foreign policy decision by member states could trigger a trading action or sanction by the Community. Once an aspect of any decision moves into the competence of the Commission and the treaty of Rome, the European Court of Justice is able to rule on it.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall give way in a moment, but I must make some progress.
      One of the important questions that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon raised was whether I could give him a flavour—it would be no more than that—as to whether the European Court of Justice was beginning, in its creative judgments—I think that was the term he used —to move in a less centralising way than it has done in the past.
      The Committee has had a lengthy and interesting debate on this issue, prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) who is in his place. Without wearying the Committee in a repetitious way, no more than any hon. Member would seek to anticipate judgments by our own courts, I would not want to anticipate judgments by the European Court on any matter. However, this is one debate that has raged throughout the Committee. The Government believe that in the Maastricht treaty and the tendency within Europe the tide is beginning to turn against centralism.

      1183
      In the debate on 27 January I was able to quote three recent cases where the judgments of the European Court have seemed to be more in favour of the positions of member states. The first was in July 1992 on national insurance contributions, where the court upheld the maintenance of different state pensions for men and women in the United Kingdom. In December 1992, in the most recent batch of Sunday trading cases, the Court upheld the United Kingdom Sunday trading legislation. Finally, in a judgment that concerns the environment, in the Wallonia waste disposal case, the Court upheld a ban on the import of waste by the Belgian region of Wallonia and in doing so allowed generous derogations from article 30 of the treaty.
      Although it would be wrong and inappropriate for me to try to anticipate specific judgments, I believe that there is some evidence that the climate created by the Maastricht negotiations has brought about change. The Committee touched on the subject in the previous debate when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was able to demonstrate that article 3b on subsidiarity, even before it has come into effect, has already had a significant impact on the way in which the Commission goes about its work. I hope that without any disrespect to the European Court of Justice, it would not be improper to say that there is some indication that it may be moving in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Since Greece has been mentioned, may I ask about the implications for Britain if Greece were to be treated according to the proposals from the bureaucrats in Brussels? If we got the same percentage per capita as Greece, we would have to pay no income tax, corporation tax, heritage tax or VAT and we would be able to have vast advantages. That must be addressed whether we are centralists or decentralists.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not know how the hon. and learned Member's intervention relates to the European Court of Justice. If he will base his question on the court, I shall deem it to be in order.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Certainly, Mr. Lofthouse. As someone who has probably appeared in the European Court of Justice more often than anyone else in the Chamber, I understand what you say. The most important matter which I have had to address was whether brut meant that the wine in the bottle had been grown from grapes from a vine in soil over which German was the official language. Against that background, I think that I do know something about the court. It is important that we understand that this trivialist, asinine, bureaucratic and unjuridical farce should be restricted rather than enlarged.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I always listen with interest and respect to what my hon. and learned Friend says. I believe it to be the case, as do the Government, that many of the abuses and problems by which our citizens, the House of Commons and the Committee have been disturbed are met by the Maastricht treaty. The amendment that we are debating, which bears on the ability of the European Court to impose fines, is just one opportunity to demonstrate that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) raised in an intervention the important question of whether there is no limit to the fines.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: No guidance.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, whether there is a limit and whether there is guidance. I said—this was confirmed by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—that it is not uncommon in Britain, where there is no fixed penalty, for a fine to be at large. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was able to say that as the legal and judicial system in Britain has a slightly longer pedigree than that of the European Court of Justice, there is a body of precedent which gives us some guidance on what we can rely upon.
      The existing treaties already give powers to fine under competition policy, to which article 87 refers. Those powers are not subject to limit or guidance. The position so far is that the Commission imposes the fine, after which there may be an appeal to the court. On many occasions the court has reduced or confirmed such fines. There is a body of practice. I am not aware that there has ever been any objection to that or to the fines imposed being too high or out of proportion. I should tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that consideration was given to whether there should be a limit. That consideration was given before the signing of the treaty. It was decided to rely upon the discretion of the court, which it has already shown, in the cases to which I referred, albeit in the areas of competition and anti-dumping. We believed—I understand that other member states take the same position —that the court could be trusted in this matter.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall complete my response and then I shall give way, first, to the right hon. Member for Llanelli, because he has been waiting rather longer than others for the opportunity to intervene. I shall then give way to a small selection of my hon. Friends.
      The talk of fines that will bankrupt a country is pure fantasy. I am confident that the court will show the sense of proportion which it has always demonstrated.
      Mr. Budgen: Why?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend has made a sedentary observation.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: It is the Commission.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to contain himself. I realise that it is difficult sometimes to do that. I am often an excitable and voluble person. If my hon. Friend contains himself, I promise that I shall give way to him in due course. There is no need for him to pop up, as it were, and wave at me.
      The answer to the sedentary interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was given by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). When we consider the calibre of those from the United Kingdom and other countries who have been chosen to sit on the European Court of Justice, I think that any reasonable person who is not indulging in fantasies will recognise that it is a distinguished court that is entirely impervious to any sort—
      Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall give way in due course. As I have said, I want to complete my response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and Opposition Members.

      1185
      The answer is that we considered, of course, whether there should be a limit to the fines. We believed that the discretion of the court could be relied upon. The fine is proposed by or is a recommendation from the Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is right about that. However, the court decides—not the Commission—whether that fine is appropriate and proportionate.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I wish to ask a general question about article 171. We have now discovered that a very distinguished court will be moderate in imposing fines. As I read article 171, a member state is required to take certain measures to comply with the judgment of the court. Let us suppose that Her Majesty's Government could take those measures only after an affirmative vote of the House of Commons. Let us suppose also that they failed for some reason—that happens from time to time—and were unable to secure the affirmative vote so as to have authority to take the necessary measures. Would the Government still be fined?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall seek to give the right hon. Gentleman an authoritative reply when I have been properly advised. It is a good and important question and I shall seek to give him—
      Mr. John Morris: Properly advised!
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am seeking to the best of my ability to take seriously the questions that are put to me. I make no apology to the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has teased me quite properly. On one occasion I gave the best legal advice that was available to me at the time, which proved to be incorrect. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House of Commons as soon as the changed advice was available to us and apologised to the House. I accept that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tease me about that. If I am asked a serious question by a senior Labour Back-Bench Member who is a Privy Councillor and I am not confident that I can answer it off the top of my head, I think that it is right that I should seek proper advice.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make progress—
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course.
      Mr. Hughes: I ask a question in all honesty. We were told that the Law Officers would be here to give authoritative advice. Why cannot we have that advice? The Law Officers are here.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The Law Officers are here to answer any points of law that may be raised. If any point of law arises that I am not briefed to answer or if any such matter needs consideration, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will give the Committee the advice that it seeks.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The Minister has just said that the Attorney-General will come forward and give opinions on matters of law. But the
      1186
      whole of this treaty is a matter of law. Therefore we are entitled to the Attorney-General's opinion on any question that arises.
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is not the responsibility of the Chair; it is a matter for Ministers.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: There is another point to which I wish to reply.
      Sir Richard Body: My right hon. Friend said that the United Kingdom Government were instrumental in proposing these new powers for the European Court. Before making that proposal, did they, perchance, study what had happened in the United States of America? When the American Supreme Court was given additional powers, it became an engine for federalism and for the centralisation of power. Was that example considered by the Foreign Office?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I have already explained at some length why we regard this as an important new power for the European Court of Justice and why it was an initiative of the British Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is a staunch supporter of the Single European Act. I do not think that the figures I have quoted and the inability of the European Court to assert its authority by way of a fine are at all satisfactory.
      Mr. Cash: Perhaps the Minister could explain why nobody knows who has given a judgment. Judgments are delivered anonymously. That is a pretty extraordinary state of affairs for such a distinguished court as my right hon. Friend has described. Secondly, can my right hon. Friend explain why, to all intents and purposes, it is the Advocate-General who gives the main thrust of the advice at the end of the day? Thirdly, why, in a recent case—as I was told by one of the plaintiffs—did the judges not even have their translation equipment up to their ears, so that they could not even hear what was going on?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is fond of anecdotal evidence. He says that someone told him that the judges did not have their translation equipment up to their ears. The Committee will not expect me to treat that point even remotely seriously. I can hardly be expected to take seriously yet another example of anecdotal evidence. On a previous occasion my hon. Friend quoted a letter. He would not tell us who had written it. We asked him to place it in the Library, but he would not do so. The debate cannot be conducted on that basis. [Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It will be helpful to the Committee if the Minister is given silence to answer the questions that have been put to him.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: On the question of the Advocate-General, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is simply wrong. These are collective judgments for the court.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman has put us in a dilemma. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled probing amendments. The Minister knows that we did not intend to press them to a vote. My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Attorney-General initiated the debate specifically for the purpose of putting questions to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has put a very pertinent matter before the Committee. When will

      1187
      we receive an answer to his question? The Attorney-General is sitting next to the Minister. It would be easy for the Minister to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman so that we might be given a definitive answer. What my right hon. Friend has said is very important. The only purpose of our amendments is to establish exact meaning.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: That is a perfectly reasonable intervention, except to the extent that, so far, I have sought —perhaps inadequately—to answer four of the points that were made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There are more to come. I have told the Committee that before I finish my speech I shall seek to reply to the points that have been made.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make some progress and then I shall give way to hon. Members who have asked me to do so.
      Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way for a question about the matter that has been raised by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: No. I shall reply to that question when I am able to do so. If my hon. Friend wishes to intervene at that stage, I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Marlow rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make some progress in answering the questions that have been put to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the court of first instance. In article 168a, the treaty confirms the existence of the court of first instance, which was set up in 1988. The original version of article 168a was introduced in the Single European Act. Yet again, we can be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. Narrow limits were placed on the potential jurisdiction of the court of first instance. Only actions brought by natural or legal persons and staff cases could be transferred to the court. That potential jurisdiction is now very nearly used up.
      Thus, we welcome the fact that the new version of article 168a allows the Council, by unanimity, to assign to the court of first instance any category of jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, without limit and without need of further treaty amendment. I hasten to reassure the Committee that this article does not represent an absolute increase in jurisdiction, but simply refers to how jurisdiction should be divided between the two courts.
      The court of first instance has proved itself an efficient and respected tribunal in its limited field—competition and staff cases—and, in our view, it should be used for more cases for the purpose of speeding up the process of justice. The simpler procedure for expanding its jurisdiction which the Maastricht treaty introduces will facilitate moves to reduce the work load of the Court of Justice and the attendant delays in litigation. I repeat that the United Kingdom strongly supports the rule of law in the Community. We depend on the court to enforce it. That is why we have consistently sought, in the negotiations relating to both the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, to facilitate the effective dispatch, as it were, of the court's business and thus assist it in its task of upholding the law.
      Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to come back to a question that I asked before, to which my right hon. Friend kindly gave me half an answer. It concerns the problem of Greece. What can the court do to prevent Greece from carrying on sanctions-busting with regard to Serbia and the war? If it cannot do anything now, what will it be able to do after the treaty is in place? What action can we take to make the court take action so that we have a level playing field on this issue?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend, as he rightly says, has asked me this question before. I have given him the answer that I think I should, and I do not want to go any further on that.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that it is perhaps erroneous to give the impression that there is a huge advance in judiciary powers in the court when, if he reads article 171, he will see that it says that, after the judgment is made, the Commission will decide if it has been complied with, the Commission will declare a time limit by which it must be done, the Commission will recommend the fine, and it is only at the final point that there is an appeal to the court? Does he accept that, while there may be a good case and a bad case for article 171, it could mislead the Committee if the impression were given that there was an advance in the judicial system? It is an advance in the powers of the Commission, which can say that it has not been done, this is when it must be done, and this is the recommended fine. Would not it be fairer to express it in that way?
      9 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Unlike my hon. Friend and, I think, like the majority of the members of the Committee, I do not regard, nor do I think that the United Kingdom should regard, either the European Court of Justice or the Commission as our enemy. I want the Commission to be effective in seeking out areas where compliance is not taking place. I want it to be robust in pursuing that. I want it to make recommendations to the European Court. I repeat that the amount of the fine will be decided by the court, not by the Commission.
      Mr. Budgen: This is not on the substance of the answer that my right hon. Friend intends to give to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—it is about the process of discussion. Will he explain to the Committee why the Foreign Office put forward this procedure as an exciting new addition to the powers of the institutions of the Community without being in a position to brief my right hon. Friend about the method by which the money for a fine might be raised even in Britain? I quite understand that there might be a difference of opinion as between the Foreign Office legal advisers and the Attorney-General, but it is absolutely amazing that my right hon. Friend cart stand as proud as a peacock before the Committee saying that this is one of the great advantages of Maastricht that we and the heroes of the Foreign Office have achieved, yet cannot even tell us from his Foreign Office advice how the system would work in this country. It seems to me to be grossly incompetent.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: All that I can say to that is that my hon. Friend is easily astonished. I know that I will not be

      1189
      able to convince him of this, but I hope that other Members in all parts of the Committee will not feel that I have been presumptuous or arrogant in my approach.
      Mr. Jenkin: As regards the additional power and discretion that article 171 gives to the Commission, my right hon. Friend is extremely fond of telling the Committee that the Commission is not a signatory to this treaty and therefore its centralising aspirations are of no consequence. But here we have an example of huge additional power and discretion being given to the Commission in the exercise of its centralising agenda.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: In the previous debate my hon. Friend sought to give a quotation that was incomplete and he had to be pulled up by the Foreign Secretary. I am afraid that I must now pull him up, too. I have never said that the Commission's ambitions and agenda are of no consequence. Of course, the Commission has an agenda and of course it has a substantial amount of power within the European community. It is required by the treaty to have power. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would be careful not to say that I have said any such thing.
      Mr. Hoon: Dealing with the relationship between articles 171 and 172, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) pointed out rightly that it is for the Commission to recommend the amount of penalty or fine appropriate in the circumstances—
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Specify, not recommend.
      Mr. Hoon: Very well, specify. Presumably that has some reference to the nature of the harm done, and the Commission might calculate along those lines. The Minister responds properly by saying that then the court has the right to determine the amount at large—there being no limit. In that eventuality, why is article 172 necessary at all? I know that article 172 is an ancient provision that has been only slightly changed by the addition of the European Parliament, but if the amount of the fine in article 171 is at large, presumably there is no need for any regulation.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Article 172 is a purely technical amendment which seeks to reflect the European Parliament's enhanced legislative role under the negative assent procedure of article 189B. Hence the reference to regulations—a point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon as well, so I can respond to both Members at the same time—adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council.
      It is important to remember—the hon. Gentleman, who still has a double mandate, will be well aware of this—that the Council remains the decision-making body and that the European Parliament may block legislation after the Council has taken its final decision that may not amend it.
      There is a second point that I would like to make to the Committee about the role and powers of the court which picks up a point that I think was made in the earlier debate about subsidiarity. The role and powers of the court—the Committee should remember this—were set out in the original Community treaties.
      The treaty of Rome describes the court's basic tasks in article 164:
      1190
      "The Court of Justice shall ensure observance of law and justice in the interpretation and application of this Treaty."
      The treaty goes on to set out the basic jurisdiction of the court, the remedies available and the procedures. Those have not substantially changed, either in the Single European Act or at Maastricht.
      Naturally, as member states have decided to increase the competences of the Community, so the ambit of the court's jurisdiction has been increased. But most of the fears about the role of the court raised by critics of the treaty in and outside the House are fears about powers that the court already has. The critics often claim that they are not against the existing treaties, only against this treaty. There is an illogicality there which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out in the previous debate and which it is entirely appropriate to point out again.
      The most substantial new power given to the European Court in the Maastricht treaty is this new power for imposing fines, and, as I say, it was given on the initiative of the United Kingdom. It will go a substantial way to improve observance and compliance with Community law and that is something that we in the United Kingdom welcome.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Forgetting for the moment what changes the treaty may make on fining, the fact is that the European Court has abrogated to itself powers of the interpretation—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. It is in order for an hon. Member to be talking to the civil servants in the Box during the debate?
      The First Deputy Chairman: It would not be in order if he was seeking advice.
      Mr. Cash: I am not seeking advice; I am giving it.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I was trying to give advice as well—to the Committee.
      What is important is not the increased powers under the Bill—let us ignore them—but the fact that the Court of Justice has abrogated to itself powers that were never intended and interprets the law of this land, far less of the other members of the Community, present or apparent, in a manner which overrides the distinctive principles of our law, our judges and our courts. That is my concern. Having appeared in the court frequently, I am worried that, when the Advocate-General gives judgment, the judges wander in and wander out to their chauffeurs.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I would go along with my hon. and learned Friend up to a certain point. We had an interesting debate about this some weeks ago. There is no doubt that over the past 10 or 20 years many judgments of the European Court have been of a centralising tendency. I also contend that there is now evidence—growing evidence once we have ratified this treaty—that the mood and climate has changed, but the principle of the jurisdiction of the European Court was set out in the treaty of Rome. To the extent that this treaty does anything at all, the only areas in which it enhances the court's powers to a considerable degree are those to which I have referred.
      There are two other points which have been raised by hon. Members, including that raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelli to which I am anxious to reply. The

      1191
      first leads on from a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. That has also been taken up by other Members.
      There is no specific procedure in the treaty for the enforcement of fines against member states. The intergovernmental conference considered various possibilities, including a mechanism for direct deduction of the amount of a fine from payments due to a member state from the Community budget, for example, from agriculture structural funds. It was decided not to do that, partly because it would tend to hit the wrong people. Why should Italian farmers suffer because Italy had failed to implement a directive totally unrelated to their fields?
      That was the reason why we decided not to go down the road of direct deduction—[Interruption.] I am trying as best I can to answer my hon. Friends. We considered direct deductions during the intergovernmental conference and rejected them for the reason I have just given the Committee. In the end it was considered that member states who were shamed in this public way, in addition to the public ignominy of being fined by the European Court, are under a treaty obligation to pay their fines, and that they could be expected to pay.
      If that proves not to be the case—I do not expect this —we shall not hesitate to propose and press for an amendment to be introduced into the treaty providing for a mechanism for direct deductions of such fines.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon put his finger on it while he was asking his question. He was reminding the Committee that there is no process for enforcement in that way. He said that he felt that in the end it would be peer pressure, political pressure, that would shame member states which were fined into paying. That is what we expect. That is the judgment that we made during the negotiations. If it proves not to be the case, I have no doubt that in the next intergovernmental conference in 1996, one of the things that Her Majesty's Government will be seeking to do is to ensure that a method of enforcement is brought in.
      Mr. Rogers: The Minister's last remark fills me with dismay—that political peer pressure is expected to get countries to pay fines. I do not think that that answer is good enough. I think it was the Davignon plan, introduced in 1980, which made steel allocations to member states. In the United Kingdom capacity had to be reduced from 22 million to 11 million liquid tonnes. We complied with that. At the same time as our steel workers were being put out of work, the Italians increased their steel-making capacity. Under the regulations laid down by the treaty of Rome, the Commission imposed a fine which I understand it has never been able to collect. In this instance, with the unlimited fines that might be imposed under this botched-up provision, how will payment of the fines be enforced?
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not want to be dismissive, but I hope that the hon. Member is not being deliberately obscurantist. I have explained to the Committee that we considered the option of direct deductions. The member states—not just the United Kingdom—came to the conclusion that it was sufficient for the time being to give these extra powers to the European Court. If the
      1192
      procedure does not seem to be working in the way that we hope it will, we will seek to build on it when the next opportunity arises.
      Mr. Randall: I have a genuine doubt about peer group pressure. It has already been reported publicly that the Italians have had 87 referrals, the Greeks 57 and the Belgians 47. One would think that peer group pressure would have worked for referrals rather than having to rely on fines. I am not sure that pressure would increase appreciably because a fine had been imposed. I am doubtful whether the provision will work without strong enforcement.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I accept the reservations expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), which are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. If their fears prove to be the case, I have no doubt that we will seek to give even further powers to the European Court of Justice; I am sure that we would have the support of my hon. Friend in that endeavour.
      The right hon. Member for Llanelli asked whether we would be fined if we were found to be in breach by the European Court and were denied by the House the means to give effect to the Court's judgment. The answer is yes. A state cannot invoke its inability to give effect to a treaty obligation as a reason for not complying with a judgment. I do not expect the United Kingdom to be in that position. I regard it as a relatively far-fetched example. The United Kingdom has never yet failed to give effect to a judgment, and I find it hard to believe that the Committee would deny the Government the means to implement a lawful judgment.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps it is not so far-fetched. There might be a minority Government who could not get a majority. On that basis, what would be the legal authority for Her Majesty's Government paying the money? On the one hand the European Court would impose a fine; on the other, Her Majesty's Government would be stealing British money in order to pay the fine.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and I will give him what I hope is a brisk and proper reply. Understandably—and I make no complaint about this—the right hon. Gentleman deploys all his considerable intellect and ingenuity to find—
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Please just answer the question for once.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If my hon. Friend could restrain himself for a moment, I am seeking to reply to a very important question asked by a right hon. Gentleman. I do not need the advice of my hon. Friend while I am doing so. If my hon. Friend then wishes to ask a question, I will happily try to answer him.
      The right hon. Gentleman put forward what I regard as an unlikely hypothesis, one in which the United Kingdom has not yet found itself. My answer to his question is that if—it is a consummation for which the Liberal party devoutly wishes—after a general election we had a hung Parliament, and a coalition Government of some description, one principle would underpin that Government and Parliament, the principle that I adumbrated at the outset of my remarks. It is that we in

      1193
      Britain believe, not only in this country but in the European Community, in the rule of law. I cannot believe that the House of Commons would deny any British Government the ability to comply with their legal obligations.
      Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. You will appreciate that this is an important debate about a very important institution that can overrule this Parliament and any decision taken by it. The Minister made a brave effort in difficult circumstances, but I was reminded—I do not mean this pejoratively—of a donkey trying to pull a six-furrow plough. The Minister has beside him the Attorney-General. Questions have been put and have not been answered. Will it be possible for the Attorney-General to respond later in the debate because a whole series of issues need to be cleared up—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. I responded to the hon. Gentleman when he put the same point earlier. He knows that it is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I suggest to the Minister that the answer to the question posed by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about the legal authority for the payment of a fine is the Bill that we are debating, if it is enacted. That would appear to give the British Government the authority to pay a fine, even if an affirmative resolution had not been passed by this Parliament.
      It may sound far-fetched, but it is true that on the hills of Plynlimon and Penybontfawr in my constituency there are some hard-working and rather impoverished people who, although they may not realise that what they have in mind is article 171 of the treaty, actually care greatly about the meat of that article—and I hope that I shall be forgiven for the pun on the word "meat."
      Two or three years ago, I arrived at the Montgomery county show in my constituency on the day on which some French farmers had set fire to lorryloads of Welsh lamb. That action caused great anger, particularly because at the time the French Government seemed to be turning the other cheek and showing less than full interest in what had happened near the French channel ports. They appeared to be less than enthusiastic about bringing to justice the perpetrators of those activities, who had been filmed on television and were clearly identifiable.
      I recall that on that occasion we started in Montgomeryshire a temporary but effective boycott on the purchase of French wine, an action that would have pained at least one Conservative Member, although I do not see him in his place right now. The farmers who were behind that boycott of French wine, which was well supported by an independent supermarket in my constituency, had a particular point in mind. It was the difficulty of enforcing treaty obligations under the treaty of Rome, particularly those relating to fair competition in the selling of goods across borders, when Governments were reluctant to ensure that those obligations were honoured.
      I am sure that it is with that general subject in mind, of which Welsh sheepmeat is an example, that the Government sensibly suggested that there should be a new article 171. If that means that enforcement of treaty
      1194
      obligations will be achieved more successfully, it will be welcomed on the slopes of Plynlimon and the hills around Penybontfawr.
      We have heard some interesting statistics from the Minister of State about successful complaints to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. It is comforting to know that the United Kingdom Government come near the bottom of the league table—indeed, in proportional terms they are probably at the very bottom. It follows that, relatively speaking, the United Kingdom obeys the laws of the European Community and the treaty obligations. That very statistic, however, is evidence of the frustration that is felt by sheep farmers in my constituency.
      What those sheep farmers feel may be replicated in many industries throughout the country, both manufacturing and service. They feel that the French Government in particular have been less than enthusiastic about obeying the obligations imposed by the treaty of Rome and the amendments made to it. They feel that the United Kingdom should perhaps have copied the example of the French, and banned the import of French goods. Perhaps we should have discriminated against French wines; perhaps lorryloads of bottles should have been broken as they entered our channel ports.
      The law-abiding farmers of Montgomeryshire, however, would far rather have a level playing field for the enforcement of treaty obligations than follow the rather unseemly example set by the conduct of French farmers towards sheepmeat from the hills of Montgomeryshire, which is the finest in the world.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Carlile: I will give way in a moment.
      Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Carlile: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker); then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
      Mr. Rogers: I was only going to be facetious about Rhondda sheep.
      Mr. Carlile: In that case, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      If what the Government proposed at Maastricht means that treaty obligations can be enforced more effectively, we should all welcome that on grounds of common sense.
      Mr. Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has had a distinguished career in the courts. Does he really believe that the imposition of any fine is worth anything when there is no means of enforcing payment? Can he provide evidence of such a system actually working?
      Mr. Carlile: I strongly suspect that it will be easier to enforce fines in the Court of Justice in the European Communities through political peer pressure, as it has been called, than to enforce fines in the Wolverhampton magistrates court—which was mentioned earlier—in the case of impecunious defendants who have no intention of paying. The point that has been made about enforcement is about as bad as any that we have heard in the House, even in debates on Maastricht.
      I am pleased that the Attorney-General is present. I am sure that he will recognise the seriousness of the point that

      1195
      I am about to make. The structure of new article 171 strikes me at least as very fair. It ensures that a finding will be made that there has been a failure to fulfil an obligation; it ensures that a carefully considered recommendation is made to the court about the level of the fine; and it gives the court—a very experienced and high-quality court—jurisdiction to consider the level at which the fine should be imposed.
      It is possible, however, that during the time that that will take, several lambing seasons will pass before enforcement takes place. Can Ministers assure us that one of the aims of the new article, and one of the purposes of the discussions surrounding it, was to ensure that it was rendered effective?
      If I have to go back to the sheep farmers in what I believe is still the most agricultural constituency and tell them that the new rules look good but will be ineffectual, I shall not be offering them much comfort. If, however, I can tell them that the new structure, which provides chambers of a small number of judges to deal with these matters, will offer an efficient and effective remedy, then, in the example that I gave, the French Government would be forced to pay their fine. It would be a great comfort to me if I were to be assured that the enforcement of a fine would mean that the money was paid to those very farmers who had lost as a result of the illegal activity of a foreign Government.
      Mr. Rogers rose—
      Mr. Carlile: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman on the condition that he does not disappoint us, that he is not facetious and that he has a serious point to make. If he is going to make a point about the quality of sheep from Rhondda, may I settle with him now? If I say that sheep from Rhondda produce sheepmeat as good as that from Montgomeryshire, will it satisfy him?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Rogers: That point is not worth answering. I wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman about the enforcement of fines. He said earlier, I presume in answer to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), that the points made about the enforcement of fines were probably the worst in any of our debates on Maastricht. I thought that that was a rather supercilious remark but, having said that, he went on to talk about the enforcement of fines. As I understand it, the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and some Conservative Members was how the fines were to be assessed, enforced and collected. That is surely a reasonable question to put to the Minister of State. The Labour party tabled the amendment, but we are still waiting for a response.
      Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman asks a serious question. I hope that I have made it clear that I believe that, for the reasons already outlined, there is no problem with the enforcement of fines. My point is quite different. Fines should be imposed sufficiently quickly for the provisions to have effect.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is a very distinguished lawyer whom I greatly admire. He suggested that the drafting of article 171 was less clear than it should be. He acquired a great deal of expertise some years ago in debates on the Criminal Justice
      1196
      Bill of 1988. I venture to suggest that those of us who, from time to time, have to make submissions to the courts on some parts of that Act would be very much happier if it was as clearly drafted as the new article 171.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: As I understand it, the amendments are probing amendments, tabled by the Opposition and supported, to some estent, by some of my hon. Friends. Amendments Nos. 32 and 330 would remove article 171 from the treaty. There has been a good deal of debate about article 171. Its first paragraph contains what is to be found in the original article 171, but paragraph 2 contains new material.
      The amendment would allow the present unsatisfactory position to continue whereby member states which fail to follow European Community law make their own provision for compliance and, in many cases, do nothing. That is detrimental to our national interest because, as has been said, we tend to play by the rules. The amendment would deny us the opportunity, through the Community, to ensure that other countries did the same.
      It should be noted that the research staff in the Library have kindly produced a research paper which explains the current position. I quote:
      "There are at present no sanctions that can be taken against a member state which fails to implement EC legislation or implements it inadequately, according to a judgment by the ECJ"—
      the European Court of Justice.
      "The proposal to fine member states which did not comply with an earlier judgment on the implementation of a directive or a regulation was a United Kingdom initiative which was taken up by the Intergovernmental Conference on political union in 1991. The lack of an ECJ mandate to sanction the recalcitrant member states had been seen as one of the weaknesses of the Community legal system. In joining the EC member states agree to the primacy of EC law over national law and accept the direct applicability of the Treaties and the instruments of Community law. The Treaties have created their own legal system which is an integral part of the legal systems of member states and which their courts are bound to apply. Yet there has been no punishment for failure to fulfil these obligations. Fines might encourage a more conscientious approach to implementation, although doubts have been expressed as to the implications."
      This matter was considered earlier this decade in another place when my right hon. and learned. Friend the Lord Chancellor said:
      "It is not tolerable that if there was a judgment against a member state that state should do nothing at all about it and nothing should happen thereafter. That situation is detrimental to the rule of law."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 July 1990; Vol. 520, c. 2090.]
      It is not only lawyers in the Chamber but all hon. Members who are concerned, rightly, that the rule of law should be adhered to. Any amendment to the treaty of Rome which makes clearer and surer the obligations to abide by the rule of law must be welcomed. Article 171 of the treaty on European union which was agreed at Maastricht does exactly that. In paragraph 2 we find the advantageous clauses which we have been looking for.
      In the past, it has been said that limited resources have been the reason for the Commission's failure to pursue infringements of European Community law. For example, in competition policy, there are always hundreds of cases awaiting examination. We have been told that DG4, which is the competition directorate-general, is not keen to increase its work load. The best tactic has been to press one case, issue a token fine, make a lot of fuss about it and hope that that will act as a warning to others. However, we know that it does not.

      1197
      Under article 171, the European Court of Justice is empowered to impose unlimited fines. The imposition of unlimited fines and the threat of such fines act as a deterrent on the recalcitrant member states which, despite the original provisions of article 171, ignore Community regulations.
      The new powers under article 171 will deter heel dragging as well as punish defaulters. The United Kingdom has no fears because it has always done its best to comply with regulations and directives. Articles 171 and 172 assist the national interests of the United Kingdom whereas the amendment, if passed, will not.
      If we are to have a European Community—be it a political or economic association, or both—to which member states have granted powers to act in designated areas for their mutual benefit, we must also have a legal framework as the essential basis of decision making and decision application. We must have a body of law defining the powers and responsibilities of the EC institutions. The member states must also have those powers defined. We must have a body to give independent rulings on what the law is and means. Article 164 of the original treaty makes clear what are the duties and powers of the European Court of Justice. It says:
      "The Court of Justice shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of this Treaty the law is observed."
      Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garnier: I trust that that is something which my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) welcomes.
      Mr. Duncan-Smith: While I agree with the idea that there must be some way of sorting out the law and dealing with those who transgress and those who stick to the legal prescriptions, does my hon. Friend agree that the key to the whole argument is not so much that a system is not something to strive for, as that the European Court of Justice as it exists provides no real checks and balances on the constant extension of that power in a political sense?
      Mr. Garnier: If I follow my hon. Friend's point, I think that it is answered by article 3b of the treaty.
      I suggested that we must have a body of law to define the powers and responsibilities of both EC institutions and member states. We must have a body to give independent rulings on what the law is and means. The law provides the background for all EC activity. Decisions are made against that background. The law tells us what must be done, what cannot be done, and what may be done.
      It is also essential to have a common interpretation of EC legislation so that it is applied in all member states equally. I suggest that the concept of order and respect for the rule of law is not foreign to the British or to members of the British Conservative party. It should be welcomed when it is found in the Maastricht treaty.
      I further suggest that the legal order of the European Community derives from several sources: first, the treaties; secondly, the Community legislation; thirdly, international law; fourthly, the general principles of law; and fifthly, judicial interpretation. I shall deal with the treaties first.
      The treaties as amended by subsequent treaties form the primary legislation—the constitution, if one likes—which
      1198
      creates the institutional structure for decision making. They also establish the limits of the powers of the structure. It is most important to the interests of the member states that those powers are limited. The Maastricht treaty especially limits the powers of the EC structure. It also contains enunciated policy and intent, for example, on the promotion of competition and free movement of goods, services, capital, labour and so on.
      Community legislation is the means by which the policies in the treaties are implemented. They are mostly the regulations and directives which the Commission issues. The EC is itself a body corporate, with its own legal personality. Therefore, international law impinges upon it. The general principles of law that we are discussing are also to be applied by the European Court of Justice. The court is charged with the task of ensuring that in its interpretation and application of the treaties the law is observed.
      It is with judicial interpretation that some of my hon. Friends perhaps find most difficulty. However, in Britain we are used to judicial interpretation, whereas mainland Europe has the codified system. Judicial interpretation is an important role when EC legislation in the treaties or the laws is unclear or incomplete. Judgments have to be given based on a lack of detail in some of the EC statutes. It has been seen to be filling in the gaps, thus creating law.
      Community law is primarily concerned with the economic activity of member states, which is not surprising as it is an economic community. We are concerned primarily with commercial law, competition law, business law, intellectual property law and law on the free movement of goods, services, labour and capital. That law must sit side by side with national and domestic law. We have companies legislation, copyright legislation, civil torts on intellectual property and laws that prevent the stifling of free competition. The EC law and the domestic law of Britain sit most comfortably with each other, compliment each other and do not detract from each other. Business is all the better structured and organised by those two partners.
      9.45 pm
      Environmental law is increasingly being developed by the EC to deal with matters such as toxic waste and protection of animal species. We must have EC law to cover matters that do not respect national boundaries, such as river pollution, acid rain and so on. No domestic law passed by the House will be able to deal with international disasters of the sort created by environmental problems.
      The European Court of Justice has two main functions. The first is to apply the law in certain cases, and the second is to interpret the provisions of EC law and ensure that it is consistently and uniformly applied by the national courts. It is accepted that Community competence has been extended by court judgments, about which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State indicated regret, especially in creating the single market. By ruling that certain practices were illegal, and by forcing the Commission or the Council to act in line with EC legislation, the court has played its part in forging the single market. I should have thought that that was dear to the hearts of many hon. Members' constituents and businesses practising in their constituencies.
      Article 173 of the treaty is clear that the court cannot act of its own motion. English courts have that power. Our

      1199
      courts can issue bench warrants and have an inherent jurisdiction. The European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to act other than specified by treaty. Its powers are entirely codified and written down. Conservative Members should be grateful for that certainty. Cases must be referred to it, mostly by the Commission, where there has been a failure to fulfil a Community obligation, or they can be referred by member states and individuals. One can apply to it for an application for an annulment to strike down decisions of the Commission, the Council or the European Parliament and that, too, is to be found in article 173, which, as I understand it, the amendments propose to delete.
      Article 173 provides the court with a power akin It) our judicial review system. Where a Minister or Department overstep their powers or act ultra vires, the divisional court has the power to review that decision. Under article 173 of the treaty, the court of justice has a similar power to control the overweening power of other institutions.
      Under articles 171 and 172, the European Court of Justice has unlimited power with regard to penalties. It can also review penalties imposed by the Commission. Until recalcitrant nations face peer pressure from other member states backed up by the power of unlimited fines, the less well behaved nations will not obey the rules of the treaty.
      The European Court of Justice can rule on failures to act by any institution. If the EC, the hank, the Commission or the Council fail to do something that they are obliged to do, the court can act to ensure that they do that. It has a mandatory injunctive role.
      The court can rule on the non-contractual liability of the EC. That is specified in this section of the treaty. The court can also receive references for preliminary rulings from national courts. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the Sunday trading case that came before the court earlier last year.
      The Single European Act established an additional procedure to break the logjam of cases that were stacking up before the European Court of Justice. It has provided a mechanism of a court of first instance to deal with competition law and disputes between the EC and its staff.
      One of my several complaints about the EC is that it takes too long to reach conclusions. I urge the Government, in their intergovernmental meetings and in meetings in the EC, to speed up the process of the European Court of Justice. At the moment, there is a gap of 12 to 15 months between cases being lodged and the giving of a preliminary ruling. In substantive cases, there is a gap of nearly two years. That is too long and that holds up domestic legislation or domestic cases. If anything can be done to speed up, where sensible, the processes of the European Court of Justice, so much the better.
      The European Court of Justice has done a great many things and the section of the treaty that we are considering will give it additional and necessary powers that must be considered within the framework of article 3b. If any of my Conservative colleagues are concerned about the powers of the European Court of Justice—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) grinning away as he is obviously enjoying every moment of my speech—and wish to criticise the court and the way in which its powers are provided through the treaty, they should study article 3b carefully. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the atmosphere is now changing, and my colleagues should bear that firmly in mind.
      Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the opportunity to address such an attentive and interested Committee on the vexed question of the amendment tabled to the treaty of Rome about the European Court of Justice. Members of the Committee will be excited at the prospect of discussing this matter.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that it is difficult to see how the amendments in the Maastricht treaty provoked such antagonism from some hon. Members. After all, the European Court of Justice is a court and it has responsibilities similar to those enjoyed by courts in this country. It is responsible for interpreting and upholding the law.
      There are obviously many improvements that I would like to see in the operation of our courts and in the operation of the law which those courts must uphold. However, that is not the same as saying that there should be no role for those courts and, in this context, no role for the European Court of Justice.
      Mr. Duncan-Smith: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to give the Committee his opinion on the real problem, which is not so much that the amendments on the Maastricht treaty and all that goes with it concerning the court change very much, as the nature of the court as it exists now and post-Maastricht. Nothing has been done to change those excesses, to check them or to restructure the court.
      Mr. Hoon: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but the Committee is dealing specifically with the amendments on the Maastricht treaty. Those amendments should be seeking to improve the operation of the European Court of Justice and, to that extent, as we have already heard from right hon. and hon. Members, the Maastricht treaty is broadly successful.
      The Minister of State made great play of the success of the British Government in upholding European Community law, but the same British Government, in the intergovernmental conference leading up to the Maastricht treaty, did most to threaten the coherence and integrity of the law applied by the European Court of Justice. By opting out of the social chapter, they have produced a new, damaging divergence of legal competence in the European Community, which the court has to try to resolve.
      As a result of the British Government opting out, 11 member states will now have the opportunity of making new European law that has to be interpreted by the European Court of Justice under the protocol on social policy. It is clear that, when new law is made under the protocol, at some stage the European Court of Justice—[Interruption.]
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I should be most grateful if hon. Members would listen to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon). He is making an important speech.
      Mr. Hoon: I am grateful, Mr. Morris.
      It is clear that any directive made under the protocol on social policy will at some stage have to be interpreted by the European Court of Justice. The difficulty for the European Court of Justice having made a decision in a case in which it will have reviewed the case law of the

      1201
      European Community, looked at the treaty and considered the directive in question, is that it will then have to give a decision.
      It is not clear—I should be grateful if the Attorney-General would consider this question—what then happens to the case law of the European Court of Justice. Having made the ruling on the interpretation of a particular directive and having taken into account previous cases and decisions and the treaty itself, that case will stand as precedent for other cases in future.
      The problem is for which countries will that case be a precedent? If it is a case determined under a directive, passed under the social protocol, how will we know whether that case applies to the United Kingdom? Will it mean that in future the European Court of Justice will have to set out in the headnote of the case that some cases apply to all 12 member states and some may apply to only 11? By opting out of the social policy chapter, British citizens will be denied rights before the European Court of Justice which are enjoyed by all other European Community citizens. I should be grateful if the Attorney-General could comment on whether he feels that that breaches the basic principle of equal treatment before the law for all Community citizens. [Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. The Committee is being very unfair to the hon. Member.
      Mr. Hoon: Once again, I am grateful, Mr. Morris.
      I hope that the Attorney-General will accept that this arrangement, with one country opting out of the ability to make law in the European Community, is unprecedented and produces a potential situation in which there is one law for United Kingdom citizens and quite a separate legal system for European Community citizens from Ireland and the continental countries. That appears to produce great uncertainty for the law and lawyers.
      It will be necessary, obviously, for lawyers in the United Kingdom to advise their clients of their rights. It will not be clear whether those rights are similar to those enjoyed by other citizens in the European Community. I wonder whether the Government have given consideration to whether the European Court of Justice will have to produce separate decisions for the United Kingdom. Was that considered by the Government in the exercise of opting out of the protocol on social—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress.
      To sit again tomorrow.

Burnsall's, Smethwick
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
10.2 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it is possible for a Minister to tell the House why all the plans and arrangements that the Government made to sit—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member knows that we are on the Adjournment. He is taking the time of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).
Mr. Faulds: There has been some skulduggery over the past couple of years at No. 10 Downing street. I am talking, of course, about my constituency. Burnsall's is a small electroplating factory which is run by two Irish brothers of whom I shall have something further to say.
The metal finishing industry is characterised by small factory units employing unskilled or semi-skilled workers. Because of their working conditions at the Burnsall's factory, a number of workers—30—after talks with the health and safety advice centre in Birmingham approached the GMB in March of last year. They wanted the protection that only a union could give them. Their complaints were numerous. They were denied the use of the safety-protective clothing and equipment when it was needed. They worked with acids and phosphates, but gloves were not replaced when they gave no further protection. Goggles were not provided for workers who were exposed to fumes and splashing from acids. The necessary masks were not provided in the paint-spraying areas.
When the workers justifiably sought information about the chemicals and materials that they were working with, such information was, unbelievably, withheld. It is well known that chemicals used in electroplating are highly toxic.
The majority of the workers were Punjabi women. It was they who did most of the hard physical labour, yet they were paid £20 to £30 less per week than the men for a normal working week of 40 hours. In practice the work force frequently had to work imposed overtime of up to 56 hours. When the factory was operating seven days a week the workers were required to do 65 hours. The overtime hours, long and enforced, were paid not at any overtime or premium rate but at the same miserable rate as the normal 40 hours. Workers who declined to comply were given warnings and someone who did not turn up would be denied access to the toilets the following week.
On a particular bank holiday—paid at standard rate, of course—the brothers exhibited unusual generosity by presenting each of the Asian workers with a hot cross bun: something of an oddity, these two brothers. With the concurrence of the work force, Danny Parry, the regional organiser of the GMB, wrote to the company in March last year requesting recognition. On 1 May the management received individual requests from all workers for recognition of the union. The two brothers withdrew to their office, locked themselves in for four hours and pondered their tactics. Eventually—late that Friday afternoon—they emerged, walked up to the only white

1203
worker and told him that he would be doing overtime that Saturday. The worker protested and was summarily dismissed.
The rest of the work force—all non-white—were incensed by this, and were eager to show their solidarity. On 11 June the union balloted its members for strike action. The vote was unanimously in favour. The first action was a collective ban on all overtime on Saturday 13 June. Two days later—on the morning of Monday 15 June —two officers of the union, Danny Parry and Joe Quigley, met the management for the purpose of securing recognition and so averting the imminent strike. The management refused to discuss any of the workers' grievances. Jim O'Neil, supposedly the managing director, actually said, "We will only talk to you about health and safety when we recognise your union, and we will never recognise your union."
On the second day of the strike, 16 June, the management—if one can use such a term—sent letters to all the strikers demanding their return by Friday 19 June, or they would face dismissal. On 22 June, five health and safety inspectors, including the principal inspector, Peter Ward, and two employment medical advisory service doctors investigated conditions at the Burnsall premises. That very day, the two brothers went ahead and dismissed all those who were on strike.
The Health and Safety Executive investigation vindicated the workers' concerns and grievances, and a subsequent letter from the executive to Joe Quigley stated:
"We have decided to issue an improvement notice on the company which will require them to complete sufficient and suitable assessments on all hazardous substances used in the factory. Other measures we are requiring the company to take include the provision of adequate first-aid arrangements—in particular, the need to supply suitable eye wash facilities and a shower, the need to specify a policy with respect to the employment of pregnant women and the provision of improved arrangements for ensuring that toilet facilities are kept clean."
Having discussed the situation with Joe Quigley, I wrote to the two wayward brothers on 2 July last year a very reasonable letter—as I am sure the House would expect—suggesting that, to resolve the dispute and terminate the strike, I, the local Roman Catholic priest, Father Byrne, and the president of the Sikh temple, the gurudwara, should meet the two brothers at any time convenient to them to discuss the problem. We were concerned at the divisions and tensions the dispute could cause, and we desired to foster good relations rather than exacerbate ethnic tensions.
This was, of course, Smethwick, where sanity and harmony were restored when I won the seat in that glorious victory of March 1966, after an unhappy and pretty disreputable interregnum. The brothers were probably ignorant of this history. They do not appear to be the most intelligent of gentleman in any case. They certainly do not seem to appreciate where their own best interests lie, and they did not have the courtesy to respond to my letter, then or since—in keeping, perhaps, with the general line of their conduct.
The GMB has performed with punctilious diligence throughout this dispute in the interests of its members. It has filed 53 industrial tribunal claims against the company, 12 equal pay claims, 20 unfair dismissal claims, 20 non-payment of holiday entitlement claims and one unlawful deduction of wages claim.
1204
As the House will know, strikers, whatever the cause of the strike, are automatically barred from unemployment benefit and income support. However, last September the Department of Social Security upheld an appeal by the GMB against the non-payment of these benefits. It reasoned that the strikers had been involved in an industrial dispute only from 15 to 19 June. From that date, when the employers had demanded their return, the workers were no longer on strike but on unauthorised leave of absence. If that unauthorised leave of absence were not justified, it would be classed as misconduct and the workers barred from benefit for 26 weeks. However, after studying submissions from the GMB and the Health and Safety Executive, the DSS adjudication officer decided that the workers were justified in refusing to return to work. Consequently, they were paid unemployment benefit backdated to 19 June.
The Conservative Governments of recent years come out of all this appallingly badly. They claimed that their numerous interventions in industrial relations legislation were intended to replace shop-floor anarchy with a harmonious, legally binding negotiating structure.
The Burnsall's strike is a prime example of the total failure of the Conservative approach. It allows industrial cowboys like the O'Neils to get away with outrageous practices. "Cowboys" is perhaps too charitable a word with which to describe the O'Neils. Cowboys show more care for their horses than the two brothers showed for their Asian staff.
I have some hope that other industrial companies in the region will show their disapproval of the conduct of Burnsall's by considering whether they should handle any products of the factory and whether they should provide any work for it until the two brothers have the simple intelligence to recognise the GMB and work with it. The denial of the simple right of workers to have the union that they have freely elected to join recognised by their employer has led to a protracted, bitter and avoidable dispute.
It is essential that the Government re-examine some of the issues raised in this case. That industrial employers such as the O'Neil brothers could have reverted to the practices prevailing at the end of the last century is absolutely unsatisfactory. This is not an exercise late at night. It really is essential that the Ministers responsible for industrial relations reconsider some of the mistakes that they have made over the last few years and put them right, for the sake of industrial harmony in this country.
10.13 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on securing this debate. It is high time that the appalling treatment meted out to the workers at the Burnsall's factory at 10 Downing street in Smethwick was given an airing in this Chamber.
We have recently seen the passage of the so-called Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill through the House. On 17 November, during the Second Reading, the Secretary of State was eloquent in her concern about the rights of employees. In fact, that Bill does nothing to secure the rights of employees, and what little it does to help women, for instance, on maternity leave has been forced on the Government by the European Community.

1205
When, on 17 November, I raised very briefly the issue of the Burnsall's strike, the appalling wages paid to workers, the compulsory overtime, and, of course, the denial of the right to have their trade union recognised when 26 out of the 29 workers had voted to join the trade union, the Secretary of State's response was that trade union recognition and bargaining rights were different from membership.
The Secretary of State is not really concerned about workers' rights. Her remarks are indicative of the Government's attitude. They are not concerned about the appalling wages paid to workers such as those at Burnsall's mostly women workers. That is happening throughout the country. Workers, particularly women, are being forced to accept appalling wages and even to take cuts in their wages. That will get worse with the abolition of the wages councils.
In a written reply to a question by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) about the connection between minimum wages and employment, the Government quoted 26 references. I followed them up, to find that, of those 26 references, only 10 showed any positive correlation between minimum wages and employment. The summary of the notes from the House of Commons Library says that most of the reports were theoretical and did not give a positive response to the issue.
Week after week, the Government talk as though minimum wages are disadvantageous in terms of employment. They talk as if that were the accepted wisdom. In fact, their written reply to that questions shows that that is not the case. Sixteen of those 26 references show that there is no correlation between minimum wages set at a reasonable level in relation to the general levels of wages within the economy and employment. They are not detrimental and, in many cases, can have a positive effect on employment because of the increasing purchasing power that they bring into the market.
It is high time that the Government came clean about what is happening to employees. If they really are concerned about workers' rights, they should think again about their legislation. They should think again about introducing the right for workers who vote to be members of trade unions to have their union recognised. It is high time that No. 10 Downing street, London, took note of what is happening at No. 10 Downing street, Smethwick, learned from that experience, and acted accordingly.
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am grateful to the hon. Members for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) for bringing to the attention of the House a matter that they think of important interest to their constituency.
The hon. Member for Selly Oak has a short memory when it comes to the demand for recognition by employers. To refresh her memory, when the previous Labour Government tried to impose that on industry, it led to total chaos in industrial relations—so much so that even the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service said that what they had tried to do was impracticable and unworkable. Therefore, we cannot take too seriously the hon. Lady's strictures on recognition.
1206
However, I accept that the hon. Member for Warley, East has brought what he thinks to be an important matter to the attention of the House, and I shall attempt to set out the employment law as it applies to this case.
Our consistent policy since 1979 has been to establish and maintain a framework of law which is appropriate to the needs of a modern economy. Such a framework must strike a proper balance between the rights that it gives to employers and to employees. But it must also be a framework of law which is apt for the industrial relations practices and traditions of this country. It has also been a crucial principle of our policy that the Government should not seek to intervene in matters such as industrial disputes which are best left to the parties directly involved to resolve. We do not believe that the Government know better than Burnsall's own management how to run the affairs of the company.
Similarly, we do not seek to condemn, or to praise, the lawful actions which employers may take to protect the interests of their businesses. Where an employer acts unlawfully, however, he puts himself at risk of penalties and sanctions. Thus, an employer cannot with impunity deny his workers equal pay rights, or break health and safety requirements.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Warley, East said about health and safety inspectors. Burnsall's was visited in June 1992, in response to a complaint. They issued an improvement notice requiring the company to undertake an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. They made a number of additional recommendations. A follow-up visit confirmed that the improvement notice had been complied with and work undertaken to meet the remaining recommendations. There are no continuing matters of concern to the Health and Safety Executive at Burnsall's at present.
Inspectors can require an employer to obey the law where it has been broken, and the court can punish employers who flout their health and safety responsibilities. I believe that we have a very good record in bolstering the role of the Health and Safety Executive, and a number of companies would pay tribute to the way in which the executive works to further the health and safety of workers in their companies.
Similarly, under employment law, an employee has potential remedies for constructive dismissal, and breach of contract, when an employer unilaterally alters the employee's overall terms and conditions of employment to the employee's disadvantage. It is quite wrong to assume that employees faced with such unreasonable behaviour by their employer have no option but to take industrial action. It is equally wrong to believe that the Government have to intervene before these matters can be resolved.
We believe in balloting where that is necessary to ensure that union members have a proper say in the conduct of the union to which they belong.
An industrial action ballot is necessary, for example, to ensure that members want their union to call on them to take such action. The ballot is therefore a necessary condition if a union is to have the benefit of the protection which the law can give it to call on workers to take industrial action against their employer.
The workers' relationships with a company that has offered them work on terms which they have accepted is really rather different. To argue that, because there was a ballot in favour of recognition, Burnsall's should agree to that can only be founded on the completely unacceptable

1207
principle that recognition arrangements can properly be decided by workers alone. That cannot be correct, as it fails to take proper account of the employers' necessary freedom to decide the terms on which they will offer work.
An industrial action ballot can protect a union which wishes to organise industrial action. However, such a ballot, for such a purpose, cannot and should not afford any special protection for workers who choose—
Mr. David Winnick: Disgraceful.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member says "Disgraceful." I wish that miners during that 12 months' strike had been given the chance of a ballot. It was signally denied to them, and I am grateful that the law now provides that right and that protection.
Mr. Winnick: The Minister is not answering the point. We are not dealing with the miners. Is he saying that it is entirely up to employers now to decide whether they will recognise the work force? The work force carry out a ballot with the result to which the Minister has referred. The Minister is saying, is he not, that regardless of a ballot by the work force, the decision on whether recognition will be given lies entirely with the employers? That is totally wrong.
Mr. McLoughlin: That was my point at the beginning of my speech when I explained about recognition. I said what a failure demand for recognition had turned out to be under the Government whom the hon. Member supported. It was brought in and was condemned by ACAS.
Mr. Frank Dobson: The Minister said that it would be wrong for employees, by a ballot, to decide that they should be recognised, because it was not a matter that could be decided by one party, but the hon. Gentleman is saying that it is decided by one party because, if the employer will not agree to recognition, there is no machinery in law that can secure recognition for the employee.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure what the hon. Member is saying. It is a fairly interesting concept that he might be developing. Is he saying that, irrespective of the outcome of a ballot, the employers have to abide by the result of that ballot, in which they have not taken part? It is a strange idea of what a ballot should be. As we have made clear, at the end of the day, there is special protection for workers to choose. It will be the individual's choice. It will be for employees to decide whether to take industrial action against their employers.
In the case of Burnsall's, it was not unlawful for the employer to respond to the decision of the workers to take industrial action in the way he did. The workers chose to take industrial action against the firm. Industrial action is one of a number of choices which employees have when faced with what they believe to be unreasonable behaviour by their employer.
However, the law has always allowed employers the necessary freedom to respond to strikes by imposing sanctions on those who take such action. That was the case even under the legislation enacted by the previous Labour Government, which allowed employers to dismiss all those taking industrial action without risking claims of unfair dismissal from any of them. The Labour Government did not believe it right to make it unlawful.
1208
Employees who take industrial action will know that there may be damaging financial consequences for them, since they are unlikely to receive any pay if they withdraw their labour. They should also be aware that they are putting their jobs at risk, because the employer may decide that he has no option but to dismiss them.
Indeed, our legislation confirms that all employees have the right to belong to a union, and not to be discriminated against on grounds of their union membership and activities. All employees have the right not to be dismissed for being members of an independent union and not to have other action short of dismissal taken against them to prevent or deter them from belonging to such a union. They also have statutory rights to take part in trade union activities at an appropriate time.
If these union membership rights are denied, an employee can bring a complaint to an industrial tribunal— a system giving access to legal redress which compares well with any available in other countries. The rights apply regardless of the time during which an individual has worked for the employer. Accordingly, it is misleading to suggest that our law means that Burnsall's employees are being denied the right to belong to a union.
United Kingdom law does, of course, now leave employers free to decide for themselves, taking account of the circumstances and needs of their business, whether to recognise a union for collective bargaining purposes. This is an intentional, and entirely justifiable, result of the changes that we have made to the law since 1979. The law should recognise the fact that it is the employer who offers work and the employee who undertakes to do that work in accordance with the terms offered by the employer. Setting terms and conditions through collective bargaining is a choice which employers should have, and they should be free to operate those arrrangements where they believe they are appropriate or necessary.
But no employers should find themselves in a position where they must unwillingly, accept such arrangements because of some statutory requirement. After all, the employer has offered work not to the union, but to individuals. If he does not wish to bargain with a union about the terms and conditions under which work will be done, why on earth should the law require him to do so?
Moreover, experience during the 1970s demonstrated all too vividly, and at great cost to the country's industrial relations record and reputation, just what happens when the law attempts to enable unions to force recognition on unwilling employers. It is surprising that the hon. Member for Selly Oak has forgotten that the independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service itself concluded that the Labour Government's statutory recognition legislation proved "unworkable". Not only was that legislation unworkable, but it was highly disruptive. The Grunwick dispute, attempts by unions such as the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers and the Engineers and Managers Association to use the legislation to break up freely established recognition arrangements—
Mr. Faulds: The Minister is rambling. Did he listen to a word of my speech? Is he trying to pretend that the conduct of the O'Neils was in any way satisfactory with a work force of about 30 Punjabi women who did not speak English, who had no knowledge of their rights and who had to get union recognition to protect them? Will he comment on that essential element in this case?
Mr. McLoughlin: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am rambling. His speech was rambling. If he does not like to listen to me setting out the position under the law, I am sorry, but I still intend to explain it. If he finds it embarrassing when I refer to the position under the previous Labour Government, I feel sorry for him. He should listen, because it is important to judge what industrial relations were like prior to 1979 and to recognise the substantial changes made by the Government, which have brought about a massive improvement in industrial relations. We will not take lectures from the Labour party about the role of trade unions because their record was lamentable.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Will not the Minister condemn the treatment of the workers by the employer?
Mr. McLoughlin: I am not in a position to know the full details and circumstances of the case. I am trying tonight to explain to the House exactly what the situation is and what the law makes available to individuals so that there is a balance between the rights of workers and employers. I regard that to be of fundamental importance.
Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister reject Winston Churchill's view that parity of bargaining requires that there be an organisation on both sides?
Mr. McLoughlin: There is an organisation on both sides in this case. It is up to individuals to decide whether to accept a contract of work with the company. That happens in the first instance, and then we move on to the wider question of union recognition. There is nothing to stop individuals belonging to a trade union. That does not mean that a trade union must be recognised by a company. I think that that is abundantly clear.
1210
The hon. Member for Warley, East is rightly concerned to do what he can to resolve the problems involved. I accept that, and I accept that he has gone to great lengths to bring about a resolution of the problems and difficulties facing his constituents.
The Government must be prepared to take account of the way in which the law can affect industrial disputes and the conduct of companies such as Burnsall's. I hope I have explained why we believe that United Kingdom law contains an appropriate balance between the rights of workers and their employers, and certainly not the kind of imbalance that the hon. Member for Warley, East has claimed.
I fear that the hon. Gentleman must realise that it was the choice of Burnsall's workers to take industrial action. Just as they had freedom to make that choice, so their employer had certain freedoms to respond. Both sides were acting as free agents, and it is really not the proper role of this House to seek to probe behind their reasoning with the aim of arbitrating some kind of blame or praise for what they chose to do.
The hon. Member for Warley, East raised a number of points about health and safety. I have explained the situation regarding health and safety inspections, and I—[Interruption.] I think I hear the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) saying that the employer was in the wrong. As I pointed out, the health and safety orders were complied with. They were—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many individual movements of plutonium were involved in post-irradiation examination experiments at Berkeley nuclear laboratories and Winfrith nuclear research establishment to which reference is made in note (2) to section A of his departmental press release P/93/51 of 4 February on annual plutonium production and stockpile figures.

  Mr. Eggar
  Dispatches for post-irradiation examination involve movements of spent fuel, details of which are an operational matter for the owner of the fuel in question.

  Technology Imports
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward proposals to place a duty on those importing technology into the United Kingdom to provide environmental impact information as part of the import licensing procedure.

  Mr. Needham
  No.

  Tractors and Earth-moving Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the import, export, balance of payments and import penetration figures for tractors and earth-moving equipment since 1987.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on trade in, and sales of, earth-moving equipment is regularly published in the Central Statistical Office's business monitor PAS3254, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. However, because product sales information is collected only from large firms, it is not comparable with the trade data and reliable import penetration figures cannot therefore be derived.

  Anthracite
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the annual production of anthracite in each year since 1985; and what has been the cost of its production in 1992 prices.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual production of anthracite in the United Kingdom since 1985 was:

  Thousand tonnes

  1985

  2,142

  1986

  1,985

  1987

  2,091

  1988

  1,798

  1989

  2,060

  634

  Thousand tonnes

  1990

  1,945

  1991

  1,864

  1992

  2,029

  Information on the cost of anthracite production is not held centrally.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the average cost of British Coal's production in each year since 1985 in 1992 prices.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on British Coal's production costs are published in British Coal Corporation's report and accounts. Figures in 1992 prices are as follows:

  Financial year

  Cost per tonne2

  Deep-mined

  Opencast

  11985–86

  66·95

  40·85

  1986–87

  57·52

  37·48

  1987–88

  56·07

  35·70

  1988–89

  48·91

  33·75

  1989–90

  50·59

  33·99

  1990–91

  45·45

  35·09

  31991–92

  42·13

  33·99

  1 Figures for 1985–86 exclude release of 1984–85 provisions for strike recovery costs.

  2 Cash figures adjusted to 1992 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.

  3 The GDP deflator for 1992 has been estimated.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated percentage market share of British Coal in(a) the industrial steam coal market, (b) the domestic coal market, and (c) the market for electricity generation in Britain during 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal's percentage shares of the respective coal markets during 1992 are estimated at 85 per cent. for electricity generation, 45 per cent. for industrial steam coal and 75 per cent. for domestic coal.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much coal has been produced by the private sector of(a) opencast and (b) deep mined, annually since 1987; and what proportion of private sector production was sold to (i) the power generators, (ii) industrial users, (iii) the domestic home market and (iv) abroad.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of opencast and deep-mined coal produced by private sector licensed mines since 1987 was:

  Thousand tonnes

  Opencast

  Deep mined

  1987

  1,155

  855

  1988

  1,130

  875

  1989

  1,093

  1,013

  1990

  1,109

  1,006

  1991

  1,987

  1,102

  11992

  2,592

  1,099

  1 Provisional.

  635
  About a tenth of this coal is sold back to British Coal, while most of the remainder is sold for power generation. Small amounts are also sold to domestic and industrial users or exported.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total tonnage of coal used for electricity generation in Britain in each year since 1987; and how much of this was obtained from(a) opencast coal mining, (b) Britain's deep mines and (c) imports of foreign coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amounts of coal used for electricity generation from 1987 were:

  Million tonnes

  Major generating companies

  Other generating companies1

  Overall total

  Open-cast

  Deep mined

  Imports

  Total

  1987

  12·2

  67·8

  1·4

  81·4

  6·6

  88·0

  1988

  10·2

  65·2

  2·0

  77·4

  6·9

  84·2

  1989

  10·0

  65·3

  2·0

  77·3

  5·3

  82·6

  1990

  11·3

  62·4

  4·7

  78·4

  6·1

  84·5

  1991

  11·9

  61·9

  7·3

  81·1

  2·9

  84·0

  19922

  10·3

  57·1

  7·6

  75·0

  4·0

  79·0

  1 Information on the source of coal used by other generating companies is not collected centrally.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the annual change in labour productivity, output per man shift, in British Coal's deep mine pits since 1985.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual change in labour productivity, as measured by average output per man shift worked, in British Coal's deep mines since 1985 are as follows:

  Percentage change over previous year

  Output per manshift, tonnes

  1985

  11

  2·49

  1986

  27

  3·15

  1987

  14

  3·59

  1988

  11

  3·97

  1989

  9

  4·33

  1990

  5

  4·53

  1991

  13

  5·11

  11992

  18

  6·01

  1 Provisional.

  Source: Table 7 in Energy Trends.

  Coal Exports
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the estimated annual tonnages of British Coal exports to(a) France, (b) Germany, (c) Ireland, (d) Spain, (e) the European Community total and (f) total world wide during 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures requested are given in the table:

  Thousand tonnes

  1990

  1991

  19921

  France

  276

  327

  155

  Germany

  282

  274

  63

  Ireland

  198

  154

  107

  636

  1990

  1991

  19921

  Spain

  131

  207

  52

  European Communities2

  1,739

  1,390

  614

  All countries

  2,533

  1,672

  668

  1 Provisional

  2 Including France, Germany, Spain and Ireland

  Source: British Coal

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will request Her Majesty's chief inspector of nuclear installations to investigate the problems discovered in the status nuclear safety computer system developed for Nuclear Electric's Magnox plants.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 10 March 1993,Official Report, column 582.

  AEA Technology
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of the contracts by AEA Technology(a) completed and (b) currently under negotiation with foreign companies or other nuclear organisations for the reprocessing or storage of materials, test reactor and research reactor nuclear fuels at Dounreay; and what is the total value of this business to AEA Technology to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are commercial matters for the AEA.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department commenced formal discussions with the European Commission on the question of support for renewable energy beyond 1998.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department first raised this matter with the Commission in autumn 1991.

  Bio-diesel Fuel
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much subsidy was given to companies producing bio-diesel fuel in the United Kingdom in the last year; what information he has as to subsidies given by other EC Governments to companies producing bio-diesel fuel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom Presidency of the European Community secured agreement to directive 92/81/EEC on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils on 19 October 1992. This directive provides that member states may apply total or partial exemptions or reductions in the rate of duty to mineral oils used under fiscal control, inter alia, in the field of pilot projects for the technological development of more environmentally friendly products and in particular in relation to fuels from renewable resources. No such exemptions have so far been granted in the United Kingdom and data concerning other member states are not recorded in the United Kingdom.

  Electricity Imports
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what payments have been made since 1990 on imports of electricity from France as an equivalent to the fossil fuel levy.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for those regional electricity companies that have contracts requiring them to make such payments to Electricité de France.

  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specific contributions the United Kingdom has made to discussions in the OECD joint sessions of trade and environment experts; what further contributions are planned; and what plans exist for the issue of guidelines on the use of trade and environment policies.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: The United Kingdom participates actively in the work of the OECD trade and environment group, in close collaboration with the European Commission and other EC member states. The Government attach high priority to the development of criteria, including possible OECD guidelines, to govern the proper use of trade measures for environmental purposes. The Government are therefore committed to bringing this work to a positive conclusion as soon as possible. It is not yet possible, however, to say when guidelines might be issued.

  As this work has developed, the United Kingdom has tabled a number of informal analytical papers dealing with detailed technical questions.

  Textiles
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will carry out an examination of the effect on the United Kingdom textile industry of the double pricing by overseas countries of raw materials such as cotton and cashmere; if he will consider the compatibility of such measures with GATT; what remedies exist to protect the United Kingdom industry from their effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: Although double pricing of raw materials is incompatible with GATT rules, developing countries which are GATT members are allowed derogations from the rules. Since many of the countries which practice double pricing fall into this category, it is not possible to take action against them. However, the draft GATT Uruguay round textiles agreement contains provisions which, if implemented, will make it easier to act against any member country on this issue. Remedies under GATT are available only if the country practising double pricing is a GATT member. If not, a remedy may be sought bilaterally through the appropriate mechanisms of any bilateral agreement that exists between the country concerned and the European Community.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Care Funding
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of total funding for health and social care during the 1993–94 financial year is to be spent on community care; which Department is responsible for deciding the provision for community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Community care expenditure is not separately identified within the 1993–94 provision of £1,318 million for the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. However, this total includes £29·452 million from which the management executive of the Department of Health and Social Services will make available the necessary funds to health and social services boards for their new community care responsibilities from 1 April 1993.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds have been allocated to Northern Ireland for health and social care for the financial years 1993–94 and 1995–96; and if he will break the figures down by(a) health board, (b) county and (c) the proportion to be spent on (i) health and social care and (ii) community care.

  Mr. Hanley
  Expenditure on the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland is estimated at £1,318 million for 1993–94 with planned expenditure rising to £1,504 million in 1995–96.

  Expenditure on the health and personal social services cannot be attributed by county and community care expenditure is not separately identified within the HPSS programme resources. However, the totals above include £29·452 milllion in 1993–94 and £105·152 million in 1995–96 for the new community care responsibilities from 1 April 1993.

  The breakdown of 1995–96 planned expenditure has not yet been determined but in terms of the initial 1993–94 revenue budgets for the health and social services boards the provision for hospital, community health and personal social services expenditure and the amount subsumed therein for their new community care responsibilities is shown in the following table:

  £ millions

  Health and social services board

  Revenue budget

  New community care responsiblities

  Northern

  195·872

  6·957

  Southern

  155·688

  5·414

  Eastern

  374·781

  12·089

  Western

  141·267

  4·932

  Total

  867·608

  29·392

  Community Care Trusts
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what options his Department has considered for reforming existing Northern Ireland legislation on(a) mental health and (b) care of children, in connection with the creation of community care trusts; and if he will make a statement.
  639
  Mr. Hanley
  The Government intend to publish a proposal for legislation later this year which will enable boards to delegate certain statutory functions to health and social services trusts.

  In bringing forward new legislation, the Government's objectives are to enable as many units as possible to take advantage of the significant benefits that trust status offers, whilst also preserving the integrated structure of the health and social services in Northern Ireland.

  Social Security
  Sir James Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the application of the Social Security Revaluation of Earnings Factors (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 as it applies to additional pension paid with invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Hanley
  The policy intention has been that the Revaluation Order should apply to additional pensions paid with invalidity benefit. Legal advice is that provisions enacted in the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, and carried forward into the Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, have not given full effect to this. This means an estimated £228,000 paid between April 1992 and April 1993 will have been paid on a basis which is incorrect on the strict interpretation of the law. We intend to continue payments on an extra-statutory basis to ensure that claimants receive a level of benefits in line with the policy intention. Appropriate primary authority will be obtained in due course. The total amount paid on this basis, initially estimated at a cost of £20,000 (rounded) per month, will be reported in a note to the Department of Health and Social Services appropriation account.

  Market Testing
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to the market testing of public services in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has today placed in the Library guidance on the implications for market testing of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. I hope that all those engaged in market testing, including contractors, will consider the guidance helpful.

  Emergency Provisions Act 1991
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements he has made to review the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Viscount Colville of Culross, QC has accepted my invitation to prepare a report on the operation in 1992 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. As with previous reviews, the intention is that the report should enable both Houses of Parliament to discharge effectively their responsibility to scrutinise the operation of the Act on the occasion of the annual debates on the continuance orders, and to determine whether any of the Act's temporary provisions could be allowed to lapse.
  640
  As the temporary provisions of the Act will lapse on 15 June 1993 unless continued in force by order, I have asked Viscount Colville to submit his report in sufficient time to facilitate the House's consideration of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.

  Health and Social Services Boards
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 247, whether employees of the health and social security boards can define themselves as British or United Kingdom citizens.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: There is no provision for employees of the health and social services boards to indicate whether they are British or United Kingdom citizens.

  Police Interview Notes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many requests have been made to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in each of the past three years for the disclosure of original interview notes in cases where criminal charges have been brought; in how many instances these requests have been denied; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: This is a matter for the chief constable. However, I understand that statistical records on the number of requests for access to original interview notes are not maintained by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 3 March 1993]: I consider each application to extend the 48-hour period for which a person may be detained under section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 very carefully, and I take into account all the relevant circumstances of each case, which frequently include the need for further forensic work. It would only be possible to provide details of these cases at disproportionate cost. It is worthy of note that, in his most recent report on the operation of the Act in 1992, Lord Colville who looked at all the extension order files was able to conclude that
  "the proper criteria are being carefully observed in considering whether extensions should be granted".

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many legal aid certificates have been issued for(a) criminal cases and (b) civil cases in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of criminal legal aid orders and civil legal aid certificates issued for each of the last 10 years is given in the table.
  641

  Legal aid certificates issued 1982–83 to 1991–92

  Year

  (a) Legal aid orders granted in criminal cases

  Year

  (b) Legal aid certificates issued in civil cases (thousands)

  1982

  428,494

  1982–83

  189·6

  1983

  446,654

  1983–84

  205·9

  1984

  471,186

  1984–85

  222·2

  1985

  525,248

  1985–86

  232·4

  1986

  518,202

  1986–87

  245·7

  1987

  575,649

  1987–88

  245·4

  1988

  594,297

  1988–89

  226·0

  1989

  608,962

  1989–90

  259·2

  1990

  623,554

  1990–91

  297·6

  1991

  638,305

  1991–92

  337·3

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department how many legal aid certificates have been issued for(a) criminal cases and (b) civil cases in each of the last 24 months.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Table(a) gives numbers of legal aid certificates issued in civil cases in each month from January 1991 to February 1993. Statistics for the issue of legal aid orders in criminal cases are collected quarterly, and the numbers of such orders issued during each quarter in 1991 and 1992 are shown in table (b).

  Table (a)

  Month

  Number of civil legal aid certificates issued

  1991

  January

  28,937

  February

  26,165

  March

  25,365

  April

  25,191

  May

  31,257

  June

  28,959

  July

  22,151

  August

  31,264

  September

  26,967

  October

  31,658

  November

  31,648

  December

  24,820

  1992

  January

  33,287

  February

  30,632

  March

  35,679

  April

  32,249

  May

  26,896

  June

  34,166

  July

  39,099

  August

  31,852

  September

  35,594

  October

  36,868

  November

  39,439

  December

  31,210

  1993

  January

  33,906

  February

  36,704

  642

  Table(b)

  Quarter

  Number of legal aid orders issued in criminal cases

  January to March 1991

  149,148

  April to June 1991

  150,004

  July to September 1991

  163,920

  October to December 1991

  162,073

  January to March 1992

  167,432

  April to June 1992

  155,916

  July to September 1992

  151,925

  October to December 1992

  143,319

  The Department's statistical returns from magistrates courts are, however, incomplete and the above figures for criminal legal aid orders have been estimated based on the information available.

  Family Perspective and Life Circle
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on how his Department takes account of the family perspective and the life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of his Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  One of the Departments' aims is to establish a single body of family law applied within a unified jurisdictional structure by specialist courts and supported by appropriate services. As an employer, the Department seeks to support those with dependant carer responsibilities by offering a range of flexible working conditions, including job-sharing, working at home and term-time working.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department's strategic plan, which is to be published on 22 April, includes a description of the developments and initiatives in the fields of family law and departmental personnel policy. The plan will set out objectives and targets relating to both of these areas. "Judicial Statistics" and the "Court Service Annual Report" are the principal publications giving statistical information about the Department. Both publications are produced in July each year and placed in the Libraries.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Programmes
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will take action to ensure that the Parliament and courts of the United Kingdom have sole right to decide whether violent or pornographic television programmes may be received on television sets in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Brooke
  Responsibility for television programmes originating in the United Kingdom falls to the independent regulatory authorities—the BBC governors,
  643
  the Independent Television Commission and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority (S4C). It is for these bodies to ensure that nothing is included in programmes which is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder or be offensive to public feeling. Broadcasts originating elsewhere in the EC must meet the standards set out in the EC Television Without Frontiers Directive (89/552/EEC), and any action which the Government take in relation to such broadcasts must he in accordance with our international obligations.

  Television Licences
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what estimate has been made of the number of unlicensed television sets in use in(a) Belfast, (b) Londonderry and (c) the remainder of Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; and how many households have been prosecuted for use of an unlicensed television;

  (2) what estimate has been made of the number of unlicensed television sets in use in (a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in each of the past five years; and how many households have been prosecuted for use of an unlicensed television.

  Mr. Brooke
  Under section 180 and schedule 18 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, responsibility for administration of the television licensing system, including enforcement of the licensing requirement, passed to the BBC with effect from 1 April 1991. I understand from the BBC that statistics for estimated television licence evasion and prosecution rates in Northern Ireland are not broken down by area. Estimated evasion and actual prosecution rates for the financial years 1988–89 to 1992–93 for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are given in the table. The number of evaders is based on a percentage evasion rate applied to the total number of licences in force.

  Estimated Number of evaders

  Prosecutions

  1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989

  England

  1,291,642

  153,219

  Scotland

  146,216

  9,062

  Wales

  84,024

  10,568

  Northern Ireland

  158,147

  967

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  England

  1,190,241

  149,724

  Scotland

  143,056

  9,686

  Wales

  82,205

  11,094

  Northern Ireland

  144,447

  1,868

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  England

  1,318,517

  159,131

  Scotland

  155,351

  11,275

  Wales

  94,894

  10,283

  Northern Ireland

  150.265

  2,032

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  England

  1,337,908

  182,869

  Scotland

  146,173

  12,791

  Wales

  97,088

  10,898

  Northern Ireland

  129,829

  2,508

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  England

  1,381,430

  166,206

  Scotland

  147,392

  11,082

  Wales

  96,274

  11,605

  Northern Ireland

  137,743

  1,634

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

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: My Department was formed in April 1992 and has incurred expenditure of £23,260 to date on official entertainment. A comparable figure for 1991–92 is not available.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. Waldegrave
  The Civil Service college has contracted out the distribution of the college prospectus to JBS Mailing Services, without in-house comparison. The service represented a small part of the activities of several in-house units and it was considered unproductive to continue with this arrangement.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will issue guidance on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to the Government's market testing initiative.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 1991 White Paper "Competing for Quality" set out the Government's plans for achieving more effective competition, and thereby better value for money, through an expanded market testing programme in central Government. Department's current market testing targets for the period up to September 1993 cover work costing about £1·5 billion and employing 44,000 staff. This work will be offered to outside contractors, for the most part in competition with the in-house teams currently providing the service.

  I am today placing in the Library guidance on the implications for market testing of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. In some cases where work is awarded to an outside contractor following market testing that may constitute the transfer of an undertaking in the terms of the regulations. If so, the regulations provide that the new employer takes over responsibility for the employment contracts of the employees, who would transfer on their previous terms and conditions of service. The guidance sets out circumstances in which the regulations are, and are not, likely to apply, and explains their effect where they do. It is intended for information only, to help those engaged in market testing, including potential contractors, to understand the issues involved. It is not designed as a complete statement of the law, and does not obviate the need for legal advice to be taken. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland,

  645
  for Wales, for Northern Ireland and for Health are making separate statements on the application of the regulations to their areas of responsibility.

  The guidance makes clear that, as has been the case for over 10 years, contracting out is not affected by the regulations unless it involves enough of the elements of the original operation; such as premises, staff, good will or customer base, to constitute the transfer of a going concern. Whether this applies in any particular case will depend on the nature of the work awarded and the contractors' own proposals for carrying it out.

  The Government intend that market testing should proceed without delay. The Government look to bidders, both external and in-house, to put forward innovative proposals for carrying out the work. Bidders will be given access to information about the numbers of posts in the in-house operation, and the terms and conditions of service which attach to the posts, where they need it in order to submit a bid based on a proposal to which the Regulations might apply.

  The Government will specify requirements for services being market tested in terms of the outputs to be delivered rather than the structure or methods used to deliver them, and without prejudging whether or not the regulations will apply. Where the regulations would not otherwise apply, it would be inconsistent with our policy to seek to require contractors to adopt particular employment terms and conditions or use particular employees to do the work. It would also be inconsistent with our policy to reorganise in-house operations prior to market testing with the purpose of bringing any subsequent transfer within the scope of the regulations or to dictate the contractor's organisational structure except for reasons strictly related to the performance of the service in question. Bids will be evaluated against the specification on the basis of quality and value for money.

  Departments will take account of the costs of redundancies, if any, involved in the respective tender proposals. Some contractors have expressed concern about the possible additional costs involved in a tender proposal falling within the scope of the Regulations compared with a proposal which does not do so. Whilst the basic cost of the former may be higher, the latter is more likely to involve redundancy or redeployment costs which would be taken into account in comparing the respective tender bids. Genuinely innovative proposals should still enable contractors to offer good value for money to Departments, whether or not the regulations apply.

  Research Vessels Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the cruise programme of Research Vessels Services (Barry) for 1993–94; and how the programme will be funded.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As in previous years, the cruise programme of Research Vessels Services for 1993–94 will be funded from the science Vote, supplemented by commissioned research and charter income.

  I have placed copies of the cruise programme for 1993–94 in the Library.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Police (Assaults)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General how many charges for assaults on police officers in 1992 were reduced by the Crown prosecution service from the original to a lesser charge.

  The Attorney-General
  The information sought by the hon. Member is not centrally recorded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  European Court of Justice
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions in the past five years(a) a magistrates court, (b) a crown court, (c) a high court, (d) a court of appeal and (e) the House of Lords requested the European Court of Justice to provide a ruling as provided in article 177 of the treaty of Rome.

  The Attorney-General
  A magistrates court has requested the European Court of Justice to provide a ruling under article 177 of the treaty on nine occasions in the past five years. A Crown Court has sought a ruling on four occasions, the High Court on 22 occasions, the Court of Appeal on 10 occasions and the House of Lords on five occasions during that period.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  International Development Association
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2.4 February,Official Report, column 601, on the United Kingdom's contribution to the International Development Association, if he will set out the United Kingdom's contribution in constant 1992 prices.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  United Kingdom contributions to IDA replenishments

  £ million Cash

  £ million 1992 prices

  Replenishments

  IDA 1

  47

  532

  Supplementary

  34

  334

  IDA 2

  56

  510

  Supplementary

  43

  330

  IDA 3

  128

  896

  IDA 4

  206

  1,045

  IDA 5

  475

  1,485

  IDA 6

  555

  1,132

  Special contribution

  105

  174

  IDA 7

  402

  634

  IDA 8

  524

  721

  IDA 9

  619

  645

  IDA 101

  620

  603

  1 Proposed contribution.

  Note

  Commitments to IDA 1–3 were in US$. The current price figures have been converted to at the exchange rate prevailing at the start of the relevant commitment period. The constant price series was formed by deflating the total amount committed by the UK GDP deflator, based on the start of the relevant commitment period. For IDA 10 this will be 1 July 1993.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Kingdom representatives attended the donors conference convened by the United Nations held in Phnom Penh on 25 February; what issues were raised; what further funding Her Majesty's Government have committed to Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The donor meeting in Phnom Penh on 25 February, called to review progress and enable co-ordination, was attended by the United Kingdon head of mission in Phnom Penh and his deputy. The meeting focused on the need for donors to accelerate aid expenditure and to give attention to the geographical and sectoral distribution of their programmes and the particular needs of the health and education sectors.

  We announced further assistance for repatriation (£400,000 through UNHCR), food aid (£100,000 through the World Food Programme), human rights education (£71,000) and well-drilling (£90,000). The latter will cover schemes in areas controlled by all three factions participating n the peace process.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with United Nations bodies, the OECD and the EC with a view to rationalising the accounts required by donor countries of recipient countries in their use of food aid.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have regular discussions on the uses of food aid with our EC partners and with other members of the world food programme. We are always ready to discuss specific problems that may arise in accounting for United Kingdom food aid with the organisation through which the aid is channeled.

  Somali Refugees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government on financial assistance to help with the Somali refugees in Kenya; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development discussed the burden imposed on Kenya by Somali refugees with President Moi last September. It was also raised when Baroness Chalker visited Kenya in February. In 1992, we provided almost £2·5 million, including 5,000 tonnes of food, for projects in northern Kenya to help refugees from Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposals for security assurances tabled by the delegation of the Nigerian Government at the fourth review conference of the treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  648
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have noted the proposals tabled by the Nigerian Government.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what security assurances have been given by Her Majesty's Government to non-nuclear weapon states.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) which are parties to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) benefit from both our positive security assurance (PSA) and our negative security assurance (NSA). NNWS, not party to the NPT but party to other similar internationally binding commitments are also covered by our NSA.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial, military and other support Her Majesty's Government have provided for the UNTAC in Cambodia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As well as our assessed contribution to the UNTAC budget (6·102 per cent. of the estimated $1·69 billion costs, ie $103 million), we have provided 122 personnel to UNTAC's military component. We will also be providing a number of polling station officers for the elections due to take place in May.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recommend to the United Nations Security Council a strengthening of the UNTAC mandate; what progress has been made in planning development assistance for Cambodia following elections; and which sectors have been prioritised.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have no plans to propose a change to UNTAC's mandate. UNTAC has made considerable progress towards implementing the Paris agreements under difficult circumstances. Elections are planned for May; electoral registration has been completed, with 4·6 million Cambodians registered to vote; and more than 320,000 refugees have returned to Cambodia. The international community has pledged some $880 million to Cambodia, within which the United Kingdom has pledged some $30 million, to be used for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Cambodia. There is continuing co-ordination between donors who have agreed that in allocating resources priority will be given to the health and education sectors.

  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Minister of State's meeting with representatives of the PLO; and what assurances were sought from the PLO concerning the abandonment of the Intifada.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Faisal Husseini, head of the Palestinian negotiating team, called on me on 9 March, accompanied by two PLO officials. I explained the importance of an early resumption of the peace process. I told Mr. Husseini that we recognised the need for Israeli moves to lighten the weight of the occupation, but that it would be an enormous help if the Palestinian leadership were able to take steps to reduce violence by Palestinians.

WALES

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the amount of grant in aid and (b) the total budget at 1993 of the Welsh Development Agency at 1993 prices in each year since 1987–88; and what amount is planned for each year until 1996–97.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures for the period 1987–88 to 1993–94 are set out in the table:

  Grant in aid 1993–94 prices3 £ million

  Total gross budget 1993–94 prices3 £ million

  1987–88

  73·9

  139·4

  1988–89

  81·6

  151·7

  1989–90

  86·3

  165·0

  1990–91

  93·0

  170·9

  1991–92

  93·4

  169·6

  1992–931

  80·6

  171·3

  1993–942

  59·6

  171·4

  1 Forecast outturn.

  2 Plans.

  3 1993–94 prices derived using latest GDP deflator.

  Total budgets and grant in aid for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 will be decided during the course of future public expenditure surveys, although indicative levels of central Government expenditure cash plans are shown in "The Government Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96-A Report by the Welsh Office", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Radiological Protection Board Survey
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the results of the Radiological Protection Board survey of Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The results of the next phase of the survey of radon levels in Wales are expected in spring 1994.

  ReChem International Ltd.
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding ReChem International Ltd. in Pontypool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Over the last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has received a petition and a number of letters from the residents of the Pontypool area about various issues relevant to ReChem International Ltd. The three main themes have been the company's plans to build a new (replacement) incinerator at its Pontypool site; the question of environmental pollution and the import of toxic waste. The first of these issues is currently the subject of an application to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The second is being addressed in the major study the Welsh Office has commissioned from the university of East Anglia, and which is now drawing to a close. As regards the third, the Government is committed to the principle of self-sufficiency in waste disposal within the international community, which is incorporated in the European Community Waste Shipment Regulation, agreed at Council on 20 October 1992.

  Schools Expenditure
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of spending in maintained schools has been met by the Welsh Office in(a) each of the last five years and (b) 1978–79.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local authority schools are funded through the annual local government revenue and capital settlements. Resources provided by the Welsh Office are not hypothecated to particular services. For 1993–94 Government plans will provide local authorities with 90 per cent. central Government support for revenue expenditure, including loan charges. Grant maintained schools are fully funded by the Welsh Office but are free to generate additional income.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many places for children with special educational needs are purchased in non-maintained and independent special schools by local education authorities(a) in total and (b) in each local education authority.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number of places purchased for children with special educational needs in non-maintained and independent special schools is not available centrally. Information relating to the number of pupils with statements of special educational needs, by local education authority and place of education, is given in table 12·01 of "Statistics of Education and Training in Wales: Schools No. 1 1993".

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the budget for the Health Promotion Authority for Wales in 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Subject to parliamentary approval, in 1993–94 £3,619,000 will be made available to the Health Promotion Authority for Wales including £384,000 for new projects, £20,000 to fund the authority's capital expenditure and £126,000 for the authority's life education centres project. The allocation will be conditional upon satisfactory completion of annual performance review. It represents a further and substantial commitment of resources to the authority.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidance to contractors and public authorities on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to the market testing of public services in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—has today placed in the Library of the House guidance on the implications for market testing of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

  I hope that all those engaged in market testing, including contractors, will find the guidance helpful.

PRIME MINISTER

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with members of the United States Congress on his recent visit to Washington about Matrix Churchill.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Knighthoods
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is now his policy that the Lord Mayor of the City of London corporation will no longer be recommended automatically for a knighthood.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: Yes.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many hon. Members have received knighthoods since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: One hundred and seven Members of Parliament have received knighthoods since May 1979.

  Prerogative Powers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 19, if he will give examples of areas where the prerogative powers residing in the Crown are not exercisable by Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: There is a variety of situations in which the Queen may exercise the prerogative directly or on the basis of advice, including the advice of Ministers. These include the Dissolution of Parliament and certain appointments—for example, those of Ministers, the Archbishop of Canterbury, other ecclesiastical appointments, lords lieutenant and certain other office holders. In the matter of honours, the Queen would normally make appointments herself in the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, the Order of Merit and in the Royal Victorian Order, but for the rest would receive recommendations from her Ministers here and in the Commonwealth.

  Manufacturers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Government's policy on the level of support and encouragement which should be given to British manufacturers.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: The Government's commitment to industry is at the heart
  652
  of our policies, where it will remain. I refer my hon. Friend to the detailed answers that he received from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment on 26 January at column 659, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 27 January at columns, 735–36, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 29 January at column 894 for details of specific measures that the Government have recently taken.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Sterling (Devaluation)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the extent of the devaluation of the pound sterling against(a) the deutschmark, (b) the US dollar and (c) the basket of international currencies since the close of trading in London on Tuesday 15 September 1992 on the latest available figures.

  Mr. Nelson
  Between the close of business in London on 15 September 1992 and opening 8 March 1993 the £ sterling has declined against the deutschmark by 13·9 per cent., against the dollar by 23·6 per cent. and against its exchange rate index by 13·5 per cent.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of carrying out the valuation of properties in Wales for the council tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The cost of the valuation banding of domestic properties in Wales was £2,899,149.

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

  Sir John Cope
  [pursuant to the answer, 4 March 1993, Official Report, c. 242]: While neither the Economic Secretary nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had recent discussions with representatives of charities and voluntary bodies about VAT, I met representatives of the Charities Tax Reform Group for a general discussion on 3 March 1993.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ruddy Duck
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations which are currently involved with Her Majesty's Government's working group into the Ruddy duck problem; what preliminary conclusions have been reached by the group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The working group referred to by the hon. Member is drawing up a strategy to control the Ruddy duck, an introduced species, which has spread from Britain to mainland Europe and is hybridising with and putting at risk the survival of the globally threatened White-headed duck.
  653
  The working group is chaired by the Government's statutory scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The other organisations represented are the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office, English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the International Council for Bird Preservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithology.

  My Department, in partnership with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau organised an international workshop at Arundel, Sussex on I and 2 March of more than 50 delegates from 10 countries. The workshop helped to foster mutual understanding about the scale of the problem and a recognition that international co-operation was needed to tackle it. The agreed objective was to develop a strategy to stop and reverse the population and range expansion of the Ruddy duck in order to safeguard the White-headed duck. Delegates were asked to take back to their countries recomendations for action in a number of areas including legislation, monitoring, research, control measures, public relations and captive birds. The problems can be resolved only on the basis of mutual understanding and effort.

  In Spain, the Ruddy duck is undermining conservation efforts to save the White-headed duck. I am very pleased to learn that the Spanish delegation at the workshop found the proceedings helpful and that they were encouraged by the positive action being taken in Britain to address the problem.

  Ozone Levels, Lerwick
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what levels of high-level ozone were recorded at Lerwick during the week 22 to 28 February, and what was the degree of deviation from normal recorded levels.

  Mr. Maclean
  Dobson spectrophotometer measurements of total ozone at Lerwick for the week 22 to 28 February were:

  Date (1993)

  Ozone Dobson units

  22 February

  230

  23 February

  256

  24 February

  1 no data

  25 February

  1 no data

  26 February

  351

  27 February

  362

  28 February

  312

  1 Due to weather conditions.

  The average February measurement over the period 1981 to 1992 is 365 DU. The monthly average for February 1993 was 286 DU, just outside the range of previous February monthly averages which is 290 to 466 DU.

  Housing Subsidy
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authorities show a negative housing entitlement under the Government's housing subsidy scheme;
  654
  (2) how many local authorities receive no Government housing subsidies and made contributions from their housing revenue to the general fund for their local authority for the years (a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93 and (c) for 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  Housing revenue account (HRA) subsidy is distributed on the basis of each local housing authority's need to spend relative to other authorities. This involves making sensible assumptions about each authority's income and expenditure, with HRA subsidy making up any shortfall between those assumptions. If an authority's rental and other income is assumed to exceed its housing expenditure, it is required to make a contribution towards its rent rebate expenditure. If an authority's assumed income exceeds all of its housing expenditure and its rent rebate expenditure, it must transfer the surplus to its general fund.

  On the basis of provisional claim forms from authorities in respect of the current financial year, 273 authorities are assumed to have a negative housing entitlement, and therefore make contributions to their rent rebates expenditure; 22 of those authorities are not claiming HRA subsidy and anticipate making contributions to their general funds. On the basis of final claim forms received for 1991–92, 18 authorities received no HRA subsidy and made contributions to their general funds. Information for 1993–94 is not yet available.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rent for a three-bedroomed council house in(a) an authority that does not receive housing subsidy and (b) in an area where housing subsidy is paid.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not collect information on rents for local authority dwellings of different sizes.

  The average weekly unrebated rent for all English authorities is £30·70. There are considerable variations in local authority rents in different areas due to the varying nature of the dwelling stock and its age. In the current financial year, 1992–93, the average weekly unrebated rent for all council dwellings in those authorities which make a contribution towards rent rebate expenditure is £30·37. The average rent in the authorities which receive full HRA subsidy is £31·03.

  Self-build Projects
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the self-build projects which will benefit from loans or grants from the Housing Corporation for the building of houses in England in the current financial year.

  Sir George Young
  The details of individual schemes are a matter for the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 162, which Government Department holds information on how many completed self-build units are achieved in the United Kingdom each year; and if there are any comparable figures available to illustrate how the United Kingdom compares with other European countries.

  Sir George Young
  The Department of the Environment collects a range of house-building data but
  655
  this does not separately distinguish self-build activity. Information on completions of self-build housing is not collected by any other Government Department. Comparable official figures for other European countries are not known, nor is any unofficial source for such figures known.

  Housing Market Package
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties were purchased under the housing market package from the Ministry of Defence.

  Sir George Young
  Sixty six properties have been purchased from the Ministry of Defence under the housing market package, and approvals have been granted for a further 12.

  Transport and the Environment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made to consult business, voluntary groups, local authorities and others with interests and expertise in transport and the environment concerning the United Kingdom's report to the Sustainable Development Commission.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are committed to widespread consultation in the preparation of the United Kingdom report to the Sustainable Development Commission. We have written to more than 150 organisations and individuals inviting views of submissions, and welcome the views of anyone who would like to contribute. We will be holding a seminar at Green college, Oxford, this month to discuss the key issues, and we will continue consultation through further meetings and correspondence throughout the year. Organisations with an interest in transport are being fully involved in all these consultations.

  Housing Overcrowding
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has of the extent of overcrowding in(a) owner-occupied properties and (b) low-cost home ownership schemes.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing and planning on 8 February 1993,Official Report, column 519, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones).

  Ministers' Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 219, if he will give the dates between which all the stated Ministers held their appointments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The dates between which the stated Ministers held their appointments are:

  Secretary of State

  Mr. Michael Heseltine—May 1979 to 6 January 1983 and 28 November 1990 to 11 April 1992

  Mr. Tom King—6 January 1983 to 8 June 1983

  Mr. Patrick Jenkin—9 June 1983 to 2 September 1985

  656

  Mr. Kenneth Baker—2 September 1985 to 21 May 1986

  Mr. Nicholas Ridley—21 May 1986 to 24 July 1989

  Mr. Chris Patten—24 July 1989 to 28 November 1990

  Mr. Michael Howard—11 April 1992 to

  Minister of State

  Mr. Tom King—May 1979 to 6 January 1983

  Lord Bellwin—6 January 1983 to 10 September 1984

  Mr. Kenneth Baker—10 September 1984 to 2 September 1985

  Mr. John Patten—2 September 1985 to 15 June 1987

  Dr. Rhodes Boyson—11 September 1986 to 15 June 1987

  Mr. Michael Howard—15 June 1987 to 25 July 1988

  Mr. John Gummer—25 July 1988 to 24 July 1989

  David Hunt—25 July 1989 to 4 May 1990

  Mr. Michael Portillo—4 May 1990 to 13 April 1992

  Mr. John Redwood—14 April 1992 to

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Lord Bellwin—May 1979 to 6 January 1983

  The Hon. William Waldegrave—9 June 1983 to 2 September 1985

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold—2 September 1985 to 10 September 1986

  Mr. Christopher Chope—11 September 1986 to 23 July 1990

  The Hon. Colin Moynihan—15 June 1987 to 23 July 1990

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley—25 July 1988 to 27 October 1989

  Lord Hesketh—1 February 1989 to 23 July 1990

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory—27 October 1989 to 30 November 1990

  Mr. Robert Atkins—23 July 1990 to 30 November 1990

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls—23 July 1990 to 11 October 1990

  Lady Blatch—7 September 1990 to 21 May 1991

  Mr. Robert Key—11 October 1990 to 13 April 1992

  Mr. Robin Squire—14 April 1992 to

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigation he has made into the causes of the change in the numbers of households recorded as homeless at home after acceptance by local authorities in England as homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985.

  Sir George Young
  Local authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 in their quarterly P1(E) return.

  In the second quarter of 1991 the return was revised to identify households who after acceptance remain temporarily in their existing accommodation until permanent accommodation can be found. Latest estimates of such "homeless at home" households at the end of each quarter are as follows:

  "Homeless at Home" households

  Q2 1991

  110,020

  Q3 1991

  19,970

  Q4 1991

  18,700

  Q1 1992

  18,460

  Q2 1992

  111,080

  Q3 1992

  10,670

  1 Estimates for these quarters have been revised since first published.

  The variations between quarters in these estimates are likely to represent both seasonal and other fluctuations in homeless acceptances and in the availability of permanent rehousing.

  Flats over Shops
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment hat been made of the drop-out rate for schemes to promote increased residential use in town centres where the living over the shop database information has not been utilised.

  Sir George Young
  The flats over shops scheme is based on competitive bids submitted by local authorities. This Department does not monitor whether bids have been compiled using the local knowledge and experiences of authorities and their housing association partners or from information supplied by the living over the shop project or any other agency active in the field.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been allocated to promote the "living over the shop" project within his Department.

  Sir George Young
  Taking into account moneys provisionally allocated for 1993–94, some £113,075 has been made available by this Department and the Housing Corporation in support of the "living over the shop" project. The project has also received resources from other funding agencies and from its own income generation.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many properties have been made available as a result of the flats over shops initiative; and if he will make a statement about its future; (2) what representations he has received about the flats over shops initiative;

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the value of the applications for funds in each(a) local authority and (b) region under the flats over shops initiative for England in 1992–93.

  (2) how many properties have been made available as a result of the flats over shops initiative; and if he will make a statement about its future.

  (3) what representations he has received about the flats over shops initiative.

  Sir George Young
  For 1992–93 we received applications worth over £41 million for the £5 million worth of supplementary credit approvals available under the flats over shops initiative. A list of all applications has been placed in the Library. The number of properties made available will not be clear until all end of year claims have been made. An announcement has already been made about the future of this scheme with 132 authorities receiving a share of the £10 million available in 1993–94. A further £10 million will be allocated for 1994–95. We are pleased with the progress made to date under this promotion scheme in an area which we believe has significant potential. We shall continue to review its development in the light of experiences to date and to this end have been in discussion with a wide range of interested parties.

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was his Department's(a) publicity expenditure for each year from 1979 to 1992, (b) current outturn estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 and (c) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993–94.
  658
  Mr. Howard
  The information in respect of publicity expenditure and associated staff costs for my Department including agencies is:

  £ million

  1985–86

  3·5

  1986–87

  4·2

  1987–88

  4·8

  1988–89

  6·9

  1989–90

  31·5

  1990–91

  7·5

  1991–92

  8·1

  1992–93

  118·3

  1 Estimate.

  Information relating to financial years 1979–80 to 1984–85 inclusive is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  The budgets for publicity expenditure for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when he will take his capping decisions for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. and learned Friend intends to take his capping decisions for 1993–94 once he has considered all the budget information which authorities are required to submit to him no later than 16 March 1993.

  However, on the basis of the information currently available to him it remains my right hon. and learned Friend's firm intention to adopt as the capping criteria for 1993–94 the provisional criteria which he announced on 26 November 1992. It is now open to any authority which has budgeted above the limit implied by those provisional criteria to set a new lower budget within that limit.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has today issued and placed in the Library guidance on the implcations of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) ("TUPE") Regulations 1981 for the market testing of public services.

  The principal provision of the TUPE Regulations is that where a "relevant transfer of an undertaking" has taken place, the new employer takes over responsibility for the employment contracts of the employees, who would transfer on their previous terms and conditions of service.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in a statement to the Standing Committee on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill on 21 January, set out the principles regarding the "transfer of an undertaking" as follows:
  "It is clear from the case law that under both the [EC Acquired Rights] Directive and the [TUPE] Regulations, [transfer of an undertaking] means the transfer of an economic entity which is capable of operating as a going concern and which retains its identity. The contracting out of service is not a transfer of an undertaking unless it involves

  659
  enough of the elements of the original operation such as premises, staff, goodwill or customer base to constitute the transfer of a going concern."
  "But no single one of these [elements] is essential for there to be a transfer. The case law makes clear that it is the overall sum of what is transferred which determines whether there has been a transfer of an undetaking."

  I am aware from many complaints which I have received from hon. Members, local businesses and industry, that a number of local authorities have been including conditions in their CCT tender material which require the contractor to take on the employment of existing staff on the same terms and conditions.

  This is a matter of concern, for the following reasons. The objective of CCT is to ensure that local authority services are provided in the best and most cost-effective way, for the benefit of local residents and council taxpayers. CCT gives both in-house teams and prospective private contractors the opportunity to develop and offer innovative and improved ways of providing services, enabling local authorities to choose the best option from all the possible approaches.

  It is an essential part of the process of competition that local authorities are prepared to consider all possible options, without setting prior restrictions on the arrangements which prospective contractors or in-house teams must adopt, other than on matters relevant to the performance of the service.

  The CCT legislation therefore requires that in seeking tenders for services, authorities must not act "in a matter
  660
  having the effect or intended or likely to have effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition." [Local Government Act 1988, section 7(7)].

  Where, therefore an authority seeks in a tender invitation to ensure that tenderers will be required to take over responsibility for all existing staff and observe existing terms and conditions of service, either by:
  specifying expressly that he should make offers of employment, without economic or operational justification; or
  specifying that TUPE must apply to the contract where it is not clear at the point of inviting tenders that this would necessarily be the case; or
  seeking to achieve the same purpose by specifying requirements relating to matters other than employment of staff, without economic or operational justification;
  the effect of this action is to restrict the flexibility of prospective contractors and prevent them from offering alternative arrangements for providing the service.

  In the Government's view, any such requirement may deter some prospective contractors from tendering and is likely to constitute a "restriction of competition" in the terms of the legislation, and the Secretary of State will, subject to the facts of each case, take action through the notice and direction powers provided in the legislation to require the authority to remove such restrictions.

  In this way, we will ensure that all local authorities conduct compulsory competitive tendering in the manner which this House provided for in the legislation, and will ensure that all authorities, residents and taxpayers continue to secure the benefits of new, more flexible, and more economical ways of providing services.

ENVIRONMENT

  New-build Properties
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what basis he calculates and allocates the numbers of new-build residential properties for which local authorities are asked to make provision within their local plans; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations he has with (a) local authorities, (b) constituency members and (c) others prior to announcing the allocations of the numbers of new-build residential properties for which local authorities are asked to make provision within their local plans;

  (3) if he will give a breakdown by local authority of the numbers of new-build residential properties for which those local authorities have currently been asked to make provision within their local plans.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: Local plans have to be prepared by non-metropolitan districts and national parks in general conformity with structure plans. Their housing policies and proposals have to conform with the structure plan's housing allocation for each district. Structure plans are prepared by the county councils, having regard to the indicative housing allocations for each county contained in the Secretary of State's regional guidance where this has been published. All current county structure plans were approved by the Secretary of State, although revised arrangements will apply under the 1991 Act in respect of future reviews.

  In drawing up regional guidance, the Secretary of State takes into account advice provided by local authority regional groupings. Both this advice and the subsequent draft guidance are subject to full public consultation.

  The statutory procedures for drawing up and adopting development plans require full public consultation. They also provide an opportunity for objections to be made and for the issues and to be debated at an examination-in-public (EIP) before policies are adopted.

  In Cheshire the structure plans allocation for each district between 1986 and 2001, to be taken into account in local plan preparation, is:

  District

  Number

  Warrington

  about 12,000

  Halton

  about 7,400

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  about 3,600

  Vale Royal

  about 8,000

  Macclesfield

  about 7,600

  Chester

  about 6,100

  Crewe and Nantwich

  about 8,000

  Congleton

  about 6,000

  This total includes both new units and conversions of existing buildings.

  Because the structure plans have been prepared to cover different time scales, we cannot provide comparable data for other areas.

  I will provide similar information for other counties if my hon. Friend would care to write to me.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on official entertainment in his Department in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.
  662
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: Total expenditure by my Department (including the Building Research Establishment Agency, the Planning Inspectorate Agency, the Buying Agency and the Queen Elizabeth II Agency) was £0·096 million in 1991–92 and is estimated to be £0·122 million in 1992–93.

  Radiation Leak, Sellafield
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many members of the public were visiting Sellafield during the period of the recent radioactive leak; and whether they were examined to determine their contact with any radioactive material or informed of possible risks to their health or welfare.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  The actual number of visitors at Sellafield is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc as operators of the site. The higher than normal discharges of radioactivity during the week ending on 13 February resulted in doses through inhalation to the most exposed persons of about 1 microsievert. The dose to a member of the public visiting Sellafield at the time would have been less than this and less than the dose received from background radiation during a visit to Cornwall for a comparable period. The very low levels of radioactivity involved meant that no special arrangements were appropriate for visitors. Radiation alarms are in place at Sellafield and appropriate action would have been taken if necessary.

EDUCATION

  Pupils (Exclusion)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what education alternatives are available to pupils who have been permanently excluded from schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Once a pupil has been permanently excluded from a school, it is open to the parents to seek a place for their child at another school within a reasonable distance from their home. In most instances a school would not be able to refuse to admit the child unless by so doing it would exceed its standard number. LEAs also have the power under section 56 of the Education Act 1944 to provide education otherwise than at school where necessary to meet a pupil's needs. It is also open to the LEA to consider whether the child has special educational needs which call for the authority to determine the special educational provision that should be made for him.

  Class Sizes
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of single-teacher classes in(a) Birmingham and (b) England comprised more than 30 children in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  663

  Percentages of single-teacher classes with 31 or more pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools.1Position as at January each year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Birmingham LEA

  England

  Birmingham LEA

  England

  1992

  21

  20

  7

  4

  1991

  24

  21

  8

  4

  1990

  26

  19

  7

  4

  1989

  24

  18

  8

  4

  1988

  26

  18

  7

  5

  1987

  27

  19

  8

  5

  1986

  28

  20

  10

  6

  1985

  25

  19

  11

  7

  1984

  26

  19

  10

  7

  1983

  38

  20

  12

  8

  1982

  31

  22

  11

  8

  1981

  32

  23

  11

  8

  1980

  32

  24

  12

  9

  1979

  39

  27

  12

  10

  1 Secondary school figures for 1990, 1991 and 1992 include self-governing state schools (GM) as do primary school figures for 1992

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the average size of class taught by one teacher in primary schools in(a) Birmingham and (b) England in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools1

  Position as at January each year

  Birmingham LEA

  England

  1992

  27·6

  26·4

  1991

  27·9

  26·3

  1990

  27·8

  25·9

  1989

  27·4

  25·7

  1988

  27·3

  25·4

  1987

  27·1

  25·4

  1986

  26·6

  25·5

  1985

  25·8

  24·9

  1984

  25·7

  24·7

  1983

  26·9

  24·8

  1982

  26·2

  25·1

  1981

  26·2

  25·2

  1980

  26·4

  25·4

  1979

  27·1

  25·9

  1 Figures for January 1992 include self-governing state schools (GM).

  Education Reform Act 1988
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many complaints from parents under section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988 have been outstanding for(a) three months and (b) six months since their receipt.

  Mr. Forth
  Five complaints which have been considered by local education authorities or school governing bodies under section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988 are now before the Secretary of State.

  Of these:

  (a) Three have been outstanding at the Department for Education for between three and six months and

  (b) Two have been outstanding for more than six months.

  Most complaints call for lengthy consultation with interested parties.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in 1992 how many complaints from parents under section 664
  23 of the Education Reform Act 1988 were determined by the Secretary of State within (a) one month, (b) two months, (c) three months, (d) four months, (e) six months and (f) more than six months of receipt.

  Mr. Forth
  Of the 10 section 23 complaints that have been determined by my right hon. Friend since the Education Reform Act came into force:

  (a) none was determined within one month,

  (b) none was determined within two months,

  (c) one was determined within three months,

  (d) none was determined within four months,

  (e) two were determined within six months, and

  (f) seven took over six months to determine.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the target period in the citizens charter for the response time for him to decide upon complaints from parents under section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  The citizens charter does not state a target period for my right hon. Friend to dispose of such complaints.

  Truancy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, columns 147–48, if he will place in the Library each of the submissions being funded under the programme to reduce truancy out of the grants for education support and training scheme 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The submissions included information supplied by LEAs in confidence. The Department will shortly be publishing a directory giving very brief details of each of the approved projects. I will arrange for a copy of that directory to be placed in the Library.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many places are available for children with special educational needs in(a) non-maintained and (b) independent special schools; and how many places are purchased by local education authorities in each type of school.

  Mr. Forth
  As at January 1992, there were some 7,100 places in non-maintained special schools and some 6,700 places in those independent schools catering wholly or mainly for pupils with special educational needs.

  At that time, there were some 5,800 pupils occupying places at non-maintained special schools, the majority of whom were funded by local education authorities. Information is not kept centrally on the number of such independent school places funded by local education authorities.

  Spending Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the national income has been spent on education in(a) each of the last five years and (b) 1978–79.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:
  665

  United Kingdom general Government expenditure on education as percentage of GDP

  Financial year

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  5·4

  1987–88

  4·8

  1988–89

  4·6

  1989–90

  4·8

  1990–91

  4·8

  1991–92

  5·1

  Source: Cm 2219 Public Expenditure Analyses to 1995–96, table 2.4.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of spending in maintained schools was met by his Department in(a) each of the last five years and (b) 1978–79.

  Mr. Forth
  Most central Government support for local authorities is in the form of revenue support grant, which is not hypothecated to individual services. Grants paid by the Department over the last five years to support expenditure in maintained schools as a percentage of total recurrent spending on maintained schools is given in the following table:

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  1·4

  1989–90

  1·9

  1990–91

  2·2

  1991–92

  2·8

  1992–93

  4·4

  Notes:

  i. Percentages calculated by expressing grants for education support and training (GEST), section 210 grant and grants to self governing state (grant-maintained) schools as a proportion of total net recurrent spending on LEA maintained and Self Governing State (Grant-maintained) schools.

  ii. Net recurrent spending on schools includes institutional spending on LEA maintained and self-governing (grant-maintained) schools, and related central support services such as the school meals service, home to school transport, teacher centres, child guidance and pupil support. Also included is a pro rata share of LEA expenditure on central administration and recreational services and research. 1990–91 figure excludes balances held by schools and carried over into the 1991–92 financial year. Spending in 1991–92 and 1992–93 estimated and budgeted outturn respectively. Figures taken from 1993 DFE/OSTEND departmental report (ref: Cm 2210), except for those in respect of annual maintenance grant paid to self-governing state schools, which are taken from DFE records.

  iii. Grants paid by other Government Departments to support expenditure in schools excluded from above calculations.

  iv. Figures for 1978–79 not available on a comparable basis.

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he plans to announce any further changes to cash limits on votes within his responsibility for 1992–93.

  Dr. Patten
  [pursuant to his replies, 4 February 1993, cols. 275–76 and 15 February 1993, col. 52]: The cash limit for class XI, vote 1 will be changed as follows:

  Class and vote

  Curent cash limit£

  Change£

  Revised cash limit£

  XI.1

  745,895,000

  -108,000

  745,787,000

  666
  The reduction in the cash limit for class Xl, vote 1 is to offset wholly payment to the university of Hull in respect of a grant from the European regional development fund to be made in 1992–93 towards a project for the construction of a research centre in surface engineering. A net token subhead will be added to class Xl, vote 2, with the agreement of Her Majesty's Treasury, in the appropriation accounts for 1992–93 in due course, to enable the transaction to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. These changes will not add to the planned total for public expenditure.

TRANSPORT

  Disturbance Claim
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the disturbance claim of Mr. and Mrs. Casey, Uplands, Landkcy road, Barnstaple, lodged in January 1991, is to be resolved.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am writing to the hon. Member.

  Road Safety
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the scope and duration of the Transport Research Laboratory's study of the best methods for the signpostings of red light cameras for road safety purposes; and if he will indicate what conclusions have been reached in that study.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Studies are being undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory and by independent consultants into the effectiveness of red light camera signs. Early results indicate that the signs add to the effectiveness of the cameras. We hope to issue advice shortly which will enable these signs to be used more widely in conjunction with cameras.

  Family Perspective and Life Cycle
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on how his Department takes account of the family perspective and life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of his Department;

  (2) in which publication, speech or statement his Department has described how it takes account of the family perspective and life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of his Department.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department seeks to take account of the needs of all transport users, including families and those of different age groups. In particular, a clear priority within the Government's long-term programme of casualty reduction is to improve the safety of vulnerable road users such as children and the elderly. For example, we are continuing to encourage traffic calming measures, to keep speeds low and improve driver behaviour, especially in sensitive locations such as residential areas and near schools and shops.

  Initiatives to improve family mobility include trials of low floor buses, due to begin later this year in London and north Tyneside, which will improve access for parents with young children.

  The Department has issued various publications and launched a number of campaigns on these themes,

  667
  including some aimed at specific age groups. The Department's national travel survey records both household travel and the age and sex of household members; it also records the relationship of household members to each other, allowing households of various kinds to be identified.

  Motorways
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the total number of motorway sites in the United Kingdom providing toilet facilities(a) in 1989, (b) currently and (c) planned for 1994.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Toilets are provided at all motorway service areas (MSAs), while other locations where toilets are available have also been signed from motorways from time to time. In 1989 there were 42 MSAs in England and three other facilities signed from motorways. Corresponding figures for March 1993 are 44 and five respectively. We expect at least three further MSAs to have opened by the end of 1994, and a number of others to be under construction. Since 6 August, development of future MSAs has been a matter for the private sector.

  Motorway services in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further action he will take to ensure that litter is removed from motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am determined to ensure that the standards and response times for litter clearance specified in the code of practice on litter and refuse are met. Motorway patrols are required to report accumulations of litter so that action can be put in hand to clear them quickly. More than £3 million will be spent on sweeping and removing litter from motorways this year.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about increasing the 70 mph limit on motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I receive few representations for an increase in the motorway speed limit; most relate to the desirability of a lower limit or increased enforcement of the existing limit.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the suitability of the 70 mph speed limit in regard to safety.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Such an assessment was made as part of the speed limit review in July 1991, which concluded that the 70 mph limit continued to strike the right balance between the need for efficient travel and road safety. The policy document "Killing Speed and Saving Lives" published on 13 January 1993 provided information on the relationship between speed and road accidents on which that conclusion was based. A copy is available in the Library of the House.
  668
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned on the possible effects of closing entrances and exits on the M25.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A major review carried out in 1988–89 considered the control of access to the M25 as a traffic management measure to maximise the operational efficiency of the motorway. It was concluded that, although closure of junctions might relieve congestion on the M25, the overall effect of increased traffic on local roads would be to create congestion, accidents and environmental disbenefits.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the length of the motorway where the M6 and M42 run in parallel.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The M6 and M42 motorways run in parallel for approximately two and a quarter miles.

  Coaches and Buses (Safety)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 586–87, if he will make it his policy to reduce the maximum permitted speed for coaches and large buses which are not fitted with anti-lock brakes or seat belts on exposed seats and will not have to comply with European superstructure strength requirements from 1 April.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. There is no evidence that the current maximum speed for such vehicles constitutes a road safety risk.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. Norris
  None since the two cases to which I referred in my answer on 12 February,Official Report, columns 864–65: those cases were dealt with under the procedures which pre-dated the publication of "Competing for Quality" (Cm. 1730)).

  Trunk Roads Manchester
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the planned trunk road schemes for Greater Manchester, (b) the construction costs at 1993 prices and (c) the expected date of commencement for each scheme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information is given in the table.
  669

  Greater Manchester

  Scheme

  Construction cost excluding VAT1£ million

  Next stage2

  M56 widening junction 4–6

  15·2

  Works start spring 1993

  M62 widening and improvement junctions 14–17

  11·1

  Works start spring 1993

  M62 widening and improvement junctions 18–24

  256·0

  Public consultation summer 1993

  M63 widening junctions 6–9

  46·3

  Order publication

  M66 MORR (Denton to Middleton) contract 4—M62 to River Irk diversion

  27·6

  Works start spring 1993

  M66 MORR (Denton to Middleton) contract 2—Advance side roads

  38·1

  Works start spring 1994

  M66 MORR (Denton to Middleton) contract 1—Denton to River Medlock

  54·2

  Works start spring 1995

  M66 MORR (Denton to Middleton) contract 3—River Medlock to River Irk

  40·6

  Works start spring 1996

  A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass

  53·0

  Supplementary orders published. Offerton road junction under review

  A6(M)—M56 (Manchester airport) link (central section)

  13·6

  Works start summer 1993

  A6(M)—M56 (Manchester airport) link (western section)

  10·6

  Public consultation summer 1993

  A6 Disley and High lane bypass

  55·4

  Order publication

  A57/A628 Mottram, Hollingworth, Tintwistle bypass

  14·8

  Preferred route announcement summer 1993

  A5225 Wigan Hindley and Westhoughton bypass

  103·0

  Order publication summer 1993

  Greater Manchester western and northern relief road—M56 to M62

  140·8

  Preferred route announcement

  Greater Manchester western and northern relief road—M62 to M66

  205·0

  Public consultation 1993

  1 Costs are at quarter 1 1992 prices; the latest date for which firm prices are available.

  2 Details of next stage are given as timing of construction largely depends upon the outcome of that stage.

  Cycling
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to set targets to increase cycle use.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. It is for local authorities to decide what provision for cycling is appropriate in their areas.

  Seat Belts
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to the effectiveness of rear seat belts of the half-belt type.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Statistics on the effectiveness of rear lap belts in the United Kingdom are not available, but research in the United States indicates that lap belts reduce death and serious injury by 25 to 40 per cent. and three-point belts by 40 to 55 per cent. Although there is no current research specifically into lap belts, the Department is monitoring the effectiveness of all seat belts in its accident crash investigations.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that rear seat belts in cars are all of the full-belt type.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I expect agreement to be reached shortly in the European Community permitting member states to require the compulsory fitment of three point belts for the rear outer seats of new cars from 1 January 1995 and obliging them to do so from 1 January 1996. There are at present no plans to extend this requirement to three point belts for the centre rear seat as fitting such belts can be technically complex. I believe the quickest and most effective way forward is for manufacturers voluntarily to introduce three-point belts for centre rear seats wherever technically possible. I will continue to encourage this.

  Road Mileage
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated mileage of(a) major trunk roads, (b) motorways, (c) local highways and (d) cycle routes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The latest available figures for Great Britain are for 1 April 1992 when there were 7,669 miles of major trunk road, 1,955 miles of motorway, 22,180 miles of other major roads and 193,338 miles of minor roads. Figures for cycle routes in Great Britain are not available, however, there were 512 miles of purpose-built cycleways.

  Car Furnishings (Safety)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what materials are used in the air bags being installed in cars; what gas is used to inflate these bags; and what assessment has been made of the environmental and health effects of the release of gas in the event of a bag bursting or catching fire.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A typical airbag is constructed of nylon coated with a rubber compound. The gas source is normally sodium azide, which is hermetically sealed within a strong metal container in the steering wheel hub. When the bag is deployed, the sodium azide converts into harmless nitrogen to inflate the bag; in some cases, there will be a small residue of sodium hydroxide present, which may cause skin irritation.

  In the case of a fire, most systems are designed to inflate normally when the temperature reaches 300°F. There should be no risk of the inflator exploding.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what controls exist over the materials used in the interior furnishings of cars including sound proofing and foams used in car seats.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Motor Vehicles (Type Approval) (Great Britain) Regulations 1984 prescribe standards for interior fittings which all new cars must
  671
  meet. These standards cover the minimum dimensional and/or energy absorbing properties of certain components.

  Following consultation with the Department, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has made a number of recommendations to its members on fire risk. One of those recommendations covers the flammability of the materials used in the interior furnishings of cars.

  Roads, West Yorkshire
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will monitor the air quality along the route of the M62 and the Al through the Ferrybridge and Pontefract areas in West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Measurements of air quality will be undertaken at selected locations along these routes as part of detailed scheme preparation for the upgrading of the A1 to motorway.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the proposed distance between the new Al route through Ferrybridge and the Ferrybridge junior and infants school.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  On present plans the minimum distance of the proposed A1 motorway from the Ferrybridge junior and infants school would be about 250 yards. A proposed junction slip road would be located about 180 yards away.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice has been issued to local authorities in respect of submissions for transport supplementary grant.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We are consulting the local authority associations about the drafting of this year's circular, which we expect to issue during April.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what share of the latest transport supplementary grant settlements was allocated to(a) road construction, (b) road maintenance, (c) bus priority measures, (d) measures specifically introduced to improve road safety, (e) improvements to rail services and (f) light rail.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: Of the £1,046·7 million available for the local roads capital settlement for 1993–94, £659·5 million was allocated for road construction, £172·8 million for structural maintenance of principal roads, £4·7 million for bus measures, and £50 million for local safety schemes. No resources were allocated for rail or light rail, as transport supplementary grant is limited by statute in England to expenditure in connection with highways or the regulation of traffic.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require cycle route networks in all proposals submitted to transport supplementary grant approval.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. It will be for local authorities to decide whether to include a specific section on cycling in their 1994–95 transport policies and programmes submission.

  Hazardous Substances
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned or carried out in each of the last five years into the transportation of hazardous substances.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department commissioned surveys of the transport into and out of British ports of dangerous goods in packages, in 1989, and of bulk chemicals and gases, in 1992. It has commissioned, sometimes jointly with the Health and Safety Executive, a number of reports from the National Radiological Protection Board into aspects of the transport of radioactive material. My Department also took part in an important study, under the aegis of the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee on dangerous substances, of the major hazards aspects of the transport of dangerous substances: its report was published in 1991. Copies of these reports are in the Library, except for those on the port movements, which contained commercially confidential information.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to apply the control of Major Accident Hazards regulations to the transportation of hazardous materials to and from existing CIMAH sites.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984 (CIMAH) implement EC directives on the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities. They apply where specific dangerous substances are stored in more than specified quantities and require the preparation of emergency plans by both the operator of the site and by local authorities. It would be inappropriate and confusing to attempt to apply the CIMAH regulations to transport operations.

  Regulations for the transport of dangerous goods by road apply from the commencement of loading until the vehicle is unloaded and made safe. Furthermore, the wide ranging general requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 cover all aspects of interface activities including loading and unloading from all modes of transport, storage and arrangements for emergencies. The Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 apply in harbour areas.

  The transport of dangerous goods internationally is covered by long established conventions, principally under United Kingdom aegis. The European Commission is currently considering the direct application of the international rail and road rules within member states. It would be for the Community to decide in due course whether supplementing transport requirements, similar to those under the CIMAH Regulations, might be needed.

  A1 (Bypasses)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the towns and villages that are planned to be bypassed in the route of the new A1; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The sections of the A1 for which preferred routes have been announced, for upgrading to motorway, provide for the communities of Brotherton, Fairburn and Ferrybridge to be bypassed.

  Mr. William: O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a breakdown of the estimated
  673
  operational costs for the additional three quarters of a mile of motorway if the new Al was diverted to bypass Knottingley in West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The first year operational costs of £100 million in respect of a route for the A1 motorway from Redhouse to Hook Moor, including a bypass to the east of Knottingley, is broken down as follows:

  Costs

  £millions

  (i) time

  29·827

  (ii) fuel

  18·013

  (iii) other vehicle costs such as depreciation and maintance

  51·502

  (iv) routine maintenance such as sign replacement, drainage-renovation and condition inspections

  0·347

  Total

  199·689

  1 Rounded to £100 million.

  Heathrow Rail Link
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the earliest date, assuming the satisfactory completion of all procedures, that the Paddington to Heathrow rail link could be open to passenger traffic.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the earliest date at which the Paddington to Heathrow link could be open to passenger traffic is 1997.

  Landscaping
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the criteria for inviting people to become members of the landscape advisory committee; and if he will list the qualifications of each of the current members.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: My right hon. Friend has set no specific criteria for inviting members to serve on the landscape advisory committee. Appointments are made so as to maintain a wide range of interests and expertise in landscape matters. Some of the qualifications of the current members are as follows:

  Professor David K. C. Jones, BSc, FRGS appointed Chairman 1993
  Professor of physical geography at the London School of Economics; consultant geomorphologist specialising in engineering, geomorphological mapping and landslide studies.

  Sir Henry E. Aubrey-Fletcher
  Member of the council of Country Landowners Association; member of Agricultural Land Tribunal South East Area and the Bucks and Oxon Naturalist Trust Conservation Group.

  Professor Mary Benwell B.A., PH.D., F.C.I.T.
  Head of School of Business at Oxford Brookes University; previously a Reader in Transport at Cranfield and a Research Director of a transport consultancy.

  Dr. John A. Bergg BSc phD C.ENG FICE
  Recently retired from the post of County Engineer for Surrey County Council; currently a part time consultant for a civil enginering firm.

  Professor Gordon E. Cherry BA DSc (Hon) FRICS
  Recently retired from the post of Head of the Geography Department at the University of Birmingham; now an independent traffic/planning consultant.
  674
  Mr. Len J. Clark CBE
  Chairman of the Youth Hostels Trust (Vice President Youth Hostel Association); member of Council for National Parks and Countryside Link; member of National Trust Council & Committees.

  Professor Monica M. Cole BSc Phd FIMM FRCS FGS
  Retired Professor of Geography and Director of Research in Geobotany, Terrain Analysis and related resource use at the Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Surrey.

  Mr. Geoffrey P. Crow BSc DipTE CEng FIHT MICE
  Independent Transportation Planning Consultant and Senior Lecturer in Transport (part time) at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine.

  Ms E. Evans AA Dipl (Hons) SADG RIBA TP
  Partner in firm of architects; architect and town planner with experience in urban planning.

  Mr John V S Evans Dip.Arch DipLA RIBA ALI
  Registered architect; consultant to the Travers Morgan Group since 1991; Former Partner of Travers Morgan Planning and Chairman of Travers Morgan Landscape; member of the Landscape Institute External Affairs Committee.

  Mr C Richard Ferens MA (CANTAB) FRICS
  Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; Consultant with firm of Surveyors & valuers; a Vice-President of the Royal Agricultural Society of England; valuer for the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and the Lord Chancellor's panel of Agricultural Arbitrators.

  Professor Peter J Fowler MA PHd FSA FRHistS MIFA
  Professor of Archaeology, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne; former Secretary to the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England; currently Forestry Commission archaeological consultant; member of National Trust Council and Executive & Properties Committees.

  Mrs Elizabeth J Garland BA
  Secretary of the Council for the Protection of Rural England (Sheffield, Peak District and South Yorkshire Branch); executive member for Council of National Parks (CNP); Chair of Development Panel of CNP.

  Mr Hugh J R Geddes MA RIBA MLA (USA)
  Partner and director in firm of architects; Director Pilot Properties, specialising in housing schemes on derelict urban land.

  Mr Arthur D Gill
  Vice-President of the Petersfield Society; member of the executive Committee of the Gwent Farming, Forestry and Wild Life Advisory Group; Director of RAC and is the nominee of the Joint Standing Committee of the RAC, AA and RSAC on the National Executive of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW); member of the Executive Committee of the Gwent branch of the CPRW.

  Mrs Janet Jack AA Dipl RIBA TP ALI
  Former partner, now consultant to architect's practice; was responsible for the architectural and landscape proposals for the Channel Tunnel project.

  Mrs Patricia E Lunn CGLI FRSA
  Head of Horticulture, Derbyshire College of Agriculture and Horticulture; working Partner in landscape and nursery business; independent member of Horticultural Development Council and Convenor of its Levy Appeals Panel since its formation in 1986; former member of the Women's National Commission and past National President, UK Federation of Business and Professional Women.

  Ms Wendy M Lutley MSc Adel (Eton Geol), BSc Lond (Geol)
  Previously employed by the National Trust in management plan preparation for its open space properties and as a member of its biological survey team; more recently assistant

  675
  general secretary of the Open Spaces Society working on common land, urban open space and community action in the environment; author of the society's book "Making Space—protecting and creating open space for local communities'; now Co-director of Folk South West.

  Mr. Jim M. McCluskey BSc (Civil Engineering) MICE MISTRUCT MINT ALI
  Director of McCluskey Associates, a landscape architectural and planning consultancy; experienced civil structural engineer and landscape architect; author of a number of books on environmental design including "Road Form and Townscape" and "Parking: An Environmental Design Handbook".

  Professor Margaret A. Mackeith MA PHD DIP TP DIP ARCH CONS FRTPI FRGS
  Dean of the Faculty of Design and Technology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston; Fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute; Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society; Member of Institute of Environmental Science.

  Mr. Michael R. Porter OBE DIPLA FLI
  Former Landscape Adviser to the Department of Transport which he served for 25 years.

  Miss Kay S. Powell BSc MSc MRTPI MINT
  Corporate Support Officer, Chief Executive's Department South Glamorgan County Council.

  Miss Wendy E. Powell MLA FLI
  In private practice as landscape architect and part time lecturer; nationally elected member of the Council of the Landscape Institute.

  Mrs. Valerie Russell BA (Hons)
  Former Chair of the Council for National Parks; former Wealden District Councillor (Chair of the Personnel and Central Services Sub-Committee); member of the Institute of Directors, the British Institute of Management, Women in Management and the Sussex Archaeological Society.

  Mr. Martin O. Slocock BA
  Director of Nursery business; former President of the Horticultural Trade Association 1967–70; member of the Council of the Royal Horticultural Society since 1984; Chairman of the BSI Committee for Nursery Stock Production.

  Mr. Michael E. G. Taylor FCIT
  Former Managing Director of transportation company; currently consultant to firm of parcels carriers; member of Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, four Road Haulage Association committees and the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Small Business.

  Mrs. Victoria R. Wakefield
  Member of Committee `A' Royal Horticultural Society;
  Trustee Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.

  Mr. Roy W. Winter RIBA ALI DipArch DipLD
  In private practice as a landscape architect; formerly landscape architect to Redditch new town development corporation; now course director of the diploma/MA in landscape architecture at Birmingham polytechnic.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that the maintenance period for landscaping on new schemes should be 36 months and that statutory environmental and heritage bodies should be consulted at the project brief stage of a road proposal.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: It has been our policy for more than 10 years that the maintenance period for landscaping on new schemes should be 36 months. Consultation with the statutory environmental and heritage bodies already begins at a very early stage of scheme development.
  676
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make freely available to both statutory and non-statutory objectors to road schemes the recommendations of the landscape advisory committee.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: Committee reports on individual road schemes have for many years been available to any objector at public inquiry. Reports are now available, on request, to any interested party following the announcement of a preferred route.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that environmental consultants should be appointed as part of the consultancy team on all major schemes at the point at which the head engineering consultant is appointed.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: Before we appoint consultants for major schemes we always ensure that they will have the necessary environmental expertise available.

  Minibuses (Accidents)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 763, what are the numbers of minibus passengers and drivers killed and seriously injured in road accidents in Britain in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: Police reports on personal injury road accidents classify minibuses together with motor caravans. Driver and passenger fatalities and serious casualties in this broad group are shown in table A. Casualties in vehicles with nine to 35 seats in the Hackney taxation class are shown in table B.

  Table A

  Casualties in vehicle type "Minibuses and Motor Caravans": Police reports

  Driver

  Passenger

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  1989

  6

  82

  22

  251

  1990

  2

  79

  23

  216

  1991

  2

  69

  18

  189

  1. Includes other types of small bus and motor caravans.

  Table B

  Casualties in Hackney taxation class (9 to 35 seats): estimates based on DVLA data

  Driver

  Passenger

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  1989

  1

  6

  1

  67

  1990

  1

  10

  3

  80

  1991

  0

  18

  3

  80

  1. Excludes non-public service vehicle buses (9–35 seats) which are taxed for private use, and are not separately identifiable.

  Driver and Vehicle Office of Information Technology (Sale)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with KPMG Corporate Finance regarding the error in the advertisement for sale of the Driver and Vehicle Office of
  677
  Information Technology in the Financial Times of Tuesday 16 February; what effect this error will have on the closing date for replies expressing an interest; and what consultations he has had in relation to the impact of the error on the rules of compliance of the European Commission for the advertisement of public procurement contracts in the Official Journal.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: Consultations with KPMG Corporate Finance, and other advisers on the privatisation of DVOIT, have not revealed any error in the Financial Times advertisement, so there would be no effect on the closing date for replies, or doubt about compliance with EC requirements.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice Act 1988
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We keep the workings of this Act under review, but we have no current plans to amend it.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison population in England and Wales on Wednesday 10 March was 43,077.

  Obscene Publications Acts
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he had received concerning the Obscene Publications Act 1964; and what plans he has to seek to amend it.

  Mr. Jack
  I have received no representations specifically concerning the Obscene Publications Act 1964, which amended the Obscene Publications Act 1959 in order to create an additional offence of possessing an obscene article for publication for gain. We have received a variety of representations on the general subject of obscenity and we are currently considering what improvements might be made in the enforcement of both Acts.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the text of the letters which have been sent by his Department to representatives of the police inviting their comment on enforcement questions.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: As the hon. Member is aware, the Government are currently considering what measures might be taken to help improve the enforcement of the Obscene Publication Acts 1959 and 1964. This is not a matter for public consultation, but we have sought the views of members of the police service in order to assist in developing policy proposals in this area. We will make the results of our consideration public as soon as possible.
  678
  In the meantime, I can confirm that letters have been sent to the chairman of the crime committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers and to the heads of the obscene publications branch of two police forces. These letters sought views about the effectiveness of the provisions of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 about ways which the enforcements of those and other legal provisions relating to pornography might be improved. Correspondents were asked if they were aware of any particular aspects of law which give rise to difficulties, what those difficulties might be and, how widespread they seemed to be; and whether they had any views on how they might be overcome. They were also asked for their assessment of the extent of the problem posed by the availability of obscene material on computer disk and for any views they might have on procedural or legal changes which might alleviate any difficulties experienced in investigating offences involving such material.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about IRA terrorism in mainland Britain.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government are determined to overcome terrorism in all its forms throughout the United Kingdom. The police have achieved a number of sucesses recently and they have my full support in their continuing efforts to ensure that those responsible for terrorist crime are brought to justice.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the security arrangements for those who are likely to be most at risk from terrorism.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Protective security arrangements are kept under constant review and adjusted as necessary to meet the assessed level of threat.

  Immigration Services, Prestwick
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the provision of immigration services a t Prestwick airport.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In addition to representations from the hon. Member, my right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), the Lord Younger of Prestwick and the Earl of Selkirk. He has also received representations from the management of PIK, and various local community groups and representative bodies.

  Immigration
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning his proposals to change expenditure under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Up to 9 March, some 266 letters had been received. As we have made clear, we remain fully committed to tackling the causes of disadvantage amongst
  679
  ethnic minorities and section 11 grant will continue to play a major role in our programme to combat such disadvantage. It is with much regret, therefore, that due to general economic circumstances we shall be unable to sustain the level of expenditure over the next three years which had earlier been planned. We have also made it clear that we are anxious to work closely with local authorities and other interested parties to ensure that the available funding achieves maximum benefit for members of ethnic minorities, and we have invited them to let us have their observations by the end of March.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce changes in the election law in order to increase the numbers on the electoral register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As I stated in my reply to a question from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 11 February, we have set up a working group of Home Office officials and representatives of electoral registration officers and local authorities to look at all aspects of electoral registration. We shall consider the working group's findings once it has concluded its work.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has in relation to the reduction of juvenile crime.

  Mr. Jack
  As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his Statement to the House on 2 March, he and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health have drawn up proposals to tackle juvenile crime on a broad front.

  For the small hard core of persistent juvenile offenders who commit a disproportionate amount of crime we will be introducing a new secure training order for sentencing the juvenile offender who has not responded to supervision in the community.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if will introduce legislation to allow magistrates to have access to the records of offences committed by juvenile offenders.

  Mr. Jack
  There is nothing in the existing law which prevents courts having access to the previous convictions of either juvenile or adult offenders.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he is currently considering in order to abate the incidence of violent crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government continue to pursue vigorously their existing policies, the objective of which is to reduce opportunities for violent crime, to ensure that the police have the necessary powers and resources to deter and apprehend violent offenders, to provide the courts with adequate powers to sentence them after conviction and to offer support to victims.

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the proportion of sentences to be served in custody; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received representations on all aspects of the sentencing framework introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, including some about the new arrangements for the release from custody of sentenced prisoners under which no prisoner may now be released before he or she has served at least half of the sentence imposed by the court. The effects of these and other changes, introduced by the Act and brought into effect on I October 1992, are still being monitored.

  Special Constables
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent studies have been made on the establishment of special constables; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There have been no recent studies on this specific subject. The current publicity campaign, which was launched in 1991, responds to general concern about falling numbers of special constables. In the first year of the campaign numbers increased by 14 per cent. to 18,072 at 31 December 1991.

  Crime (Inner-city Estates)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss the problems of crime on inner-city estates.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Although my right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to meet the president of ACPO to discuss these particular matters at the moment, I am aware that chief officers of police have put additional resources into dealing with crime on many inner-city estates. This complements, of course, the significant work being undertaken by the government in preventing crime in these areas.

  Car Crime
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to deal with car crime in Staffordshire.

  Mr. Jack
  The themes of our Car Crime Prevention Year 1992 campaign continue to play a significant part in all police areas in encouraging action to combat car crime. In Staffordshire, the police are engaged in a number of car crime prevention promotional activities and are participating in the national secured car parks initiative. A force-wide vehicle watch scheme is being planned.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from residents of Nottinghamshire about actions taken to help reduce car crime.

  Mr. Jack
  I receive many representations on car crime from relevant organisations, hon. Members and members of the public, including a number from residents of Nottinghamshire.
  681
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 with regard to the referral of lenient sentences.

  Mr. Jack
  The power contained in the Act of 1988 under which the Attorney-General may refer to the Court of Appeal sentences which he considers to be unduly lenient is now widely accepted as important and necessary. The careful and discriminating use of this power by successive holders of that office has proved the wisdom of the Government's decision to introduce this provision.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review whether police officers have sufficient powers to detain juvenile offenders between the time of arrest and their appearance in court.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied with the police powers to detain juveniles. The criteria for transferring juveniles to local authority accommodation will, however, be kept under review.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his proposals on juveniles in care and on juvenile offenders affect schemes like the Children's Society central London project.

  Mr. Jack
  As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear in his statement to the House on 2 March,Official Report, columns 139–42, his proposals related to a current gap in courts' powers to deal with persistent juvenile offenders. They will complement rather than replace the policy of initially aiming to divert young people from the penal system. The Children's Society closed its central London project in September 1991 but similar schemes, planned by the Children's Society, in Bournemouth, Leeds and Manchester should play an important part in steering troublesome youngsters away from further offending and custody. The Children's Society are one of a number of children's charities with whom the Home Secretary will shortly be meeting to discuss his proposals on juvenile offenders.

  Children In Care (Offences)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide that a social services department will not be subject to a fine for acts committed by children in its care unless those acts are the result of proven negligence by the department.

  Mr. Jack
  The introduction of a power for the court to order a parent or guardian to pay their children's fines reflects the importance which the Government attach to ensuring that parents take responsibility for the behaviour of their children. When a local authority is in the position of a parent, we believe that it is right that the same principle should apply. But the power is permissive. A court is not required to make such an order if it considers that it would be unreasonable to do so in a particular case.

  Child Sex Abuse
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Thai Government concerning the prosecution in the United Kingdom of British tourists found committing child sexual abuse in Thailand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The Home Secretary (or Home Office) has had no direct discussion with the Thai Government on this matter.

  Our courts have no jurisdiction to try those who commit child sexual abuse in Thailand, who properly fall to be dealt with by the Thai authorities under Thai law.

  We are willing to assist in this by extraditing British nationals back to Thailand where appropriate, and also by offering other forms of legal assistance under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act (International Cooperation) Act 1990.

  However, I understand that our ambassador in Bangkok has raised our concerns about the problem of prostitution recently with Thai Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Interior Minister. They have assured him that the Thai Government are looking urgently at ways of combating this problem, particularly as it affects children.

  Safer Cities Initiative
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those cities currently in receipt of safer cities funding, together with the budget for each designated safer city.

  Mr. Jack
  The following is a list of 20 local authority areas in which safer cities projects have been established, showing the grants budget allocated to each in 1993–94 to support local crime prevention activity:

  Project

  Grants budget in 1993–94£

  Birmingham

  100,000

  Bradford

  100,000

  Bristol

  100,000

  Coventry

  100,000

  Derby

  250,000

  Hammersmith and fulham

  250,000

  Hartlepool

  100,000

  Hull

  100,000

  Islington

  100,000

  Leicester

  250,000

  Lewisham

  100,000

  Middlesborough

  250,000

  Nottingham

  100,000

  Rochdale

  100,000

  Salford

  100,000

  Sunderland

  100,000

  Tower Hamlets

  100,000

  Wandsworth

  100,000

  Wirral

  100,000

  Wolverhampton

  100,000

  Home Office funding is due to end in March 1994 for the 16 projects with grants budgets of £100,000. These projects will also have access to a central budget of £500,000 to assist the development of continuing structures for the maintenance of multi-agency crime

  683
  prevention work. It is intended that the remaining four projects will continue to receive Home Office funding into 1995–96.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of his plans for crime prevention initiatives outside the scope of the safer cities initiative.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) on 4 March 1993,Official Report, cols 274–75.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to a letter dated 15 December 1992 from Mr. Rodgers on behalf of the Tyneside engineering branch of MSF with regard to the Winston Silcott case.

  Mr. Jack
  We have been unable to find any trace of a letter from Mr. Rodgers. My officials have tried to contact him but without success. I would be grateful if he would send me a copy of his letter so that I can ensure that it is dealt with quickly.

  Family Perspective and Life Cycle
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in which publication, speech or statement the 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 life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of his Department.

  Mr. Jack
  The objectives, activities and expenditure plans of the Department are set out in the annual report (Cm 2208). Based on what is known from research and statistics, full account is taken of the interests of families in developing and operating a wide range of policies and programmes. These include: crime prevention; penal policy; immigration and nationality; liquor licensing; reducing drugs misuse; and others. Account is taken also of the likely impact on families of policy changes. Through its programme development unit, the Home Office is currently funding projects in a number of local areas to develop innovative approaches to family violence and to work with young people and their families aimed at reducing criminality, from which lessons should be learned and disseminated widely.

  Daylight Saving
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce daylight saving.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Our current summer time arrangements already make some daylight saving. As I explained on 30 November in reply to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, a review of its own position on summer time by the European Commission may affect the options for our future arrangements—including options for further extension of daylight hours at the end of the day —and we shall bring forward our own proposals when the Commission's approach is clear.

  Attacks on Horses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to apprehend those who are or have been guilty of mutilating horses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend shares the abhorrence felt over these vicious attacks. The Hampshire Constabulary has set up a special squad of officers, which is co-operating with other forces, the RSPCA, veterinary surgeons and the Pony Club, in a determined effort to stop these crimes.

  Police
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consultations his Department has undertaken on the future structure of police forces in England and Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering what reforms in police organisation and structure may be needed and will announce his proposals as soon as possible. The interested parties will be consulted before final decisions are reached.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his letter following his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 796, on civil action which results either in court awards or in out-of-court settlements against Metropolitan police officers, what action was taken against officers involved in the cases where either the settlement or damages amounted to £10,000 or more.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Disciplinary action taken against Metropolitan police officers is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he is currently considering to improve equal opportunities within the police force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  HM inspectorate of constabularly continues to monitor the implementation by forces of guidance issued by the Home Office on equal opportunities policies, including career development and staff appraisal systems.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 2 March,Official Report, column 139, (1) if he will outline the regime that will be applied within the secure units;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the weekly cost of a place in one of his proposed secure units; and who will meet that cost.

  Mr. Jack
  As my right hon. and learned Friend indicated in his statement on 2 March,Official Report, 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. It was intended that this statement should provide a basis for future detailed discussion and consultation with a wide range of interested parties. This process has begun, but it

  685
  would be premature at this stage to attempt to describe in detail the regime which will be provided for persons made subject to secure training orders; it is also too early either to estimate or to apportion the weekly cost of a placement made for this purpose.

  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 assessment he has made of the effectiveness of existing secure facilities for young people.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: The Government have concluded that existing court powers to make use of secure facilities have not proved to be effective in respect of a small group of persistent juvenile offenders. The recently announced decision to introduce a new secure training order reflects that view. The new secure places will build on what has proved most effective among existing and past facilities.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the figure of £294 million for the costs for magistrates courts identified in his 1992 publication, "Costs of the Criminal Justice System", includes value-added tax.

  Mr. Jack
  Yes, although only a small proportion of magistrates courts' expenses involves items which attract value added tax.

  Defendants (No Fixed Abode)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many defendants brought before magistrates courts in Greater London were of no fixed abode in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: Information in not collected centrally on the residential status of defendants brought before the magistrates courts in England and Wales.

  In 1991, within the Metropolitan police district and the City of London, there were 1,497 defendants prosecuted for begging offences and five for sleeping rought offences under the Vagrancy Act 1824.

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

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: We have issued no circulars nor general advice concerning the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981 and the Acquired Rights Directive. We have given advice to managers on dealing with staff enquiries and a brief description of the effect of the regulations in introductory guidance for managers but this is internal management guidance which I do not intend to place in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Surplus Food
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 718, on EC surplus food, when he expects to complete his review of the operation of the distribution scheme in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  After the Easter recess.

  Flood Protection
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proposals he has for the funding of flood protection work in the vicinity of Maryport harbour;

  (2) if he will carry out a review of flood prevention arrangements in the vicinity of Maryport harbour.

  Mr. Curry
  In the first instance, it is for the local flood or coastal defence authority concerned to consider the need for works in its area. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes grant available towards the cost of schemes which are technically sound, economically worthwhile and environmentally acceptable. In this case, I understand that Allerdale district council has indicated an intention to carry out work in 1993–94 in the Maryport area but as yet no formal application for grant has been received by MAFF. The Ministry is liaising with the council and any scheme put forward will be considered against the criteria mentioned earlier.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what moneys have been spent in West Cumbria on flood protection in the last five years.

  Mr. Curry
  In the last five years, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has grant aided some £4·7 million of capital expenditure incurred by local authorities and by the National Rivers Authority on flood defence and coast protection schemes in West Cumbria.

  Training Board, Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has received regarding the future of the agriculture training board in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Representations have been made direct to Welsh Office both by ATB Cymru and by the national ATB chairman. We intend to make a statement on the future of the ATB shortly.

  Area Aid Application Forms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to how many farmers he intends to distribute the area aid application form in England and Wales; and when he expects to distribute them.

  Mr. Curry
  The area aid application form, together with an explanatory booklet, will be distributed to some 240,000 farmers in England and Wales. I expect it to be distributed in early April.
  687
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he proposes to treat area aid application forms which are returned incomplete by reason of the inadequacy of Ordnance Survey map data for the farms in question.

  Mr. Curry
  The rules require farmers to lodge their area aid application forms by 15 May if they are to avoid financial penalty. If, exceptionally, they are genuinely unable to obtain all the mapping data, they will have a little longer provided that the application form including areas and locations of fields is received by 15 May.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek an extension of the EC's deadline of 15 May for farmers to return the area aid application form.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no plans to seek such an extension.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect of submitting an incorrect or incomplete area aid application form, before 15 May, on eligibility for area payments of the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Curry
  There will be an opportunity to correct or complete area aid applications before 15 May.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Ordnance Survey on the agency's ability to provide all the map data required by farmers in all parts of the country to complete the area aid application form by 15 May.

  Mr. Curry
  Officials have had a number of discussions with the Ordnance Survey, both before the mapping requirements were announced in September 1992, and subsequently in relation to the area aid application form.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what special arrangements he is making within his Department to respond to farmers' inquiries to assist them in completing the area aid application form by 15 May.

  Mr. Curry
  The responsibility for completing the area aid application form rests with individual farmers. The services of the nine regional service centres will, of course, be available to farmers and officials will offer what help they can.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the position of the United Kingdom in order of rank among EC states in respect of the proportion of arable farmers who will have to put land into set-aside; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for this.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 22 February,Official Report, column 472.

  Farmers in all member states must set aside 15 per cent. of the land on which they are claiming arable area payments, unless they join the simplified scheme for small producers. There is no set-aside requirement under the simplified scheme but area payments will only be made at the lowest rate. The majority of United Kingdom farmers
  688
  are expected to join the main scheme, whereas in some member states a significantly higher proportion of farmers are likely to choose the simplified scheme.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Heating
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will give details of the current heating maintenance undertaken by the engineers department; and what changes there have been in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms, and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will give details of when the heating is turned on and off in each of the workplaces in the Palace of Westminster; and how many complaints have been received in each of the last 12 months relating to heating.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms, and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Light Fittings
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many infra-red detectors have been attached to light fittings in the Palace of Westminster to save electricity costs; what was the cost; and what is the country of manufacture.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms, and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Great Clock (Maintenance)
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what maintenance work is to be undertaken on the Great Clock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The Director of Works advises that routine inspection has revealed the need to replace a gear wheel on the chiming mechanism. This work will mean that the chimes of the Great Clock will be silenced for about eight weeks, commencing on 15 March. The hour strike will be unaffected.

  Engineers Department
  Ms Walley
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many stokers have been removed from the jobs of routine heating maintenance in the last year.

  Mr. Beith
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list all the employment changes which have taken place in the engineers department, including redundancies, relocations and changes in working conditions.
  689
  Mr. Beith
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

DEFENCE

  Export Contracts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the conclusions reached by the conference jointly organised on 24 February by his Department's Defence Export Services Organisation and the Electronics Engineering Association on(a) United Kingdom and (b) international export contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 8 March,Official Report, column 448.

  Inflatable Model Tanks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by(a) date, (b) location and (c) cost, for the last 24 months, the number of inflatable tanks that have been stolen; how many have been recovered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 12 June 1992,Official Report, column 318.

  Anti-ballistic Missiles (Defence System)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reach a decision on United Kingdom participation in an anti-ballistic missile defence system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 11 November,Official Report, column 821.

  Vulcan Bomber
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of training flights in the Vulcan bomber since September 1992; and what is the estimated cost of keeping the Vulcan in a flightworthy condition until September 1993.

  Mr. Aitken
  The additional cost of operating and maintaining the aircraft between 20 September 1992 (the date of its last display) and 26 February 1993 (its most recent flight) was approximately £3,600. The Vulcan would require a major service to continue display flying. This would cost at least £2·5 million and the aircraft would not be available for the 1993 display season.

  Publicity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 June 1992 to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),Official Report, columns 538–40, what is his Department's (a) current outturn estimate for publicity expenditure for 1992–93 and (b) budgeted publicity expenditure for 1993–94.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 February 1993]: My Department's current outturn estimate for
  690
  1992–93 and provisional budget for 1993–94 for centrally controlled expenditure on advertising, broken down into media categories, and on other promotional material are as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Television advertising

  2·521

  2·872

  Radio advertising

  0·001

  Nil

  Newspaper advertising

  8·375

  9·594

  Other promotional material

  4·577

  5·114

  Total

  15·474

  17·580

  In addition, the outturn estimate of publicity expenditure (excluding staff and operating costs) by MOD press and public relations for 1992–93 is £2·98 million and the provisional budget for 1993–94 is £2·93 million broken down as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Films/TV

  0·298

  0·558

  Exhibitions and displays

  0·876

  0·894

  Publications

  0·788

  0·668

  Equipment

  0·152

  0·104

  Miscellaneous items

  0·870

  0·688

EMPLOYMENT

  Deregulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list consultants advising her Department on the deregulation of the labour market.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department does not employ consultants to advise on the deregulation of the labour market. Consultation with a wide range of interested parties is carried out for individual deregulatory measures. In addition, the new deregulation task forces will examine interdepartmental deregulation issues, including those affecting the labour market.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate she has made of the number of job vacancies registered with jobcentres as a result of the drive she announced on 13 August 1992.

  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 Mr. M. Fogden to Mr. Frank Dobson, dated 11 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 number of vacancies notified to Jobcentres as a result of her announcement on 13 August 1992. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The national employer advertising campaign was designed to promote positive messages about ES services, and was aimed particularly at employers who had not used ES services before or in recent years. The intention was to attract vacancies from employers for our unemployed clients.

  691
  For the 1992–93 year from April 1992 to 5 February 1993 the total number of vacancies notified was 1,673,413 (90·3 per cent of the previous year).

  Vacancies Notified

  (Vacancy Date of Return)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  September

  211,562

  164,046

  October

  183,830

  184,774

  November

  204,396

  203,211

  December

  148,880

  154,993

  January

  78,492

  105,984

  TOTALS

  827,160

  813,008

  It can be seen that there was a marginal reduction in the vacancies notified. This is disappointing but not really surprising when set against the current economic climate. Feedback from my offices around the country suggests that there has been a high proportion of contracts from new or lapsed employer users during the campaign. We hope that when employers start recruiting again the goodwill generated by the campaign will encourage them to give their vacancies to Jobcentres.
  Regular tracking research has been carried out amongst employers. Employers were interviewed before and after the first phase of the campaign in the autumn of 1992.

  Results showed that we achieved a significant improvement in employer attitudes:
  Jobcentres were the only major source of recruitment to experience an increase in usage;
  employer usage of Jobcentres rose by 4 per cent.—from 63 to 67 per cent.;
  15 per cent. of non users said they were more likely to use Jobcentres having seen an advertisement;
  attitudes towards Jobcentres improved.
  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.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. Burt
  The following services have been contracted out without market testing an in-house bid:

  Service

  Contractor

  Benefits Agency

  Travel services to the Department

  Wagons-Lite

  Child Support Agency

  Customer Services Training

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Specialist Interviewing Skills

  Relate

  Facilities Management Dudley Centre

  Procord Ltd

  Facilities Management Falkirk Centre

  Drake and Scull Technical Services

  Security and Reception Dudley Centre

  Security Express Guards

  Security and Reception Falkirk Centre

  Centuryan Security Ltd

  Catering Dudley Centre

  Gardener Merchant

  Day Care Nursery Dudley Centre

  Kinderquest Ltd

  Day Care Nursery Hastings Centre

  Kinderquest Ltd

  Typing and Secretarial Falkirk Centre

  Manpower PLC

  Messenger/Telephonists Falkirk Centre

  Manpower PLC

  692
  No in-house bid was invited for Benefits Agency travel services because the few clerical staff involved could not provide the professional, accredited, national travel service to the Department for which tenders were being sought.

  The child support agency, which will be operational from April 1993, is a completely new agency and services have been contracted out where in-house operations did not exist. Customer services training was contracted out because limited capacity was available in-house to develop and deliver the service required in the time available.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women aged 60 years and over have had the amount of invalidity benefit reduced on reaching the retirement age of 60 years in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available. For women aged 60–64, the rate of invalidity benefit (IVB) is based on their retirement pension entitlement. This may be higher or lower than the previous rate of IVB. As at 30 March 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, 37,100 women between 60 and 64 were assessed for invalidity benefit at their pension rate.

  Source: Information from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants as at 30 March 1991.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his reply of 16 March 1992,Official Report, column 896, of his estimate of the number of households, by tenure, whose housing benefit is reduced because of non-dependants' deductions, sub-divided into (a) those aged 16 and 17 years, (b) 18 to 24 years, and (c) 25 years and over.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Claimants whose housing benefit is reduced through non–dependant deductions: May 1991

  Age of claimant

  LA tenants

  Private tenants

  Total

  (i) Housing benefit cases where income support is payable

  16–17

  —

  0

  —

  18–24

  7,000

  1,000

  8,000

  25 and over

  173,000

  27,000

  200,000

  (ii) Housing benefit only cases

  16–17

  0

  0

  0

  18–241

  —

  —

  —

  25 and over

  137,000

  16,000

  153,000

  (iii) All cases

  16–17

  —

  0

  —

  18–24

  7,000

  1,000

  8,000

  25 and over

  310,000

  44,000

  353,000

  1 Indicates less than 500 cases.

  Source: The Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Management Information System annual I per cent. sample for May 1991. Figures are rounded.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review tariff income levels for capital resources over £3,000 when assessing entitlement to housing benefit and community charge benefit.
  693
  Mr. Scott
  Although these levels are kept under review, we have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Child Support Act 1991
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to exempt women resident in refuges for battered women from having to go through Child Support Act 1991 procedures in order to give evidence that harm and undue distress may result from the fathers of their children being pursued for maintenance.

  Mr. Burt
  Where a parent with care is in a women's refuge, this in itself will be sufficient to demonstrate that she has good cause to fear that she or her children may be harmed. However, it would be wrong to have a blanket exemption from the procedures of the Act for particular groups since some mothers may wish to pursue maintenance notwithstanding the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of their relationship. Each case will therefore be dealt with individually, but staff will be sensitive to the concerns of the parent with care and in no circumstances would her whereabouts be revealed to the father.

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons without accommodation were income support recipients in England at May 1991 and at the latest available date, breaking down the figures by age and by whether or not they were unemployed at the time.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information is in the table. It is not possible to provide figures which distinguish between those without accommodation for a significant period and those who may be only temporarily so.

  Income Support recipients Persons without accommodation (England)

  Age of claimant

  Total

  Unemployed

  Other

  16–19

  700

  400

  300

  20–29

  4,900

  4,800

  100

  30–39

  1,500

  1,200

  300

  40–49

  900

  900

  —

  50–59

  600

  400

  200

  Total

  8,600

  7,700

  900

  Notes:

  1. Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry, May 1991.

  2. All figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons without accommodation were income support recipients at May 1991, and at the latest available date, in Birmingham, Bradford, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Kingston upon Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth, Sheffield, Southampton, Stoke on Trent and each London borough.

  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 disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what communication he has received from 694
  a constituent of the hon. Member for Woolwich, national insurance No. YZ 83 86 39B; when it was received; and what was his response.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 10 March 1993
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking "what communication he has received from a constituent of the honourable Member for Woolwich, NI. No. YZ838639B; when it was received; and what was his response."
  It may help if I explain that correspondence addressed to Ministers or the Chief Executive from customers concerning their individual circumstances is referred to the appropriate District Office for investigation and response.
  Your constituent has addressed a number of such letters which have been passed to the appropriate District for response. The papers in this case show without doubt that there has been unacceptable delay in the issuing of responses to your constituent. Indeed, more generally, it is very clear that the service provided by the Agency's office fell well short of the standard your constituent had every right to expect. For this I offer my sincere apologies.
  District management has now contacted your constituent regarding his enquiries and apologised for the delay. A full summary of Income Support paid has been sent to him and a meeting with the Agency's Customer Service Manager, is to be arranged, to resolve any remaining issues.
  I do regret the unsatisfactory standard of service that your constituent has received and add my apologies to those provided already. I trust that the response provided and any meeting with the Customer Services Manager will bring the issues to a satisfactory conclusion. I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 113, how many redundant workers have been refused income support by the Chesterfield and Worksop benefits agency within the past year under the deprivation of capital regulations after paying off part or all of their mortgage.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 10 March 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking, pursuant to his Answer of 2 March, column 113, how many redundant workers have been refused Income Support by the Chesterfield and Worksop Benefits Agency within the past year under the deprivation of capital regulations after paying off part or all of their mortgage.
  The complete range of information requested could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. This is because statistics relating to the reason that benefit is refused are not normally collected.

  695
  However, information relating to British Coal redundancies, where former workers have been refused Income Support on grounds of deprivation of resources, has been collected nationally since November 1992. I am therefore able to let you know that, since 16 November 1992, there have been a total of five refusals on these grounds. All of these have been made at the Chesterfield and Worksop Benefits Agency offices.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  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 people employed by grade and (b) the annual cost of the contributory benefits section at his Department's offices at Castle house, Doncaster, classified by (i) sickness benefit, (ii) invalidity benefit, (iii) severe disablement allowance and (iv) maternity benefit.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 10 March 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if he will list by year for the last five years (a) the number of people employed by grade and (b) the annual costs of the Contributory Benefits Section at his Department's offices at Castle House, Doncaster; classified by (i) sickness benefit, (ii) invalidity benefit, (iii) severe disablement allowance and (iv) maternity benefit.
  For operational reasons it is not possible to identify separately staff on sickness benefit and invalidity benefit or between severe disablement allowance and maternity benefit because the work is merged within staff sections. Figures are also only available for 1991–92 and 1992–93 since the Benefits Agency was formed.
  The information available is set out below:

  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit

  Year

  1991–92

  Staff

  LO1

  5·5

  Staff

  LO2

  17·5

  Staff

  AA

  3·0

  Total Cost

  £306,000

  1992–93

  Staff

  LO1

  5·5

  Staff

  LO2

  22·5

  Staff

  AA

  3·0

  Total Cost

  £366,000

  Severe Disablement Allowance and Maternity Benefit—1991–92 and 1992–93.

  LO2 1·5 staff at a cost of £17,000.

  Note: All totals are rounded to the nearest £1,000.

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

  Pensions
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the savings to the national insurance fund if both men and women started to receive the state retirement pension at(a) 65 years, (b) 66 years, (c) 67 years, (d) 68 years, (e) 69 years and (f) 70 years.
  696
  Miss Widdecombe
  On the same basis as the estimates set out in the discussion documents, "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", the savings to the national insurance fund from equalising state pension age at 65 and 67 are as follows:

  2025

  2035

  Age 65

  5·1

  4·3

  Age 67

  9·3

  8·5

  Estimates for the remaining ages are not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the proportion of pensioners receiving income from occupational pensions identified as(a) all pensioners, (b) single male pensioners aged under 75 years, (c) single female pensioners aged under 75 years, (d) pensioner couples aged under 75 years, (e) single female pensioners aged 75 years or over, (f) single male pensioners aged 75 years or over and (g) couples where at least one partner is aged 75 years or over, and the median amount received.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates for 1989—the latest year for which information is available—are in the table.

  Per cent. With income from occupational pension

  Median occupational pension for those in receipt £ per week

  All pensioner units

  56

  27·20

  Single male pensioners aged under 75

  58

  23·10

  Single female pensioners aged under 75

  59

  27·40

  Pensioner couples where both are aged under 75

  77

  35·90

  Single female pensioners aged 75 or over

  30

  14·40

  Single male pensioners aged 75 or over

  50

  21·80

  Pensioner couples where at least one is aged 75

  64

  30·80

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the 1989 Family Expenditure Survey and the 1987 GAD Survey of Occupational Pensions.

  2. A pensioner unit is defined to be a single person aged above State Pensionable Age (SPA) or a couple where the head is aged above SPA.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what impact denial of unemployment benefit to persons over the age of 55 years due to interaction with pension provision has on unemployment statistics.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 10 March 1993 to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  War Pensions
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase war pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  An amendment order, which increases in line with the retail prices index, war pensions
  697
  and allowances in respect of ex-service men and women, and which introduces some changes which will help simplify the scheme, was made yesterday by the Privy Council. The order will be laid before Parliament for information on 22 March. Legislation to make similar amendments to the scheme for civilians was laid today. The main element of the changes is that, in addition to the uprating from 12 April, the basic war disablement pension has been increased by £5 a week; this change will result in considerable cash gains for some 200,000 pensioners.

  Order Books
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give the cost of issuing a Department of Social Security additional order book;

  (2) in what circumstances additional order books are issued in respect of one payment only; how many have been issued in the last 12 months in respect of payments of 35 pence or less; and what consideration is given to incorporating such payments into the main order book.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration and payments of benefits is the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Joan Walley, dated 10 March 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what is the cost of issuing a Department of Social Security additional order book; in what circumstances additional order books are issued in respect of one payment only; how many have been issued in the last 12 months in respect of payments of 35 pence or less; and what consideration is given to incorporating such payments into the main order book.
  Additional order books in respect of one payment only are sometimes necessary in connection with the uprating announcement.
  Order books normally cover a period of 20 weeks and renewal books are issued some 4 or 5 weeks in advance of the first order. If uprating details are not available when books are prepared, any which span the uprating date will not include the new rates. When the uprating date coincides with the date of the last order in an order book, an additional book covering just one payment is necessary.
  Normally, the number of additional books issued with one order is negligible but the date of the latest uprating announcement was such that a more significant number of additional Child Benefit books were issued. It is estimated that the number of order books issued in the last 12 months for payments of 35p or less is 110,000.
  The decision to issue additional order books rather than include arrears in the next main book was based on customer service and economic grounds.
  Issue of the additional book ensured that the correct rate of benefit was available to all customers on the due date. The child benefit computer system already has in place a facility to issue additional order books in such circumstances and to introduce a facility to include the increase in the next renewal book would have involved substantial computer reprogramming costs.
  The estimated cost of issuing, centrally, an additional order book is estimated, from the latest available data, to be approximately 2p (two pence), plus the cost of second class postage. There are no figures currently available for the cost of a locally produced additional order book.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  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 the pensions section at his Department's offices in Castle house, Doncaster, classified by (i) income support pension, (ii) retirement pension, (iii) widow's benefit and (iv) death grant.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 10 March 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking 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 the Pensions Section at his Department's offices in Castle House, Doncaster, classified by (i) income support pension, (ii) retirement pension, (iii) widow's benefit and (iv) death grant.
  For operational reasons it is not possible to identify separately staff on Retirement Pensions and Widow's Benefit because the work is merged within staff sections and figures are not available on the Death Grant because it has been abolished.
  The figures available are only for 1991–1992 and 1992–93 since the Benefits Agency was formed.

  The information available is set out below:

  Year

  Retirement Pension and Widow's Benefit

  1991–92

  Staff

  LO1

  1

  Staff

  LO2

  4

  Staff

  AA

  1

  Total cost

  £69,000

  1992–93

  Staff

  LO1

  1

  Staff

  LO2

  6

  Staff

  AA

  1

  Total cost

  £92,000

  Income Support Pensions

  1991–92

  Staff

  LO1

  0·5

  Staff

  LO2

  2

  Total cost

  £30,000

  1992–93

  Staff

  LO1

  0·5

  Staff

  LO2

  2

  Total cost

  £31,000

  Note: All costings are subject to rounding to the nearest £1,000.

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

HEALTH

  Elderly People (Care)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance she has given to district health authorities regarding the contracting out of continuing elderly care; and if she will make a statement;
  699
  (2) how many health authorities have contracted out the provision of continuing elderly care in the last year; and if she will list them, stating the number of patients affected.

  Mr. Yeo
  In purchasing continuing care, health authorities are expected to consider the whole range of available services, including those in the independent sector. The extent of such provision, including any purchased from independent providers, is a matter for individual health authorities to determine in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Cannabis
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to investigate the use of cannabis for certain medical conditions.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Women
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of women doctors were obstetricians and gynaecologists in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is set out in the table.

  Women doctors (whole time equivalent England)

  All hospital doctors

  Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

  Obstetricians and gynaecologists as percentage of all hospital doctors

  1987

  9,049·9

  805·5

  8·9

  1988

  9,693·3

  907·8

  9·4

  1989

  10,126·6

  912·8

  9·0

  1990

  10,736·3

  954·5

  8·9

  1991

  11,232·8

  1,000·9

  8·9

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of dental treatment in(a) the north west and (b) England for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The table shows the average payments for registered patients in the general dental services (GDS) in 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Gross payments 1991–92 in1£ million

  Number of patients registered at 30 September 19912

  Average gross payments 1991–92 per registered patient£

  North western region

  108·20

  1,881,311

  57·51

  England

  1,210·06

  21,570,226

  56·10

  Notes:

  1 The total of payments scheduled by the Dental Practice Board in

  Product licences with chlorofluorocarbons as active

  Product Licence No.

  Product Name

  Licence Holder

  00189/0018

  Deep freeze aerosol spray

  Mentholatum Co. Ltd.

  00327/5910R

  PR freeze spray (liquid aerosol)

  Crookes Healthcare Ltd.

  00347/0001

  Pain relief spray

  Aerosols International Ltd.

  00424/0068

  Spreeze aerosol (formerly Relcram aerosol)

  Tillott JB Ltd. T/A Tillotts Laboratories

  00457/0010

  Stingo (aerosol spray)

  Potter and Clarke Ltd.

  700

  respect of child and adult items of servie fees, continuing care and capitation payments, and weighted entry payments. Taken together, these payments represent about 95 per cent. of the total gross cost of the GDS. The figures include charge income collected from patients.

  2 The figures do not include patients who received "occasional treatment", that is, without registering with the dentist.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists are in practice in(a) Pendle, (b) the north-west standard region and (c) England who (i) take NHS patients, (ii) take private patients only and (iii) until 1990 took NHS patients but no longer do so.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information in not held centrally. The table shows the number of national health service dentists by family health service authority (FHSA), regional health authority (RHA) and for England as a whole.

  30 September 1990

  30 September 1992

  Lancashire FHSA

  400

  421

  North West RHA

  1,232

  1,258

  England

  15,480

  15,411

  Dentists are independent contractors and are free to practice privately if they wish. Information is not held about those who decide to do so.

  Prescription Errors
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the information held by her Department on the scale of general practitioners prescribing errors, together with the response of her Department.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not collected.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the drugs in the British National Formulary containing chlorofluorocarbons.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available in the form requested but records held by the Medicines Control Agency show there are 119 products containing chlorofluorocarbons, licensed under the Medicines Act for human use at present. A small number, which are listed, contain chlorofluorocarbons as active ingredients including inhalational and anaesthetic agents.

  The remainder of the licensed products (104) contain chlorofluorocarbons used as excipients usually in the form of a propellant.

  It is not normal practice to disclose excipients since to do so could prejudice companies' commercially sensitive information which they are required to provide to obtain a product licence.
  701

  Product Licence No.

  Product Name

  Licence Holder

  00484/0009R

  Astroplast burn spray

  Dalmuir Trading Co. Ltd.

  00504/5001R

  Ultrakool aerosol spray

  Wallace Cameron and Co. Ltd.

  03873/0003

  Gola freeze spray

  Gola Sports Ltd.

  08313/0030

  Pharmaethyl (pressurised gas—aerosol presentation)

  Deproco UK Ltd.

  10655/0001

  Burnzap

  Health Foundation Ltd.

  00029/5058R

  Fluothane

  Imperial Chemical Industries PLC

  00037/0053

  Ethrane or Enflurane (generic name)

  Abbott Laboratories Ltd.

  00037/0115

  Forane or Isoflurane (generic name)

  Abbott Laboratories Ltd.

  02240/0001

  Isoflurane

  I S C Chemicals Ltd.

  05247/0001

  Alyrane (nonflammable liquid)

  Anaquest Ltd.

  Passive Smoking
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the leaflet on passive smoking to become available again.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are four main booklets concerning passive smoking—the Department of the Environment's "Code of Practice on Smoking in Public Places"; the Health and Safety Executive's booklet "Passive Smoking at Work"; a booklet "Passive Smoking A Health Hazard" produced by a coalition of statutory and voluntary organisations; and "Passive Smoking Questions and Answers", published by the Health Education Authority (HEA).

  The first three booklets are in print and copies are available from the Library. The HEA booklet "Passive Smoking Questions and Answers" is currently being reprinted and will be available again shortly. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Meals
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she issues to national health service management regarding the minimal nutritional standards of meals in hospitals; what monitoring there is of in-patient meals to see whether they meet nutritional criteria; and when the guidelines were last reviewed.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Hospitals and other national health service units are required to ensure that adequate meals are provided and that they meet the nutritional requirements of all their patients.

  Aycliffe Secure Unit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the results of the inquiry into the Aycliffe local authority secure unit, the number of visits her inspectors have made to this unit in the last two years and the conclusions they reached; and how many children from Newcastle upon Tyne have been placed in the unit.

  Mr. Yeo
  Durham area child protection committee inquired into a number of allegations of child abuse at Aycliffe community home in 1992 and produced a report of their findings which was published in November 1992.

  Formal inspections of Aycliffe were carried out by the social services inspectorate in March and July 1989 and in March 1991. Reports on these inspections were published in 1990 and 1991. Copies are available in the Library. A further visit, not resulting in a published report, to review the findings of the earlier inspections was made in March 1992.
  702
  Others visits are made to units such as Aycliffe. They are not inspections or assessments of practice and no reports are published.

  Information about placements of children by local authorities in individual secure units is in the annual statistical publication "Children Accommodated in Secure Units during the year ending 31 March", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Health Education Authority Leaflets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what charges are made for Health Education Authority leaflets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Health Education Authority's policy is to produce and distribute leaflets free of charge to the general public, through local health promotion units, to general practitioners' waiting rooms for example. Charges on a cost-recovery basis only are made to non-national health service organisations seeking bulk orders.

  Local Authority Homes
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what will be the payment made to voluntary and private sector residential and nursing homes for the aged made in respect of individual residents each week from 1 April;

  (2) what account she takes of the capital costs incurred by private and voluntary sector residential care and nursing homes in calculating the payments for the care of residents in those homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  The price paid by local authorities for places in residential care and nursing homes is a matter for negotiation between the homes and authorities locally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what will be the payment to local authority homes for the aged made in respect of individual residents each week from 1 April;

  (2) what account she takes of the capital costs incurred in construction of local authorities' residential care homes in calculating the payments for the care of residents in those homes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Each local social services authority sets a standard rate for the provision of residential care in its own homes which it is required to seek to recover from each resident, subject to their ability to pay. The standard rate takes into account local factors, including capital expenditure, and is based upon a formula produced by the local authority associations. From 1 April 1993 local authorities will be required, by section 22(2) of the National Assistance Act 1948, to set the standard rate at an amount which represents the full cost to the authority
  703
  of providing the accommodation. In addition to income from charges, resources for local social services authorities for these purposes are available through the revenue support grant, the business rate and the council tax, when introduced.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the research currently being funded by her Department on the incidence of mental disorder in ethnic minority groups;

  (2) what research is being funded by her Department into the provision of mental health services to meet the needs of black and ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 23 February at column 544.

  Psychotropic Medicines
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of prescriptions for psychotropic medicines were issued to women in the last available year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not held centrally on the gender of patients for whom prescriptions are issued.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to ensure that users of mental health services are actively involved in discussions about who should be their care manager.

  Mr. Yeo
  The White Paper, "Caring for People" stresses the importance of consulting mentally ill people, their relatives and carers about their care. The "Caring for People" policy guidance (HMSO ISBN 0 11 321338 7) specifies that the individual service user, and with his or her agreement any carers, should be involved throughout the assessment and care management process.

  The "Health of the Nation" mental illness key area handbook for health and social services managers published in January this year gives managers practical advice on involving users and seeking their views. Copies of all the documents are available in the Library.

  Hospital Travel Costs
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hospital travel costs scheme was established; what are the arrangements for payments to claimants; and what records there are of the number of claimants for travel costs under the scheme for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  There have been arrangements for the reimbursement of national health service travel costs to hospital since 1948. Under the current scheme, which has been in place since 1988, assistance with the costs of travel to hospital for treatment is available to patients on income support or family credit or who are otherwise assessed to be on a low income. Patients who can demonstrate entitlement are usually able to obtain their travel expenses at the hospital when they attend for treatment; otherwise payment is subject to confirmation of entitlement. Information on the number of claims made is not held centrally.

  Low Income Scheme
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes are planned in the future administration of the NHS low income scheme and the health benefits unit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The future of the health benefits unit at Newcastle which assesses claims for charge remission under the national health service low income scheme has been under consideration for some time in parallel with a wide ranging review of the scheme itself. I have now concluded that the best option for improving administration is to transfer responsibility for the scheme to the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA), a special health authority within the NHS. This transfer will take effect on 1 April 1993. Some 360 Department of Social Security (DSS) staff currently employed at the unit and who handle approximately 1·2 million claims per annum on behalf of the Department of Health will be seconded to the PPA from that date. Thereafter, they will be given the opportunity either to transfer to the NHS on a permanent basis or return to DSS as vacancies arise. There are no plans for either voluntary or compulsory redundancy. DSS Ministers have agreed the planned transfer.

  Transferring responsibility to the PPA generates significant opportunities for improving the administration of the scheme, and will enable progress to be made towards computerisation of both record keeping and the claims assessment process. The extent to which the recommendations made following the review of the scheme's administration, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 22 May 1991, might contribute to these opportunities is receiving careful study. In reaching final decisions we shall need to take account of current public expenditure constraints, but I hope to make a further announcement soon.

  Arrangements have been made with the Scottish and Welsh Offices that claims from these countries should, for the present, continue to be handled by the PPA.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in establishing the national blood authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have today laid before the House an order to establish the national blood authority from 1 April 1993. From that date it will replace the Central Blood Laboratories Authority and the national directorate of the National Blood Transfusion Service. We propose that the new authority should assume responsibility for managing the regional transfusion centres from 1 April 1994.

  I am pleased to announce that Mr. Lawrence Banks, a director of Robert Fleming Holdings Limited and Mr. Dennis Allison, general manager of the North Western regional health authority have agreed to serve as non-executive members of the new national blood authority. Mr. John Adey, former managing director of Baxter Healthcare Ltd, has been appointed to be the chief executive of the new authority. Additional appointments will be made shortly.

  Medical Advisers
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of family health service authority medical advisers in post; and what is the total salary cost for the financial year 1991–92 and the projected cost for the current financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 10 March 1993.

  Suicide
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suicides there have been by(a) women and (b) women in rural areas in each year since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The exact information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information for the years 1979, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1991 however are available and are shown in the table.

  Number of female suicides and undetermined deaths1 (E950-E959, E980-E989 combined) in England and Wales and, in remoter, largely rural areas (normal area of residence) for the years 1979, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991.

  England and Wales

  Rural areas

  1979

  2,335

  207

  1983

  2,109

  195

  1985

  1,859

  195

  1989

  1,686

  179

  1991

  1,585

  153

  1 Undetermined deaths (whether accidentally or purposely inflicted).

  One of the ways in which OPCS classifies areas is in terms of an urban/rural distinction. County districts are classified in the following groups.

  Greater London:

  Inner London

  Outer London

  Metropolitan Districts:

  Principal Cities

  Others

  Non-Metropolitan:

  Cities

  Industrial

  With new towns

  Resort and seaside retirement

  Mixed urban rural

  Remoter largely rural

  Further details are available in appendix 5 of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publication "Key population and vital statistics" series VS no.17, PP1 no.13; a copy of which is in the Library.

  Health Promotion Clinics
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health promotion clinics were functioning on 1 June 1992; what was their annual cost; and if she will publish a breakdown of the services and therapies being provided through those clinics at that time.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the number of health promotion clinics is not collected centrally in the form requested. The number of claims made by partnerships in England for health promotion clinic sessions in the preceding 12 months at 1 April 1992 was 1,331,277. The 706
  forecast total expenditure on health promotion clinics in 1992–93 is £74·448 million. Information on services and therapies provided through health promotion clinics are not collected centrally.

  Insulin Needles
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has completed her Department's consideration of the supply of suitable needles on NHS prescription for pen-type insulin injections.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 10 March.

  Private Sector Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all those NHS projects which have been financed by private sector money over the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement will increase the scope for national health service use of private finance to improve and extend services. We aim to ensure that NHS patients will benefit from these new freedoms to the greatest possible extent. NHS directors of finance have been encouraged to use private finance if this is cost-effective.

  NHS projects using private finance need approval by the Department of Health and the Treasury if the capital assets involved have a value of £250,000 or more. Projects which have been approved in the last 12 months are shown in the table.

  NHS projects using private capital worth over £0–25 million approved in the 12 months to end of February 1993

  1. Sheffield Northern General Hospital NHS Trust: contracting for the provision of satellite dialysis facilities at Rotherham Hospital.

  2. NHS Supplies Authority: lease of offices for HQ in Reading.

  3. NHS Supplies Authority: lease of offices for North East Divisional HQ in Harrogate.

  4. Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust: lease of magnetic resonance imager.

  5. Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical Education: lease of offices in London.

  6. South East London Commissioning Agency: lease of offices in London.

  7. King's College Hospital, Camberwell: new clinical waste incineration facilities.

  8. The Royal Oldham Hospital NHS Trust: new clinical waste incineration facilities.

  9. Royal Liverpool University Hospital NHS Trust: proposed joint venture patient hotel.

  Nursing and Midwifery Board
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the present members of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Mr. Sackville
  Present members of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting are as follows:

  Mr. R. G. Adams

  Prof. J. A. Akinsanya

  Mr. C. J. Allison

  Mrs. A. Ashton

  Mr. R. D. Atlay

  Mrs. C. Atwell

  707

  Ms B. S. Bailey

  Miss S. Barlow

  Mrs. Y. E. Baxter

  Miss J. A. Beak

  Mrs. A. P. Burrows

  Mrs. J. A. Byrne

  Ms V. Chapman

  Mrs. C. A. Christophe

  Mrs. J. M. Collacott

  Mrs. L. Cutler

  Ms E. Davenhall

  Ms S. Downe

  Ms H. Foale

  Mrs E. H. Fradd

  Miss C. Gilling

  Mrs. J. Green

  Ms M. Gribbin

  Mr. A. Grocott

  Ms W. E. R. Harris

  Mr. S. J. Holder

  Prof. J. E. Hooper, CBE

  Miss N. Hunt

  Miss B. I. Hyde

  Mr. J. James

  Mr. K. Jarrold

  Ms R. Lowe

  Mr. J. McIntegart

  Mrs. S. Moore

  Ms G. D. Quick

  Miss S. E. G. Roch

  Prof. P. Seager

  Mr. P. Tuddenham

  Prof. A. L. Webb

  Prof. J. Wilson-Barnett

  Mrs. L. S. Worthington

  Dr. P. Yerrell

  Drinamyl
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information has been received, and what guidance has been issued, by her Department regarding the side-effects of the drug, Drinamyl.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Drinamyl is the proprietary name for a product containing dexamphetamine and amylobarbitone. This was indicated for mild temporary emotional disturbances but was withdrawn from the market in 1978. The Committee on Safety of Medicines received nine reports of suspected adverse reactions to Drinamyl. A report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that the reaction was caused by the drug. The most important side effects of Drinamyl are dependence and psychosis, and the abuse potential of this type of drug is well recognised. The Department has not issued any specific guidance about the side-effects of Drinamyl.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the total number of general practitioners and the whole-time equivalent and (b) the total number of, and the amount paid to, general practitioners receiving deprivation payments in each of the low, medium and high categories for 1991–92 and 1993–94; and what are the comparable figures in each case for fund holding general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  (a) The total number of general practitioners and the whole time equivalents for England in 1991–92 and 1992–93 is as follows:
  708

  Number of GPs

  Whole Time Equivalent

  1 October 1991

  25,686

  25,039·05

  1 April 1992

  25,823

  25,108·25

  (b) The total number of GPs receiving deprivation payments in each of the low, medium and high categories in England for 1991–92 and 1992–93 is as follows:

  Low

  Medium

  High

  Total

  1 October 1991

  10,035

  6,200

  4,272

  11,485

  1 April 1992

  10,363

  6,431

  4,584

  11,833

  It is possible for a GP to have patients in a combination of deprived areas. The sum of the three areas is not, therefore, equal to the total number of GPs. The figure given in the "Total" column is the number of GPs with patients in any deprived area.

  The total amounts of deprivation payments in each of these categories for 1991–92 is as follows:

  £

  Lower

  8,341,614·68

  Medium

  8,749,245·27

  High

  13,803,269·91

  Notes:

  Figures are not yet available for 1992–93.

  Separate figures are not available for fundholding GPs.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the total number and list the names of those organisations and individuals who have made submissions(a) in favour of a tobacco advertising ban and (b) against a tobacco advertising ban, in relation to the publication "Effect of Tobacco Advertising on Tobacco Consumption", a discussion document reviewing the evidence.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: Comments were invited on the overall analysis, methodology and original pieces of work in the Department of Health discussion document. Respondents were not asked to indicate their position on a tobacco advertising ban. A total of 275 representations have been received which make reference to the discussion document. Of these 232 include statements in favour of a ban and 13 include statements against a ban. A copy of the list of names of organisations and individuals who have made representations has been placed in the Library.

  Contracting-out
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of cumulative savings to the national health service from the contracting-out of support services; and what plans she has to extend contracting-out.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to the reply, 16 February 1993, column 160]: The national health service has since its early days been a substantial purchaser of supplies from commercial contractors. Building construction, building maintenance, computer and

  709
  medical equipment maintenance, for example, have been bought in from external sources and subjected to market testing procedures. Since 1983, the market testing of NHS support services has been extended by the introduction of the management requirement for regular market testing of domestic cleaning, catering and linen and laundry services. More than 20 other support services have also been market tested, resulting in a saving in 1990–91 in excess of £125 million in NHS overhead costs. Market testing in the NHS is being further extended to all areas of support services as set out in the November 1991 White Paper "Competing for Quality".

  My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is today placing in the Library guidance on the implications for market testing of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. In some cases where work is awarded to an outside contractor following market testing that may constitute the transfer of an undertaking in the terms of the regulations. If so, the regulations provide that the new employer takes over responsibility for the employment contracts of the employees, who would transfer on their previous terms and condition of service. The guidance sets out circumstances in which the regulations are, and are not, likely to apply, and explains their effect where they do.

  This guidance will be equally relevant to the NHS market testing programme and I hope that national health service managers and contractors will find the guidance helpful.

  percentages

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Sheriff Court

  (Civil Proceedings)

  57·2

  69·8

  69·8

  77·7

  70·4

  (Summary Criminal Proceedings)

  86·6

  92·6

  90·8

  94·6

  93·1

  District Court

  (Summary Criminal Proceedings)

  86·9

  92·7

  84·2

  88·3

  87·5

  Tayside Health Services
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the number of job losses in each hospital following the implementation of current Tayside health board acute services review.

  Mr. Stewart
  Following Tayside health board's acute services review the number of job losses at each hospital in each area has been assessed as follows:

  (a) Perth and Kinross
  About 20 whole time equivalent posts will be lost when services transfer from Bridge of Earn hospital to the new Perth royal infirmary in June 1993. These changes are independent of the board's acute services review.

  (b) Angus
  The exact number of job losses will not be known until the public consultation period is complete and decisions reached.

  The maximum reductions in whole-time equivalent staff are expected to be:

  Number

  Forfar Infirmary

  18·7

  Stracathro Hospital

  9·2

  Arbroath Infirmary

  12·6

  Total

  40·5

  (c) Dundee
  The impact on jobs is dependent on the extent of development required at Ninewells hospital to replace
  710
  The NHS will press ahead with its challenging programme of market testing in the expectation that this will lead to both improvements in quality of service and financial savings, thereby releasing resources for direct patient care.

SCOTLAND

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the legal aid budget is taken up by civil legal aid.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Civil legal aid payments represented 20·8 per cent. of the total amounts paid to solicitors and counsel by the Scottish Legal Aid Board in 1991–92.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of legal aid applications have been granted in each district court, sheriff court, and the high court in Scotland for each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the proportion of successful legal aid applications for summary criminal proceedings in the sheriff and district courts and for civil proceedings in the sheriff court is set out in the table. Criminal legal aid in solemn procedures is granted directly by the courts and that information is not held centrally.

  Proportion of legal aid applications granted:
  Dundee royal infirmary. Until decisions are reached on the board's review it is not possible to begin detailed work on assessing the implications for that hospital. As a result, the board is not yet able to assess future staff numbers in Dundee.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the capital allocations made to Tayside health board in each of the past four years and the amount of additional allocation made this year; and what is their relationship to Scottish health services revenue equalisation parity.

  Mr. Stewart
  The capital allocation to Tayside health board in each of the last four years was:

  £ million

  1989–90

  11·144

  1990–91

  11·856

  1991–92

  16·607

  1992–93

  18·928

  In 1992–93 a supplementary allocation was made to health boards and, of this, Tayside was allocated £600,000.

  Unlike revenue allocations to health boards capital allocations are not distributed on a "SHARE" formula basis. Health boards and NHS trusts submit their proposals for capital projects to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department. These are reviewed and

  711
  allocations are made, primarily on the basis of local and national strategic objectives and priorities. The total capital programme for the NHS in Scotland in 1992–93 was £229·588 million.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current numbers of ambulances and ambulance staff serving the Angus area; and what increases are planned to meet the changes in hospital services proposed by Tayside health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  There are currently 17 ambulances and 35 ambulance staff serving the Angus area.

  Until the board has made a decision on the future of acute services in the area it is not possible to determine what changes might be required to the ambulance service.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had or plans to have with Tayside health board regarding provision of ambulance services in consequence of proposed changes in Angus hospital services.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Health and Home Affairs met the chairman and general manager of Tayside health board on 29 January. During the meeting, the board outlined the remaining work programme for its review of acute services, inlcuding its plans to hold discussions with the Scottish ambulance service. These were to establish the implications for the ambulance service in Angus of the board's options for acute services in that area.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the services closed and reduced at(a) Stracathro and (b) Arbroath infirmary over the past 10 years, stating the reduction in manpower and buildings.

  Mr. Stewart
  The following changes have been introduced at Stracathro hospital and Arbroath infirmary during the last 10 years.

  Stracathro Hospital

  In 1987 in-patient gynaecology services were withdrawn and replaced by a day-case only service. The resources were reallocated to another speciality and there was no effect on staff or buildings.

  During 1990 surgical paediatric bed numbers were reduced by eight; orthopaedic surgery decreased by four to 96; and general surgery from 41 to 37. The changes had no effect on staff or buildings.

  In 1991, Grampian health board ceased referring patients to the orthopaedic service at Stracathro. This resulted in a reduction of 49 available orthopaedic beds at the hospital. This service change resulted in the following staff reductions:

  Reduction per cent.

  Physiotherapy

  0·5

  Catering

  3·0

  Cleaning

  2·6

  Nursing

  136·7

  1 Whole-time equivalents

  Arbroath Infirmary
  In August 1989, gynaecology day surgery services were withdrawn, but this had no effect on staff numbers.
  In 1990 the number of maternity beds were reduced from 18 to 9, reflecting actual usage. There was no effect on staff numbers.
  712
  Between 1985 and 1987 specialist gynaecology, general surgery and medical paediatrics services transferred to Dundee or Stracathro hospital and a day ward was created for minor surgery. The surgical bed complement was also reduced from 34 to 13 day beds.
  Some staff transferred to Stracathro along with general surgical beds, while others were redeployed at Little Cairnie, or lost through natural wastage.
  All the above changes were carried out by redeployment of staff.

  Local Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the budget for each local enterprise company in Scotland for 1992–93.

  Mr. Stewart
  The allocation of resources to the local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to my hon. Friend.

  Edinburgh University Dental School
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations he has received regarding the future of the University of Edinburgh dental school; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what arrangements have been made for specialist care and continuing education following the closure of the University of Edinburgh dental school; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Discussions between the University of Edinburgh and Lothian health board and the Scottish Office Home and Health Department about the proposed new Edinburgh dental hospital continue. My right hon. Friend remains fully committed to providing such capital investment as is necessary to establish the dental hospital. It will be for the Edinburgh royal infirmary NHS trust, if its application for trust status is approved, to take forward plans for a new dental hospital and for continuing dental education and to negotiate contracts for the provision of specialised dental services with prospective purchasing health boards.

  Market Testing
  Mr Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will make a statement on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to the market testing of public services in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has today placed in the Library guidance on the implications for market testing of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. I also refer my hon. Friend to the separate statements which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health are making on specific issues raised by the application of the regulations to their areas of responsibility.

  I hope that the guidance and statements will be helpful to all those involved in market testing, including compulsory competitive tendering, to the extent that they set out circumstances in which the regulations are, and are

  713
  not, likely to apply, and explain their effect where they do. My Departments and the NHS in Scotland are pressing ahead with their extensive programmes of market testing. I am confident that innovative proposals will be produced, offering good value for money, whether or not the regulations apply.

  Local authorities, of course, must conduct compulsory competitive tendering according to the relevant legislation. If in the light of all the circumstances of any individual case, it appears to me that a local authority has behaved so as to unlawfully restrict, distort or prevent competition, I will consider taking statutory action.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since 1991 compensation has been paid in respect of not planting conifers in sites of special scientific interest; and what has been the sum paid out in each year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: The information supplied by Scottish Natural Heritage is as follows:

  Agreements involving lump sum payments

  Agreements involving annual payments

  Year1

  No.

  Amount £

  No.

  Amount£

  Interest paid2£

  Total £

  1991–92

  15

  1,085,773

  2

  18,060

  450,159

  1,553,992

  31992–93

  5

  674,014

  3

  8,800

  158,298

  841,112

  1 Financial year, April to March inclusive.

  2 Interest on the agreed compensation is payable over the period during which the arbitration agreement is concluded.

  3 Year to date. The final outturn is not expected to be substantially different.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inmates have escaped from Scottish prisons each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Year

  Number of inmates

  1979

  38

  1980

  41

  1981

  61

  1982

  45

  1983

  39

  1984

  27

  1985

  46

  1986

  18

  1987

  40

  1988–89

  96

  1989–90

  67

  1990–91

  42

  1991–92

  35

  11992–93

  41

  1 to 28 February.

  Note: Figures from 1979–87 are for calendar years. The 1988–89 figure represents a transitional period of 15 months.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the prisons in Scotland, giving the number of inmates and prison officers at each for each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: The information requested is included in reports "Prisons in Scotland" and for 1991–92 "Scottish Prison Service" presented to Parliament annually by my right hon. Friend. Details are as follows:

  Year

  Command No

  Average Daily Number of Prisoners or Inmates

  Staff (Full-Time and Part-Time)

  1979

  8037

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 20

  1980

  8421

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 14

  1981

  8618

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 17

  1982

  8980

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 17

  1983

  9400

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 7

  1984

  9670

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 7

  1985

  1

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 7

  1986

  223

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 7

  1987

  551

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 7

  1988–89

  998

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 9

  1989–90

  1499

  Page No. 13

  Page No. 23

  1990–91

  1633

  Page No. 20

  Page No. 24

  1991–92

  2143

  Appendix No. 1

  Appendix No. 8

  Potatoes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to obtain comparative information about EC member state intervention into the potato market; and if he will give figures showing assisted purchases of potatoes in 1992 for the United Kingdom, France and Spain.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: Information about EC member state intervention in the potato market is not formally obtained by my Department.

  We are aware that certain other member states—for example, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal—may operate ad hoc intervention and other support measures in times of over-supply. In addition, the Netherlands operates a seed support scheme. Specific figures of assisted purchases by France and Spain are not however available.

  The amount of the United Kingdom Government contribution towards the Potato Marketing Board's joint support buying scheme during 1992–93 has not yet been determined, but a contribution will be made in accordance with the terms of the Government's financial agreement with the board.

  Winter Deaths
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of excess winter deaths in Scotland in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: The information available is given in the table.
  715

  Number of deaths by quarter, Scotland, 1987–92

  Year (Quarters)

  Number of deaths

  1987 1

  16,881

  2

  14,925

  3

  14,096

  4

  16,112

  1988 1

  16,533

  2

  15,300

  3

  14,252

  4

  15,872

  1989 1

  16,427

  2

  15,165

  3

  14,134

  4

  19,291

  1990 1

  16,933

  2

  15,105

  3

  13,737

  4

  15,752

  1991 1

  16,278

  2

  14,891

  3

  13,814

  4

  16,058

  1992 1

  16,510

  2

  14,673

  3

  14,030

  4

  15,732

  The 1992 figures are still provisional.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to amend the advice offered by his Department on 1 December 1992 to Ayrshire and Arran health board in connection with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981;

  (2) what advice he has given to health boards on the effect of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 in relation to the transfer of services to opt-out trusts.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: Advice was given on 1 December by the central legal office for the national health service in Scotland, which is a division of the Common Services Agency. That advice was given to Ayrshire and Arran health board and was intended to offer general guidance in relation to the regulations.

  The National Health Service Act (Scotland) 1978, as amended, makes express provision in relation to the transfer of health board staff to NHS trust on existing terms and conditions of their employment.

  Forestry
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount spent in each of the last 10 years on supporting British forestry in both cash and real terms; what is his estimate of future costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The bulk of public funding for forestry is channelled through the Forestry Commission. Figures showing the Commission's total net expenditure for the past 10 years, and estimates for the next four years, are given in the table. These include the net cost of managing the commission's forests, the net cost of forestry research, and grants paid to private forest owners. They do not take account of the Government's support for forestry through tax relief,
  716
  which will no longer be available after the end of the current tax year, nor the income from disposals of Forestry Commission land.

  Year ended 31 March

  Cash £ million

  Real £ (1992–93) million

  1983

  55·7

  97·5

  1984

  56·8

  94·7

  1985

  54·0

  85·1

  1986

  51·4

  77·3

  1987

  51·2

  74·5

  1988

  48·1

  66·3

  1989

  53·4

  68·7

  1990

  58·2

  70·4

  1991

  74·4

  82·9

  1992

  76·5

  79·8

  1993

  198

  —

  1994

  194

  —

  1995

  196

  —

  1996

  196

  —

  1 Estimates.

  Hazardous Waste
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with other member states of the European Community concerning the draft directive on the incineration of hazardous waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: None. In accordance with normal practice it is my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who has the lead in discussions and negotiations with other member states in connection with this directive.

  Qualifications and Skills
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has 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 in Scotland to improve their qualifications and skills.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: My right hon. Friend will continue to hold frequent meetings with industry representatives to discuss policies relating to skills and qualifications, and the way individuals might make best use of them.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 in Scotland to improve their skills and qualifications.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: The Government have taken a number of significant steps in the last five years to encourage individuals to improve their skills and qualifications.

  These steps include: introduction of youth training and youth credits; introduction of employment training which merges, with employment action, into training for work from 1 April 1993; continued rapid development of the system of Scottish vocational qualifications and other measures to secure parity of esteem with academic

  717
  qualifications; and introduction of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their networks of local enterprise companies.

  Further details for each year can be found in the relevant departmental reports and from the period from April 1991 from the annual reports of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been(a) the tonnage of landings for first sale and importing and (b) the levy collected by the Sea Fish Industry Authority on these landings in respect of (i) white fish, (ii) pelagic fish, (iii) shellfish and (iv) roe and other fish products at Peterhead in each of the last five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: The information on landings by fishing vessels and imports into Peterhead is set out in the following tables:

  Tonnes

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Landings

  Whitefish

  87,012

  75,858

  69,481

  71,592

  64,828

  Pelagic

  29,922

  24,329

  33,092

  46,853

  45,043

  Shellfish

  196

  607

  633

  762

  860

  Livers/Roes

  42

  53

  36

  48

  51

  Imports

  Whitefish

  314

  704

  103

  121

  267

  Pelagic

  —

  —

  —

  3,119

  2,709

  Shellfish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  153

  Livers/Roes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The question of the levy collected by the Sea Fish Industry Authority on these landings and imports is a matter for the chief executive of the authority and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Legal Aid and Advice
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his current estimate of the proportion of the adult population of Scotland which after I April will be eligible for(a) legal advice and assistance and (b) legal aid, for civil purposes on a nil contribution; what is his current estimate of the proportion of the adult population of Scotland which after 1 April will be eligible for (i) legal advice and assistance and (ii) legal aid for civil purposes irrespective of the level of contribution; what is the current proportion of the adult population of Scotland currently eligible for (1) legal advice and assistance and (2) legal aid for civil purposes on a nil contribution; and what current proportion of the adult population of Scotland is eligible for (y) legal advice and assistance and (z) legal aid, for civil purposes irrespective of the level of contribution.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: Given the variations over time in individuals' circumstances it is not possible to estimate with any precision the proportion of the adult population eligible for legal aid.

  Further analyses of data from the family expenditure survey have been undertaken since my reply of 20 January, Official Report, column 228, to the hon. and learned Member. These suggest that in Scotland the percentage of households which would be eligible for civil legal aid under
  718
  the new proposed changes to eligibility criteria, as announced in my reply of 17 February, Official Report, column 226, to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), would be in the range of 50 to 60 per cent., with between 15 to 25 per cent. free of contributions. A similar number would be eligible for advice and assistance, with between 25 to 30 per cent. free of contributions. This represents no substantive change in the total numbers eligible, but a drop of between 5 and 10 per cent. of households currently eligible for free civil legal aid or advice and assistance.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements and decisions remain to be finalised in connection with the transfer of community care responsibilities to social work departments.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly make statutory directions on consultations on plans and on choice of residential accommodation. He will issue the following regulations relating to the funding arrangements for people in residential care and nursing homes:

  1. The National Assistance (Sums for Personal Requirements) Regulations 1993.

  2. The Residential Accommodation (Relevant Premises, Ordinary Residence and Exceptions) Regulations 1993.

  3. The Charging Order (Residential Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 1993.

  My right hon. Friend will also issue guidance on these regulations and on sections 21 to 24 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 and the successor arrangements to the independent living fund.

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of young people eligible for the Government's youth training guarantee in each local enterprise company area; and what is the number of young people receiving youth training.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: Information about the number of young people eligible for the youth training guarantee in each local enterprise company area is unavailable. Local enterprise companies estimate demand in their areas for the purpose of planning provision and keep in touch with demand through liaison with the careers service, so that supply can be adjusted to ensure that the guarantee is met. The number of young people receiving youth training in Scotland as at December 1992 was 34,332.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish information on the meeting of the youth training guarantee by local enterprise company area.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have assured Ministers that within their respective networks each local enterprise company is meeting the youth training guarantee; and will continue to meet it. More detailed information about supply and demand in relation to youth training is being refined, in consultation with Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and

  719
  the careers service. It is my intention that appropriate information should be published once that process is complete.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people qualify for employment training; and how many are receiving employment training in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: Given that the unemployed are eligible for a wide range of assistance from Government-funded sources, within which employment training is one option, it would not be meaningful to seek to identify the number of people in Scotland who qualify for employment training. As at December 1992 there were 14,813 people receiving employment training in Scotland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has conducted into the quality and range of youth training and employment training schemes in Scotland; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: The Scottish Office does not conduct such research at its own hand. The long-running evaluation studies of the effectiveness of youth training and employment training organised by the Department of Employment continue to cover Scotland. In addition it has been, since 1991, the responsibility of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to keep under continuous review the suitability and adequacy of training provided under these schemes.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the comparative expenditure per youth training and employment training place in each year since the commencement of these schemes.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: Expenditure in Scotland per youth training and employment training participant is as follows:

  1991–92 (actual) £

  1992–93 (estimated outturn) £

  Youth Training

  2,671

  2,791

  Employment Training

  5,902

  6,291

  Note: No separate Scottish data exist prior to 1991–92.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what citizens charter provisions apply to the rights of youth training, employment training and employment action participants.
  720
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have drawn up statements of charter standards which they aim to apply to all their dealings with members of the public; and local enterprise companies have either adopted statements of charter standards or are considering doing so. In addition, the Government have stated clearly their commitment to fulfilling the youth training and employment training guarantees and to ensuring that those groups at which the training for work scheme is aimed receive an appropriate standard of treatment.

  Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many reported staphylococcus aureus cases have occurred in each health board area in the past five years; and what advice his Department gives as to how cases should be dealt with.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: The number of cases of multiple-resistant staphylococcus aureus confirmed by microbiological testing and reported to the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Health Board

  Number of cases reported

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Argyll and Clyde

  2

  4

  8

  33

  43

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3

  6

  7

  18

  29

  Borders

  —

  —

  4

  1

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  Grampian

  —

  —

  1

  12

  6

  Greater Glasgow

  89

  45

  49

  163

  185

  Highland

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  Lanarkshire

  11

  22

  28

  35

  83

  Lothian

  10

  13

  8

  15

  22

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  7

  19

  26

  62

  73

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  122

  111

  132

  340

  464

  The hospital infection manual, which has been made available for use in both the national health service and the private sector in Scotland, includes detailed guidance on procedures for dealing with any outbreak of this infection in hospitals. I have arranged for copies of the manual to be placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Brocket Lord Brocket —Took the Oath.

Disabled People: Employment
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that high levels of unemployment do not result in a reduction of equal opportunities, in particular for disabled people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, my department strongly encourages employers to adopt fair and positive employment policies towards all people. Equal opportunities are an integral part of all our employment and training provision and disabled people have special priority on our main schemes. A current marketing campaign encourages the employment of disabled people and promotes our disability symbol.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I appreciate that reply, but is the noble Viscount aware that the current rate of unemployment among disabled people is twice the national average? That is mainly because they are discriminated against by many employers, despite the efforts of the Government. What they really need is more support services, an effective quota system and effective anti-discrimination legislation which is supported by this House but vetoed by the Government.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that much of what the noble Lord said is true. We are trying to combat the discrimination which we recognise to be there. However, I would say in order to assist the noble Lord that the employment service is doing well in helping unemployed disabled people into jobs. In the period from 1st April to 31st December 1992 the service placed 31,000 unemployed people with disabilities in a job against 24,690 in the same period in 1991. That represents an increase in the placing of disabled people from 2.4 per cent. of all unemployed placings to 2.8 per cent. I am not sure that legislation will correct all the areas about which the noble Lord feels concern. It is important that we should continue with the education of employers and make certain that disabled people have a fair chance in the labour market.
Lady Kinloss; My Lords, can the Minister confirm that some disabled people are being singled out for redundancy purely on the basis of their disability?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I cannot confirm that. However, I understand that if a firm is
1136
not employing its quota—it may have a permit releasing it if it is difficult to fulfil its quota requirements—it would be acting illegally in that instance.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we appreciate that there are many different ways in which disabled people can be helped back into employment. However, bearing in mind that, as the Minister knows, levels of unemployment are increasing dramatically, especially among disabled people, will the Government think again about their negative attitude to legislation? After all, it has gone through this House. Is it not right that the Government should reconsider the position, in view of the support which the House gave to non-discriminatory legislation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have made clear that we are keeping the quota legislation under close review. We are very much looking at the effectiveness of legislation in other countries and I expect to have the results of research we are doing later in the year. I shall be visiting America soon to see how the AD Act is working there.
Lord Rix: My Lords, will the noble Viscount ensure that the issue of employment for people with disabilities is included in all 1994–95 community care plans? Furthermore, is the Minister able to say whether the very welcome support given by his department to the Arts Council initiative for the employment of disabled people in the arts will continue in the forthcoming year?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, community care is a matter for the Department of Health and local authorities under the social services provisions. However, if it were a question of employment, I should expect those bodies to consult us, our department and the TECs to see what they can do to assist people with disabilities on that front. As to the noble Lord's second question, I understand that an Arts Council report will soon be published. We look forward very much to seeing what will come out of it. We were pleased to assist in its early stages.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any employer practising discrimination against disabled workers is probably acting against the interests of his own firm? There is a great deal of evidence that in terms of their approach to hard work and conscientious attendance, disabled workers compare well with the average.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I welcome very much my noble friend's wise words. We have asked employers to look at the abilities of disabled people rather than their disabilities.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Government do more to monitor the quota system? For example, can more be done in the way of an inspectorate? Should there not be fines if the quota system is not properly applied? Furthermore, how do the Government propose to safeguard the interests of the disabled in the proposal they are making in regard to the careers advisory service?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as to the quota, there is no doubt that individual employers can meet it. However, it is arithmetically impossible for all affected employers to meet the 3 per cent. quota since registered disabled people only make up about 1 per cent of the workforce. We are talking about a registration scheme and many people do not feel that it is right nowadays to be registered. We are having to look at that very carefully.
As to the noble Baroness's second question, the most important aim is to have an effective careers service. I believe that the most effective careers service will be better at looking after disabled people than what happens now.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, why does the department not employ the statutory 3 per cent. disabled people?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, tables are published in the Employment Gazette but I do not happen to have them with me. I know that my department does, but very few others do.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Viscount has been very helpful and I am delighted that he is to visit the United States. If he finds there that legislation is being enacted and is working effectively —and if he goes to France and Germany, as I hope he will, and finds that the quota system is working effectively—will he then recommend that we adopt the American system and the French and German systems on the quota?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have to report that I have already visited France where I inspected that country's quota system. I have my own views about its effectiveness. I intend to visit America and Canada; I have been to Belgium. So I am getting a good feel for how other countries are putting the quota into practice.

COMGIBMED
3.10 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are to be any changes in the role of the Commander Gibraltar Mediterranean Area (COMGIBMED) as a result of the present reduction in naval units there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we do not believe that recent announcements made on naval commitments in Gibraltar will result in any changes to the role of the Commander Gibraltar Mediterranean Area.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can one assume, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government agree with the concluding remarks of Andrew Duncan of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in his recent paper NATO and the Gibraltar Zone, where he says that he believes that the strait of Gibraltar is as important
1138
today as it has ever been? If that is so, why close this month the RNR unit HMS "Calpe" and propose to close the 30-bed Royal Naval Hospital in Gibraltar?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend gives me an opportunity to confirm that Commander British Forces Gibraltar no longer has an operational requirement for the support that up till now HMS "Calpe" as an RNR unit offers. I point out to my noble friend that we live in an age of technological advance—I do not know whether he would call it progress—that therefore we are able to substitute technology for people and that that makes it more cost-effective.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it the case that in Gibraltar at the moment there is a small staff, a small naval presence consisting of two patrol vessels and some air force personnel, and that that is all; and that that is commanded by a two-star rear-admiral? Is a two-star rear-admiral the right rank to command that very small force?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord will know as well as I do that the flag officer concerned is what I understand is known in the trade as double-hatted. Not only does he perform the function of the Commander British Forces Gibraltar; he is also an important subordinate commander responsible to CINCSOUTH in the NATO command structure, which effectively gives him command in that structure of the entire western Mediterranean.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, when my noble friend says that technology can replace the RNR is he saying that that view will prevail elsewhere apart from Gibraltar?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if that is the meaning that I conveyed in my last reply to my noble friend, I am grateful to him for the opportunity to correct the impression. We greatly value the RNR in the Ministry of Defence both for the absolute defence role which it carries out now and as it develops will carry out in the future. In the end, no matter how important the advances in technology may be, they will depend on well trained and well motivated people.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, may I put a further question to the Minister? He is quite rightly, as it were, boosting the part that the RNR can play. Can he say why the closures of the RNR unit HMS "Calpe" and the RNR unit HMS "Graham" in Glasgow were announced at the same time? I thought that there were rather different strategic reasons for closing those two units.
May I seek further clarification on one further point on what the Minister said regarding operational support facilities? Only in January Rear-Admiral J.T. Sanders announced certain changes and envisaged further changes. So will there be changes in the operational and support facilities used by surface units and submarines and in operational training carried out by naval groups in the Gibraltar exercise areas?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that the closure of HMS "Calpe" was

1139
part of what I would call a sensible, good-housekeeping measure. It is certainly not part of an overall review of the present functions and strength of the RNR. That housekeeping measure includes the matter he referred to in regard to HMS "Graham" in Glasgow. My noble friend will be aware that we do not take such decisions lightly. We value, as I am sure he does, the important role which RNR units play and also the important voluntary spirit which they embody.
So far as Rear-Admiral Sanders is concerned, I am sure that if my noble friend has seen the statement that the admiral made about the closure of HMS "Calpe", he will have noticed that it had nothing to do with the overall functions, defence or otherwise, of CBF Gibraltar.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, will the Minister reply to me on this question?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, may I ask just one question? Does my noble friend the Minister agree with the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that two-star admirals are a body we know about?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have always felt a little uncomfortable—and I am sure that my noble friend feels the same way—about what seems to be an increasingly automatic adoption of an American system of gradation of senior officers. Certainly I am told that a rear-admiral tends to be a one-star officer, although there are also one-star commodores. I shall debate with him at greater length in future the proper designation. I prefer to call him, in a fine traditional British way, a rear-admiral.

Nuclear Weapons: Non-Proliferation
3.18 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to Lord Zuckerman's article, "Prospects for a Comprehensive Test Ban", in Nature, 4th February 1993, and whether they will support President Clinton in concluding a comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we welcome Lord Zuckerman's emphasis on the need for strong and effective international means to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. We would contest his conclusion that a comprehensive test ban would itself be an effective counter-proliferation measure, and we continue to see the need for some testing as the best means of maintaining the safety and credibility of our deterrent. We shall continue to consult closely with the United States on all these issues.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that is not my conclusion? It is the conclusion of the American Government that no
1140
testing is needed after 1996. It is the conclusion of the French Government. It is the conclusion of the Russian Government. It is the conclusion of those advisers of the Government who are free to speak, like Lord Zuckerman. It is the conclusion of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. Why, therefore, do the Government prefer to remain alone and obstinate on the issue? Are they not tragically mistaken?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first of all, the UK Government are not alone. United States' policy is not yet clear. We have continuing talks with the United States. It very much wants our view. Let me make it absolutely clear that our highest priority is to pursue effective measures to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. So I cannot agree with those who say—I number the noble Lord among them—that a comprehensive test ban among existing nuclear powers would be sufficient to prevent others from pursuing the acquisition of a nuclear capability. We know from the United Nations inspectors in the post-Gulf situation that Iraq, which signed the partial test ban treaty, the non-proliferation treaty, had that nuclear capability.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend make it clear that Her Majesty's Government attach prime importance to preserving an effective instrument of national defence?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, entirely. Also, an indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1995 needs further strengthening in terms of global participation and more intrusive verification procedures. Those will be the most important measures in helping us contain this awful possibility.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that nobody has ever said that a comprehensive test ban treaty is sufficient cause to achieve non-proliferation? I recall the 1980 defence White Paper which stated that it would be helpful toward non-proliferation. Will she cast her mind back to the record of previous Conservative governments in this field, which showed a great deal more realism and sense of responsibility than is seen in the policy that we now have?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord completely ignores what we have done in this country. Let me remind the House of it. We have reduced our stockpile; we have given £30 million recently to Russia for the safe storage and transport of its nuclear capability; and our Prime Minister told the Ukraine Prime Minister only last week that we are willing to offer security assurances to the Ukraine when it accedes to the non-proliferation treaty. Not only are we taking steps such as giving up the Lance short-range missile and the maritime substrategic weapons; we are also at the forefront in trying to bring a nuclear age to an end. It would be foolhardy to give up our means of defence until we are able to verify that all other nations have done so as well.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was one of the two Members of this House who took

1141
part in the 1963 negotiations. Is my noble friend aware that, although we tried but failed to get a comprehensive test ban on that occasion, the situation with which we were then confronted has altered dramatically since the collapse of communism? Does she recall that we were then faced with a confrontation between two power groups? And will she agree that we are now faced with something rather like a number of loose cannons rolling about on the quarter deck and running into each other? Fragmentation is the danger. Does she allow that that dramatically alters the nature of the argument that we are now pursuing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The problems of verification which are particularly acute in relation to the emerging states of the former Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are concentrating our minds particularly. We must consider not only how to help them get rid of their nuclear capability but ensure that they and other nations which still have a nuclear capability, and some nations that are still developing one, do so as well.
Lord Healey: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he was Foreign Secretary, telling the United Nations Association in 1980 that we could not expect the non-nuclear signatories of the nuclear anti-proliferation treaty to observe their obligations unless the existing nuclear powers honoured (that is the word he used) their commitment (that is the word he used) to work for a comprehensive test ban treaty? In view of the disasters which have followed the present Government ignoring the noble Lord's advice on Yugoslavia, will they not return to his equally wise advice on a nuclear comprehensive test ban?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that our policy and what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in 1980 about this matter are inconsistent. If we are to work towards a comprehensive test ban treaty, the world at large has to have the means of verification. It also has to have the commitment of all nations to abide by it. We do not have that yet.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, the noble Baroness will probably not be surprised to hear that many noble Lords differ from her on this matter and on the question of where the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, stood in 1980. Wherever the noble Lord stands now, I do not know. Certainly he was in a very different position then. Is the noble Baroness not concerned about the fact that the President of the United States has said in a letter to Senator Hatfield that he is reviewing questions for negotiating a comprehensive test ban treaty? Let me read his exact words from the letter, which has his signature at the bottom:
"to review questions relating to the forum and modalities for negotiating a CTB [comprehensive test ban treaty]".
If, as he says in his letter of 12th February, he is doing that, does the noble Baroness feel that it would be wise for the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the British Government in general to review this matter
1142
again? We were close to such a test ban in 1977 and again at the beginning of Mrs. Thatcher's Administration. Does she agree that it is of no use to use whirling words about this matter? Testing, among other things, has moved on, as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has said on many occasions. Is it not time that we had another Statement from the Government following a review of whether it is possible to cease testing and preserve the efficacy of the deterrent?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can well understand why the noble Lord, in view of that letter, has so posed his question. I have not seen the letter. I know that talks are taking place in the United States at this very moment. We certainly do not believe that that comprehensive test ban would be sufficient because, as I said earlier, it would not prevent other nations from pursuing nuclear acquisition. It may be that with a comprehensive test ban treaty in the future we can find a way of enforcing it. We are not at that stage as yet.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Baroness recognise that in talking about safety she is not talking about the Trident warhead programme? That is already safe, whether or not there is any more testing, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, told us. She is therefore talking about the safety of a future programme some time after 1996. Is it the case that there is no alternative technology? As explained in a Written Answer by Mr. Jonathan Aitken on 23rd October 1992 in another place, alternative technologies exist and their development is a matter that will now be considered. Are those alternative technologies ready? If so, can we not do without testing after 1996 and still have a positive nuclear deterrent?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret to tell the noble Lord that the technologies referred to in another place are not yet adequate.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, we ought to move on to the next Question.

Bosnia: Relief Operations
3.28 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are giving to the recently arranged United Nations humanitarian operation to drop food and medical supplies to besieged communities in Bosnia.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are providing about £250,000 worth of food to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to be airdropped by the United States Air Force to besieged communities in Bosnia. However, the bulk of UNHCR's relief supplies to Bosnia are delivered by road and we continue to play a leading role in this operation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to be left a short time to ask this Question and thank my

1143
noble friend for her reply. The participation of the United States is to be welcomed, as also is the absence of casualties from the airdrop. But is it not vital that roads should also be kept open? Is she aware that land convoys can provide much more in supplies and also more accuracy and certainty in delivery?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The British fleet of 43 trucks has delivered since June last year some 18,000 tonnes of supplies and the British forces on the ground have helped in the bad weather to keep many of the roads open.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the Serbs are holding up a great deal of the aid which is vital to some of the besieged communities? What are we doing about the Serbs?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are standing up to them and intend to go on doing so with the help of those brave troops on the ground who are allowing the British convoys certainly to deliver.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that we have seen on television rather sad pictures of United Nations aid, food and medical supplies not going to the besieged but being used by the besiegers? Ought there not to be more military action taken to ensure that those doing the besieging are pushed back to the areas from which they came so that ultimately there will be no need to drop supplies? Should we not be able to develop a civilised approach to these problems which does not involve people suffering in such a manner, not even receiving the United Nations supplies of food and medical aid?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not sure to what television programme the noble Lord refers. However, I can tell him that the work of UNHCR in co-ordinating the international response has gone a good deal better than is indicated by the isolated incidents to which he refers. The total spending from all sources to the end of 1992 was estimated to be £550 million on giving aid, excluding the costs of UNPROFOR. The vast majority of it reached the intended recipients.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it would be even more helpful to drop ammunition to beleaguered communities in Bosnia so that they could defend themselves against the threat of massacre?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the world has the greatest admiration for the efforts being made by British relief agencies and Her Majesty's troops? However, does she also agree that the calls for military intervention are extremely dangerous? They would be a hindrance to continued relief operations and, indeed, inflict on the troops involved and many innocent civilians greater casualties than are at present being experienced.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, for the first time in nearly 11 months in this House it is my pleasure to say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that airdrops of this kind are inevitably uncertain? Land supplies are the real priority. Will she confirm that the mandate for UN humanitarian action envisages all necessary protective action to guarantee land supplies? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are determined that everything will be done to fulfil that mandate and guarantee those land supplies?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes. That is what we have been seeking to do. But the nature of the problem on the ground, as I have seen for myself, is such that, with the best will in the world, we are trying to overcome some of the toughest and hardest fighters that probably any troops have ever encountered.

Business: Easter Recess
3.32 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Easter Recess on Thursday 1st April and return on Wednesday 14th April. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 1st April.

Clean Air Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. This is the first of three consolidation Bills in my name on the Order Paper. If I may, shall speak also to the Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.] and the Charities Bill [H.L.].
The Bills, covering as they do a diversity of subject matter have a common factor in that they all represent the efforts of Parliamentary Counsel, of Law Commissioners and of the members of the Joint Committee that considers the details of consolidation Bills. I am sure that I have the support of the House in expressing appreciation to all of them for the valuable and painstaking work that they put into tidying the statute book and keeping it up to date.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Charities Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
3.35 p.m.
Read a third time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Grants to local authorities
(".The Secretary of State shall make a specific grant to any local authority which in any year incurs expenditure in making housing, social services or education provision for asylum-seekers or their dependants.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 1 is similar to the one tabled by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding at Committee stage and the same as the one I moved on Report. On that occasion I had support from many different sectors of the House and I believe we all agreed that the care of asylum seekers in the period while they are seeking asylum—not when they become permanent residents of this country—should be a national responsibility although by chance it happens to fall most heavily on the London boroughs.
There have been instances—my noble friend Lord Jenkin quoted a case near Stansted Airport—where the whole of the council's housing stock was taken up by refugees. On the whole, however, it is the bigger authorities which are hardest hit and which have to provide accommodation for the asylum seekers at great cost to themselves.
One difficulty is that it is unpredictable where asylum seekers will settle. There is always stress on Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea and also on Hillingdon and Hounslow because they are near the airport. Elsewhere it fluctuates from time to time and from year to year. There is therefore no way of saying that specific boroughs experience the problem. The problem is really a London problem.
Over the years there have been attempts to suggest that people, such as the Vietnamese, should settle outside London. They did not like that; they gradually came back to London. There is no way, as a democracy, that we can determine where people should live. But wherever they happen to settle as asylum seekers places a heavy cost on that authority.
The amendment asks the Secretary of State to make a specific grant to local authorities, wherever they are, for the costs they bear in providing housing, social services and education to asylum seekers and their dependants. I have been convinced of the need for a specific grant for asylum seekers' costs because the London Boroughs Association—and I know that the Association of London Authorities feels the same—brought to my attention the plight of a small number of London boroughs which alone are bearing the costs
1146
of what should be a national responsibility. Over 90 per cent. of asylum seekers entering the UK come to London and each year a few London boroughs face enormous additional costs in providing housing, social services and education.
The pressure on different boroughs varies from year to year. Currently, it is Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham which are under the greatest pressure; last year, it was Westminster and Camden. Next year it may be different boroughs. The boroughs face enormous extra costs—an estimated £40 million across London this year—on behalf of the nation due only to an accident of geography. Asylum seekers naturally gravitate towards the capital and, once communities are established, the attraction becomes greater.
It is unjust that the London boroughs alone should shoulder the burden. Central government should provide money from the national purse to help them. The Government recognised the strength of my argument and recently agreed to special grants for authorities which deal with large numbers of unaccompanied child asylum seekers and refugees from the former Yugoslavia. A precedent has therefore been set. Unfortunately, the grants will meet only a fraction of the cost and hardly affect London. They will last for only one year. A more permanent arrangement is needed which recognises the ongoing burdens on local authorities, especially in London.
I am convinced that a specific grant is the best way to achieve that aim. It is able to target effectively those authorities suffering in any one year. The Government may have their own ideas as to how that can be achieved. However, I should like the Minister to publicly recognise the strength of the case for special arrangements to help local authorities that receive high numbers of asylum seekers and to give a firm undertaking as to the action that the Government will be taking to resolve the situation.
I would not wish to be in a position to have to divide the House because I believe that this issue is so just that the Government should recognise it. If the London boroughs had an assurance from the Government that they would look at the matter, that would be satisfactory. However, up to this stage in the Bill I have had no such indication from the Government. I also think that it is important to realise that many noble Lords feel as I do. There is a strong reaction in this matter. I hope that the Minister will give us some consolation and that he will look carefully at the wording of the amendment. It is quite generous to the Government. It makes no specific recommendation on the amount or percentage of grant. The amount we are talking about could be anything from £5 to £5 million. It is not a difficult demand to place on the Government, but it is just and fair that this responsibility should be borne nationally. The amendment would be one way of doing it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has said, the amendment is supported not only by the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association but also by the Labour-controlled Association of London

1147
Authorities. Indeed, I have reason to believe that it would be supported also by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which drafted amendments that I put forward at the Committee and Report stages. Having failed to make any progress with the Government on my amendments, I am happy, as I indicated at Report stage, to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
She quite rightly said that if the Government were to make significant concessions on the funding of the costs of asylum seekers, particularly in London boroughs, the associations would be satisfied with that. Unfortunately, she will confirm that it was the same amendment that she put forward at Report stage and the responses of the Government were not particularly satisfactory. The Minister on that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, thought that the situation was less severe because the number of asylum seekers was decreasing. However, the number of asylum seekers has increased and decreased from year to year for reasons which are outside our control.
Even if the number of asylum seekers awaiting a decision has increased because of improved administrative efficiency—we are all grateful for improvements of that kind—I do not think that any of us, particularly those who were listening to the exchanges on foreign affairs a few minutes ago at Question Time, would be confident in saying that the kind of upheavals which cause increases in the number of asylum seekers are guaranteed not to occur in the future. The sad fact is that the world is in such a state that the migration of people from countries where they are persecuted, or worse, to countries which are safer will be a feature of world politics and world society in the future as it has been in the past. No decision of this Government, I fear, will overcome that.
The Minister said in replying on that occasion that the standard spending assessments are continually monitored. That is all very well but this problem has been with us for quite a considerable period. During that period there has not been any significant concession from government towards a more just recognition of the very substantial costs which are incurred not only for the housing of asylum seekers but also for the provision of education services and social services. Even if there had been past recognition, the sad fact is that the standard spending assessments are always in arrears. It is very difficult for local authorities to make up any deficit they have when they incur a deficit because of their statutory responsibilities.
It is no good Ministers saying either that the Bill no longer requires local authorities to provide permanent accommodation for those asylum seekers who are homeless. Temporary accommodation unfortunately costs at least as much as, and sometimes more than, permanent accommodation. There is no reduction in the financial burden on local authorities from that.
The most important point of all—I do not wish to detain the House on this matter longer than I have to —is that local authorities receive asylum seekers without warning. They cannot make provision in their
1148
budget for a year against the possibility that asylum seekers may come to Westminster, Haringey, Ealing, Brent or wherever it may be. They therefore overspend in that year and subsequent revision of the standard spending assessment does not do them any good. They have overspent and they are at risk of penalties from government under local government finance legislation. Only a specific grant of the kind proposed by the noble Baroness will solve the problem. None of the suggestions made by the Government so far would go more than a tiny part of the way towards what the noble Baroness and the local authorities concerned ask for and need.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I supported this amendment in its earlier form and I wish to continue to do so today. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has provided an excellent opportunity to enable the Government to discharge a national responsibility in a fair and equitable way. I just hope that they will grasp that chance.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister one question. Can he tell the House in what way the Government take account of the expenditure of any authority on asylum seekers when they are deciding on their standard spending assessment? Can he tell the House exactly how the Government do it?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should like to add the support of noble Lords on these Benches to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. I thank her for bringing it again to the House and I congratulate her on her persistence in doing so, which is entirely right and proper.
It is a major matter for the authorities concerned, but not just for the authorities as if they were bodies unrelated to the people living in their areas. The reason for being so concerned about the particular needs of particular authorities is that, if an authority has to spend an unexpectedly substantial amount to meet the needs of refugees coming to its area, there must be cuts elsewhere in order to meet that demand. That is a simple matter of arithmetic. The unpredictability means that no local authority can sensibly budget for such a contingency.
The level of need can be very high in some situations. In previous debates the noble Baroness has drawn some of the figures to our attention. For example, the cost to the London Borough of Hillingdon for social services can be of the order of £1 million a year. There have been two years in which that has been the case. The mechanism of the standard spending assessment is one for assessing need to spend where needs are greater but it cannot predict the future. There is no provision to take account of the unexpected arrival of refugees.
It seems to me that, given the circumstances, the amendment is quite a modest one. It requests a specific grant but is not prescriptive as to the amount of that grant. It leaves a great deal to the Secretary of State's

1149
discretion and good sense. The noble Baroness has struck a very common sense balance in what she is requesting in the amendment. I support her.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. The German election results have been much in the news this week where massive gains have been made by extreme nationalist parties in the state of Hesse largely because of resentment at the high cost of absorbing large numbers of asylum seekers. This amendment will ensure that the cost of looking after asylum seekers does not fall unfairly and disproportionately on the community charge payers in a small number of boroughs, thereby making it even less likely than it is at present that Britain will go down the German road.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I approach this amendment with a certain sense of déjà vu. Once again my noble friend proposes a specific grant to local authorities in respect of the cost of service provision for asylum seekers and their dependants. No one can doubt my noble friend's deep and genuine concern over this issue. But the Government remain firmly of the view that a grant of this sort is unnecessary. I apologise if, on previous occasions, I have failed to make those reasons for this clear, and I hope to make amends now.
There is a general disposition in Government against specific grants. The reasons for this are well understood and generally shared by local authorities. By tying up money for particular purposes when it might otherwise be a general resource for each authority to allocate as it thinks fit, specific grants restrict the discretion of authorities to determine their own spending priorities. For similar reasons, specific grants also undermine accountability.
The Government do accept that asylum seekers may give rise to higher costs than some other sections of the population of an area. But even if there were no asylum seekers whatever entering this country, the local government finance system would still have to distribute resources to local authorities for the cost of providing for the homeless, the education of children with special needs, and the provision of social services for children from ethnic minorities and so on. The system would also have to provide different amounts to different authorities according to the incidence of these needs in each area. The pressures which asylum seekers bring to bear on local services are not essentially different in kind from the pressures which anyone with distinctive needs places on the local authority, and which the system of standard spending assessments is designed to reflect. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, asked a perfectly appropriate question in respect of that.
SSAs reflect the relevant characteristics of an area, and allocate resources accordingly. They do not attempt to record the presence of particular asylum seekers, any more than they focus on the immigration status of any other sub-set of the population. But they do measure characteristics closely associated with spending needs and distribute resources accordingly.
1150
We monitor the SSA system on a continuing basis in close consultation with the local authority associations and ensure that the data used in the various indicators of need are the most up-to-date available. It is inevitable that the data reflect the position obtaining a year or two ago. But it would really require a dramatic change in the characteristics of an area in the intervening period to cast doubt on the validity of SSAs as a means of distributing resources.
My noble friend made the point that London is particularly troublesome as regards this problem. I have said on previous occasions—and I hope that my noble friend can accept—that London boroughs' SSAs are high, and much higher than in the rest of the country, precisely because those boroughs face spending pressures such as those which asylum seekers generate. Perhaps we ought to see this problem in the context that the total London SSAs are over £6 billion.
We believe that the present method of constructing SSAs gives us a reliable system of measuring spending needs. But we are always open to suggestions for improvements. During the debate at Report stage I drew my noble friend's attention to the recent announcement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, that my department will be conducting a fundamental review of SSAs over the next few months to ensure that they continue to take the most appropriate factors into account. That review is under way and the possibility of including a direct indicator for homelessness—which is one of the main spending needs that the proponents of a specific grant would expect to see it cover—will of course be considered, if we receive specific proposals. Equally, we are prepared to consider carefully all other suggestions for changes which are put forward, with a view to implementing whatever changes seem appropriate in time for the 1994–95 local authority finance settlement. The SSA review depends heavily upon the co-operation of the local authority associations, and they will have ample opportunity to make their views known.
The local government finance system already contains mechanisms for ensuring that authorities get sufficient resources to cover the costs to which asylum seekers past and present give rise. If it can be shown that the system can be improved, we are open to persuasion. Indeed, this very afternoon my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is meeting a delegation from the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities to discuss a range of issues concerned with local government finance in London. I understand that the treatment of homelessness and the costs to which refugees give rise are on the agenda. It is much better to explore an issue such as the costs of asylum seekers in a forum such as that, than by pressing an unnecessary and, as regards this one, unworkable amendment.
I hope that my explanation today is more acceptable to my noble friend and to the House than my previous one. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he explain that point more

1151
clearly? Is he saying that the Secretary of State will be prepared to look at the asylum seekers' costs as a specific element as a new indicator in the SSAs? He said that he would look at the question of homelessness, but did he also say that he would look at the costs of asylum seeking in terms of the SSAs? I ask that question particularly because the point that he made about London in general does not cover the unpredictability as to where asylum seekers come from, and whether they came yesterday, today or will arrive tomorrow. That problem has been brought out by so many speakers. Can my noble friend clarify that point before I make my decision on that matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I regret that I do not believe that I can give my noble friend the comfort that she desires. I did not dwell on the technicalities of the amendment. Perhaps I may briefly do so. The administration of a specific grant such as this would be a nightmare. For instance, who would qualify? Would it be just asylum seekers or former asylum seekers as well? Exactly which costs are to be reimbursed? How does one distinguish between spending generated by the asylum seekers alone and spending that would have occurred anyway? The complexities are both unappealing and unnecessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on that specific point, surely all the criticisms that the Minister makes regarding specific grants, and the difficulties faced in allocating them, apply equally to the special grants which the Government already make.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the existing special grants are for special and outstanding circumstances which genuinely cannot be accommodated by the SSA system. The noble Lord knows which ones they are. As I said, we shall be looking at a whole range of provisions within the SSAs. My noble friend asked me specifically whether that would include refugees. I cannot give her a firm commitment on that, but we are very open to suggestions from local authority associations as to what will be most appropriate.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He has done his best to answer my problems, but I do not feel that he has done so because he said that he could not give an undertaking of any sort to look into this matter. The wording of my amendment is so general that it would not require anything as demanding as he suggested. It would be open to all kinds of flexibility in interpretation afterwards. It is a most important issue. I beg leave to seek the opinion of the House.
3.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Aylestone, L.

Acton, L.

Barnett, L.

Airedale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ardwick, L.

Beloff, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Biddulph, L.

1152

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bottomley, L.

Listowel, E.

Brentford, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bridges, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Brightman, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Chorley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monson, L.

Dainton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Desai, L.

Mulley, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Raglan, L.

Faithfull, B.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Richardson, L.

Falkland, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E.

Flather, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shannon, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman.B.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Healey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Varley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Walpole, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ilchester, E.

Wharton, B.

Jacques, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Judd, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Abinger, L.

Butterworth, L.

Aldington, L.

Cadman, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Caithness, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Annaly, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Arran, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Astor, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cockfield, L.

Auckland, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Barber, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cranborne, V.

Blake, L.

Crathorne, L.

Blatch, B.

Cross, V.

Boardman, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Davidson, V.

1153

Denham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundee, E.

Munster, E.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Finsberg, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Geddes, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gisborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Prentice, L.

Goschen, V.

Quinton, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Rennell, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hampden, V.

Romney, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L.

Sandys, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hood, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Howe, E.

Strange, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Kitchener, E.

Leigh, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Suffield, L.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Mancroft, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marlesford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Mersey, V.

Wakeham, L.

Milverton, L.

Westbury, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wise, L.

Morris, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mottistone, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.7 p.m.
Clause 11 [Appeals from Immigration Appeal Tribunal]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Visitors, short-term and prospective students and their dependants]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 27, after ("visitor") insert ("other than as a visitor to a person related by blood or marriage.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords with Amendment No. 3. we move to the issue of appeals for visitors. I am conscious that this is an issue which has been discussed at considerable length in your Lordships' House both in Committee and on Report. On this occasion, we are proposing a new amendment which seeks to deal with what we and everybody who has been talking to us about the Bill consider to be one of the worst defects of the Bill as drafted. I refer to the problem which arises when visitors come to this country to visit members of their family.
I do not need to repeat in detail the arguments that I made at an earlier stage about the inequality in treatment between visitors to this country from
1154
different parts of the world. Probably the most telling figures that I quoted on a previous occasion were, first, that 72 per cent. of visitors to this country come from what might be called the more developed countries —that is, the United States, Europe, Japan and the old Commonwealth countries—so the problem does not relate to the vast majority of visitors to this country. Those who come from the less developed countries, in particular from Africa, the Caribbean and the Indian sub-continent, are much more likely to be turned back at the point of entry than those who come from the white and developed countries. That is the crux of the matter. One in 2,000 United States visitors to this country is turned back at point of entry whereas the figure for those coming from Ghana or Bangladesh is one in seven.
It is not just that there is a huge disparity between one kind of visitor to this country and another: the disparity, if anything, should be the other way because those coming from the Caribbean and the Indian sub-continent, and, to a lesser extent I suppose from Africa, are much more likely to be wanting to come to this country, not as tourists, because few of them have the financial resources to do so, but to visit their families. The Government would not be departing from the intentions they express in putting forward this part of the Bill if they left the right of appeal for those people. It is not just the disparity at the point of entry that worries us. It is known throughout the country that it is largely black people who experience difficulty in reaching this country to visit their families.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, made a powerful speech on a related amendment on Report. This amendment is relatively modest. It may not be drafted perfectly, but we have done our best. We have given the Secretary of State the power to define what is meant by,
"related by blood or marriage".
It is not a wrecking amendment. It does not damage the purport of the Bill. It will relieve the considerable and justified anxiety felt by a large number of people who live in this country, who are citizens of this country and who want their relatives from abroad to be able to visit them without running the risk that they run now and would run even more if there were no right of appeal against refusal of entry.
In case anyone thinks that it will be difficult for the Secretary of State to define,
"related by blood or marriage"
I refer to the Housing Act 1985. That contains adequate definitions which unfortunately I did not have when the amendment was being drafted. The definition which we would regard as satisfactory is a,
"person's parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece",
or spouse. We do not need to extend the definition to cover cousins, second cousins, or second cousins twice removed. There is no need to go to extremes although it would be desirable were the definition extended to cover godsons and goddaughters. Nevertheless, an adequate definition is available. It would be a gesture of humanity by the Government to agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I shall speak from a personal angle. I have two grandchildren who are Trinidad citizens and live in Trinidad. They visited me last year. Many Members will have seen them when they visited the House. Before they came they were told at the High Commission in Trinidad that they needed a letter from me inviting them here. I wrote the appropriate letter and invited them. I want your Lordships' to see the point. It never occurred to me that would happen. It is likely that those children could have come here and been sent back. That is the type of thing about which we are talking.
I read some of the cases reported in a brochure sent to me by the CAB. There was reference to close relatives who were refused entry to visit their families but who succeeded on appeal. If there were no appeals, those people would have been unable to visit their families. The amendment makes an exception for close relatives so that we do not have happening the type of thing that we have had in the past and so that people who come here genuinely to visit their families will be able to do so. Even if an immigration officer, as a result of some mistake he has made, decides to refuse them entry, they would have a right of appeal which would allow them to come. I hope that the Minister will see the matter in that way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on one thing: his ingenuity when faced with the difficulty of defining,
"related by blood or marriage"
of seeking, as he does in Amendment No. 5, to transfer responsibility for setting out that definition to the Secretary of State. That is a most ingenious bit of buck passing. It is a small matter. The amendment proposes a difficult task for the immigration authorities. Let us suppose, as will often be the case, that the visitor (the migrant, the asylum seeker or whatever one likes to call him) is alleging—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me, I think that he referred inadvertently to the word "migrant". In the amendment we are talking about visitors.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I did not inadvertently refer to "migrant". I tried to cover all the categories of people who will present themselves under the Bill. It may well be that someone who claims to be coming to visit his cousin or aunt by marriage is an intended migrant. I hope that the noble Lord will face up to that fact. That is one of the difficulties behind the amendment. I am grateful to him for bringing it out; otherwise I might have failed to do so.
If the asylum seeker—if that pleases the noble Lord—says, "Oh, I am coming to visit a blood relation", and that blood relation, as in many instances will be the case, is someone who came from his own country years ago, what evidence of the blood relationship will there be? How will it be proved? What is the unfortunate official to do when someone says, "Oh, but, Mrs So-and-so is my great aunt by marriage"?
1156
There is no evidence. It seems to me that the amendment will create a great deal of unnecessary difficulty. I hope therefore that the amendment will be rejected.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I support the amendment. I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on managing to insert into a speech about an amendment dealing with visitors, and appeals for visitors against refusal of entry, the whole matter of migration. We are not talking about migration. We are talking about visitors, and the right of visitors to appeal if entry is refused.
The burden of the amendment is a simple one. I should have thought that the amendment would appeal to the sentiments of a party which claims to believe in the family as an important source of social cohesion and is worried by the apparent destruction of the family under modern conditions. I hope that the amendments will appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and that we shall receive a positive response to an act which is not only wise and strengthens the cohesion of the family but which is an act of humanity.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the two amendments. Perhaps I may quote a case reported by a CAB in East London. It is that of an elderly Pakistani woman who was refused entry clearance to visit her daughter and grandchildren in this country. She was refused a visa on the ground that the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that she would stay for the period as stated by her, despite the fact that she had made two previous visits and on both occasions had left within the appropriate period. The woman's appeal against the decision was successful. The Home Office offered no evidence at the appeal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say with respect that some of the fears expressed by noble Lords are unreal but I shall deal with that in a moment. I wish to remind your Lordships that Clause 12, which amends the 1971 Act, is necessary because when so many people come here to obtain asylum they do not declare that fact but say that they are coming as visitors or to follow a course of study. However, even such people are protected if they have previously obtained a current entry certificate. The last line of the clause is most relevant.
In view of the passage of the Bill through both Houses up to this last stage in your Lordships' House we must assume that the Bill is needed. Therefore, we must bear in mind that the amendment would make a big and loosely defined exception. As was pointed put by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, it is easy for someone to assert that he wishes to be with a great uncle. There is no evidence to prove it. It might be an easy case, relatively speaking, within the definition of blood or marriage. When one thinks of the large families which exist in some parts of the world and the ease with which someone might claim, bona fide or not, that he was related, however distantly, by blood or marriage the exception becomes big as well as being loosely defined.
I turn to the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, with obvious sincerity and feeling. I believe

1157
that his fears are unjustified because his grandchildren coming here as visitors to see him—not coming here first as visitors and later claiming asylum—would have no difficulty and would be able to obtain an entry clearance certificate—
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, the position is that an immigration officer might decide that my grandchildren are not doing what they set out to do but are coming here because I want to keep them. He may therefore refuse them entry and they would have no appeal. The amendment merely gives a right of appeal so that someone of higher authority can look at the case. That is all.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the noble Lord's grandchildren had an entrance certificate—and in their case there would be no problem in obtaining one —I believe that they would have no difficulty. There may be another way in which they could establish their right to come here. The noble Lord could vouch for them by meeting them at the airport, which would help very much.
Genuine visitors will have no fear under the clause. We must bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said previously; that so many people come here under one pretext or another to stay temporarily as a student, a visitor or whatever and then claim asylum. That is what the Bill is about.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord repeatedly said that many people come here under false pretences. Can he qualify that in any way?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was merely going on what was said earlier by my noble friend Lord Ferrers when he gave considerable statistical evidence. I shall not delay your Lordships by turning up the Second Reading debate, which I happen to have, and Hansard of another debate. I merely ask noble Lords to refresh their memories.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, whenever the clause comes up for debate there is an air of confusion about it. First, the suggestion that genuine visitors need have no fear if they are left without an appellate right has been shown to be totally wrong, because on appeal 1,500 genuine visitors were found wrongfully to have had their right of entry withheld. Secondly, we are not dealing with giving to a class of applicant something new, which is often thought to be the case. Under the Bill we are taking away not only a right of appeal but a right of appeal that has been established for 21 years.
The Government did not seek to take away that right when the Bill was before the House last year. There was no suggestion then that a mass of people were coming here under false pretences. In that Bill the Government did not seek to touch the right. The only reason why the issue has arisen now is because, under pressure, the Government have been forced to give appellate rights to asylum seekers. I do not believe that there has been any attempt to suppress the fact that the Government are simply saying, "We are using up so many resources in providing the right of appeal to
1158
asylum seekers that we must withdraw resources from the visitors and students". That is all that is being done.
The suggestion that we can rest confident that the system is so perfect and that no valid case has been refused has never been part of the Government's case. The Government's case is that the lists are bunged up and that they must do something about it. Visitors staying for six months are finding that it is 12 months or more before their cases are dealt with. Of course, the answer is to provide better and more efficient resources.
There is a legitimate expectation among such visitors that their right of appeal will continue; 21 years establishes that legitimate expectation. There is therefore a heavy onus on the Government to explain why they are removing that right. The amendment merely seeks, as we have tried to do time and again, to meet the Government by saying, "Very well, you have provided extra resources for the asylum seekers. You need to streamline the situation somehow and this is another offer to co-operate by saying that instead of all visitors and all students as heretofore having the right to appeal if they lose their application, that will be cut down to the visitors who are the subject matter of the amendment". That is the short summary of the situation.
4.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with this amendment the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks to revisit a subject which we have discussed in a variety of different ways ad nauseam.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am revisiting it, but I have a right of appeal.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord means. I am merely saying that the noble Lord invites us to revisit the subject. It is a subject which we have discussed on earlier occasions and on which the House has taken a vote. That does not prevent the noble Lord revisiting the subject today.
We must be clear that these amendments would preserve the right of appeal against refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter for people seeking to visit relatives in this country. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, says that we are taking away a right which has existed for 21 years and the Government should explain why they are doing that. I know that the noble and learned Lord does not like this provision but I shall not weary your Lordships by explaining the reason yet again because if I do it will be for about the third or even fourth time. That right is being taken away, but we are importing new procedures. We are taking away a procedure which allowed an appeal. However, that often took 12 months. We are importing a quicker, fairer and better procedure. If a person is turned down, he can re-apply for entry immediately. Therefore, the result is much more likely to bring forth the speedy answer which the applicant desires.
Your Lordships will no doubt remember that in Committee on 16th February, at col. 1040 of Hansard, I said that the Government recognised the legitimate

1159
interests of people settled in this country who will want to do all they can to facilitate visits by members of their family. I said that the Government had considered whether it would be an option to obtain a right of appeal for cases in which there is a close family member in this country. But we concluded that that would not be right for two reasons.
It is always dangerous to refer to individual cases but the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, referred to his grandson. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that his grandson does not require a visa, coming from where he does. The only reason that he is asked to produce a letter is to enable him to pass more quickly through the immigration formalities. That will be so if he can produce a letter from his grandfather saying that his grandfather is inviting him to come here. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said that the entry clearance officer could refuse entry and there would be no right of appeal. In theory, that could happen, but even if there was a right of appeal, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, seeks, he would still have to wait for 12 months. In the unfortunate circumstance put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, the individual could apply immediately with a new application. He would obviously make quite certain then that the entry clearance officer knew of his genuine rights.
I turn now to the two reasons why we believe that it would not be right to have that right of appeal in cases where there is a close family member in this country. The first —and I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—is that there would be no general agreement on who should be recognised as a close member of the family. I agree with my noble friend that it is a bit rough to leave it to the Secretary of State to determine that. Presumably, there would be fairly general agreement about parents, brothers and sisters, but beyond that there would be considerable doubt. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that there was no reason to include other family members. But what happens when one thinks of uncles, aunts, first cousins, and cousins once or twice removed, relatives by marriage, in-laws and so on? There is no clear indication as to where the line should he drawn. Most extraordinarily, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he would like godsons to be included. The noble Lord looks surprised. I was surprised when he said that. As far as I can see, godsons need not necessarily be blood relations.
Preserving rights of appeal only for those claiming to have close relatives here would introduce into visit applications all the difficult issues of establishing disputed relationships. It would be a recipe for dissatisfaction, particularly since the strength of the emotional ties between relatives is not necessarily governed just by how close or distant the blood relationship is. Many other factors may be involved; for example, cousins who have been brought up together are likely to feel closer than those who have not. None of the difficulties of framing a sensible, workable and acceptable exemption for family visitors is solved by putting the onus on the Secretary of State to define relationships in regulations instead of putting a definition in the primary legislation.
1160
The second reason for not making such an exemption is that, however important family visits are, it is by no means evident that the present system of appeals is really the best way of responding to the interests of sponsors. The delays in the system mean that a family event like a wedding or funeral may well have come and gone before the appeal is resolved. We believe that since many sponsors are really seeking to put fresh information forward to secure an early reconsideration of the decision they will find that the administrative measures which we have announced will be introduced serve their interests better.
I believe that to try to re-introduce a right of appeal for those people would re-introduce a system which your Lordships have agreed should not continue. It would produce its own complications. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will realise that it would be best not to introduce this right of appeal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one of the penalties of continuing to press for something which we consider to be of great importance is that the arguments on the other side become less rather than more convincing as time goes on. I have never heard such dross in argument as I have heard in the past half hour or so.
The definition of family is already included in the Immigration Rules. Those who apply for entry into this country on the grounds that they are visiting their family already have to show what is the family relationship and have to prove it. To extend that to be a criterion for the right of appeal introduces no new difficulties. There is nothing special about this; it is what happens now.
As regards the definition of a family, the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, had great fun talking about great-aunts by marriage and great-uncles. When I introduced the amendment I indicated that there is at least one good precedent—and I am sure that there are many more—in the Housing Act 1985. There are perfectly good definitions of close relatives. There is no difficulty whatever in the Secretary of State looking at his own legislation or the Government's legislation and using that for the purpose of making a regulation which Parliament could then approve. If anybody is worried about second cousins once removed, as the Minister appears to be, that can be dealt with at that stage. I thought it fairer to say that, with mature consideration and with all the wisdom and advice which he has available to him, the Secretary of State should make a regulation which Parliament could consider.
I am sorry that the Minister does not like my half-flippant remarks about godsons and goddaughters. I can think of occasions when godsons and goddaughters would be welcome at family gatherings. I referred to that without seeking to include such a provision in the amendment. In fact, they are specifically excluded from the amendment as drafted.
Much more important is the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that fears are unjustified. I do not believe that the answers given to my noble friend Lord Pitt were in any way adequate. Of course if my noble friend writes a letter on House of Lords

1161
notepaper saying that his grandchildren are his grandchildren and should be admitted, they will be admitted. But if his name was Patel and not Pitt and if he did not have access to House of Lords notepaper and the letter came from Hackney instead of Hampstead, the grandchildren might have considerably greater difficulty in obtaining admission to this country. I do not think we can argue from specific cases of that kind.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I interrupt the noble Lord because he is being most ungenerous to those who work the immigration system when he suggests that those who send their letters on House of Lords notepaper take precedence over those who send letters on ordinary notepaper. The noble Lord should know that the system works better than that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Minister believes that, quite frankly he will believe anything. The evidence I use to support my case is the fact that it was only a few years ago that Members of Parliament had their automatic right to intervene in port refusal cases taken away. When that right was taken away, the refusal rate shot up; in other words, immigration officers took advantage of the fact that they could not be hassled by MPs at the port of entry and increased the number of refusals. The same thing will happen if the right of appeal is taken away.
It is not simply a case of the right of appeal being important to provide a check on the actions of immigration officers—I am not being rude about immigration officers when I suggest that they may be fallible—but it is well known that when checks are taken away refusal rates shoot up. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, it is well known that the appeals procedure has revealed a significant proportion of appeals which were justified and of refusals which were unjustified—1,500 out of approximately 9,000. In those circumstances, the arguments which have been put against this humane amendment which supports family values—I thought all noble Lords supported those values—are quite inadequate to persuade me that I ought to withdraw the amendment. I seek the opinion of the House.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Acton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Addington, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Airedale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carter, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Aylestone, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Beloff, L.

David, B.

Biddulph, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Birk, B.

Desai, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Diamond, L.

Bottomley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

1162

Donoughue, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Eatwell, L.

McNair, L.

Ennals, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Erroll, E.

Mayhew, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falkender, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Monkswell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mulley, L.

Nicol, B.

Gregson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hampton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hamwee, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Richard, L.

Healey, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rochester, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Russell, E.

Hollick, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jacques, L.

Serota, B.

Jakobovits, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay, L.

Stallard, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stedman, B.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kagan, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Varley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lane, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Longford, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Abinger, L.

Davidson, V.

Aldington, L.

Denham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Annaly, L.

Elles, B.

Arran, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Astor, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrers, E.

Barber, L.

Finsberg, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L.

Birdwood, L.

Geddes, L.

Blatch, B.

Gisborough, L.

Boardman, L.

Goschen, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gridley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Cadman, L.

Harrowby, E.

Caithness, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Carr of Hadley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hood, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Howe, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Coleraine, L.

Ironside, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Killearn, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Leigh, L.

Cranborne, V.

Lindsay, E.

Crathorne, L.

Long, V.

Cross, V.

Lyell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

1163

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Renton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Renwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Mersey, V.

Romney, E.

Milverton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sandys, L.

Mountevans, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Munster, E.

Strange, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Nelson, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Sudeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Suffield, L.

Orkney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Ullswater, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Vivian, L.

Prentice, L.

Wakeham, L.

Quinton, L.

Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wise, L.

Reay, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rennell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 35, at end insert ("where the entry clearance officer or immigration officer, as the case may be, certifies that the application to enter is without foundation,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment provides a right of appeal unless the application is classified as being without foundation. As we said in connection with the previous amendment and also on earlier occasions, the Bill is based on the principle that, rather than admit a few people who have every right to come here or think that they can come in, it is better to keep the whole lot out in case a few people who do not have that right gain entry. That is a principle which is deeply uncivilised.
By the same token, by limiting the right to appeal the Bill offends against the principle of civilised decision-making that there should be a check against abuse. That was eloquently explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. In this case, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the abuse occurs in the decisions of officials who refuse entry to visitors. As the record of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal makes abundantly clear, such decisions have been found to be significantly wrong in the past. That is likely to occur more frequently in the future if the right to appeal, which acts as a brake on quick and unjust decision-making, is removed.
Surely the Government, even if they do not accept those arguments, must accept that some refusals of entry are based on evidence which is more clearcut and obvious than that in other cases, where it is more shady. The immigration officer who makes the classification is aware of the spectrum of decisions; some self evident, others more dubious. All we ask is that that practice should be recognised.
Immigration officers classify people under Code 5N, which means a genuine visitor, or Code 3, which means a doubtful visitor, one the officers are not sure about but about whom they have insufficient evidence
1164
to refuse entry. Just as in allowing people to enter some decisions may be clearcut and self-evident and some doubtful, so in keeping people out there are decisions which are clear and self-evident and others which are more dubious. Those which are clear and self-evident are said to be without foundation. We say that there are a great many more dubious refusals of entry and that the people who fall into that category, who could be coded, should have the right of appeal because of the dubiety of the decision which has been taken.
This is a very modest amendment, but it attempts to give those people who, as we know from the past, have been wrongly refused entry the right to appeal so that that injustice can be rectified. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, whom on another occasion I mistook for the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am sure that in the future I shall rectify that with another slip but the other way round.
The amendment is an attempt to mitigate a mischief on which the Government insist. Its acceptance would demonstrate the Government's bona fides on this issue. I feel very depressed and indignant about the way in which the Government have behaved. As one who has had a great deal of involvement with questions of refugees, asylum seekers and immigration law over many years, I find what the Government are doing irresponsible, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said earlier. No words now—particularly if the noble Earl repeats the pathetic arguments which he iterated previously—will cause me to come to any other conclusion. He may well say that that does not worry the Government and that I can think what I like. However, those are not only my sentiments. I can assure the noble Earl that they are the sentiments of virtually everyone concerned with the practice of law in this field and having to deal with people who are affected by the legislation. I believe that the Government will yet come to rue their action. They are not introducing this measure for the sake of justice. It is very clear that justice is the last thing in the world that they have in mind. They are doing so in the name of economy.
This is a very modest amendment. We have put our name to it because the Government are so intransigent and so set on injustice. I support what the noble Lord said.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I found it very difficult to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I listened as carefully as I could. I think I see the purpose of his amendment, from what the noble Lord said, but on examining it and its place in the clause at the end of line 35 I find it very difficult to understand how it would work in practice.
In the first place we have a reference to "the application". It is the first time that that expression has been used in this clause. Presumably it means an application for leave to land in this country and to stay here for some time. If I am wrong about that of course I shall give way to be corrected but that is what I assume.

1165
The other aspect which has puzzled me is the expression "without foundation". On what ground has the immigration officer or the entry clearance officer to decide that the application to enter is without foundation? If he comes to the conclusion that although otherwise genuine it is with the intention of entering the country on a temporary basis and then claiming asylum, would that be without foundation? I am not sure what the noble Lord has in mind. Stated merely in terms of "to enter … without foundation" the amendment raises all kinds of possibilities but one does not know which are intended to apply. In the interests of clear legislation, the people who are affected by it and the people who have to enforce it, we have to make these things clear.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord finds the term "without foundation" so difficult to interpret. We used it because we thought that it might appeal to the Government, who already treat asylum seekers differently if their claims are, in the Government's own words, "without foundation". We have simply taken a phrase which has been used by the Government in relation to asylum seekers and transferred it into the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I will listen with interest to what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say about whether that argument appeals to him. Whether or not it appeals to him, the legislation must be in clear terms. I have some experience of this subject because years ago I had the responsibility of helping to pilot the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 and I was responsible for the Immigration Service for three and a half years. In the context of the clause that expression could mean many things, but we are not told what it is intended to mean.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had not woken up to the point before. This is a matter about which we have expressed reservations on earlier occasions.
In Schedule 2, paragraph 4, the heading is "Special appeal procedures for claims without foundation". At line 16 the noble Lord will see the words:
"to be removed from the United Kingdom is without foundation".
Those are not the only places where those words have arisen. The burden of the Government's argument throughout has been that they have been necessary. It is quite wrong to cavil at the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, who is simply utilising a phrase which is consistent with everything that the Government have insisted upon.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord has unwittingly reinforced my argument. Here we are told exactly what "without foundation" means and the context in which those words are to apply. The first example is very clear:
"contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention for him to be removed from the United Kingdom is without foundation".
1166
Therefore, we know exactly what in law and in practice the expression "without foundation" means.
However, in the context of the amendment those words could mean so many different things. Presumably—although it is an assumption that it is unsafe to make—it means where the immigration officer has a feeling that he is being asked to give temporary entry but with a view to ultimate asylum. If that is "without foundation", that may be the case.
I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say. I shall not take up further time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were to confine his remarks to saying that there could be a technical defect in the sense that the definition of "without foundation" in the Bill has not been explicitly included in the amendment, he might have a point. If he is going so far as to say that it is unclear what "without foundation" means, he has not only failed to read the Bill but has failed to listen to the debates on the Bill.
In Schedule 2, paragraph 4(3), there is a complete definition of the phrase "without foundation":
"For the purposes of this paragraph a claim is without foundation if (and only if)—

(a) it does not raise any issue as to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention; or

(b) it is otherwise frivolous or vexatious".

That is what the words mean in the amendment. If the Government accept the very effective arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, when the matter comes to the other place they are perfectly capable of ensuring that that definition also applies to the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we must get the matter right. I know that this is not Committee stage but I am anxious to help. In the second schedule in the two passages that have been quoted, the expression "without foundation" is used in relation to specific circumstances. In the amendment in relation to Clause 12 it is used generally. That is a different situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had not sat down, and the only basis on which the noble Lord could have intervened was that I had not sat down. There is no distinction in principle. Once a definition is made it can apply to specific cases and to general cases.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, may I offer an olive branch? I understand the words "without foundation" to mean being factually incorrect and in other cases frivolous or vexatious.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, like the last amendment, this one tries to keep the appeals system going in some form. The noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Clinton-Davis, stated that the amendment was a modest one. I am always fascinated by the noble Lords' idea of modesty. I consider this to be a wrecking amendment. I am glad that the noble Lord finds the matter to be so humorous. The smile will be taken off his face in a few minutes' time when he

1167
realises that it is a wrecking amendment. If the noble Lord did not mean it to be a wrecking amendment, he does not know what he is doing.
The amendment would provide that a person who wishes to come here as a visitor, a short-term student or a prospective student should be entitled to appeal unless the entry clearance officer or immigration officer certifies the application to be without foundation. Everyone can appeal under the amendment unless the immigration officer has certified the application to be without foundation. No immigration officer would ever certify that a person coming here had no foundation to come here. Therefore, everyone would have a right of appeal.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, stated that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should have said that it is a technical amendment. It is nothing to do with being a technical amendment; it is a wrecking amendment. It means that everybody would have a right of appeal because no immigration officer would ever say that a person coming here had no foundation to come here. When a person applies to come to this country as a visitor, he may be turned down for a variety of reasons but never because his application is without foundation.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, stated that he did not wish to hear any pathetic arguments from me. He will not get any pathetic ones, but perhaps he would like a blockbuster instead. The noble Lords have borrowed the phrase "without foundation" from the second schedule to the Bill, where it relates, as my noble friend Lord Renton correctly stated, solely to asylum cases. It is defined in the second schedule. The words "without foundation" are to be found in Schedule 2, paragraph 4. They are defined in that paragraph and apply only to asylum cases. They make no sense in relation to visitors or students.
There is no concept in the Immigration Act 1971 or the Immigration Rules of an application for a person to come here as a visitor or as a student being certified as without foundation. There could be no sensible criteria for considering a visitor or student application to be without foundation. Decisions as to whether to allow a person to enter this country or to give entry clearance are based on whether the applicant satisfies the immigration officer or the entry clearance officer that he meets the relevant requirements of the rules; for example, adequate funds, not being a burden on the state or an intention to leave at the end of the visit. As applications that are covered by Clause 12 could never be certified to be without foundation, the effect of the amendment, as I suspect the noble Lords are fully aware, would be to preserve the existing rights of appeal in all cases. In other words, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is a wrecking amendment, and that is why I suggest to noble Lords that it should not be included in the Bill.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it is not the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I plead guilty.
Earl Ferrers: I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. It was he as well as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who did not know what he was doing.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, we are never quite sure whether the noble Earl knows what he is saying. However, I think that there is a germ of relevance in what he stated, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Finsberg Lord Finsberg moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert:
("(3AA) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person, not being an officer of his, to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where there is, by virtue of subsection (3A) above, no right of appeal; and the person so appointed shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I wish to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Flather. This was an issue on which I spoke during an earlier stage and I co-operated with her in suggesting that it would be helpful to try to word an amendment to cover what was needed. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that what was needed was the possibility of a random check on decisions. There would be no question of everything being looked at, no question of a formal appeal, just a random check. I remember being told about it by the late Sir Gurney Braithwaite, who was a Member of another place and a Minister with responsibility for transport matters at one time. Much was being done in his name, as is being done here. He thought it would be a useful discipline for it to be known that he would ask for a pile of files to be put on his desk and he would pick one or two to see that there was nothing in them going against the guidelines. That is what I asked for when I supported my noble friend Lady Flather at an earlier stage.
The wording that has now been produced covers the point and I hope that it will meet with the approval of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. In the absence of my noble friend Lady Flather, who had intended to be here, I am happy to move the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I wish to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, who is a prominent member of the British Refugee Council and presides over one of its important committees. I am sure that she would have wished to have made out the case again today for the amendment, but the task was nobly undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg.
The amendment received considerable support at the Committee stage. The Minister was reasonably positive when responding to it. At Report stage (at col. 794 of Hansard for 4th March) he indicated that he would look carefully at whether it would he:
"practical and helpful to reinforce the measures with an independent review of the kind which my noble friend has in

1169
mind. I shall certainly look further at the principle of introducing an independent element into the quality control of entry clearance decisions".
The burden of the argument was made by the noble Baroness earlier on.
I think that we on this side say, Chevalier-like, "Thank heaven for little amendments". This is a modest amendment which is nevertheless quite important in the light of everything that the Government have done. It is important to maintain quality control in that area.
The noble Baroness argued that the kind of procedure that she had in mind would have a number of advantages. There would be a check on how entry clearance officers performed their duties, and she suggested a random audit of refusals. If, as I understand the position, all the birds in the aviary have left messages all over the place that the Government are likely to accept the amendment, at least in principle, I wish to know how they propose to interpret that procedure in practice. The noble Baroness mentioned a random audit of 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. We should like to know more from the Government about their view on that, if they are to accept the amendment. How would the audit be undertaken? Who would undertake it? Would there be a real measure of independence in terms of the person undertaking the audit? All those are highly relevant matters and we shall listen with interest, at least on this occasion, to what the Minister has to say.
Then the noble Baroness argued for the need for greater consistency among the many posts overseas and here that are charged with the duties. That was an important argument. The fact that there will be invigilation or scrutiny of a kind will become known to each entry clearance officer, and it should help to promote an awareness that any unfairness that is practised may well come to the public notice. It depends of course on how effective the scrutiny is and how effective laying a report to Parliament will be.
More important, or at least just as important, is that, if an injustice comes to light as a result of practices engaged in, although it is unlikely to be of much benefit to the people who have suffered the injustice, the Secretary of State should be helped to adjust the rules and take action which might avert such problems in the future.
While I congratulate the noble Baroness in an unqualified manner on the arguments that she adduced, and, we hope, in persuading the Government on one of those rare occasions to take a sensible action, it would have been much better overall for the Government not to have extinguished the right of appeal in so many of the areas about which we have talked and where we have failed, not in argument and reasoning but simply on the votes. It would have been better for the Government not to have taken that serious step because in our judgment a fundamental right has been extinguished. It would be better than nothing if the Government were to say, "We are prepared to go along with the idea". If I may say so, it was an inventive and worthwhile idea and I applaud the noble Baroness for doing what she did.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, first, I apologise for not being here at the right time. It is entirely my loss, I assure the House. I feel sad about it, but I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Finsberg for moving the amendment in my name on the Marshalled List. I do not know whether it is worth making the speech which I had prepared because most of what I was going to say has been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. However, since I have written something down, I should like to read it.
As I said earlier and as has been repeated, at every stage of the Bill I too have been deeply concerned about the removal of the right of appeal. This is a right, as we have heard so often, which has been enshrined in legislation for over 21 years. I suppose that 21 years is not an extraordinarily long time, but it is long enough for many generations of people to accept it as something which will remain. To take away a right which has been given for that length of time is bound to cause widespread anxiety in all quarters. Noble Lords are only too well aware of that from the enormous amount of briefing material that they have all received.
The anxiety is heightened by the feeling that, once the possibility of appeals is removed, there will be no effective mechanism for keeping a check on the decisions of entry clearance officers. After all, how else can there be a check on those decisions other than by way of appeal? These are decisions which affect many people in many different ways and we need to make sure that they are fair and consistent and within the criteria which are laid down by the Immigration Rules.
I do not believe that it is sufficient to say that there will be internal administrative safeguards, as the Minister told us on the last occasion, just to make sure that the ECOs are able to discharge their duties fairly and properly. What is needed is some form of public accountability so that it can be demonstrated that the system is being monitored independently and the results of the process are made available to Parliament. That is the very least that is necessary to reassure the public and to provide a badly needed safeguard in return for the removal of a most important and fundamental right.
I emphasise once again that the amendment is not intended as a way of back-door appeal. It does not involve the applicant. It is merely a review. It will not have anything to do with the disappointed person who may wish to have his or her case reviewed.
I see the amendment not only as benefiting the long-term interests of applicants but also as providing the Government with an opportunity to demonstrate that the quality and nature of the decisions, which have substantial effect, are kept under constant review. I am sure that the entry clearance officers themselves will welcome a provision which will help them maintain the very highest standards in their own decision-making. Without any form of independent monitoring process they could find themselves open to unjustified criticism or suspicion. I urge my noble friend the Minster to accept the amendment. Allowing the system to be kept under constant review will go some way towards allaying the very justifiable fears

1171
which have been generated. It will be effective only if enshrined in primary legislation. It needs to be on the face of the Bill if it is to have the effect that I hope it will have.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I appreciated at a very early stage in the noble Earl's reply to the amendment last Thursday that he had been deeply impressed by it, because he started by blaming me for its drafting when I had nothing to do with it. Perhaps now the boot has moved a little nearer the other foot. I have a slight (respectful) inquiry about the drafting which has been used. There is a reference to appointing:
"a person, not being an officer of his".
Does that mean it could be another civil servant—in other words, an officer of another department, and therefore not "an officer of his"? Or are we directing our attention at someone of complete independence? I hope it is the latter. On the last occasion the noble Earl said that he would:
"look carefully at whether it would be practical and helpful to reinforce the measures with an independent review of the kind which my noble friend has in mind". [Official Report, 4/3/93; col. 794.]
About eight sentences further down, he said:
"I shall certainly look further at the principle of introducing an independent element into the quality control of entry clearance decisions".
I therefore ask for clarification and hope for a reassurance that that form of spot check—which is what I believe it amounts to—will be made by someone who can be looked upon, not only in fact but by everybody concerned, as being of a wholly independent status.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hate to disappoint the noble and learned Lord, but I believe that he will find that in legislation there is only one Secretary of State. Therefore "an officer of his" applies to all civil servants. Would that there were in reality only one Secretary of State!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we were all greatly moved by the interventions of the noble Baroness at earlier stages, and particularly on one occasion when I thought she came close to being angry. When I discussed it with her outside the Chamber she assured me that she did not. She certainly spoke with great passion on one occasion and what she said was extremely moving. Therefore it is welcome to see that an amendment is before the House today and, as has been said, the whispers are that the Government will accept the amendment. I certainly hope so. It is extremely modest and is no real substitute for a proper form of appeal.
I should like to mention two points which worry me slightly. The first is that this system will be of no use at all to the individual who has been turned away. It will be very much post hoc. It will bring no great comfort to the person who has been returned to his native heath to find at some later stage that a piece of paper is laid in front of Parliament which suggests that a mistake was made. But I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that people at the point of entry will know that there is somebody
1172
watching and there is some chance of the mistake being brought to light. That is a consideration that we should not overlook.
Another more worrying point which I should like the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to answer if he can, relates to the effect of this on the possibility of judicial review. I am sorry that I was not able to speak before the noble and learned Lord, as he might have set our minds at rest. Its seems to some of us that there is a real danger that, if this procedure is put in place, it may make a challenge by way of judicial review more difficult for the individual person who is affected.
Lord Monson: My Lords, unlike many of my noble friends, I have in general supported the Government over Clause 12. However, I believe that this amendment is extremely reasonable and I hope that the Government will accept it. If by any chance they do not, I shall gladly support the noble Baroness in the Division Lobby.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may say just one word of caution to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He said that this was a modest amendment. If he wishes to incline one towards an amendment, he may need to be more careful in using the word "modest". His noble friend used the word "modest" on the last amendment when in fact it was a wrecking one. When the noble Lord says that this amendment is modest, I begin to think that perhaps I had better look a little more carefully at the wording.
The Government have always been aware of the concern which has been expressed over the removal of the right of appeal for those who have applied to come to this country for short periods of time. For reasons which I would not wish to rehearse again, the Government have decided—and Parliament has approved—that the lengthy appeal procedure should go. In order to address the concerns which were expressed both in another place and in your Lordships' House, we are instituting changed—and, we think, better—procedures which will help to ensure the quality of initial decision-making while allowing a speedier response to any new information which may emerge. However, I am well aware that some of your Lordships have felt uneasy that the system would not be open to any form of independent oversight and that, as a result, it might result in inconsistency of application.
It has always been the intention of the Government that this system should be fair and consistent and that it should be properly controlled. We intend to make sure that that will happen. This is something which we would do as a natural administrative process—but I realise that, despite that, some of your Lordships would still feel a greater sense of contentment if there were some further protection set out on the face of the Bill.
We have given the matter a great deal of thought and I can tell my noble friend Lady Flather and my noble friend Lord Finsberg—who, fortunately for her, moved the amendment in her absence and did not allow it to slip away inadvertently —that the Government are content to accept the persuasive case for the introduction of a periodic review of a sample

1173
of entry clearance cases by an independent person in order to ensure that fair and consistent standards of decision-making are maintained.
I am bound to say that the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, never ceases to amaze me. He said: "Well, this amendment is better than nothing. It is a small amendment. It seems that the Government may have listened for once". If the Government do not listen, the noble Lord gives us the most appalling stick, and if the Government do listen, he ridicules us. It is difficult to satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I had not intended to ridicule the Government. Sometimes one is forced to ridicule their pathetic arguments, but that is another matter. In fact, I do not believe that the issue raised by the amendment goes to the heart of the matter. Nonetheless I welcome it in an unqualified way, as I indicated. Now the Minister is being ungenerous, uncharacteristically so, of course.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am delighted to know that the noble Lord welcomes the amendment without reservation. That is most encouraging. Once again we run down the same track together. That is a good thing.
I should make clear what we are doing. We are not contemplating some form of alternative appeals system. This will not be a procedure for applicants or sponsors to seek to have the decision in an individual case overturned. It will instead be a further check on the standards which are being applied to decisions in entry clearance posts. My noble friend Lady Flather quite aptly described the procedure which she wishes to introduce as an "audit". What we envisage is a periodic review, by an independent person who has been appointed for the purpose, of a sample of cases where entry clearance has been refused. The "auditor", if I may for the moment inappropriately so describe him or her, would be able to choose which cases he or she wanted to examine.
That monitoring would be in addition to the administrative measures which we have already announced, including the daily review of refusals by entry clearance managers. There are matters of detail which still have to be worked out, but I can give an assurance that a scheme will be introduced which will accord with my noble friend's proposal: namely, that the review should be conducted at regular periods; that the person who is appointed to conduct the review should be—and should be seen to be—independent of the Home Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; that entry clearance officers and managers would not know in advance which of their cases were to be examined; and that the results of the review should be made public. That, I think—and I hope—will go some way towards assuaging the fears which have been expressed by some of your Lordships that the removal of rights of appeal will lead to arbitrary decision-making.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked me to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—on this occasion before he has sat down, which is unusual—or before he proceeds with his remarks, perhaps I could raise one point. I do not wish to give the impression that I have a nasty, suspicious mind, but who will pick the sample? It is important to know who will select the cases to be looked at.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is up to the auditor, who will be given terms of reference by the Secretary of State. I cannot go further than that at the moment. My understanding and thinking are that it is likely to be the auditor. For instance, he will say, "I want to see a certain number of cases from such and such a post", and he will probably itemise them as, say, numbers 1 to 15, or whatever it may be. The noble Baroness does not have a suspicious mind; she merely has a credulous mind. She will understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will understand, that a great deal of work has yet to be done to work out the details of this provision. We spent most of our time trying to sort out the principle in a way that would be acceptable on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked whether it would affect judicial review. The answer is that it will not. All it will do is test a sample of the cases to ensure that the principles by which the system works are being applied universally correctly.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asked whether the Secretary of State would appoint somebody who is a civil servant as the amendment refers to the Secretary of State appointing a person:
"not being an officer of his".
I enjoyed seeing the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, instruct the noble and learned Lord on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was quite right. The Secretary of State is an all-embracing person. He covers every Secretary of State. Therefore, the answer to the noble and learned Lord's question is that he will not be a civil servant.
As my noble friend Lady Flather knows, we were not altogether persuaded that it is necessary to put a statutory requirement for such a monitoring process on the face of the Bill. This kind of review is essentially an aid to those who are responsible for managing the system to ensure that consistent standards are maintained.
Managerial matters of that kind are not usually put into primary legislation. But as your Lordships have felt so strongly that some kind of provision in the Bill such as this would provide reassurance to the public about the Government's intentions, I am entirely content to advise your Lordships to accept the amendment, and also Amendment No. 7 which is consequential.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, by leave of the House, perhaps I may—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Finsberg was the person who moved the amendment, it would be right for him to reply. I thought that my noble friend Lady Flather could make a speech if she had the leave of the House so to do, but apparently I

1175
am wrong. It might be more suitable if my noble friend Lady Flather were to make her remarks on the next amendment. Then we would keep ourselves in order.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his broadminded attitude. He clarified what I did not think needed clarification; namely, that every Minister is a Minister. Therefore the amendment seems to be ideal in the circumstances in which we are debating it. I welcome it very much. I know that my noble friend Lady Flather welcomes it also.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Refusals which are mandatory under immigration rules]:
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 37, leave out ("(3A)") and insert ("(3AA)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall move the amendment standing in my name but I cannot speak fully to it because I am not sure what it means. If it is appropriate I shall make one or two comments as a response to my noble friend the Minister. First, I must say how grateful I am to him. I know that a great deal of work went on behind the scenes. Certainly I have spoken to many people trying to persuade them that this is an important provision to have on the face of the Bill. I am truly grateful that the Government have taken it on board. I am quite sure that they will not regret it. In fact it will give them an opportunity to be able to reassure people and justify the fact that they have removed the right of appeal much more easily than they would have been able to do otherwise.
I hope that this will be a successful way of watching and I am sure your Lordships will keep a watching brief when the first reports start to appear before Parliament. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Appeals to special adjudicator: supplementary]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 14, line 19, at end insert:
. A person may not bring an appeal on any of the grounds mentioned in subsections (1) to (4) of section 10 of this Act unless, before the time of the refusal, variation, decision or directions (as the case may be), he has made a claim for asylum.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is a technical one. It is intended to make quite clear that a person may bring an appeal on asylum grounds only if he has already made a claim for asylum. That seems so axiomatic that it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to leave the matter there. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is by no means axiomatic. This is a quite complicated amendment which I suggest to the House deserved a certain amount of introduction. It is no good just saying that it is a technical amendment. The Government are under an obligation to explain what it means. I assume that the Minister has a speech prepared in order to introduce and explain the amendment. I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House if I suggest to him that he might intervene in my speech, since he has not taken
1176
the earlier opportunity, in order to explain what the amendment means and tell us its implications. Then we can debate it properly.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether I can intervene in the noble Lord's speech and make another speech of my own. But if the noble Lord would be kind enough to complete his speech, perhaps with the leave of the House I could make a second speech.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But then, my Lords, we cannot respond to it. The Government cannot introduce amendments at Third Reading in the second House of Parliament and tell us that those amendments are technical when we have very good reason to suppose that they are not technical and then expect the House to debate them without having an opportunity to respond to the arguments. I suggest that it is quite improper for the Minister to seek to move an amendment of this kind in that way.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord. He should not get himself so worked up about this. I was trying to be helpful. I was suggesting that, if the noble Lord would be kind enough to finish his speech, I will, with the leave of the House, make a second speech. I am sure that the House will approve of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also making a second speech.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must say that it is an extraordinary way to behave. The amendment may be entirely technical, but only under restricted conditions. As it stands, it is possible —I put it no higher than that as I have no evidence of what the Government intend—that the effect would be to nullify many of the assurances given to Parliament, not just to this House but also to another place, as the Bill has been progressing.
The Government said that all refused asylum seekers will have a right of appeal against refusal, and they congratulated themselves on removing the requirement to apply for leave to appeal contained in the previous Bill. The amendment could have the effect that people who did not apply for asylum forthwith on arrival in this country, or who hoped to be granted leave to enter or remain on some other basis first, would not have the right to appeal against refusal. It is difficult to speak to the amendment because it is the Government's responsibility to explain it and not simply introduce it as they did.
On 2nd November 1992 in another place, the Home Secretary said, at col. 32,
"We have now provided that all rejected asylum applicants will have access to an oral hearing before an independent adjudicator".
In Committee on 3rd December 1992 Mr. Charles Wardle, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, said,
"the primary aim of [the Bill] is to ensure that all asylum seekers have a right of appeal before removal".
If the amendment is agreed, it may mean that the assurance has been broken and many people will not have access to appeal against refusal of asylum; in other words, this would apply to all those cases in Clause 10(1), (2), (3) and (4).

1177
We are concerned that some people coming to this country who, in ideal circumstances—circumstances which would be most convenient to the Home Office —would immediately apply for asylum, may not know about the rules which apply to asylum seeking; they may not know about the rules which apply to refugees. They may come in and their first attempt may be to apply for entry as a visitor. If that is refused, then their right to appeal will be taken away.
It may be that the amendment is contrary to Article 31 of the United Nations Convention, which provides that no penalty should be imposed on an individual because of his or her method of entry to, or remaining illegally in, the country. If somebody comes in and the method of entry involves, first, seeking entry other than as an asylum seeker, then a refusal of the right to appeal and refusal of leave to enter is contrary to Article 31 of the United Nations Convention.
The other interpretation of the amendment which, if it is true, should have been explained by the Minister, is merely that the Government propose to remove an anomaly. As it stands, although Clause 10 gives the right of appeal on asylum grounds in certain circumstances under subsections (1) to (4), it does not say that the refusal against which a person is appealing must have been a refusal of asylum. I can see that it may be possible that a person may apply for leave to stay as a student. If he is refused, he may appeal against that refusal and say that he is a refugee and should be granted asylum without previously having made an application for asylum. If that is the case —I want to hear from the Government whether or not it is—then perhaps the situation is less objectionable.
The Government must answer three questions before we allow the amendment to slip in as a technical amendment. First, we must have confirmation from the Government that all refused asylum seekers, whatever their immigration status at the time of the application or refusal, will have a right to appeal against refusal under the Act. I shall repeat that because it is of great importance.
All refused asylum seekers, whatever their immigration status at the time of application or refusal, will have a right of appeal against refusal under the Act. Unless we receive that assurance we shall vote against the amendment. Secondly, if it is a tidying-up amendment, why did it take the Government so long to table it? There has been no change in the text of the Bill. Why is it that at Third Reading in the second House of Parliament they are tabling tidying-up amendments of this kind?
Finally, if the Government are withdrawing rights of appeal contrary to commitments which they gave, then I suggest to the House that the amendment should not be pressed by Ministers.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the Minister seeks to intervene, I should like to mention one small point in relation to the way in which the amendment has been presented. I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in that the Government's case was presented as a mere technicality. Some of the
1178
objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, make it understandable why he did that. Further reinforcement of the fact that it is not a technical amendment is that Amendment No. 10 seeks to widen the Long Title of the Bill specifically to include Amendment No. 8.
Lord Renton: My Lords, being greatly daring, perhaps I may try and make the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, feel happier. Perhaps I can invite his attention to Clause 10(1) to (4). We find that in each of those subsections there is the expression,
"would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention".
That means that in each of those cases the question of the right to asylum or the lack of right to asylum must arise.
Before there is to be an appeal on such a question there obviously needs to be a claim for asylum. It is simple. That is all that the amendment establishes. It is somewhat technical; it is simple; it is necessary. Admittedly, it has come at the last possible stage in either House, except when, in another place, they consider your Lordships' amendments. But the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who has been so valiant in trying to weaken the Bill, should feel at ease on this occasion.
Amendment No. 8 is an amendment not to Clause 10; it is an amendment to the second schedule, which deals with appeals to the special adjudicator. The first paragraph refers back to Section 10(1) to (4). It is only right, for the sake of clarity, that we should make it clear at that point that there needs to have been a claim for asylum. I should have thought that with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would welcome the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I believe that some genuine doubts have been raised. I ask the Minister to consider this case: a person arrives in this country and is admitted under some bona fide category or other. During the time he is here there occurs in his country a coup d'état; a new regime comes to power issuing dire threats against the party, the tribe or the religion of the person concerned. The new administration goes further than that and takes steps which show that it has some intention of persecuting people or of carrying out acts of genocide. Is a person then still entitled to appeal against a refusal of asylum in this country, for example, because he did not make his asylum application immediately he arrived?
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, the more I listened to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the more I found the position confusing. What my noble friend Lord Ferrers said was absolutely clear. It stands to reason that unless one has made a claim for asylum one can do nothing else. That was clear. It is technical. Very often when a Bill reaches its last stages the draftsman may say, "There is a possible loophole. Let us clear it and save the later expense of two sets of lawyers making large fees and someone having to pay for it". The two quotations given by the noble Lord cover this well. "Asylum applicants" were the words he used in the first quotation. A person can only be an asylum applicant if he has actually made a claim. The second

1179
quotation was "asylum seekers". Exactly the same applies. Perhaps I may give another assurance to the noble Lord. He may not have taken into account the case of Pepper v. Hart, which now makes it possible for courts to take into account ministerial words in Hansard as the intention.
Lord Renton: My Lords, only if there is a doubt.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, it is legal for that to be done under certain circumstances. That combination should satisfy your Lordships. I should have thought that this is a technical amendment of the kind which, when I introduced Bills, I would have had no hesitation in moving—and it would have been accepted by most Oppositions on the nod.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for at the last stages of the Bill having propelled him into a state of anxiety, distress and infuriation. I was only trying to be helpful. I thought that it might have been for the convenience of your Lordships not to have a long speech over something which in my view was only technical. Had I realised that the noble Lord wished a greater explanation I would have given it, and I shall certainly give it now.
The noble Lord asked, with a certain amount of disdain, why this was being done at Third Reading in the second Chamber of the Houses of Parliament. The answer is that that is exactly what Third Reading is for. One periodically finds that there are changes which ought to be made and Third Reading is an opportunity to make them.
I can assure the noble Lord that we are not reducing the right of appeal. The amendment is intended to make it quite clear that a person may bring an appeal on asylum grounds only if he has in fact already made a claim for asylum. My noble friend Lord Finsberg seemed to think that that was reasonable too. The Government have said through-out the proceedings on the Bill that we are giving a right of appeal to all unsuccessful asylum seekers. In other words, when the Home Office has considered and rejected a claim to asylum, the asylum seeker should be entitled to appeal. He will appeal to a special adjudicator against that decision. That, I believe, is what your Lordships have understood to be the intention of the Bill. But it has been pointed out that, as presently drafted, the Bill goes further than that and gives people who have never claimed asylum, and may never have had any intention of claiming asylum, the right to appeal—not to claim asylum—to a special adjudicator.
The rights of appeal set out in Clause 10 are appeals against various decisions under the Immigration Act 1971—decisions, for example, to refuse a person leave to enter, to refuse him a variation of leave or to make a deportation order against him. As the Bill stands, any person who is subject to one of those decisions would he allowed to appeal to a special adjudicator on the grounds that his removal from this country would contravene our obligations under the 1951 convention.
1180
As the Bill stands, it would be necessary to notify any person who is refused leave to enter, any person who is refused an extension of stay, any person against whom a deportation decision was taken, and so on, that, in addition to any appeal which he might have to an ordinary adjudicator who deals with immigration issues, he could also appeal to a special adjudicator who deals with asylum issues even though he had never expressed any wish before to claim asylum. In other words, the person would be able to appeal on asylum grounds even though there had never been any asylum claim. That is likely only to encourage frivolous and vexatious appeals. That is not what the Government intend, nor, I believe, what your Lordships have understood that we intend. That is why it seemed to me that it was a technical amendment.
The amendment therefore provides that a person may not bring an appeal under Clause 10 unless he has made a claim for asylum before the time of the decision or action against which he is appealing. In practice, that will usually mean that the appeal will be against a decision taken at the same time that the asylum claim is refused.
It may of course happen that a person does not claim asylum until after notice of an immigration decision is served on him, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, had in mind. But the appropriate course for such a person is not to lodge an asylum appeal at that stage. The right course is for him to lodge an application. A claim to asylum should be made to the Home Office or an immigration officer, not to a special adjudicator. The asylum seeker would be protected from removal while his claim is considered by Clause 8 of the Bill. If his claim is refused, he will be served with a new notice of decision and will be able to appeal to a special adjudicator at that stage.
This amendment does not in any way weaken the protection given to asylum seekers by the new rights of appeal under the Bill. It will though avoid encouraging people who have never claimed asylum and who have never thought of claiming asylum to put in spurious asylum appeals to drag out their stay here. It is for those reasons that I considered that it was a technical amendment. If I irritated the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, by so saying, I apologise for that irritation. But I was only doing it in order to be helpful to your Lordships.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in view of the fact that the amendment has only now been explained, I hope I may have the leave of the House to respond to what the Minister has said. It is by no means as simple and as clear as the noble Earl's speech makes evident that this could be described as a technical amendment. Clause 10, subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) all refer to an appeal to a special adjudicator only on one ground—on the ground that the removal, the refusal of leave to enter, or whatever it may be according to the subsection, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention. As the Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention refer only to refugees—to asylum seekers. Therefore,

1181
if there had been any possibility that those who fell within the terms of subsections (1), (2), (3) or (4) were making an appeal which was not an asylum appeal, it would be thrown out by the special adjudicator straight away on the grounds that it was contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention.
Even having heard the explanation I cannot concede that it is a technical amendment. If I had been at the Government Dispatch Box and it had been proposed by the Opposition, I would have been much more likely to say that it was unnecessary. But I fear still that it is undesirable as well. What I have not heard from the Minister is a precise response to my precise question, which I repeated. Can he give an assurance that all refused asylum seekers, whatever their immigration status at the time of application or refusal, will have the right to appeal? That is the assurance I am seeking before I decide whether we should divide the House on the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the answer is yes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am most grateful to the Minister. That assurance ought to have been available in the Minister's original speech and, indeed, in his second speech, rather than being forced out at this late stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 16, line 9, at end insert ("and as if sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 28 of Schedule 2 were omitted.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, again I shall leave to your Lordships to decide whether or not this is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that certain asylum appellants cannot be removed from this country until their appeals are finally determined. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will find sympathy with that.
The amendment is concerned with appeals by asylum seekers who have been refused leave to enter, and appeals by asylum seekers who are to be removed as illegal entrants. They will have rights of appeal under Clause 10(1) and 10(4) respectively. Paragraph 8 of the second schedule to the Bill provides that certain provisions of the 1971 Act will apply to those appeals as if they were appeals under Section 13(1) and Section 16 of the 1971 Act, respectively. One of those provisions is paragraph 28 in Part II of the second schedule to the 1971 Act. That paragraph prohibits the removal of a person who has a pending appeal under Sections 13(1) or 16. But in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 28 there is an exception to the general rule under the 1971 Act that an appeal which has been dismissed by an adjudicator is pending so long as a further appeal may be brought. Sub-paragraph (5) provides that when an appeal to which paragraph 28 applies has been dismissed by an adjudicator, it shall not be regarded as pending unless the adjudicator has granted leave to appeal to the tribunal.
We do not intend that restriction to apply to asylum appeals. We intend that every asylum
1182
appellant shall be protected from removal for so long as he has an outstanding appeal or, if his appeal is dismissed, for so long as he has the opportunity to bring a further appeal. In other words, we want all asylum appeals to be treated in accordance with the general rule on when an appeal is to be regarded as pending, which your Lordships will find set out in Section 33(4) of the 1971 Act. The amendment therefore provides that paragraph 28(5), which contains the exception to that general rule, shall not apply to asylum. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise only to express my gratitude to the Minister for explaining the amendment. It was helpful to have the assurance that the amendment is about the definition of what is a pending appeal. The Minister has made that clear. The amendment is certainly not objectionable to us.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 10:
Line 2, leave out ("restrict") and insert ("amend the law with respect to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an amendment to the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the amendments which your Lordships made in Committee to what is now Clause 11 of the Bill. The Long Title at present says that the Bill restricts certain rights of appeal under the 1971 Act; we are now also extending the new avenue of appeal to the Court of Appeal to all determinations by the tribunal under the 1971 Act. The new wording more accurately reflects the contents of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise because I believe that the Minister might, with respect, have paid a little tribute to my noble friend Lord McIntosh who raised this issue on Report, at which point he was dealt with in a fairly dismissive way by the noble Earl. The noble Earl said:
"He even mentioned the matter of the relevance to the Long Title of the Bill. I can only tell your Lordships that Clause 10 will have the effect that judicial review will be available in fewer cases than at present because of the avenues to the Court of Appeal".—[Official Report, 2/3/93; col. 654.]
There is not a word at that stage as to whether the Minister saw any merit at all in the points of substance which were raised in col. 651 by my noble friend. I am sure that the Minister will seek to correct that uncharacteristic act of ungenerosity.
It also seems strange that it has taken the Government up to this point to realise that the Long Title was defective. I believe that that is almost unprecedented. It may be that the noble Earl will be able to point to certain precedents to confute that.
Having resiled from the original position which he adopted on the night of 2nd March, the noble Earl has now made an attempt to correct the position. The amendment itself could be—I am not saying that it is —misconceived. I say that because Part II of the 1971 Act deals with all the rights of appeal under that legislation. Failure to withdraw the word "certain" does not seem to have corrected the initial mistake. Arguably, all rights of appeal have been amended

1183
since any appeal beginning before an adjudicator and then proceeding to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal will now go to the Court of Appeal under Clause 11.
The Government may be attempting to justify that error by saying that they are doing nothing to amend appeals beginning with the adjudicator. All appeal rights are being affected. I am not at all sure that the amendment has not actually missed its target. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to respond to those points.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that I was ungenerous to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I did not wish to be ungenerous at all. I did say that this amendment refers to the Long Title of the Bill and that it is necessary because of the amendments made in Committee. I said that we were going to amend the Long Title and we have done so. In so far as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, perceives that the same course was necessary, I am grateful to him for having pointed that out.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will consider the text of Hansard to which I have already alluded. I shall be specific. The noble Earl was being pressed by my noble friend to concede that point. All the noble Earl said was:
"He even mentioned the matter of the relevance to the Long Title"
and left it at that. If I am wrong and the noble Earl referred to the matter at an earlier stage, I shall certainly withdraw that observation, but that seems to be the text.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has the advantage of having the relevant copy of Hansard. He need not bother to get up because he would not wish me to sit down, compose myself and read Hansard while there is a pause in the proceedings. I understand that the noble Lord has read Hansard and his quotation from it must be correct.
I said at Report stage that we would introduce an amendment to amend the Long Title. The reason why we are having to amend it is because what the amendment did at Committee stage was to extend the avenue of appeal to the Court of Appeal to all determinations by the tribunal. That was an extension granting an appeal system which had not otherwise been there. Therefore, I should have thought that that was an advantage to your Lordships and the Bill. I thought it was necessary to alter the Long Title, which reflects what is in the Bill; it does not determine it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me. I am sorry to have to put the record straight. He repeated that he said at an earlier stage that he would have to introduce an amendment to amend the Long Title. He did not say so. There is no reference at any earlier stage of the Bill to an intention to change the Long Title. The first indication of the Government's intention to change the Long Title came when this amendment was put down.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, instead of listening to my speech the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was doubtless searching the copies and columns of Hansard. He has
1184
the advantage of me. If I did not say that I was going to introduce an amendment to the Long Title, so be it, but I do not see that that is really a criminal thing to do. After all, what have we done? I can only say that in Committee your Lordships decided to extend the Bill by extending the appeals procedures. As that was done, it was therefore necessary to alter the Long Title. That is what we have done. If by doing that I have once more irritated noble Lord opposite, I apologise.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may point out that we are not irritated. That is the wrong way to put it. The Minister ought to make certain concessions when he has been proved to be wrong. That is all. There is nothing irritating about it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is our established practice that at the beginning of the Committee stage, the House approves a Motion, "That the considera-tion of the Long Title be postponed". The only sensible thing to do is to postpone it until the last minute so that the Long Title reflects what is in the Bill at the end of our deliberations—and that is what my noble friend has done. That is what has happened.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may point out that the Motion, "That the consideration of the Long Title be postponed", means that it is postponed until the end of our Committee proceedings—
Lord Renton: No.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It does. The Long Title is then taken at the end of the Committee proceedings. Any reference to Hansard in relation not only to this Bill but to any Bill will show the noble Lord that we approve the title of the Bill in Committee. However, we do so only when other debates in Committee have been concluded.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to correct the noble Lord. He is quite right in saying what we do at the end of the Committee stage, but it is well known that our procedure allows us to amend the Long Title at the end of the Report stage or at the end of the Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
6.12 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass. Now that we have come to the end of all stages of the Bill's consideration in your Lordships' House, I think that it can be fairly said that we have had interesting debates at all stages. I am only sorry that we went through a few bumpy waters at the end of the Third Reading. Some speeches have been penetrating; some impassioned. That is as it should be, given the vital—and sensitive—issues which the Bill addresses.
Your Lordships will recall that, on Second Reading, I told your Lordships that, like many other countries in Western Europe, we have seen a massive

1185
increase in recent years in the number of people claiming asylum, and that it is clear that many people are now seeking to use the asylum process to circumvent normal immigration controls.
The main objective of the Bill is therefore to discourage applicants, who are not genuine refugees, from trying their luck, by creating a system which will enable asylum claims to be determined quickly and fairly. The Bill also seeks to make the immigration appeals system more efficient by removing certain rights of appeal in non-asylum cases. The aim is to concentrate our resources on the questions which really do matter.
Several amendments have been made to the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. Your Lordships agreed to the amendments moved so effectively by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, which inserted into the Bill two new clauses concerned with the creation of a panel of advisers for young asylum seekers. Very real concern was expressed on all sides of the House about the welfare of unaccompanied children who come to this country seeking asylum. The Government understand the strength of your Lordships' feelings on the matter. The amendments will now fall to be considered in another place. I am bound to tell your Lordships that it is the Government's view that the amendments as they stand are technically flawed: it will now fall to another place to give them further attention.
Your Lordships also accepted government amend-ments to extend the new avenue of appeal, which is provided in Clause 11, to all determinations of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal—and not just to asylum cases—and to make it clear that, when a child under 16 is to be fingerprinted, an adult with responsibility for the child must be present.
Throughout our debates, there has been an underlying anxiety, which has been repeated today, about the removal of some rights of appeal. We are putting in place new procedures to take care of those cases. Even so, your Lordships still expressed anxiety. The Government, and indeed the House, will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Flather for her constant and diligent search for a way through. The amendment which my noble friend put down today which your Lordships accepted, will, I hope, go a long way to allaying that anxiety.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in these discussions. Some have been fairly lengthy and, although it has not often been possible for the Government to meet all of your Lordships' concerns, the debates have nevertheless seldom been acrimonious. The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Clinton-Davis, both of whom carried the brunt of the burden from the Benches opposite, sought to amend the Bill in a number of different ways, and asked—quite correctly—some penetrating questions.
We were treated, at the Committee stage, to the remarkable spectacle of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, moving an amendment; the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, moving an amendment to his noble friend's amendment; and
1186
then, after quite a substantial debate, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, graciously accepting his noble friend's amendment. It was done with grace and panache—and with an element of mischief—but it did enable your Lordships to discuss the draft Immigration Rules covering asylum and to ask the Government a number of perfectly legitimate questions.
We had a similar ritual dance performed over the draft appeals procedure rules. But, rather like the "Sound of Music", there was a different cast for the Von Trapp family singers for a different night of the week. And the next time we had the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, moving amendments to the amend-ment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, after much apparent mental turmoil, quietly agreeing to them. It was a novel procedure which gave much pleasure to your Lordships, as I am sure that it did to noble Lords opposite. The noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Tordoff, contributed also on many parts of the Bill, and I was grateful for that, although my gratitude wavered like a frequency oscillator depending on the effectiveness of the noble Lords' contributions.
I am grateful for all the contributions which your Lordships have made. In some respects, the changes which your Lordships have agreed may not have been exactly what the Government would have wished to set out in the Bill. But therein, of course, lies the glories of the Division Lobby, to which your Lordships periodically saw fit to have recourse. For all the efforts and the concentration which your Lordships have put, both into discussing the contents and the effect of the Bill—as well as to improving it —I express the thanks of the Government.
The debates were enriched by the contributions of many of your Lordships with considerable experience, including those from the Cross-Benches. It is an awesome sight for any Minister, especially one who has not had the advantage of legal training or who does not possess a legal mind, to find himself facing ramparts manned by such formidable gladiators as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner, Lord Woolf and Lord Donaldson of Lymington. Peashooters seem inadequate against the boiling oil which they pour so effectively—and with deadly effect—on to anything which tends to take their legal fancy. Despite that—or because of it—the noble and learned Lords contributed to your Lordships' debates in an effective and characteristically erudite way even if it was in a way which the Government did not always find wholly helpful.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, with his legal expertise; my noble friend Lady Faithfull, with her knowledge of the social services; and my noble friend Lady Flather, with her particular knowledge of the subject, also had important contributions to make, based on their wide experience of immigration and asylum matters.
It would of course have been a happier experience for the Government if these of my noble friends had always found it convenient to accompany me into the right Lobby during one or two Divisions. As the schoolmaster might say, "Their behaviour was

1187
varied." But I forgive them for that. They were concerned with matters of principle and I respect that. And the Government always value their views.
My noble friend, Lord Renton, was a particularly conscientious contributor and caused problems for the health of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. On one occasion the noble Lord complained that my noble friend did uncomfortable things to his blood pressure. I would only say that my noble friend's contributions had the reverse effect on me, but that is not the only reason which made me value my noble friend's contributions. They were always highly valued, and they always are.
I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lord Astor who took his share of your Lordships' at times trenchant criticisms of the Government, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde who seemed to have the doubtful distinction of being able to provoke your Lordships into Divisions more often that I did, but I am bound to reflect that his arguments must have been better than mine, for his clauses remained unscathed while mine did not always emerge so gracefully.
Despite the brouhaha, there has been a general welcome for the Bill's creation of new appeal rights which will now be exercisable by all rejected asylum seekers before their removal from this country. There have obviously been concerns about aspects of the procedures which are planned for decision-making and appeals in asylum cases. There is, I think, a balance to be struck between the protection of the individual applicant and the establishment of a speedy system which is resistant to misuse.
The same principle applies to the changes which the Bill makes to the general immigration system. I do not think that the two elements of efficiency and protection of the individual are incompatible. I like to think that the present Bill does justice to both. It is right though that the Government's proposals should receive close scrutiny, which they did.
Of course, I know that this is a controversial Bill and that some of your Lordships would have liked more changes—or fewer—to the Bill. But our proposals have been scrutinised very carefully, and that is as it should be. I hope that the modifications which we have made, and the explanations and the assurances which we have been able to give in the course of our debate, have done much to clarify our intentions.
I would say only this: the Government are fully committed to their obligations under the 1951 convention. We are determined to ensure that genuine refugees who need our protection are promptly and properly recognised and that they are given the protection which they need. We must do that by means of a system which is not subject to interminable delay, and one which is resistant to abuse. I like to think that the Bill is an important step in that direction.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no Bill is entirely bad—not entirely bad. This Bill is not entirely bad. There are, as the Minister said in his last few remarks, a number of aspects where the Bill makes improvements. It is clearly valuable for the primacy of
1188
the 1951 convention and its protocol to be recognised in legislation. It is valuable for the rights of appeal for asylum seekers to be made more clear. But in praising those elements of the Bill, I am bound to say that the Bill as a whole is still profoundly unsatisfactory and in many ways dangerous.
The Bill, after all, has a curious history. It was introduced no less than 18 months ago, before the last general election, at a time when it was generally recognised that the Immigration Service was under great pressure. There were far too few people available to deal with applications. There were long waiting lists, and such long delays that, in comparison with the number of people granted asylum in this country, the number of people who had to be given exceptional leave to remain, largely on the grounds that it had taken such a long time to determine their cases, was much higher. That cannot have been satisfactory. At that time the Government rightly took steps to deal with the serious undermanning of the Immigration Service, and they succeeded in reducing the length of time it took for appeals to be considered.
It is all the more extraordinary then, that a year later—within the past six months—the Government should feel it appropriate to bring forward a Bill which is only slightly better than the 1991 proposals; all the more extraordinary that they should not recognise that what was wrong, when one has far too many appeals to be dealt with, is not dealt with by removing appeal rights but by providing the resources to deal properly with those appeals and that that was already being done. The nature of the debates we have had has been extraordinary. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Brightman, and other noble and learned Lords, made that point effectively on a number of occasions.
However, we see in the Bill, as considered in this Chamber, severe restrictions on the rights of appeal, not so much for asylum seekers but for other applicants for entry into this country. Those restrictions on the rights of appeal for applicants to come to this country, which leave the Immigration Service virtually without any independent check on its activities, will cause great damage not just to our reputation as a country with responsibilities to the world but as a country which seeks to treat its own citizens equally. The abolition of appeals, and the fact, as is well known, that it is applicants who visit this country from the Caribbean and the Indian sub-continent in particular who are refused admission, have a profound effect on the family, social and community life of this country's immigrant communities.
So it is with a heavy heart that I say that the Bill was objectionable when it was introduced; has become less necessary but no less objectionable as time has gone on; and leaves the House as an objectionable measure. The way in which the Bill has been treated—I understand why the Government feel the need to do this occasionally—has been rigid. The Government have not listened to arguments. I am not saying that the Minister and his colleagues have not listened to arguments. Poor things, they were stuck there, and they had no choice but to listen to the arguments, but

1189
they had no scope to do anything about the effective arguments which were advanced against most parts of the Bill.
The Government have adopted a rigid approach to the Bill's wording and its intentions. It got so far as for me to hear the Minister say—when we were talking about the appeal system for visitors to this country —and I wrote it down, that the Government have decided and Parliament has approved that the system of appeals should go. I have to remind the Minister that until the Motion that the Bill do now pass has been carried, Parliament has not approved the proposal that the appeal system should go. If I am tempted, I shall divide against that Motion just to prove that that is the case.
A feature of the Bill for me—I come to the subject afresh and, like the Minister, do not have a legal training—is the extent to which all the outside organisations which understand the issues far better than I do have been—the Minister used the words "disquieted" and "irritated" about my behaviour—far more than disquieted and irritated. They are deeply disturbed by the Bill's provisions. We have had representations from many different individuals and groups. We have had help in preparing amendments from the Refugee Council, the Campaign for Visitor Appeal Rights, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, the Law Society, Justice, the Refugee Legal Centre, the Children's Legal Centre, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and all the local authority associations. Their participation in opposition to the Bill has not been made out of ignorance or irritation; it has been made out of a deep sense of concern that the Bill was introducing new principles into our law which are damaging to civil liberties in this country. I share those views. I am grateful for the assistance that they have given us in trying to put those views forward and to put the Bill right.
I am especially grateful of course to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and to others of my noble friends, notably my noble friend Lord Pitt, who participated in debates. I have been happy working for the first time with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I think that we have seen eye to eye on every issue with which we have been confronted. He was ably joined by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others from the Liberal Democrat Benches. It has been a pleasure to work so closely with a number of people outside the political parties, notably the noble and learned Lords. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and to the Bishops' Bench, in particular to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. Of course, on occasions we found ourselves eye to eye with members of the Conservative Party, although perhaps they would prefer me not to name them.
When the Bill came before the House, Ministers gave the impression that it was a tidying-up measure. It was said that we had the solution to anomalies and difficulties which are found in our immigration and refugee asylum seekers' system. I suggested to the
1190
House on Second Reading, and I suggest it again, that that is far from being the case. This is not the end of the story; it is the beginning. It is the beginning of a period, which will last many years, in which developed countries must look closely at their relationships with people from other countries. They must decide on what basis they will allow people from other countries to come into this country, whether to work, to visit family or to seek refuge. We as a society are by no means clear in our mind what is our attitude to those issues. The problems will not go away. The differences between rich and poor in the world are not going away and a petty and damaging Bill of this kind has made no progress in helping us to resolve those problems.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the thanks expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to all the organisations outside the House which helped noble Lords who were proposing amendments to the Bill. Their assistance was extremely important, valuable and encouraging. I wish to associate myself, too, with the thanks that he gave to noble Lords on his Benches, our Benches, the Cross-Benches and the Tory Benches who assisted us in the few amendments to which we received a positive response.
On Second Reading I said I hoped that the Bill would emerge from this House improved. I must confess that I do not believe that we have much ground for congratulating ourselves. We edged away on one or two small issues, some of which were important. However, we did not strike the heart of the Bill, which was the removal from a whole tranche of people of the right to appeal. As was said on more than one occasion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that a right of appeal has existed for 21 years. It was the result of a report of a distinguished lawyer, Sir Roy Wilson, who had a passion for justice. He ensured that in the rules which he laid down justice was written into the procedures, which have been followed ever since.
The Government have claimed that there was a log jam, which they ascribed to the law. Therefore, they removed the appeal in order to speed up the process. I argue that the law may have been partly responsible for the log jam but that is intrinsic to the nature of the law. It slows down procedures because people can to to the court to ensure that their rights are defended. I suggest that the delays were due more to administrative hold-ups, a lack of resources and a lack of people to deal with the problems than to the nature of the law.
It is interesting that today there was published the report of the Home Affairs Committee of another place entitled Delays in the Immigration and Nationality Department. It may be due to what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, called the "natural administrative process" but in the Home Office that process is serious. The evidence of the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association states:
"Delays permeate the system of decision making in asylum cases".

1191
It gave the example of a Kurd, Mr. K, who was refused refugee status. For seven days he was on hunger strike outside Queen Anne's Gate. During the course of the hunger strike Mr. K received a letter from the Assistant Private Secretary at the Home Office advising him that the entry clearance refusal would be reconsidered. However, there was no further Home Office activity, despite numerous reminder letters throughout 1990 and 1991. That had nothing to do with the law; it was the natural administrative process sloping along in a leisurely fashion. It caused considerable suffering which amounted to injustice to the individual concerned and his family. If by streamlining the legal process we have jeopardised the defence of people's rights, I hope that at the same time the administrative process will be speeded up and appropriate resources given to it in order to ensure that people do not suffer from the kind of delays which I have described.
It has been said that the incorporation of the 1931 Convention into the law is an advance, and so it is. But we should not forget that at the beginning of the whole debate many of us believed that the 1931 Convention gave an inadequate definition of the refugee for today's purposes. We should have been much happier had we been given a wider definition which was more appropriate for our time.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, concluded by saying that the problem of migration would be with us for many years to come. That is indubitably true. The pressure for migration from the southern Mediterranean and from the old countries of the USSR and Eastern Europe is strong. As I said on Second Reading, I do not believe that the problem can be dealt with by a single nation; as a minimum there should be a European response. It is folly to suppose that we can be satisfied with the situation in Germany, where there are 50 migrants to every migrant in this country or in France. We should not be surprised if there is a degree of racial tension in that country. We should not believe that we can become immune from the consequences of that simply by shutting our doors tight. If we are to tackle the problem constructively we must do so on a basis which is wider than short-term national self interest. That is one lesson which we should learn. I share the reservations about the Bill expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As I said at the beginning, I believe that its motives are extremely dubious and that its methods are to be deplored.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was interested to hear the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and in a moment I shall deal briefly with the issue of migration. The Bill has been difficult but necessary. I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the robust common sense and good humour that he has shown throughout our proceedings. I wish too to acknowledge the valiant efforts of noble Lords on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches, especially the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In accordance with their beliefs they strenuously opposed the Bill and tried to alter it.
1192
However, I venture to say that, whichever party had been in power, a Bill on these lines would have been necessary. I say that because, with three million people unemployed, with our cities often in a state of congestion, with poor housing and with the various social problems relating to health and education, any responsible government must face up to the fact that people are trying to enter this country, some with justification but many using every means they can to get round our law.
This is a nostalgic occasion for me because, when I held the appointment which my noble friend Lord Ferrers now holds in the Home Office, I had the responsibility of helping that great reforming Home Secretary, the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden (R. A. Butler as he was at the time), with the preparation and piloting through another place of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. It was vigorously opposed by the then Opposition. They voted against it over 40 times on the Floor of the House of Commons and implied that, if and when they had an opportunity to do so, they would either repeal it or reduce its effect. But that did not happen. In fact, about three years later, when they were in power, they strengthened the Bill and made it apply to East African Asians, to whom it had not hitherto applied. Noble Lords opposite must now think themselves lucky that they are not in power at present, bearing in mind some of the views that they have expressed on the Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, genuine refugees will be recognised and granted asylum. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had the grace to say that this is not an entirely bad Bill. I was relieved to hear him say that but I am sorry that he does not feel the same about my interventions.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his generous response to the speech that I made on Report introducing Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill dealing with the problem of unaccompanied child refugees.
I am always afraid that the Government may come to regard Law Lords, and particularly retired Law Lords, as rather tiresome. Therefore, I was highly gratified when the noble Earl said that I had succeeded in shooting down all his arguments against the proposed new Clauses 3 and 4. I believe that he used the expression, "banged them on the head". The Division which followed had a somewhat startling result because there proved to be a majority of no fewer than 55 in favour of Clauses 3 and 4. I earnestly hope that when the Bill comes to be reconsidered in another place, Clauses 3 and 4 may be left in it.
The plight of those unaccompanied child refugees is distressing. There are not many of them—185 last year. The cost of operating Clauses 3 and 4 is only about £500 or £550 per child. The expense involved is truly insignificant. I hope that when the Bill goes on to the statute book it will still contain Clauses 3 and 4.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his tolerance, good humour, eminent fairness and great willingness, as far as he can, to try to assist in any amendment which has any merit.
I was—I shall not say accused because I take it as a compliment—said to have exhibited passion last Thursday in regard to an amendment. I am delighted to know that, as yet, it is not all spent. However, I now speak with a degree of sadness. If I were back at the Bar—my first love—and were asked about the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I should say unhesitatingly that he was an admirable opponent but often had an awkward client. When asked to expatiate on that, I would say, "a client who does not listen to his wisdom".
Shortly—I hope sooner rather than later—we shall have the Criminal Justice Act 1991 back for amendments which would have been quite unneces-sary had the "client" deigned to listen to the observation that, if you require judges to sentence sitting wearing a blindfold, or, if not a blindfold, dark glasses, then the public is not likely to be protected against quite a number of persistent offenders.
It will not be long before the decision of this House with regard to the abolition of the mandatory life sentence is nullified in another place. While the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is busily, with drastic cuts, trying to save £40 million, we are budgeting for almost the same sum to be spent on funding the War Crimes Act espoused so enthusiastic-ally by the Home Office.
I speak with sadness because when, for 21 years, it has been thought that justice requires a provision to insure against the fallibility of bureaucratic decisions, there is a strong and legitimate expectation that that will not be removed without an extremely strong justification, a justification which does not consist of the contention, "Ah, but we need the resources which we use for those appeals to provide for appellate facilities for an entirely different category of persons —those seeking asylum—as compared with those seeking limited rights to visit or to study".
I speak with sadness because I believe that the absence of that justification will diminish greatly the reputation which this country enjoys in such a high degree for doing justice. It will also have the inconvenient spin-off—and I believe that convenience is the motive factor behind the Government's proposals—of swelling the already overburdened lists in the High Court with more applicants seeking judicial review.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, to my deep regret, a whole series of long-standing public engagements on the other side of the Atlantic prevented me from attending the Second Reading and, indeed, subsequent debates on the Bill. Therefore, I crave your Lordships' indulgence if in my few comments I may go beyond the usual parameter of a Third Reading debate and also express my gratification that my remarks come at this twilight moment in the passage of the Bill, as they seek to serve as a kind of epilogue
1194
to the very rewarding and important debates which have taken place on the Bill. I need hardly declare my special interest. As an immigrant myself, finding shelter here from Nazi persecution some 56 years ago, I am naturally concerned that others in similar circumstances of oppression should share my good fortune.
Incidentally, I cannot quite understand why the inelegant and perhaps supercilious term "asylum seeker" should have replaced the simpler word "refugee" which might evoke more sympathy. Altogether, why use "asylum" with its associated connotation? I prefer "sanctuary", not only out of personal bias. I appreciate the sincerity of the Government and their motives in presenting this Bill. I speak in general terms when I say one obviously wants to prevent causing a backlash of widespread xenophobia and nationalist extremism such as is now ascendant in Germany, with sinister overtones and deeply painful memories. At the same time, I share some of the reservations expressed in so many quarters, specifically by the Refugee Council, and I welcome the consultative status now accorded to it following the vote in Committee which I would have supported.
It would be quite unrealistic, it seems to me, if in this debate we did not acknowledge that the provisions of the Bill, even as amended, only skim the surface of the problem. It deals with the narrow band of fugitives who are either already in this country, having entered as students, visitors or tourists, or who are lucky enough to have British consular services close at hand. But what about the many who may seek safety from political or ethnic persecution and who cannot escape without proper papers? A depressing example of that was revealed in this morning's news of the 179 Bosnian refugees who have been stranded since last November on the Slovene-Austrian border.
With war, ethnic tensions and civil strife now so rampant, particularly in the lands formerly under Communist control, but also elsewhere in the world, one must fear a dramatic increase of sanctuary-seekers in the foreseeable future. That has been mentioned earlier today. Many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, may feel threatened, be dislocated and search for a new haven.
No single country can be expected to cope on its own with a problem of such magnitude. The situation surely calls for European or indeed international action. Britain, with its noble record of accommodating refugees and other newcomers, is well qualified to take the initiative and summon a special conference on this. An instructive precedent may be the Evian Conference convened by President Roosevelt under the aegis of the Refugee Committee of the League of Nations in July 1938 to deal with the rising tide of would-be emigrants from the growing terror of Nazi Germany. The American delegate at Evian announced that his country would admit 27,000 to 30,000 refugees a year—a quarter of the contemplated emigration. This, he said, represented one-fifth of 1 per cent. of America's population, and he then suggested that,

1195
"should the governments represented on the Committee be willing to take annually the same minute fraction of their populations, 100,000 per year could easily be moved".
Alas, hardly any governments at that time responded, and before long millions perished in the death camps—victims partly of indifference and silence in the rest of the world.
Attitudes today, I believe, are far more tolerant and caring. We need only witness the response to appeals to relieve famine and to relieve oppression in South Africa and elsewhere where formerly no one cared. Therefore the great democracies might well win more liberal support for some inter-governmental action.
I had communicated the suggestion of such a conference to several of my noble friends in this House, and I am grateful for the approving references to the proposal in the Second Reading debate. For the record, I now present the proposal more fully and more formally. Eight days ago was the fifth anniversary of my maiden speech in this House, delivered from this place on 4th March 1988. I then spoke on the Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, and I concluded by urging this House and others far beyond to,
"remember that we are all, each one of us, temporary residents on this planet where we have to learn the art of living together in harmony before our visa expires and we are called to migrate to another world".—[Official Report, 4/3/88; col. 377.]
At this time, when the moral fibre of our nation is being tested as never before, I will only add: let us rejoice over every life we help to save, and conversely let all who find refuge in this country help to enrich our national experience and to ennoble our national character.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, shows only too well the strength of feeling and concern which he has expressed and which other people feel about those who live in parts of the world where they are subjected to practices which we in this country are not subjected to. Noble Lords have missed the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, during the passage of this Bill through the House due to his absence on the other side of the Atlantic where he had other commitments to attend to. I for one am glad that the noble Lord was able to speak on the Bill even at this late stage.
We have come to the end of the Bill and I can only say again that I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions they have made to the Bill and for the manner in which they have made them during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1993
6.58 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to movc, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February 1993 be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Prevention of Terrorism Act provides the powers which are needed in order to counter the menace of terrorism in Northern Ireland and on the British mainland. Once again, last year the people of Northern Ireland had to bear a grievous burden of terrorist crime. Some 85 people died as a result of terrorism and over 1,000 were injured. There were 350 bombings or shootings in Northern Ireland. We have seen in recent months, with very great dismay, the eruption of a spate of killings which have been of a purely sectarian nature.
At the same time, there were more terrorist crimes in Great Britain last year than there had been in any year since 1974 when the Prevention of Terrorism Act was first introduced. Six people were killed during the course of 1992 in Great Britain and 224 were injured. There were more than 40 terrorist bombings in the mainland of Britain and there were four shootings. I fear that there is little doubt that the threat from terrorist crime will continue throughout the next 12 months. I can though assure your Lordships that the Government's commitment to the defeat of terrorism will also continue and that it will be undiminished.
People on the mainland of Great Britain and in Northern Ireland rely heavily upon the security forces to fight the menace of terrorist crime. In that there is no doubt that they have been well served. Thanks to the diligence—and often to the courage—of police officers, members of the Armed Forces and others, many terrorist crimes have been prevented and many terrorists have been brought to justice. Thanks to good police work—and thanks to support from the Army—the Provisional IRA's attempts to place a large bomb in Belfast city centre before Christmas were thwarted and arrests have been made in circumstances which made it clear that lives had been saved.
It will not be too hard for your Lordships to imagine the devastation and the injury which might have occurred had not two alert police officers stopped a lorry in Stoke Newington last November. The lorry contained a very large amount of home-made explosive. One of the officers was shot and wounded in a courageous attempt to arrest one of the people in the lorry, but an arrest was made, nevertheless.
Earlier last year another police operation in London resulted in the seizure of a substantial amount of home-made explosive. There can be little doubt that it was destined for outrages similar to the one which was perpetrated in the City of London in April. Other attempted bombings have been frustrated by the actions of the police or the vigilance of members of the public.
We must also acknowledge the achievements of the police in responding to bomb warnings. Many bomb warnings are inaccurate or are deliberately misleading. Others are straightforward hoaxes. Had it not been for the prompt actions of police officers at the scenes of those incidents there is no doubt that many more people would have been killed or injured.
The achievements of the security forces are reflected in the figures. In Northern Ireland last year 404 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including 97 who were charged with murder or attempted murder; more than 300 people were convicted of terrorist-related offences; and more than 200 weapons and 2 tonnes of explosives were seized.
On the British mainland, since the beginning of last year 19 people have been charged with serious terrorist-related offences such as murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. Only two weeks ago three men were charged in connection with the terrorist bombing incident at Warrington where a gasometer was blown up, and last week two men were charged with offences, including the Harrods bombing in January. Your Lordships may also recall a recent police operation in the West Country which resulted in the arrest of two men who were subsequently charged with firearms and explosives offences. A terrorist and his accomplice recently received substantial prison sentences for planting bombs in and around London.
Those achievements have not been accomplished without cost. During the course of last year six soldiers and three officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were killed in Northern Ireland. Four hundred and fifty members of the security forces were injured. In Great Britain a special constable was shot dead and three police officers were injured. Those whom we ask to protect society against terrorist crime deserve our full support and gratitude and we must never forget their sacrifices and those of their families and loved ones.
It is against that background that I invite your Lordships to agree that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should continue in force. It should continue in force because the security forces need the powers which it provides in order to carry out their vital work against terrorists.
The Act provides a number of exceptional powers which have been specifically formulated to deal with the threat from terrorism. This year, as in each year since 1986, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross reviewed the way in which those powers have been used. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some of the observations which my noble friend made in his recent report on the operation of the Act in 1992.
Before doing so, however, I should like to pay tribute to the contribution which my noble friend has made to discussions about the Act during a period of no less than seven years. During that time my noble friend has said much which has been constructive about the way in which the Act is administered, and, indeed, he has contributed to the form in which it at present stands.
Each year when we debate the renewal of the Act we do so with the benefit of a learned account of the way in which the police, Ministers and their officials are undertaking the duties which are conferred upon them by the Act and of the way in which they are making use of the powers which it provides. The annual reports provide a valuable insight into these matters, and they frequently contain a number of new ideas for improving the fight against terrorism or of adding to the safeguards for the individual which the Act provides.
This year, when my noble friend has completed his review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, he will relinquish his responsibility for this important work. He has worked at it like a Trojan, and he has brought to his consideration all the penetrating, perceptive powers of an acute legal mind, of which my noble friend is fortunate enough to be the possessor. In this respect the nation has been fortunate enough to benefit. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to join me and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in thanking my noble friend Lord Colville most warmly for the valuable work which he has done during the last seven years.
My noble friend's first recommendation, which is to be found in his covering letter to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, is that the Act should continue in force in its entirety for another 12 months. My noble friend's report then addresses the exercise by the Secretary of State of his power to exclude persons who are suspected of terrorism from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. My noble friend observes that the power had been used very sparingly in 1992 and that the machinery is working effectively.
My noble friend draws particular attention to the work of the independent advisers who review the cases of those who wish to make representations against exclusion. The advisers provide a safeguard for the individual and as such their role is an important one.
The Secretary of State also has the power under the Act to authorise the detention of a person who is suspected of involvement in terrorism for up to seven days in total. On the use of that power my noble friend's report records that the proper criteria are being carefully observed in deciding whether extensions should be granted. My noble friend then records that, as regards complaints about the police, there is nothing which he wishes to draw to the attention of Parliament. My noble friend is very satisfied with police practice in that respect.
My noble friend's report makes a number of recommendations, which we shall consider carefully. He commends continuing to review by an officer who is unconnected with the case, the circumstances under which detainees are being held, even after extensions or exclusion orders have been made. My noble friend also makes a number of suggestions in relation to police checks at ports, and he suggests that the Government should take the opportunity which is provided by the Criminal Justice Bill—which is at the moment in another place—to strengthen the Act's provisions against terrorist finances. The Government

1199
will be introducing amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill in another place with the aim of bringing the law on terrorist finances into line with many of the changes which are being made to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
No one should doubt that the Government remain determined in their resolve to fight terrorist crime. We shall continue to give our full support to police officers and to other members of the security forces, and we shall ensure that they have the necessary means to conduct that fight. The Prevention of Terrorism Act remains a vital part of that effort. We must not deprive the public of the protection which the Act provides. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February 1993 be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the order and for the way in which he did so, which was in sharp contrast to the way in which the order was dealt with by both Front and Back Benches in another place only yesterday when there were scenes of some disorder which would not be acceptable in your Lordships' House.
I wish formally and sincerely on behalf of these Benches to endorse what the Minister said about the scourge of terrorism. The noble Earl said that the Government are united in opposition to terrorism. I can assure him that the whole House is united in its opposition to terrorism, we on these Benches no less than the Government. Secondly, I endorse his tribute to the security forces—the police and the Army—who do the dangerous and often frustrating and boring work on our behalf.
The difficulty that we have with the order is not because we are in any way soft on terrorism or that we fail to respect and honour the service of those who fight against terrorism, whether on the mainland or in Northern Ireland. Our difficulty concerns two provisions. We need to be more sure that the balance between civil liberties and the effectiveness of combat against terrorism is properly made.
The original Prevention of Terrorism Act was introduced by a Labour Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who intended it to be in force for only six months. Indeed, the legislation is still called "Temporary Provisions"; and noble Lords who know anything about local government and planning consent will know that there is nothing more permanent than temporary planning permission. The Act has been in force for nearly 20 years, during which time the volume of terrorism has not decreased. I do not draw causal conclusions from that fact. I do not say that because terrorism has not declined the Act has been a failure. However, it is incumbent upon the Government to demonstrate that the undoubted acknowledged intrusions into civil liberties that are imposed by the Act are justified by the results.
When the Bill was introduced it was disliked. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, speaking from the Opposition Benches in 1974, described is as distasteful. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, speaking as Home Secretary in 1982, referred to:
1200
"the considerable inroads into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud".
A succession of noble Lords who had the responsibility that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, now has, have expressed concern about aspects of the legislation. My noble friend Lord Shackleton, who was one of the first advisers, was uneasy about the exclusion provisions. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, urged that there should be restrictions on the use of the exclusion provisions in the Act. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to whose services I gladly add my tribute and that of my noble friends, argued for the complete removal of the exclusion procedures.
There is no doubt that a balance should be drawn between effectiveness and concern for civil liberties. If there is to be a reduction in civil liberties, about which there is not much doubt, the Government must produce evidence that the Act is working more effectively than the alternative would do. No evidence has been produced. All the evidence that the Government have brought forward concerns the volume of terrorist crime and the success of the security forces, the police and the Army, in dealing with terrorism. I do not contest that evidence and I congratulate all those concerned in the recent successes in dealing with terrorist crime.
The measures that we object to are the exclusion provisions and the five-day extension of detention by the Executive. There is no evidence that those measures have had any effect whatever. Surely, having argued for this measure year after year, the Government would have made some attempt to show that there have been people excluded who have been intent on carrying terrorism either from the mainland to Northern Ireland or vice versa; that seven days' detention has produced evidence which would not have been available either in the first 48 hours or in an extended period approved by judges rather than the Executive.
No evidence of that kind has been produced. Under those circumstances I am not surprised that my honourable and right honourable friends in another place voted against the continuance of the order. The issues of exclusion and detention are serious matters of civil liberty. The second issue relating to seven-day detention has required us to derogate from our signature to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Better evidence should be produced to show that the measures are effective. As the evidence has not been produced, our support for large parts of the Act and for the continued successful work of those who fight against terrorist crime in this country is severely diminished.
Lord Jellicoe: My Lords, I do not rise to enter into the debate about the seven-day period of detention or the exclusion order. Those matters were explored at great length yesterday in another place.
I should like to echo the tribute that was paid by my noble friend Lord Ferrers to my noble friend Lord Colville. He has made a remarkable contribution in an area of great importance and considerable complexity over a long period in this difficult field.

1201
The first report that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was a one-off affair, as was the report that I made five years later. The contribution that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Colville, has been not only as a result of his acute legal mind and the thoroughness with which he has gone into such complex administrative and legal matters, but there has been a continuity of experience. I was sorry to hear that he is not going to carry on the work to which he had addressed himself with such assiduity and skill. I express the hope to the Minister that, in finding a replacement for the noble Lord, Lord Colville, there should be an attempt to secure the same continuity and that there should not be a one-off report. A great deal of the merit in the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Colville, has been due to continuity.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord said. I pay tribute to the noble Viscount for an admirable job over past years. I found all his reports most persuasive even when, in relation to one important matter, I did not share his view—namely, the question of exclusion orders.
I was mildly surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, tell us that my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead intended the 1974 Act to be in existence for six months. I read about that matter in one newspaper, as no doubt he did, but I can assure him that there is no truth in the assertion. When the Bill went through this House and another place it was made clear that given the fact that it had passed through all its stages in about four days, a further Bill would be introduced within a few months to give Parliament the opportunity of discussing the matter thoroughly. There was no question therefore that it would only be in existence for six months. Indeed it would have been pointless bringing in exclusion orders if six months later the subjects would return to Great Britain. So much for that.
The only other point I wish to make before coming to the substance of the matter is that I very much agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said about terrorist finance. I welcome the fact that the Government will take action to implement some of the recommendations he has made.
My view of the matter is quite straightforward. I support the order moved by the noble Earl. I do so in a situation in which my honourable friends in the House of Commons took the same view last evening. It is wholly right that we should discuss the order every year. Having been responsible in terms of both the discussions which gave rise to the 1974 Act and the debates we had in this House at the time, I would not deny that as a result of the passage of that legislation some innocent people have been arrested and held in custody. It would be silly to pretend anything else. Their civil rights have been affected. However, we have to face the fact that the principal civil right is the ability of our fellow citizens to live their lives without being subjected to the risk of being murdered or maimed by the Provisional IRA. A fair and sensible balance must be struck between the person who is
1202
suspected of being involved in terrorist activities and the need to protect society from the consequences of terrorist behaviour.
The question before us tonight is whether that has been done in the case of the order and the legislation on which it is based. It has undoubtedly had some unfortunate secondary consequences, but I believe that it has also safeguarded the lives of many of our fellow citizens. I do not think that there is a great deal of doubt about that.
I do not call into question the motives of those who take a different view, as does the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I believe that there are few, if any, people in Parliament who do not wish to join the struggle against terrorist activities. That is why, like him, I deplore the foolishness of the charges and counter charges made in the House of Commons last night. The attempts made by so many to pray in aid the opinion of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to demonstrate that he was on their side of the controversy provided one of the most childish series of exchanges I have ever read in Hansard.
I turn to one particular matter before I come to the substance of the question relating to exclusion orders. I have stated my opinion on two previous occasions on the Brogan case which was decided by the European Court of Human Rights, so I do not propose to go through the arguments again this evening. But, in the light of that judgment, I would undoubtedly on balance have preferred to have had judicial intervention. However, there are, I accept, substantial difficulties about that. In any event, that issue in no way weakens my view that the order should be approved this evening.
A great deal of the dispute about the legislation—and this was indicated in the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—relates to exclusion orders. That is what I now intend to deal with. When I was at the Home Office, I saw a substantial number of papers relating to applications for exclusion orders. Many of the people concerned had close associations with the Provisional IRA and in many cases would themselves have been involved in terrorist acts if they had been permitted to remain in Great Britain. When there was significant doubt, the Home Secretary rejected the applications for those orders.
It could and will be said, "Well, if the evidence existed, why were they not charged with a criminal offence?" Probably all of us would have far preferred a situation where they could be charged with a criminal offence. But there are substantial difficulties about that on some occasions. There may be clear, or indeed overwhelming evidence, sometimes from sensitive sources, that a person is consorting with terrorists, aiding and assisting them in every way, providing safe houses and even preparing to involve himself in acts of terrorist violence. But there can be a significant gap between that and persuading a jury beyond reasonable doubt on clearly defined terrorist charges.
There can now be a further difficulty. In some cases the prosecution can be required to disclose the source of information which has come into the hands of the

1203
police. The consequence of that in a number of criminal cases—I am not now dealing with terrorist offences, but it could apply to them in exactly the same way—is that prosecutions have had to be thrown away in the criminal courts because the police were not prepared to run the risk of their informants having their identities disclosed. If they had been disclosed, it could have caused the informants' almost instant execution. If that is true in the case of ordinary criminal offences, how much more likely is it to take place in the case of terrorist activities in Great Britain?
My view is quite straightforward. It is that without the exclusion order many of those people might have been able to commit the most serious offences and cause the deaths of, or hideous injuries to, men, women and children before they might have been able to be charged. Speaking for myself, that is a price I would find entirely unacceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke with great moderation: I hope to do the same. Perhaps I may consider for a moment what the implications would have been if, as looked likely at the beginning of last year, a Labour Government had been elected. A new Home Secretary would, I assure the House, have been given the clearest advice from the police that the consequences of dropping the power to exclude would lead to an increase in the level of violence in our cities. That is quite certain. Almost certainly, given the fact that these days everything leaks into the newspapers, even when that is not always intended, there would have been no doubt in the public mind about what the attitude of the police was.
Ministers are entirely entitled to ignore such advice. But what would have happened when the bombs started to explode? What would have happened if those who had been excluded from Great Britain as a result of the exclusion order process had returned to this country and one, two or more had eventually found themselves charged with terrorist offences in the courts in this country? When the public got to hear of what had happened there would have been the most tremendous uproar. Consequently, it is a matter of considerable doubt whether the belief that to get rid of the exclusion order is as easy an option as is sometimes maintained.
There would have been an even more difficult problem for the new government. At present, the IRA does not permit many of its frontline terrorists to enter Great Britain for fear of their being detained under the terms of the Act and ultimately excluded. It is concerned that one of them—or indeed more than one—might, despite counter-interrogation training, during the seven days in which they can be held disclose information to the authorities. In Great Britain we have seen the consequences of what second division terrorists can do. Often, because of inexperience, a number of them have been caught. Were exclusion orders to be removed, I believe that they would be replaced by even more dangerous and experienced men.
In the circumstances, if there had been a change of government at the beginning of last year, it is very hard to believe that after considering all these options and receiving this advice a new Home Secretary would
1204
have cheerfully abandoned this power. If by chance he had—given the fact of the inevitability of a fairly significant level of terrorist violence in this country—I suspect that within 12 months legislation would have been reintroduced into Parliament giving the Home Secretary once again the power to exclude on very much the same basis as we have at the moment.
As I indicated, I do not support the renewal of powers of this sort with a light heart. Nor, as I said, do I doubt the honourable motives of those who take a different view. My view on the matter is clear. Without the renewal, our defences against terrorist violence would be gravely weakened and the safety of the British public put at considerable risk.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I recall vividly making an appeal in 1974, when this Act was first introduced in another place. I said at the time that the Act seemed to be very necessary in the wake of the terrible atrocities in Birmingham and elsewhere. I said then, as I have said repeatedly in both Houses, that the threat of terrorism in Great Britain, particularly in Northern Ireland, and over the past few years here, is of such importance that it should not be a political issue between the two main parties in this House. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I totally agree with him. I thought that what happened yesterday was absolutely disgraceful. It was disgraceful for both the Government and the Opposition to attempt to score nit-picking points.
I resent anyone from the government side of the House trying to say that Labour is soft on terrorism. My association with the Labour Front Bench and with many Members who are not on the Front Bench has led me to think that they are as opposed to terrorism as anyone who sits on the government side of the House. The two points which divided the Opposition and the Government are of importance. But they are not of such importance as to allow free rein to the dispute which took place yesterday.
In promoting the order this evening, the Minister said that he thinks the security forces in the United Kingdom should have our full support. I do not believe that anyone would dissent from that. But, unfortunately, within the ranks of the Labour Party (I certainly do not blame the Labour Party) there are some rabid Sinn Fein supporters. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be aware of someone who was once his colleague in the GLC who wrote an article in the Guardian this week which is a total and absolute apology for the IRA. It is a scarcely veiled attack on the security forces, not only in Great Britain but in Northern Ireland.
In the article a whole series of untruths and calumny are levelled at the security forces. It mentions the alleged use by MI5 of young boys in the Kincora home scandal. It goes on to say that Captain Robert Nairac, who was brutally murdered by the IRA, led an assassination squad. The writer levels a whole series of charges. He is regarded by the IRA as one of their greatest defenders. But he also happens to be a Labour MP, elected under the democratic process in the constituency of Brent. When the IRA are looking for

1205
friends, they do not have very far to look. People who give voice to such opinions call into question the bona fides of the Labour Party.
I fully accept that the Labour Party is as anxious to protect life and limb here in the United Kingdom as I am. But it has expressed genuine concern on the question of exclusion orders. In every debate that has taken place on the emergency legislation I have voiced my concern over exclusion orders, perhaps from a different aspect. Some people would say that they disagree with exclusion orders because they infringe the civil liberties of the citizen. I have objected because I do not see why terrorists in the United Kingdom, in London, Scotland or Wales, should all be dumped into Northern Ireland. I never wanted to see Northern Ireland used as a dumping ground for people suspected of terrorist acts in other parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that that is a legitimate concern. When the Minister brings this legislation to the House he knows that people feel passionately about it—about civil rights, about the infringement of civil liberties and about the protection of the life and limb of their constituents.
The Minister in another place said that 81 exclusion orders are extant at the present moment. I think that the Minister should be asked and he should be able to tell us—perhaps I may receive a reply—how long those 81 orders have been extant. When were they granted? Have people been excluded for the past 10, 15 or 19 years, or some of them only recently? The Minister said that only two exclusion orders were granted last year. If a Right-wing Tory Minister of Home Affairs could find it in his heart to grant only two exclusion orders last year, I suggest that a Labour Home Secretary would not have found any great difficulty in dealing with the problem.
I turn now to the question of giving support to the security forces. I have lived most of my life in Northern Ireland under the threat of terrorism. I believe it is incumbent upon all those people who are elected by the democratic process and who look after the interests of their constituents to do everything they can to give support to the security forces.
I regret to have to say this of the party which I formerly led, the SDLP. But in February this year (only a month ago) in Belfast City Council a Motion was put forward by a member of the Alliance Party in which he sought to give the freedom of the city to the bomb squad, who had just succeeded in defusing the four-thousandth bomb. Some of the bombs which the bomb squad succeeded in defusing were near my home, both at the front and the back. I believe that that was a gesture which the Belfast City Council should have proudly made in respect of the people who defused those bombs, which could have taken a massive toll of life, both nationalist and Unionist. The party which I formerly led walked out of the city council. Its members would not vote. They left the council short of its two-thirds majority. Actions speak louder than words. I believe that that was a disgraceful thing to do. I do not believe that that party can in any way justify those actions.
So this legislation is on the statute book again. The
1206
Home Secretary said that last year only 17 detention orders had been granted by him and that 10 of them were for four days and the other seven for seven days. Would it be right to ask the Home Secretary whether any convictions arose from the seven orders that he granted allowing for detention of seven days? A Member in the other place gave some figures. The figures he quoted were frightening. He said, of the period since the Act came into force, 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".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/93; col. 973.]
Those figures do not add up. There is something strange about them. The person who mentioned them is a skilled parliamentarian and if those figures are right, it seems that the Act is being used, as has been alleged, for fishing purposes—to bring people in, because they live in an Irish constituency, to try to gain information from them in relation to terrorism.
This Act, for however long it may be renewed, or however long we may be afflicted by the scourge of terrorism, will also raise in the minds of people who are concerned about the liberty of the subject grave doubts as to whether it is achieving the aims it set out to achieve. The disquiet expressed by the Opposition in another place is serious but not so serious that the Government could not have accepted the amendments. Had they done so, we would have had unanimity. All the elected representatives in Parliament would have expressed their opposition to terrorism and agreed on the best way to deal with it. Before we debate this measure again, I hope that such agreement will be found between the Front Benches in another place.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. He made some comments which I wish to echo; namely, that in all our deliberations on the subject we should seek the widest consensus on ways to tackle the problems that beset not only the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the United Kingdom but the people of Ireland in the island as a whole.
It has been said before that this Act has been on the statute book on a temporary basis for 19 years. Since I entered your Lordships' House in 1985, I have risen to speak against the Act and oppose it. As an aside I say to your Lordships that I do not intend to try to divide the House on the Act this evening, but obviously if any other noble Lord sought to do so, I should willingly support him in the Division. The Act has been in place for 19 years; yet we still have a significantly high level of terrorism.
It is worth remembering the draconian provisions of the Act; detention without charge or trial, and the exclusion procedures, which effectively allow for a form of internal and external exile, again without charge or trial. They strike at the very heart of the concepts of law, fairness and due process of the British system of justice. As a result the Act does immense damage. The fundamental reason why I stand here year after year arguing against the provisions of the Act is because I feel that in fact it contributes to terrorism. I feel that very strongly.

1207
I differ slightly from the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. He quoted an article by Ken Livingstone which appeared in The Guardian. The noble Lord's interpretation was that Ken Livingstone was arguing the case for the IRA. I did not see the article in that light. I saw it as a means for someone of stature in the British political establishment effectively to convey the way in which some people in Ireland saw the actions of the British Government and the British security forces. I had not been aware that such was the way that a number of people in Ireland saw the actions of our security forces and the operation of our laws. I believe that Ken Livingstone did us a service. It is only by trying to understand how other people see us and our acts towards them that we can hope to make progress. The article reinforced my perception of how the provisions of the Act contribute to the operation of terrorism.
It is late and though I could speak for a long time on the subject I do not intend to do so. But I have one question to put to the Minister. I have been very concerned about reports in the media. It is difficult to explain but I shall try. The Government appear to suggest that they are concerned that the fight against terrorism is becoming confused with the fight against crime. They want to reinforce the distinction between their fight against terrorism and their fight against crime. Let me make the point that, as a British citizen, my feeling is that when people shoot other people, blow them up or threaten to do so, they commit criminal acts. The more we can demonstrate through our words and actions that we treat such acts as criminal acts, the better. To suggest that certain criminal acts are in fact terrorist political-type acts does no good in terms of the argument against such vile and horrific criminal deeds, which are perpetrated by a number of different criminal groups. It is not just the IRA: there are a number of so-called terrorist groups which commit those horrendous criminal acts. The quicker we can get a consensus right across the political spectrum in this country to agree that these are criminals who are perpetrating criminal acts and the criminal law should deal with them, the better. I hope that we can develop that consensus. I want the Government to set my mind at rest and assure me that they do not seek to portray the actions—criminal activities—of so-called terrorists as terrorist acts rather than criminal acts.
That is the question I wish to put. I hope it is clear enough. The way it has come across has not been terribly clear in terms of the media. I hope we can develop right across the political spectrum a consensus that we are totally opposed to attacks on human beings and property, that they are essentially criminal and anti-social, and that they will be portrayed as such all the time.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the matters that we have been discussing this evening are of the greatest importance. I am grateful to your Lordships for the constructive and reasoned way in which the debate has been conducted. No one likes the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Of course not. They are strong, tough and infringe liberties which people normally expect to enjoy. But terrorism presents a real
1208
threat, not only to the lives and wellbeing of the people of this country but to the democratic process itself. When that happens one has to take exceptional measures.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said he thought that the Act contributed to terrorism. I found it difficult to follow the logic of his argument. I was surprised also when he said that these acts are really criminal and not terrorist acts. He tried to say that the acts of the terrorists are no more than criminal acts. They are more than criminal acts; they are terrorist acts by which people blow up and deprive other people of their rights indiscriminately. One cannot emphasise too strongly that, bad though crime is, terrorism is pernicious. It operates irrespective of people. Its purpose is to try and achieve with a bomb and a bullet what is not achieved by a ballot and democracy. That is the reason why it is an offence against democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made an impressive speech. He said that it was difficult to obtain a fair and sensible balance between people being murdered and maimed and civil liberties. He was absolutely correct. I was grateful too for his robust defence of the exclusion orders. Of course they are tough; they are extremely hard and have an important effect. He was correct when he said that, if we give way on that, instead of having what he called "second degree" terrorists—and heaven knows they are bad enough—we would then see first degree terrorists as well.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was understandably concerned as to whether the intrusion into civil liberties is justified. It is always difficult to assess the effectiveness of what is essentially a preventive power. But I am convinced that it has played an important part in preventing and investigating terrorist activities. As I said in opening, since the beginning of 1992, on the mainland of Great Britain, 19 people have been charged with serious terrorist-related offences after having been detained under the Act, and of the 1,795 detentions under the Act in Northern Ireland in 1992, 459 people—26 per cent.—were charged with an offence. That is the highest percentage since 1986. One can glean from those figures that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the charges under the Act justify its existence.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe paid tribute—I was grateful to him for doing so because he too has been a rapporteur in the past in regard to the Prevention of Terrorism Act—to my noble friend Lord Colville, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Harris. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe said that he hoped that the successor would be a person who would stay for longer than one year. We shall do our best to find a successor to my noble friend Lord Colville who will maintain the high standards that he set. It will not be easy. We shall also seek to ensure that his successor carries out a series of annual reviews.
With regard to the proposed exclusion orders to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred, I am grateful for what was a compelling speech. I agree that it is an important power and one that has prevented and will continue to prevent acts of terrorism.

1209
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was concerned about exclusion orders using Northern Ireland as a dumping ground. That was an unfortunate expression, though not an original one. In exercising the powers of exclusion, which in fact are exercised rarely, it has never been the Government's intention to use Northern Ireland as a dumping ground. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary seeks to frustrate and disrupt the plans of those who deliberately come from Northern Ireland to the British mainland to commit, or assist in the commission of, terrorist offences.
The noble Lord referred also to various figures quoted by his right honourable friend Mr. Kaufman. I believe that his right honourable friend consulted the wrong statistics. There were only six charges leading to five-year sentences in relation to offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. There are few such offences. There have been hundreds of charges for all kinds of crimes, including murder and other serious terrorist-related offences, and there were over 50 sentences in excess of five years between 1984 and 1992.
1210
With regard to the length of exclusion orders—another matter referred to by the noble Lord—he pointed out that at the end of 1992 there were 81 extant exclusion orders made by the Home Secretary, who made only two new orders in the course of last year. All exclusion orders run for a period of three years and a further order may be made at the end of that time if the Secretary of State remains satisfied that the proper criteria have been met.
The powers contained within the Act are exceptional. They are hard powers. But we believe that they are necessary in order to protect the country from terrorism so far as one is able. It is the prime business of government to ensure the protection of the people of this country. When terrorists have the advantage of being in a position of surprise, it is up to the Government to take every conceivable measure to prevent them making use of that element of surprise.
I know that the powers are matters of concern to your Lordships. I am grateful to your Lordships for expressing your anxieties so courteously and appropriately. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.

  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS
  TRANSPORT AND ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY PROGRAMME: CYCLING
  TRANSPORT AND ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY PROGRAMME: CYCLING
  TRANSPORT: EXPENDITURE PLANS
  TRANSPORT: EXPENDITURE PLANS
  CYCLE TRACKS
  CYCLE TRACKS
  ECONOMIC FORECASTING AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT VARIABLE
  ECONOMIC FORECASTING AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT VARIABLE
  TWH MANAGEMENT LTD: LICENSED DEALER TRIBUNAL REPORT
  TWH MANAGEMENT LTD: LICENSED DEALER TRIBUNAL REPORT
  RUDDY DUCK: POPULATION CONTROL
  RUDDY DUCK: POPULATION CONTROL
  ACUTE SERVICES, EDINBURGH, GLASGOW AND LIVERPOOL
  ACUTE SERVICES, EDINBURGH, GLASGOW AND LIVERPOOL