Sitting of 30 March 1993

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

    PWLLHELI HARBOUR (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    PWLLHELI HARBOUR (AMENDMENT) BILL

      DAWAT-E-HADIYAH (ENGLAND) BILL
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Parenthood
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what support he is giving to education for parenthood.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): It is vital that parents set out for their children the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and teach them the differences between right and wrong. If parents do not give a lead, then children will not respect them. If there is no respect, then there is no authority. And too many children are entering school with too little respect for authority. Schools must help to reinforce those standards, but teachers alone cannot do the job of parents.
    The basic values of decency, self-discipline and respect for others are some of the most important things that we can instill in our children and pass on to them. We must teach children to be responsible parents, and the law provides for that to be done in schools under the Education Reform Act 1988. Today's school children are tomorrow's parents, so that task is vital.
    Mr. Bowls: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, with which I wholly agree. Does he accept, however, that as a result of social changes one in four of 16-year-olds has seen the break-up of the parental home and increasing numbers of children in my constituency never have a father in the home, so there is no paternal example to follow? In seeking ways of educating for parenthood through the school system, will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind? Otherwise, those future parents will have had no example to follow. They desperately need the support of society as a whole.
    Mr. Patten: Of course I shall reflect carefully on what my hon. Friend, with his characteristic sympathy for people in difficulties, has said, but it is also right that parents should always try to fulfil their responsibilities, however difficult the home circumstances. I sometimes think that the greater use of more school-home contracts would help in that regard.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment has been made of the number of nursery places which would be provided by local education authorities if each one spent at least at the level provided for in the Government's financial settlement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): The Government make no planning breakdown of the overall amount allowed for education within the local government finance settlement. It is for authorities and schools to decide how that might best be allocated between the various services, including nursery provision, which authorities provide under discretionary powers.
    Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I point out, however, that in addition to the huge mailbag that I have already sent to the Department from parents in Rochdale borough who are concerned about the lack of provision for education and the national lack of nursery places, this morning I received a further 53 such letters from concerned parents? In the light of those worries, will the Minister introduce statutory provision for nursery education nationally so as to allay parents' fears?
    Mr. Forth: No, I can give no such undertaking. In this country we have a system of voluntary provision, which is left to the discretion of elected and accountable education authorities. About 90 per cent. of children receive pre-school education in a variety of different ways. We believe that that is by far the best way to deliver the provision. It is for parents, both as parents and as electors, to decide locally whether they are satisfied with that provision. I believe that we have made good progress in that regard during the 1980s, and that we shall continue to do so in the 1990s.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Select Committee report in the previous Parliament on under-five provision, and especially to its comments on the appropriateness of the curriculum? It is good that 90 per cent. of our children are in some form of pre-school education. However, the Select Committee showed clearly the importance of having a curriculum particularly suited to their needs. May I direct my hon. Friend's attention to that report and ask him to take it on board in any advice that he gives to local authorities?
    Mr. Forth: We always pay the closest possible attention to Select Committee reports, as I hope goes without saying. My hon. Friend is trying to take us somewhat further than we should like to go at this stage, bearing in mind that we have one of the earliest ages for mandatory universal school provision and, therefore, for curriculum. The pre-five provision is diverse and should remain so.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that parents who live in a Labour county council area have

    141
    three times more chance of getting a nursery place for their children than those who live in a Conservative council area? What does the Minister intend to do about Conservative councils' appalling record on nursery education? Will the Minister agree that every three and four-year-old should have the right to the best start in education, which means being able to have the advantage of nursery education?
    Mr. Forth: No, I propose to do nothing of the kind, as local education authorities are responsible to the electorate and make their own decisions about these matters. I do not share the hon. Lady's apparent obsession with mandatory state taxpayer-provided pre-school provision. It is a matter of diversity of provision and of different parents having different provision of the kind that they prefer. If the hon. Lady does not understand that now, she never will.

    Dyslexic Children
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provision he has made for the teaching of dyslexic children in grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Forth: Where a pupil's special educational needs, including dyslexia, require a statement, provision is the responsibility of the local education authority. Where a pupil does not require a statement, primary responsibility for provision rests with the school and its governors, whether the school is grant maintained or not.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that although dyslexia is an overused term, it is nevertheless a specific learning difficulty which should be addressed in a specific way? Does he also agree that the belief held by some schools and some local education authorities that is simply a general disability to be treated like any other disability condemns many children of above average ability to having their lives blighted because their full potential is never realised?
    Mr. Forth: I find it almost incredible that anyone should have the attitude that my hon. Friend has described. If a child has a specific educational need, the local education authority must by law make an individual assessment of that need and must then make proper provision. My hon. Friend will know that among the many important advances in special educational provision under the Education Bill, which is currently in another place, is a code of practice which will introduce uniformity and standardisation in this important matter. That should go a long way towards eliminating any residue of the thinking that my hon. Friend describes. Any parents who are dissatisfied with the way in which their children are being treated by the local education authority have the right, which I hope that they will exercise, to appeal to the Secretary of State for a review.
    Mr. Trimble: May I assure the Minister that the problem described by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) referred is not unique and that there is considerable reluctance within many education authorities to recognise dyslexia where it exists? I am glad to hear that there is to be a code of practice. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the code is brought vigorously to the attention of local authorities so that people who have this problem, which does exist, will have a remedy?
    Mr. Forth: Indeed, the code of practice is to be statutory. It is contained in the Education Bill and it will apply to the territories covered by that Bill. I cannot stray on to the territory represented by the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that the best practices which are now developing and the recognition of various types of special educational need will now be brought forward and clarified by the Bill and I am sure that they will be reflected, if they are not already, in all parts of the United Kingdom.

    Mathematics
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what efforts are being made to raise standards in mathematics.
    Mr. Patten: Under the national curriculum, mathematics is for the first time compulsory for all pupils aged five to 16. With regular assessment and testing, that will do more than anything to raise the competence of young people in mathematics. As recently as Tuesday, I met representatives of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications to discuss those important issues.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the lack of basic skills in numeracy and literacy is estimated to be costing British industry approximately £5 billion per year? Does that not demonstrate the importance of a national curriculum and of regular testing? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been an improvement in mathematic results for seven-year-olds which will eventually have a beneficial knock-on effect for British industry and this country?
    Mr. Patten: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her question. I agree that both the national curriculum and testing are bringing about a steady improvement among school children in mathematics, particularly the use of numbers. We need to do more, however; that is why I welcome the fact that the new general national vocational qualifications will do a great deal to help children in perhaps the bottom 30 per cent. of the ability range to perform better, because that is what British industry and business need in terms of training our work force for the future.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Does the Minister share my concern about the chronic underachievement of girls in mathematics, with almost three times as many boys taking mathematics A-level? Since the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate four years ago, what action has his Department taken to overcome those problems and what new research has he commissioned?
    Mr. Patten: In the past four years, the national curriculum and the new testing regime have been introduced and mathematics continues to be very popular indeed; it is the second most popular A-level subject. Teaching methods for girls as well as for boys are being improved, although I should like work using computers to be balanced by as much use of tables from an early age.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that specialist subjects such as mathematics, physics and chemistry have often been taught in schools by teachers who were underqualified in those subjects. Can he confirm that, as a result of the Government's initiative and desire to raise standards in our schools, that trend is

    143
    lessening and we are getting better qualified mathematicians and scientists into our schools to help to raise standards among our young people?
    Mr. Patten: I can indeed confirm exactly that. The number of underqualified mathematics teachers is diminishing fast and is currently about 10 per cent. of those teaching in secondary schools. I am also pleased to be able to report to the House that in 1992, the last year for which I have figures available, there was a shortage of 73 mathematics teachers out of the total of about 400,000. That is a good picture for the future of maths.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is not simply a question of raising standards, but that maths must be made user-friendly? There is a joy in numbers, but in the last decade the climate against science and technology, which were put across as bad and damaging subjects, led to an acute shortage of entrants for technical degrees in some universities. It is crucial to get the message across as early as possible in schools that those subjects are not bad and damaging. Humanity needs mathematics as much as maths needs the humanities.
    Mr. Patten: I do not want to alarm the hon. Gentleman, but I agree entirely with all that he has said.

    A-S Level
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will consider promoting A-S level GCE examinations at sixth form final examinations.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): A-S examinations are making a significant and worthwhile contribution to broadening post-16 studies. The Government have been encouraging schools, colleges and students to use them as they think best. I look to higher education and employers to take full account of the A-S achievements of young people.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that despite the best efforts of Staffordshire county council, which has decided to knife all travel for students in rural areas to sixth-form colleges and high schools in my constituency, twice as many young people are studying at higher education institutions as in 1979? Does my hon. Friend agree that although A-levels may be the gold standard, they force students to specialise far too early? Would it not be better if universities were encouraged to accept A-S levels, which have a much broader educational approach, as the first means of entry?
    Mr. Boswell: From what my hon. Friend says, it is clear that Staffordshire county council is not going to win a gold standard for anything in education. On the substantial part of my hon. Friend's question about A-S levels, we believe that it is unwise to challenge a standard that is in place by seeking to diminish it. We seek to offer alternative approaches, which may or may not be taken up, as a matter of choice. Already more than 50,000 A-S levels are taken each year, including, last year, my own daughter's. Alongside that, as an alternative, we have at last tackled the problem of vocational qualifications by providing clear, comprehensive and comprehensible alternatives through the national vocational qualifications and general
    144
    national vocational qualifications. Pupils and future employers can decide on the most appropriate route to take.

    Selection (Penrith)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has held with Cumbria county council on the introduction of selection in education in Penrith.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The decision to restore selection in Penrith is an absolute outrage. Does the Minister not realise that people of all political persuasions in Penrith reject that decision, as they did last year when consultation took place in the community? If Ministers are impaled on the nonsense of the policy, can we have a ballot of the people of Penrith and the surrounding communities so that they have the opportunity of rejecting the Government's nonsense?
    Mr. Forth: There seems to be a certain desperation in what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not know what he is worried about. It seems that our response to what the school governors wanted and our fulfilling of a need in education for a diversity of provision causes Opposition Members upset and discouragement. I am intrigued by the suggestion that we should start running things by local referendum—I do not know whether that is now Labour party policy. I believe that the combination of governor decisions in schools and the election of governors and of local education authorities which are fully accountable creates sufficient democracy. I do not believe that we should go down the route suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must have equality of opportunity in education in Penrith and everywhere else? If we are to educate children according to their age, aptitude and ability—as we must, and as the Education Act 1944 rightly laid down—there must be self-selection by children, and schools must have the right to select according to subject and other disciplines. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the only way to give every child the maximum opportunity to fulfil his or her potential?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgeable and experienced in such matters, points us in the right direction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that it is his desire to respond to what local schools say about how they want to serve their local communities and to advance towards the policies that their governors choose.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: People do not want it. The Tories do not want it.
    Mr. Forth: The case cited is a good example and one that I believe will be followed by many schools up and down the country [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will examine each case on its merits and make a calm and rational educational judgment/. Interruption.J—as Opposition Members seem incapable of doing.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister think again, as the Penrith decision is turning the clock back in a ridiculous way? The reintroduction of a crude and fallible selection at 11 will deny education opportunities to many children. That decision is clearly wrong on educational grounds. Does the Minister not realise that comprehensive education has produced good results in educational terms, as evidenced by last year's GCSE examinations? How on earth does dividing children at 11 years of age fit in with what the Prime Minister says about creating a classless society?
    Mr. Forth: Many people believe that a certain amount of turning the clock back might not be a bad thing in some respects. I can only say to the hon. Lady that not only can a decision like this not be reversed, but this decision certainly should not be reversed. I believe that it reflects the ability of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to respond to local desires and demands in the best interests of the education of children up and down the country. [Interruption.] If the Opposition will take the time to reflect more calmly on the matter, they will see that there is not much to get excited about.

    Seven-year-olds (Testing)
    Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the results of the tests for seven-year-olds.
    Mr. Patten: Last December I published the national and local results of seven-year-olds in the 1992 tests. Those results fully supported the importance of the tests, showing some worrying variations in performance between local education authorities and continuing weaknesses in key areas of the curriculum: for example, the tests revealed that just under a quarter of seven-year-olds still could not read independently by that age. Much more needs to be done.
    Mr. Pickles: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which will be read with great interest by teachers in my constituency. Given that the children who sat the test for seven-year-olds are likely to be the beneficiaries in full of our education reforms, and given that a recent report showed that the quality of both teaching and learning were improved by the tests, does my right hon. Friend agree that children go through the education system only once and that valuable lessons can be learnt by those who seek to boycott the tests at 14? Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that he will not leave these children at the mercy of those who want to ruin their education and that he will continue with our education reforms so that every child gets a chance?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has carried with him his robust turn of phrase and accurate analysis of a situation in his journey from Bradford to becoming a born-again southerner in Brentwood and Ongar.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can give him every undertaking for which he asks. The evidence produced by the independent inspectorate this week clearly shows that, year on year, the tests have produced improvements in learning and teacher assessment. Best of all, they have improved the expectations of individual teachers about what children can achieve.
    Mr. Skinner: Would it not be a good idea for the whole Cabinet to have another test? Is it not a cheek to be talking about testing seven-year-old kids when the Cabinet got the poll tax and council tax figures wrong, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was £15 billion out on the public sector borrowing requirement and £10 billion out on the balance of payments and chucked £10 billion away on Black Wednesday, and the right hon. Gentleman—who is supposed to speak for education—is educated beyond his intelligence?
    Mr. Patten: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the voters of Bolsover clearly got their electoral tests wrong time after time.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the use of the seven-year-olds' test results to report to parents in terms of value added in future years, which will be much more useful than giving an absolute level of result?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tests will make it possible to judge the improvement or not of a group of children at each age level as they progress from seven to 11 to 14 to 16. It is the best sort of value added measurement that the tests will reveal over the years.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will not the Secretary of State admit, to his own shame, that the poor results to which he referred to for seven-year-olds were produced after 14 years of Tory government? The Office for Standards in Education report to which his hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred, and to which the Secretary of State referred in his reply to him, says that
    "the benefits and costs are finely balanced. There are some clearly discernible signs that the impact of 'teaching to the test' and the complexities of the assessment required could lead to a distortion between teaching, learning and assessment."
    Will the Secretary of State heed that warning and undertake a review of this tortuous system of tests and assessment, consult teachers and then introduce reforms along the lines of those that were introduced by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—reforms which have already happily been accepted by teachers, parents and pupils in Scotland?
    Mr. Patten: Each year's tests are preparations for the next year's tests. Each year's tests are refined on the basis of experience of the tests of the previous year. The pilot tests have conclusively shown, both at age seven and at age 14, that there is an unacceptably long tail of children—perhaps up to 30 per cent.—who do not come out of school with the standards of literacy that we should expect. That is justification for the testing regime, let alone the very clear way in which the inspectorate has pointed to these tests as raising standards overall and the expectations of teachers about what children should achieve. Above all else, I believe that we need a more competitive education system and that expectations should be very much greater than they have been in the past.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of children who will be in grant-maintained schools by the end of the current year.
    Mr. Patten: Current estimates suggest that more than 625,000 children will be educated in self-governing grant-maintained schools by 1 January 1994.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely helpful reply. Does he agree that that figure of 625,000 children underlines, as nothing else could, just how successful these schools are and how popular they are with the parents who vote them into existence? Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning Labour Members who wish to abolish these schools, which provide parents with additional choice?
    Mr. Patten: Already by this afternoon, about 15 per cent. of all our secondary schools have voted to go grant maintained. That number will increase rapidly. Indeed, the number of grant-maintained schools will increase so rapidly that, despite the pledges of Labour Front-Bench Members, by the time of the general election in 1996 or 1997 the movement to grant-maintained schools will be absolutely irreversible.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Secretary of State join my in congratulating the parents and governors of Hinchingbrooke school in Huntingdon, which is in the Prime Minister's constituency, on having recently voted by an overwhelming majority to stay with the local education authority?
    Mr. Patten: Each school must make up its own mind whether it wishes to be self governing or a local education authority controlled school. Month after month, year after year, every time that schools hold a ballot, eight out of 10 resoundingly vote yes.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the teachers, parents and many hundreds of pupils in Friesland school, the first school in my constituency to go grant maintained and whose proposals he has just approved? Does he agree that the widely publicised inspectors' report on grant-maintained schools shows not only that they work well but that self government is the best future for every school in the country?
    Mr. Patten: I have two things to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight). First, I congratulate the school very warmly indeed, in particular because I know what the electors in that school had to go through, in terms of the vicious campaigning against the school becoming grant maintained. Secondly, the inspectors' report, published at 2.30 this afternoon, points clearly to the overwhelming advantages of self-governing, grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Steinberg: Does the Secretary of State agree that he and his colleagues told us when grant-maintained status was introduced that it would allow schools to escape from bad local education authorities? Can he tell us how many grant-maintained schools there are in Tory authorities and how many there are in Labour authorities?
    Mr. Patten: There have been ballots in nine out of 10 local education authorities. Very soon, there will have been ballots in every education authority.
    Sir Anthony Grant: On the question of Hinchingbrooke school, in the Prime Minister's constituency, is my right hon. Friend aware that the headmaster, as is typical of a
    148
    Liberal Democrat activist, has chopped and changed his views so much that it is hardly any wonder that the parents are totally bemused?
    Mr. Patten: I did not know that there were many Liberal Democrat activists left in Cambridgeshire. I have nothing to say on any individual ballot, other than that it reflects the individual wishes of the parents who have taken part in that ballot. I believe that it is critical, however, that parents have in front of them a clear set of information about the pros and cons of becoming grant maintained. It is equally important that no local education authority or local education officer is involved in campaigning with misinformation in this way.

    Second-tier Schools
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on 23 June, Official Report, column 123, what progress he has made in eliminating second-tier schools.
    Mr. Forth: The national curriculum will ensure that all pupils receive a coherent education, relevant to their needs and set in a clear overall framework. Regular assessment will ensure that parents and teachers know what progress pupils are making. Every school maintained wholly or partly by public funds will be inspected at least once every four years by independent teams led by an inspector registered by Ofsted. Education associations can intervene where these inspections reveal a school to be failing. Taken together, these measures should ensure that standards rise steadily in every school throughout the country.
    Dr. Jones: Can the Minister explain to the House exactly what the Secretary of State meant when he used the term "second-tier schools" last June, and why they exist after 14 years of Tory Government, 17 pieces of education legislation and 400 additional powers for the Secretary of State under the Education Reform Act 1988? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Secretary of State seemed to recognise belatedly yesterday when he equated under-achievement with low spending? Will he, therefore, congratulate Birmingham City Council on a 9 per cent. increase in its education budget and also make representations to make up the shortfall in the standard spending assessment of capital financing, so that Birmingham can further increase its spending? Will he intervene to stop the cuts in education spending that are occurring throughout the country?
    Mr. Forth: I hope that the hon. Lady is not attempting to justify and defend Birmingham's record in regard to education spending. That would take a much longer question than even she has just managed to ask. What my right hon. Friend meant, I believe, was this: the provision by local education authorities throughout the country has been, to say the least, somewhat patchy and rather variable. All the measures that we are taking—the curriculum, standard testing, independent inspection by Ofsted and the safety net of education associations—are designed to ensure that no school will be allowed to fail its pupils and no local education authority will be allowed to fail its parents and pupils as, regrettably, as has been the case in the past. That is what my right hon. Friend meant and that is what our Bill is designed to do.

    Pupil Numbers (Kent)
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children currently are educated in local education authority and grant-maintained grammar schools in the county of Kent; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Forth: In January 1992, the latest figures available, nearly 26,000 pupils attended grammar schools in Kent. Of these, 7,000 attended schools which are now self-governing state schools.
    Mr. Dunn: Is it not a fact that the people of Kent enjoy grammar schools and a range and variety of secondary schools that are second to none because of the existence of the Conservative-controlled county council and the election of a Conservative Government in 1979? What advice, therefore, would my hon. Friend offer the people of Kent on 6 May in order that they may keep their grammar schools?
    Mr. Forth: I believe that the people of Kent will wish to consider the contrast between the quality and diversity of choice that are available to them under the present educational regime in Kent and the drab uniformity that would be offered by the Opposition. I believe that, having considered that, they will have no doubt in coming to the conclusion that a Conservative vote in the elections in May will be the only way to guarantee the continuance of the excellent record that Kent has had so far.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: In those Tory-controlled authorities where schools select their pupils, what happens to parental choice?
    Mr. Forth: Parental choice, or "preference" as it is expressed in the statute, is of course at the core of what we believe is the way forward in education. The support of parents up and down the land, to which my right hon. Friend referred a moment ago, in voting consistently for more grant-maintained schools, demonstrates the increasing number expressing themselves to be satisfied with our policies.

    Technical Education
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress is being made in the promotion of technical education.
    Mr. Patten: The launch of the new and independent further education sector on 1 April is a clear demonstration of the high priority we are giving to developing the technical and other skills the country needs. We are funding a record 25 per cent. increase in the number of students entering further education over the next three years, and shall see higher and more relevant achievement—not least through the new general national vocational qualifications.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that technical education is one of the key factors for investment by industry in Britain? Will he welcome the results that have just come out for 1990, showing that 20 per cent. of those entering degree courses in engineering already have vocational qualifications? Does he agree that we will build
    150
    on that with the NVQ system, and that that will be good for jobs, for investment in Britain and, above all, good for this country?
    Mr. Patten: It is important that universities and other higher education institutions treat vocational qualifications seriously, because we should have been doing that for a very long time. I also applaud the excellent work of further education colleges, some teaching to degree level, not least the excellent North Hertfordshire college.

    Books
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average sum per pupil spent on the purchase of books in primary and in secondary schools during 1992.
    Mr. Boswell: In 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available, the average expenditure on books and equipment in LEA-maintained schools in England was £41 per nursery and primary pupil and £80 per secondary pupil.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister realise that the costs of books and papers for teachers dealing with the national curriculum and testing in our primary schools now greatly exceed the sums available for the purchase of books for the children? Does the Minister not consider it absurd that more literature—if that is the right word—is reaching primary schools for the teachers' reading than for the pupils?
    Mr. Boswell: The Government are aware of the costs of books and equipment. That is one reason why we provide excellent resources for the delivery of the national curriculum. It is also a matter of fact that we have increased spending throughout the country on books and equipment by some 31 per cent. in real terms during our period in office. May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a word with the Rotherham LEA, because it appears from the figures I have quoted that in that relevant year its spending was only half the national average? That may be a matter of some concern, although it is a decision for the LEA.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind that grant-maintained schools have more scope to spend money on priorities such as books, will my hon. Friend congratulate Councillor Heeley, a Labour councillor in Amber Valley, who recently, as chairman of governors, proved right the old adage that it is never too late to learn by supporting the school's successful bid to go grant maintained? Does my hon. Friend think that this presages a change in Labour policy, bearing in mind that the Labour party has already done U-turns on devolved budgets, the core curriculum and testing?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. We are always pleased to accept conversions, even at a late hour. The body of evidence building up in favour of the attractions of grant-maintained schools and their capacity to deliver and resource education is growing. I am glad that even members of the Labour party are beginning to accept it.
    Mr. Don Foster: In view of the answer that the Minister has just given, will he make it clear to the House whether he believes that what the hon. Member for Amber Valley

    151
    (Mr. Oppenheim) said—that schools that opt for grant-maintained status are automatically given more money for more books—is true or false?
    Mr. Boswell: The fact is that they receive no additional resources for their current expenditure and the fact that they are able to make better use of them is a tribute to them and to their governors.

    Testing
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on progress made in developing and implementing testing in schools.
    Mr. Patten: Assessment and testing are integral to the national curriculum and are needed to raise standards. This year sees the third year of assessment of seven-year-olds which is already serving to improve teaching and learning, as the inspectorate has already pointed out. I expect the tests for 14-year-olds, starting this year, and the tests for 11-year-olds, starting next year, to have the same effects.
    Mr. Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will know, through oral questions before Christmas and through certain conversations since, of my concern about the administrative burdens being caused by certain tests. Is he aware that there has been a welcome in Somerset schools for his decision not to publish the results of this year's tests and also for certain of the changes he has made in the tests? Will he do his best to ensure consistency and ease of administration in these tests?
    Mr. Patten: I welcome any welcome from Somerset and I thank my hon. Friend for that. One of the things that the tests show is that there is, alas, still too much variation in assessment of quality across the country between Somerset and other counties. That is something we need to look at over the next year.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Secretary of State realise that there is grave anxiety among organisations that care for children with disabilities that the Government's concentration on tests and on league tables will lead to over-concentration of school energies on high flyers, to the detriment of children with special needs? What will he do to ensure that that does not happen?
    Mr. Patten: I do not think that that is the case. I have been to two special schools in as many weeks and I have talked to teachers there who say, on the one hand, that they wish to help those children who have severe learning difficulties but that, on the other hand, they wish the tests to be used to try to stretch children with special educational needs to the maximum of their ability. That is right. That is what we all have to do in classrooms all over the land in every sort of school—to stretch the children as much as possible.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British people are becoming increasingly fed up with the unlawful activities—[Interruption.]—with the unlawful activities of French farmers and French fishermen? Does he further agree with me that their actions are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom, its people and our trade?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is true that the recent action by French farmers and fishermen is totally unacceptable. I am sure that the whole House will have seen that the French ambassador made clear yesterday beyond doubt his condemnation of their activity in the clearest possible terms. I very much welcome that. My hon. Friend may also know that the French authorities have undertaken to provide safe passage for any consignments of which we notify them. We are pursuing the recent fisheries-related incidents actively with the French authorities and we look to them to restore order, to bring the perpetrators to book and to guarantee unfettered access.
    Mr. John Smith: I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate the British film industry on its further success in winning five Oscars last night. Does the Prime Minister not agree that our film industry could be even more successful if it received the same backing and support from Government as do its competitors in other countries?
    The Prime Minister: The success of the British film industry in the private sector owes a great deal to the fact that it is in the private sector, and to the individual skills of writers, actors and directors.
    Mr. Smith: Does not the Prime Minister understand that the number of films made in Britain has plummeted from 50 to 12, and that the minimal help offered to the industry in last year's budget does not in any way make up for the abolition of capital allowances, the Eady levy or the malign effect of the Broadcasting Act 1990? Does the Prime Minister not understand that if real encouragement were given to the industry, we could increase jobs and overseas earnings?
    The Prime Minister: Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman equates real encouragement with the spending in subsidy of taxpayers' money without giving any indication of whether there would be corresponding reductions elsewhere—an increase in borrowing and perhaps higher interest rates or higher taxation. When he asks for more expenditure, he owes it to the public to say from where the money is coming.
    Mr. Smith: But does the Prime Minister not understand that we have in this country a fabulous pool of talent in our film industry—[Interruption.] This is a serious subject—
    Madam Speaker: Order. These interruptions are a total waste of the time of the House. In addition, they are an abuse of the House. The House will now come to order.
    Mr. Smith: It is remarkable that Conservative Members find it a matter of humour when we are talking about jobs, British films and overseas earnings. Does the Prime Minister not understand that a modest investment in our industry would give us a huge return in employment and vital overseas earnings?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one point, which is that our arts generally—I include the film industry in that—are among the best, if not the best, in the world. That has repeatedly been shown to be the case. I hope that, in the light of that, he and his hon. Friends will support the National Lottery Etc. Bill, which provides greater support for the arts than ever before.
    Mr. Coe: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dramatic reduction, announced only a couple of days ago, in the number of cot deaths in this country, of about 60 per cent. in the first nine months of this year? Does he agree that that is testimony to sensitively targeted health education, "The Health of the Nation" strategy and the Anne Diamond campaign?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the key reasons for that. It is a very remarkable achievement and I am delighted about it, as everybody else will be. I wholeheartedly congratulate both Anne Diamond and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the measures they have taken.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Now that the Prime Minister is himself a year and a day closer to collecting his old age pension, he may be interested to know that the Post Office is at the moment considering plans which could remove entitlement by pensioners to collect their pension payments by way of DSS giro over post office counters. Is he aware that post offices derive 30 or 40 per cent. of their total income from those transactions and that any alternative method of payment—perhaps by way of banks or building societies—could eventually lead to a charge being made for the payment of that service? Will the Prime Minister summon the Ministers involved in those discussions, irrespective of what other damage or problems may flow from the privatisation of the Post Office, and make it clear to them and the House that the payment of pensions by means of automated credit transfer will not be made compulsory?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the sensitivity of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and it is one of many matters that will need to be considered in the future.
    Mr. Harris: The whole House will have welcomed my right hon. Friend's remarks regarding the dispute with France. Will he go further and make it perfectly clear to his opposite number, the French Prime Minister, that the
    154
    Royal Navy will not stand idly by if there is any attempt to repeat the disgraceful incidents of the weekend by French fishermen?
    The Prime Minister: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), we have made perfectly clear to the French ambassador our very strong condemnation of recent incidents. He has made it equally clear that such action is not acceptable to the French Government, and we have made it clear to the French Government that we look to them to deal with those incidents.
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Byers: As council tax demands are being sent out, will the Prime Minister explain to the House why, under the system of financing local authorities, his constituency of Huntingdon, according to the Government, suffers greater poverty than Blyth Valley? Is he aware that, even under that unfair system of local government finance, the average council tax in Labour authorities will be £14 less than in Conservative authorities? Does the Prime Minister agree that the message to council tax payers is clear: Labour councils cost you less and serve you better?
    The Prime Minister: I award the hon. Gentleman the prize for the cheekiest question this year. Let me tell him that the 10 highest taxes in band C are Harlow—Labour; Newcastle—Labour; Greenwich—Labour; Manchester —Labour; Haringey—Labour; Liverpool—Labour; Hendon—Labour; North Tyneside—Labour; Salford— Labour; and Derwentshire—Labour, all at band C. The lowest are Wellingborough—Conservative; Westminster —Conservative; Isle of Scilly—Independent; City of London—Independent; Hambleton—Conservative; Hinckley and Bosworth—Conservative; Huntingdonshire —Conservative; Basingstoke—Conservative; South Cambs—Independent, and Fareham—Conservative.
    Mr. Trotter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Tyneside is very grateful to him for his decision to go ahead with the order for the helicopter carrier, the largest and most important ship to be ordered for the Royal Navy in years, which will give Swan Hunter the chance to win four years' work? Will he visit the yard while the ship is being built, as we are confident that our team will win the order?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly must not pre-judge the outcome of the tender, but I agree with my hon. Friend that confirmation of the helicopter carrier in the defence programme is very good news indeed for the British shipbuilding industry. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has argued long and hard for this particular vessel to be in the programme. I am sure that there will be very keen competition for the order. I assure my hon. Friend that I will follow its progress with the same interest that he will.
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Prime Minister aware of the remark made by one of his Ministers in another place who said—
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not quote.
    Mr. Sheerman: She said that although she is responsible for 804 public appointments, she cannot remember knowingly appointing a Labour supporter. Given the sad state in which this country finds itself, is it not time that the Prime Minister started appointing people on the basis of competence and ability—[interruption.]—on the basis of competence and ability, rather than according to the corrupt political patronage for which his Conservative Government are notorious?
    The Prime Minister: We most certainly do appoint on competence, and there are people of all political persuasions who hold public appointments and have been appointed throughout the period of this Government since 1979. My hon. Friend whom the hon. Gentleman quotes used the word "knowingly" to indicate the fact that the political persuasion is not relevant to the competence and the appointment.

    Hartley
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Hartley.
    The Prime Minister: I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I visited my hon. Friend's constituency last Friday.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Hartley are fully behind the Government's plans to reform the National Union of Students and that they are interested in knowing his views on the role of trade unions in our modern political society?
    The Prime Minister: Trade unions do have an important and mature role in our society. Their role ought to be to look after the interests of their members—not to align themselves particularly with a political party, not to throw votes behind the leadership of that party, not to provide the finance for that party, and not to sponsor every Front-Bench Member of the Opposition.

    Engagements
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Wright: Does the Prime Minister recall that he told the House some time ago that a referendum on the Maastricht treaty would be unnecessary as the country had decided that matter in the general election? Does he accept that that was a foolish statement—that, whatever was decided in the general election, it was not the Maastricht treaty? Does he understand that it is both foolish and dangerous to tell people that they have decided something when they have had no part in the decision?
    The Prime Minister: The strict answer to the hon. Gentleman's earlier question is no. The hon. Gentleman knows very well why I think that it is right that this House should decide the fate of the Maastricht treaty in all its aspects. That is the basis of parliamentary democracy, and, as I understand it, it is the position of his own Front Bench.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townsend: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the support, in all quarters of the House, for the United Kingdom's early return to UNESCO, which has been greatly reformed in recent years? Bearing in mind the fact that President Clinton is about to take the United States back into that organisation, would it not be prudent for my right hon. Friend to secure this country's return beforehand?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend and others of my hon. Friends made me well aware of the strength of their feelings on this matter when they came to see me recently. As I indicated to them, we are keeping the matter under review, and no final decisions have been taken. I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's concern in mind when we make our decisions.

British Rail (Financial Objectives)
3.31 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have had a request from the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the new financial objectives for British Rail. As you will know, this important matter has in the past been the subject of statements to the House so that hon. Members on both sides might question the Minister concerned. On this occasion, there is to be a 23 per cent. cut in grants to British Rail, as well as the lowest level of investment since nationalisation in 1948, yet the statement of new objectives is to be buried in the written reply to a planted question from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). Has there been any request for a statement? Can you, Madam Speaker, protect the interests of the House?
Madam Speaker: As I have informed the House—I do so on regular occasions—whether a Minister makes an announcement by way of a statement at the Dispatch Box or by means of a written reply is up to the Minister himself. The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I have not had any request for a ministerial statement today.

Transplantation of Human Organs
3.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to implement the recommendations of the Committee chaired by the late Sir Hector Maclennan and the report on Medical Research and Health of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology relating to the transplant of human organs.
The purpose of this Bill is to allow hospitals to take the organs of anyone, other than people who have contracted out during their lifetime, through the central computer at Bristol. If legislation along these lines were achieved, we should avoid very difficult personal decisions being made at the point of maximum grief. These decisions have to be taken quickly as organs begin to deteriorate within half an hour.
This goes back a long way. In the 1970s I attempted on eight occasions to introduce similar legislation. In those days it was supported by Miss Mervyn Pike, who was the chairman of the Conservative health committee, by Col. Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott, who was a doctor deeply involved in the subject, and by the late and not forgotten Dr. Anthony Trafford, a distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament and renal transplant surgeon.
I have among the sponsors today some of those in the House who know most about these matters, including my hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), a professor of neuro-surgery, for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who is a doctor, and other colleagues who have taken a deep interest in these delicate matters.
In the summer of 1969 I did a survey of 1,000 families in the then West Lothian constituency on the ground that people would talk more willingly to a known Member of Parliament than to pollsters. Of those surveyed, 364 would have gone for opting-out; 312 said yes to opting-out but preferred the voluntary or card system to be given a proper chance first, there were 208 "don't knows", and the balance of 116 were against, including three state registered nurses who wanted resources for simple operations such as hernias before transplant surgery.
Even at that time there was a good deal of support for the opting-out system which, with qualifications, has been recommended by the distinguished surgeon who was the father of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), one of the sponsors of my Bill. Even though it had the personal support of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the legislation which I proposed then was objected to chiefly by Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, and his Department.
I do not in any way belittle the seriousness of those who oppose the Bill because, as the Minister knows, I went to the Department of Health and he courteously gave me an interview and explained that a number of surgeons, held in high regard by the Department, were unhappy about the element of compulsion. So it does the case that I put forward no service to pretend that there is not some serious opposition.
On the other hand, there is strong and powerful medical support. What has prompted me to try the ten-minute Bill procedure is the report of the Government's own committee, the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, entitled "A Report on Medical Research and Health" published with the imprimatur of the Cabinet Office, which says:

159
"Organ transplantation:
Through progress in surgical techniques, reinforced by the development of effective immunosuppressants and antibiotics, effective transplantation of organs (kidney, hearts, liver, cornea) and cells (bone marrow) over the past forty years has been a major achievement of 20th century medicine.
Kidney transportation is now the treatment of choice for end-stage renal failure, and bone marrow transplantation has become the preferred treatment for some forms of leukaemia and marrow aplasia.
Apart from bone marrow transplantation, cellular transplantation is a relatively new concept but is likely to have an important role in the future as growth factors and new knowledge of cellular biology allow specialised cells to be grown and manipulated in vitro by genetic modification."
Then we come to the crunch of the report:
"Although the technologies are available, the full benefits to patients which can be achieved are not being realised because of our shortage of organs for transplantation. While the number of transplants in the first half of 1992 significantly exceeded that in the same period of 1991, less than one fifth of possible recipients received kidney transplants. Since past measures to increase organ supply have failed, radical actions need to be considered."
Dr. Peter Doyle, chairman of the council's medical research and health committee, is quoted in The Independent as saying that in 1991 not one single kidney transplant was achieved through the card system. A lot of us carry our cards, but in the whole year it apparently achieved precisely nothing.
So to the recommendation of the Government's own report:
"We recommend therefore that the health departments enhance the number of organs available and investigate mechanisms to introduce an opt-out system similar to those operating in Belgium, France and Austria."
"Action",
it says:
"Health Departments to introduce an opt-out system for organ donation."
This ten-minute Bill does not encapsulate anything that is out of the way or in any way maverick. It simply seeks to face up to what we all know, from our constituencies, are very sad cases of desperate need for some kind of matching tissue, tissue which far too often goes up in the incinerator of the crematorium. It is for these reasons—humane reasons and reasons of medicine—that I hope not only that the House will give a hearing to the Bill but, far more important, because we know that ten-minute Bills are kite-flyers, that some kind of action will be taken within the next 12 months to deal with an acute situation in which there is an ever greater shortage—it increased by 7 per cent. last year—of matching human organs.
Question put and agreed to..
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tam Dalyell, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Winston Churchill, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Max Madden, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Alfred Morris and Ms Dawn Primarolo.

TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS
Mr. Tam Dalyell accordingly presented a Bill to implement the recommendations of the Committee chaired by the late Sir Hector Maclennan and the report on Medical Research and Health of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology relating to the transplant of human organs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 April, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]
Orders of the Day

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

Clause 1

  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
  Amendment proposed [25 March]: No. 227, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 238'.—[Mr. Richard Shepherd]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  3.43 pm
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I remind the Committee that we are also considering the following: Amendment No. 231, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 228'.
  Amendment No. 232, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 228a'.
  Amendment No. 30, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'and IV' and insert 'IV and V.'.
  Amendment (a) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  '(except Article J.2 of Title V)'.
  Amendment (b) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  '(except Article J.4 of Title V)'.
  Amendment (c) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  'but not Article J.1 in Title V thereof'.
  Amendment (d) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  'but not Article J.3 in Title V thereof'.
  Amendment (e) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  'but not Article J.5 in Title V thereof'.
  Amendment (f) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  'but not Article J.6 in Title V thereof'.
  Amendment (g) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  'but not Article J.7 in Title V thereof'.
  Amendment (h) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  'but not Article J.8 in Title V thereof'.
  Amendment (i) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  'but not Article J.9 in Title V thereof'.
  Amendment (j) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  'but not Article J.10 in Title V thereof'.
  Amendment (k) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add
  'but not Article J.11 in Title V thereof'.
  Amendment No. 224, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'and IV' and insert 'IV and V'.
  New clause 5—Foreign, security and defence policy—
  'The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report of any case in which decisions taken, or proposed to be taken, by the Union in the course of implementing a common foreign, security and defence policy (pursuant to Article B in Title I of the Maastricht Treaty) arc in his opinion inimical to the best interests of the United Kingdom.'.

  161
  I have two short statements to make.
  First, I promised the Committee some time ago that I would announce in good time any changes that I made to my provisional—and I emphasise the word "provisional" —selection of amendments. Right hon. and hon. Members will see that I have selected for debate new clause 75 on transferred powers (commencement). As a corollary, I do not propose to select amendment No. 27 for debate or for separate Division.
  Secondly, may I draw the Committee's attention to the omission of some eight columns from the Official Report of our previous sitting, at column 1103? I understand that the omission was due to an oversight at the printing stage. The Missing columns have been printed as a corrigendum in the Hansard report of proceedings on Monday 29 March, following column 138. For the convenience of hon. Members who may be collating the reports of the Committee's proceedings, the corrigendum will also be reprinted as a separate supplement, which will be available in the Vote Office tomorrow morning.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am obliged to you for making available your provisional selection of amendments. This is the first occasion on which we have had to find out whether our amendments have been selected, so may I draw your attention to amendment No. 458, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), by some other hon. Friends and by myself? The amendment relates to sub-paragraph 2—
  The Chairman: Page number?
  Mr. Leighton: I do not know the page number, Mr. Morris. I apologise for that.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Page 3205.
  Mr. Leighton: I am advised that the page number is 3205. The amendment relates to clause 1(2), which authorises further legislative powers for the European Parliament. Within the intergovernmental titles of the treaty the European Parliament is mentioned nearly a dozen times—for example, article J.7 requires the presidency to consult the Parliament on matters of foreign policy. In view of those enhanced powers in the intergovernmental part of the treaty, would it not be appropriate for the House to decide whether the Government should keep it fully informed, through six-monthly reports, of the activities of the European Parliament? That is what the amendment asks for, so may I request that you reconsider your selection, Mr. Morris?
  Mr. Chairman: I shall consider the matter, without commitment. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that we have already debated that issue.
  Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I welcome your decision to allow a debate and vote on new clause 75; that will be widely welcomed. But I express some concern about the other part of your statement, in which you told the Committee that you did not now intend to allow amendment No. 27 to be formally moved, debated or even voted upon—I believe that that is what you implied.
  Our case for a debate flows from the Attorney-General's statement at the time of the original debate on
  162
  the group of amendments that included amendment No. 27. That statement purported to change totally the legal standing of the amendment and its possible impact on the legislation. The Attorney-General's statement was not universally approved, and ran contrary to the long-held view of the legal officers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, let alone the long-held views of many legal and constitutional experts outside the House.
  I put it to you, Mr. Morris, that that statement changed the whole nature of the circumstances that apply. That being so, the House is entitled to a further discussion about amendment No. 27. When I spoke in the original debate, I said that I intended to move that amendment and to ask for a vote upon it, and I believe that, notwithstanding our welcome for your decision on new clause 75, the Committee is entitled to that opportunity.
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order, but I must tell him, and all other hon. Members of the Committee, that I have come to my conclusion after a great deal of thought. I repeat what I have said all the way through—that hon. Members are most welcome to come to see me and discuss such matters. However, I should say that in the circumstances I attach great importance to our having a focused debate rather than a repetition of earlier and broader debates.
  Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. No one is opposed to the idea of a focused debate. The reality is that new clause 75 and amendment No. 27 are completely within the same focus and address the same point. Even if you say that we should not be allowed to reopen the discussion on amendment No. 27, surely that is different from preventing the Committee from having a vote on it. That is an entirely different point. As amendment No. 27 is clearly in order—there is no question of its not being in order—and as it has been debated, I find it strange that you should rule that the Committee should be denied the opportunity to vote on it.
  The Chairman: As I have told the Committee several times, I am always happy to assist right hon. and hon. Members. However, it is not our practice to argue the merits or otherwise of my selection across the Committee Floor. I hope that we can leave it at that.
  Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. When you decided to select new clause 75, did you consider new clause 67? Did you consider whether, as it deals with the area of discussion relevant to new clause 75, it might be possible to link it with that new clause and to allow a vote on it?
  The Chairman: I obviously take into consideration all new clauses that are in order. I come to a conclusion having considered them.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris, concerning the group of amendments on which we are about to embark and especially amendment No. 30, to which is attached amendments (a) to (k). May we have a separate Division on amendment (h)? I hope that a Division can be called at the relevant point of the Bill. You will be aware —
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been with us for almost every sitting of the Committee. He must know

  163
  that the Chair must listen to the debate and then decide whether a Division is appropriate. It is not a matter for a point of order before we get to the debate.
  Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I apologise for breaking the rule. In Standing Committees, the convention has been as I described it. I apologise for breaking the convention if there are different rules for a Committee of the whole House.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has registered his point. There is no point in arguing it now.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As one of the authors of new clause 75, I clearly welcome your decision to select it. However, I am slightly surprised by your ruling on amendment No. 27. New clause 75 was specifically worded to be complementary to amendment No. 27. I wonder whether you would reconsider.
  The Chairman: I have given a substantive answer to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who raised that matter.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I heard you say that there will be no debate on amendment No. 27 and that we shall not be able to vote on it. I can just about see the argument for not having a debate, but for the life of me I cannot understand why we —Back-Bench Members and the lot of us—cannot have a Division on amendment No. 27 in view of the fact that a Division takes only a quarter of an hour. The Government allow us to talk a donkey's hind leg off, but they are frightened of a vote that they may lose.
  You, Mr. Morris, have selected new clause 75, but you have told us that we cannot vote on amendment No. 27. I ask myself which part of the Committee will be laughing about that. It is Tory Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not always."] It is on this issue. They are enamoured by the idea that there is to be no vote. Why can we not go through the Lobbies for a quarter of an hour on one of the most important issues on which the Government might well be defeated? We can have votes on everything else, but not on this. I smell a rat.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman can smell what he likes. Time is not a consideration. I suggest that he reads new clause 75 with a little more care.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I think that you will know that, despite probably being a problem boy on this Bill; I have paid the highest tribute, both inside and outside the Chamber, to the way in which you have Conducted the proceedings, We should all like to pay tribute to you for the way in which you have done it.
  My sole point of order is that amendment No. 27 is the only amendment to allow the Committee to determine the simple issue whether the British taxpayer should be obliged to pay a twelfth share of the costs of the social chapter for the 11. My constituents have views on that matter, and I think that the majority of Members of Parliament would probably take the view that the amendment should be passed so that we can determine whether it is fair to ask the British people to pay for something being undertaken by the other 11. What possible reason can there be for depriving us of the opportunity to express an opinion on whether our people
  164
  should be obliged to pay those costs? I have been in the House of Commons for a long time and I genuinely cannot understand the argument against giving us that opportunity. Otherwise, how can we express our view as to whether it is right and proper for British taxpayers to pay someone else's costs?
  The Chairman: I have given a substantive answer and made an offer to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads new clause 75 with a little more care.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You rightly say that we should read the new clause with a great deal of care and I am sure that that will be done. Having read it again with even more care, and knowing that other hon. Members have read it with even more legal knowledge than care, one may well take the view that amendment No. 27 and new clause 75 are different and will have a very different impact on the progress of the Bill, which is obviously of great importance to many hon. Members. If that is the case, may I beseech you that, if a significant weight of Back-Bench opinion wants to vote on amendment No. 27, that can be done?
  The Chairman: I listen to submissions.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The main security threat to western Europe is no longer the Soviet Union, or even any of its successors, but the dangers inherent in the economic, political and ethnic instabilities that have affected the continent of Europe as a result of the break-up of the Warsaw pact and the consequential growth of nationalism.
  I was fortunate enough to be in Berlin on the day that the wall came down and I saw east Germans—mainly young east Germans—flooding through into west Berlin to begin the process of German unification. That process has been constitutionally completed, but economically the strains and tensions of reconciling two quite opposed systems have provoked the nationalism, racism and phobia redolent of a previous and more threatening era. That is why I believe that Germany and German unification must be the starting point for our debate on a common European foreign and security policy. Only by incorporating a united. Germany with in a developing,common and coherent European policy can we hope to avoid the instability, divisions and nationalism that have twice scarred western Europe this century.
  In trying to understand what is being. attempted, it is worth. while thinking back to. the ideas underlying the treaty of Rome. Moves towards. European integration after the second world war sprang from two main factors: first, the realisation that strength lies in unity; secondly, the overriding need to avoid further military conflict in western Europe
  The. European Community, however; is much more than an alliance of sovereign nations which happen to have common interests because of their common geographical location. The treaty of Rome emphasises mutual interdependence. One of the founding fathers of the Community, Jean Monnet, put it this way:
  "Co-operation between nations, however important, does not solve anything. What we must seek is a pooling of interests of the peoples of Europe."

  165
  Those words remind me of the words of Benjamin Franklin, who put the same idea in a simpler way when he warned the newly established American states that they must either hang together
  "or they would surely hang separately."
  Interdependence has made it possible for the people of Europe, who have fought each other for centuries, to live together in peace and to continue the process of building political unity. Once political and economic destinies are linked, war becomes unthinkable. The end of the cold war gives a further opportunity to link the destinies of western Europe to those of eastern and central Europe.
  Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend has been talking about peace—and I am sure that he will agree that no one is keener than me to have a lasting peace in Europe. We should never again have the horrors of the two world wars that have cursed this century. Why does my hon. Friend believe that we cannot achieve peace on the terms that I have just outlined by retaining national independence and the closest co-operation? Is it not ironic that my hon. Friend should refer to a lasting peace at a time when there is a dispute between France and ourselves?
  We should also consider what is happening in the rest of Europe, with the continued bloodshed and horror in the former Yugoslavian state. The sort of remedy that we want is not the false sort of unity of a federal Europe about which Jean Monnet was concerned, but the closest co-operation between states that remain independent.
  4 pm
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has been a Member of the House much longer than I have, and I know that in the course of his experience he will have seen the various steps towards that greater unity and understanding among the peoples of Europe. That is a delicate and difficult process that involves proceeding in a pragmatic way, step by step. The results will not be achieved overnight, but eventually the peoples of Europe will, together, build that confidence —which is what I suspect both sides of the Committee are seeking to achieve.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would not my hon. Friend consider that the basic difference between the creation of the United States of America and a united states of Europe is simple? Initially, there was a strong belief in a unilingual unit and in the need to build the United States, whereas we face a different prospect. We face the imposition from above of a machinery that has not been agreed by the people involved.
  It is plain, even from the small difficulties that we currently have with France, that, if there is no general agreement among the peoples on their wish to be governed by machinery that they do not believe represents them, those people will take direct action outside parliamentary institutions, and the results will be unpleasant, and certainly unhelpful.
  Mr. Hoon: I concede, frankly and openly, that historical parallels are always dangerous. I am not suggesting that there is an exact parallel between the
  166
  United States of America and the present situation in the European Community. I hope that nothing that I am saying is likely to cause great alarm to my hon. Friend.
  At present, independent nations are working together, particularly in the context of a common foreign policy association which is building on successes, to try to achieve still greater co-operation. I am not suggesting the imposition of anything from the top down—for the exercise to work, the independent countries must agree to share various approaches. I do not think that that is such a remarkable phenomenon.
  Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way—his speech is arousing great interest in the House. He mentioned that he was in Berlin on the day that the wall came down. Does he not agree that the Maastricht treaty was conceived before the wall came down, so it is in a time warp and is old-fashioned? The most important event to have happened in Europe is that the wall has come down and the totalitarian regimes have gone—Maastricht does nothing to enhance that.
  The Maastricht treaty erects new economic barriers where there was once a physical barrier. If it is difficult for countries such as Britain to achieve the convergence criteria and for the pound to stay in the exchange rate mechanism, what chance do the zloty or the rouble have of staying in the ERM? Surely we want a wider arrangement to take in the whole of Europe, not the old-fashioned Maastricht treaty, which was conceived in the circumstances that prevailed before the wall came down.
  Mr. Hoon: Some of the early ideas which led to the Maastricht treaty might have been thought of before the removal of the Berlin wall, but undoubtedly the treaty was negotiated in detail and agreed well after that period. I am not going to be tempted to comment on the economic implications of my hon. Friend's question; I should probably be ruled out of order if I did.
  In the context of the debate about a common foreign policy, I do not understand my hon. Friend's objections. What we are trying to do is build together a process of greater understanding within the European Community and, in the context of my hon. Friend's question, beyond into central and eastern Europe. I cannot see why anyone should object to that process.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: If the hon. Gentleman is going to avoid economics, could he at least urge his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) not only to read the treaty more closely but to study the history? From the beginning, there was no question but that the United States was going to be unilingual, as is obvious from the various debates that took place at the time. The process of developing common institutions so that the rivalry between various states would be reduced, if not eliminated, is the same as the basis on which the Community developed.
  Mr. Hoon: I accept that, although I repeat my earlier caution about historical parallels.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. As to his analogy with the United States, does he not remember that the rather brutal establishment of the United States was the result of a mixture of a colonial rebellion against an imperial power and the genocide of the native Americans?

  167
  If my hon. Friend is now envisaging the establishment of a federal Europe, will he not reflect that the Maastricht treaty does not take us in the direction of the checks and balances contained in the American federal constitution? It takes us in the opposite direction of an unelected legislative body—the Commission—and, in the case of foreign policy, a policy Commission that will be, in effect, imposing foreign policy on nation states that have fought for their own democratic accountability.
  Mr. Hoon: I included the quotation from Benjamin Franklin because it quite nicely covered the point that I wished to make. I now regret that, because it has provoked an historical debate which is not strictly relevant to our discussions.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. It is intriguing to sit next to my very dear friend the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and hear him praise the role of the nation state.
  I put it to my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has made some very good points about the question of the necessary democratisation and making the European Community responsive to the wishes and needs of people as a whole, in this country and elsewhere. Surely the argument must be entered that one should look at those institutions within the European Community and make them responsive and more democratic, and not argue for isolationism?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the direction in which I hope to continue.
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hoon: No, I should make some progress.
  I am strongly convinced that, if we are to achieve a common foreign policy, it will be on the basis of a series of pragmatic steps. A step-by-step approach is the only way in which we can transfer relevant competences from member states to the European Community. The present European Community and Atlantic alliance will continue to be the solid foundations of the common efforts in the foreseeable future.
  Even those who would oppose the deliberate development of any common policy must recognise that the European Community has, over the years, developed pragmatically policies which are, in effect, the outlines of a common foreign policy. Sanctions against South Africa, action in the middle east and statements about Salman Rushdie are indications of the way in which the European Community is reacting collectively to the pressure of events. That may or may not be the outline of an emerging common foreign policy but, whether or not hon. Members approve, it is happening and we must take account of it.
  Mr. Mandelson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hoon: No. I had better continue my speech.
  The implementation of a common foreign and security policy will allow the European Community and its member states to maintain their role on the world stage. It will contribute to the transition from confrontation to a more common approach. These policies need to be based on agreed principles. The implementation of those principles should have clear objectives.
  168
  First, peace and security should be maintained. Secondly, disputes should be settled peacefully, and international law respected. Thirdly, there should be a mutual, balanced and verifiable reduction of armed forces and armaments. Fourthly, an international order should be promoted, based on respect for human rights. As the European Community develops those policies—
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoon: In a moment.
  As the European Community develops those policies, consistent with the step-by-step philosophy that I have already outlined, we need to develop priorities for joint action.
  Mr. Mandelson rose—
  Mr. Hoon: I shall now give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Mandelson: It is important, given the instances of joint action and statements to which my hon. Friend referred, to make it clear that they were jointly entered into by the respective Governments and member states. Those decisions were not made for, by or on behalf of member states by the Commission.
  It is wrong for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who I notice, having made his point, has left the Chamber, to suggest that it is the Commission that will conduct foreign policy on our behalf. Article J of the treaty specifically precludes that, and says that it will be—and it should be, in my view—a matter for intergovernmental machinery.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should have given way to him earlier. He has made the point much more clearly than I have done. Therefore, I thank him for his comments.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Hoon: I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, courteous as always, for giving way. He listed four principles upon which European foreign policy cooperation should be based. Could I suggest a fifth: that it should apply to all member states equally? How confident and convinced is the hon. Gentleman that Greece will apply sanctions on Serbia?
  Mr. Hoon: That is precisely the issue that we need to develop. We must achieve mutual confidence. If we are to persuade all 12 sovereign states to take the action that the hon. Gentleman and I agree is necessary, they will do so only on the basis of the step-by-step approach that I have outlined. I hope that, for once, we shall be able to agree that action will be taken only if together we take those steps.
  Action will be taken only as the result of success in other areas. That will lead to the confidence that is required for action to be taken later. There is no good reason why the European Community should not reach agreements concerning non-European Community nations. The remainder of Europe ought to be capable of being approached by the European Community in a consistent manner—as should the United States and Japan. Relations between the European Community and those countries ought to be the subject of a common rather than an individual nation state approach.
  Mr. Spearing: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hoon: In a moment.
  Similarly, participation in the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and the contribution that we can make together towards strengthening the United Nations ought to be policies that we are capable of developing together rather than as separate nation states.
  Mr. Spearing: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been most generous in giving way. I think that he is going a little far in suggesting that all these matters will come within the ambit of the European Community. Has not the Foreign Secretary attempted time and again to make a distinction between the European Community and the articles in the treaty that we are discussing that relate to it, and the wider union under which a common foreign policy is required?
  Despite that distinction, I think that my hon. Friend may be correct. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said, article J.8 provides the Commission with powers of initiation. As that is a corporate body, strong in muscle, I have no doubt that its initiative will be important.
  Mr. Hoon: Having had a number of years of experience of the European Commission, I do not find it quite so frightening as my hon. Friend appears to do.
  Mr. Spearing: He was part of the machinery.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Hoon: The reason why I have less concern than my hon. Friend appears to have is clear in the terms of his own question: the Commission may have the powers of initiation. Why should we be afraid of the powers of initiation?
  Mr. Spearing: Because they are non-elected.
  Mr. Hoon: They have the power to put forward ideas. It is then, even under the existing arrangement, for the member states to decide what should be the conclusion. I cannot see why that should be such a frightening prospect.
  The essentially pragmatic development of a foreign policy, in my view, resembles the way in which the Community already deals with the GATT issue, external trade negotiations—issues that we are already, in effect, comfortable with. Therefore, having built on those successes, we can look into these other areas for the development of a policy.
  The Community cannot allow itself to be isolated from other states in the world community as an enclave of prosperous industrialised nations. The Community has an obligation to contribute worldwide to overcoming poverty and underdevelopment, implementing human and civil rights, containing conflicts and guaranteeing peace. A European Community foreign and security policy is the prerequisite for meeting those obligations effectively.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) explained in his interesting speech, this group of amendments deals with European co-operation on a common foreign and security policy. I underline the word co-operation. From experience in the past three years, I must say that I am strongly in favour of such co-operation as it is at present practised and as it is laid down for the future in the treaty. I and others have
  170
  been trying to work the system for three years and I believe that I have some knowledge of both its strengths and its limitations.
  The principle is, and will remain, a simple one. Where we can work together as Europeans, we do so; where we cannot work together, for lack of agreement or where there is no need to do so, we are free to go our own way.
  I am quite clear in my own mind that this system of co-operation, although not magic, adds to the effectiveness of British foreign policy without reducing our ability to protect our own British interests. As the hon. Member for Ashfield illustrated, there is a massive flow of diplomatic business already through this channel of European co-operation. Much of this activity is relatively uncontroversial, so it does not find a place in the newspapers, but I will give one or two examples that right hon. and hon. Members may recall.
  The concept of safe havens for the Kurds in northern Iraq is much on my mind today, because I saw the delegation of the Iraq national conference this morning. This concept of safe havens for the Kurds was originally a British proposal, but it gave immediate and decisive impetus once it was adopted by the European Council at the urging of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It was a clear example of how a decisive move at the European level achieves worldwide acceptance.
  Dr. Cunningham: There are reports, which the right hon. Gentleman probably heard this morning, of some apparent change in the position of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Iraq. Can the Foreign Secretary clarify this for us? Does he stand by what he said, for example, at the Scottish Conservative party conference in Perth on 10 May 1991? He said then:
  "There can be no question of any relaxation in sanctions whilst Saddam Hussein's bloody persecution of minorities continues. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Saddam Hussein's government could fulfil all the conditions laid down by the United Nations for the removal of sanctions. Only a new government will enable Iraq to be re-admitted to the community of nations."
  Is that still the position of Her Majesty's Government or has it changed?
  Mr. Hurd: The requirements of the Security Council have not changed in any important sense since that time. Those are the requirements with which Iraq has to comply before there can be any question of lifting sanctions. What I and others said around that time in 1991 is that it is hard —indeed, it is still impossible—to imagine Saddam Hussein being able or willing to comply with those Security Council requirements. Those are the requirements, and compliance with those requirements was and remains the test.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend said as he opened his remarks that we can run our policies where we need to, but where they are better run at European level and where we should co-ordinate and co-operate we should do so; nobody would disagree with that. However, with respect, that is not what it says in the treaty. Paragraph 1 of article J1 states:
  "The Union and its Member States shall"—
  not "can"—
  "define and implement a foreign and security policy…covering all areas of foreign and security policy."
  That says something totally different from what my right hon. Friend said.
  Mr. Hurd: The treaty goes on to explain how that is to be done, and I shall do the same. It explains how common positions and joint actions are to be decided. They are to be decided by unanimity and I shall come to that in a moment.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I should rather get on. I was going to give another example at a lower level following the example of Iraq.
  Last summer, I went with Ministers of the EC troika to South Africa and, as a result of that visit, we now have a team of EC observers in the townships of South Africa alongside those from the Commonwealth and the United Nations, to help deter and prevent the violence which has caused so much misery and distrust among those trying to negotiate for a new South Africa.
  In the world of today, it is welcomed by all concerned in South Africa that the European Community, alongside others, should take such a responsibility, with Britain sending individuals to the European and Commonwealth teams.
  Equally, it was as a member of the European Community that we joined in the multilateral talks now going on in the Arab-Israel peace process. It would be regarded as frivolous or bizarre by Arabs, Israelis, Americans, Russians and everybody else if, instead of joining in as Europeans, we began to shove and push for individual national representation in such talks. There would be no point and it would be regarded as bizarre and ridiculous.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that those of us who have long experience of dealing inside the Community with the question of the middle east have found that there was a clear division between countries that had direct involvement in the Masraq and Maghreb and those that were prepared to take a more even-handed attitude? Does he accept that the suggestion that Britain can adopt an attitude towards the middle east only if it works through the Community begs the question of those nations that have already entered negotiations carrying the baggage of their long Arab-Israeli connections?
  Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Of course, as a matter of law we could do that. Each of the 12 countries could pursue and elaborate its own policy towards the middle east, but that makes no sense in today's world.
  In the past few years, we have managed—not without difficulty—to work out a whole series of statements and positions among the 12, and it is on that basis that we take part in the multilateral part of the Arab-Israeli peace process. That is a good thing; it is better than if we, the Germans, the French and the Italians all worked out our own policies and then scrapped for priority in putting them forward.
  The process of co-operation already in being is now elaborated and defined more closely in the treaty to which the Bill relates under the heading that we are discussing. It is natural that the House should look carefully to see whether the character of the system is being changed. Nobody is seriously challenging what we are doing, but the House will want to see whether the character is being changed and whether we are being penned into a new system which would deprive us of essential rights. My right
  172
  hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), in his shrewd and perceptive speech on 25 March, included some cautionary remarks on the subject.
  Those are exactly the concerns that the British Government had at the front of their mind when we negotiated this part of the treaty, on which a huge amount of time was rightly spent. We wanted to preserve the advantage of co-operation in foreign policy without depriving ourselves of freedom in cases where cooperation was not necessary or not possible. I believe that we have succeeded and I should like to explain why.
  Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend talks, rightly, about the need for co-operation and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, it is important to make sure that we treat all this with a great deal of caution. The reality is that under the provisions of the treaty, what the Foreign Secretary is saying does not accord with what is provided for under title V.
  I understand my right hon. Friend's motivation, but if we have produced provisions in the treaty that bind us to support
  "the Union's external and security policy actively, unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity"
  refraining from actions contrary to the interests of the union and so on, we are binding ourselves—and the Foreign Secretary knows this perfectly well—to international obligations. It may be in the context of what is claimed to be separate pillars, but, for practical purposes, they are international obligations which are imposed on us and which impose constraints that will prevent us from exercising that pragmatic action which we have always been capable of pursuing, including the Gulf war.
  Mr. Hurd: Nothing is imposed on us under this pillar because
  "The council shall act unanimously".
  It means that the obligations are obligations to which we have agreed. My hon Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is pushing me ahead a little faster than I intended to go, but I shall develop the point and go on. Then I will give way to those hon. Members to whom I have not given way.
  This section of the treaty does not bring the common foreign and security policy within the ambit of the European Community. It is a separate pillar and is specifically set out as such. I think that I see the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) nod in agreement. That is why amendment No. 30 is somewhat extraordinary; it would incorporate title V of the treaty on common foreign and security policy in the 1972 Act. That incorporation would erode the structure of the pillars in a way which I should have thought the sceptics about Europe would particularly wish to prevent.
  The amendment would not alter the legal character of title V which is plain on the face of the treaty, but I think that it would be incongruous for Britain, of all states, so to amend its internal law as to apply title V and this pillar of foreign and security policy as if it were part of the treaty structure of the Community. It is not.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I supported the separate pillars and the high level of co-operation that has been achieved. I am worried about paragraphs 3 and 4 of article J8. There, for the first time, the Commission gets the power and the obligation to begin

  173
  things. Whereas the rest of the articles are about the Council and the clear division between the Commission's responsibility under the treaty of Rome, in article J8 we have the Council and the Commission getting the right and the obligation to initiate. That is the beginning of an erosive process.
  Mr. Hurd: That is what happens now, but I will come on to the role of the Commission in a moment. The first point I was trying to make about the new structure, the step-by-step approach that we are contemplating under the treaty, is that the pillar is separate.
  Secondly, the European Court of Justice will have no jurisdiction in these matters. I know that that has been a worry. The European Court might take the opening statements of intention and turn them into a legal obligation, but article L of the treaty sets out the areas that will fall within the jurisdiction of the court. Title V is absent and is, therefore, excluded from the jurisdiction of the court.
  Mr. Leighton rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I will just come on to the point about the Commission if I may and I will give way to the hon. Member later.
  In this part of the treaty, because it is a separate pillar outside the Community, the Commission has held a monopoly of initiative. The Commission, under the treaty, will be "fully associated"—those are the words in the treaty—with the work of the union on this subject, as it is today. A Commissioner today attends meetings on foreign policy co-operation. He is able to speak. He is able to make proposals—the hon. Gentleman's point—but he has no monopoly of such proposals, as he would have if the pillar were part of the Community. Because it is separate, the Commissioner is there and can make proposals, but he has no monopoly, and I am convinced that that is in practice a thoroughly sensible arrangement.
  4.30 pm
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford pointed out, there is often an overlap between different kinds of action open to the Community and its member states. It is an overlap, in effect, between the economic and the political and, therefore an overlap between the responsibility of the Community and that of member states acting in co-operation.
  An obvious example is sanctions, which are specifically provided for in article 228a. The Committee will see there that before sanctions can be imposed by the Community —it is an economic measure coming within the scope of the Community—there must be a common position or joint action decided by the Council under the common foreign and security policy, and such a common position must be arrived at unanimously. So it is curious that there should be an amendment that would modify an extremely important provision about the imposition of sanctions.
  Mr. Leighton: The Foreign Secretary has been talking of co-operation in foreign policy matters. How well does he suggest such co-operation worked when, under German pressure—and, I suspect, against the better judgment of the right hon. Gentleman—we precipitately gave diplomatic recognition to Croatia and other Yugoslav
  174
  states before the boundaries were fixed and before agreements were arrived at on ethnic minorities, which partly was the cause of the war?
  Mr. Hurd: I have an extensive passage in my notes on that incident, which was raised when the Committee began to consider the amendments a few days ago, so I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will deal with that extremely fair and important point.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend says that there is nothing new about this because the Commission has the powers already. I understand from the Single European Act that the Commission is associated with political co-operation, but is not associated with security co-operation. The Commission may put forward proposals now, but it does not have the power to put forward proposals that will be given to it under the Maastricht treaty.
  Further, the European Parliament has significantly more involvement under the Maastricht treaty than it had under the Single European Act. So the position after the Maastricht treaty is not the same as it was after the Single European Act. This pillar is not totally apart from the European institutions. Those institutions have far more power than they had under the Single European Act, and under the debate and discussions that will take place in 1996 with a view to 1998, the probability is that they will get even more.
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a change. There is what I would call a slight change in the role of the European Parliament. I do not think that, in practice, there is a change in the role of the Commission today, and I strongly disagree with my hon. Friend's last point. We went to considerable trouble to make sure that wherever in the treaty there was a reference to a review in 1996—there are two or three such references—the review was without prejudice.
  It is part of my case—my hon. Friend and I crossed swords on this issue in the debate on subsidiarity—for which evidence flows in all the time, that we are not on a conveyor belt and that we are not moving inexorably to a degree of federalism or a centralising tendency of a kind that most hon. Members would reject. To suggest otherwise is increasingly not borne out by the facts of Europe. We succeeded, and one minor proof of that is that we succeeded in the negotiations in preventing any reference to future reviews which prejudiced the outcome of those reviews.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I am anxious to make progress.
  I am illustrating the characteristics of the pillar—of the separate nature of this part of the treaty, as opposed to the normal structure of the Community. The Committee will see the provision in paragraph 5 of article J8 for political directors to prepare the work of the Council in foreign and security policy. They will of course need to work closely, as they do today, with COREPER, but we thought it right that the autonomous work of political directors responsible to Foreign Ministers should be specifically spelt out in the treaty again to make clear that it is a separate pillar of co-operation between member states.
  Finally, there is the provision of unanimity to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) brought me a few moments ago. The mention in

  175
  paragraph 2 of article J3 of voting by a qualified majority contains a double lock. First, there must be unanimity to decide a joint action and, secondly, there must be unanimity in agreeing to the use of qualified majority voting. That means that if the Council, or the British Government, were to decide that all decisions, no matter how small, needed, to be taken by unanimity, they would be. One can imagine carefully chosen circumstances in which qualified majority voting could make a policy more effective, for example, by speeding up the process of taking decisions on implementation. However, under the treaty, that could not be a general rule, and each proposal that any matter should be decided by qualified majority voting would have to be decided by unanimity. That is the nature of the double lock.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. Friend is, as usual, being exceedingly reassuring. However, there are many instances in article J of the untrammelled sovereignty of nation states within the Community being, to a greater or lesser degree, circumscribed by the provisions of the article. For example, paragraph 4 of article J1 states:
  "The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively".
  It adds that the Council shall ensure that those principles are adhered to. Paragraph 2 of article J2 states:
  "Member States shall ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions."
  There are other examples. What my right hon. Friend says by way of reassurance about majority voting may be true, but the article as a whole gives the impression that the treaty gives precedence to the interests of the union over those of the member states.
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right; it is a crucial point. The common positions and joint actions all have to be approved unanimously. There is no question of the Commission, a majority of member states, or even 11 member states, seeking to impose on this country or on any other member state a common position or joint action. That is precluded, not by the practice of the Community but by the wording of the treaty. That is the essential answer to my hon. Friend's point.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend's assurance is very fulsome, but there is still concern that there will be a good deal of cross-infection from the external relations run by the Commission through the Community which, after all, runs trade, which is a large proportion of, and a large political influence on, overall foreign policy. Will he give the House a categorical assurance that we shall never find ourselves in a position where the Commission grabs to itself more and more initiative at the expense of the unanimity provisions in the foreign policy pillar?
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend, being a smart fellow, is retiring very quickly from any argument based on the texts and is moving to what he calls the danger of political infection.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hurd: Let me answer my hon. Friend. I have tried to answer his question already. I do not believe that in real life there can always be a full separation in practical policy between what one does economically and what one does politically. I have given one example—fairly, I hope—which was that of economic sanctions. It would be absurd for the Council to sit around discussing economic sanctions without hearing from the Commission which, under the Community, would have to implement them. There has to be some marriage of minds in many of these cases. There has to be an interplay, which is why it is perfectly reasonable that the Commission should be fully associated with the work of foreign policy co-operation.
  However, my hon. Friend is correct in taking the view that it would not be reasonable if full association, for which there are very strong practical arguments, were to drift into a situation in which the Commission had a monopoly of initiative and member states developed the habit of doing what the Commission thought right. But that is miles away from what happens now and from what is provided for in the treaty. As I have said, the review provisions contain nothing to suggest that we are on a conveyor belt going in that direction. It is not the way in which foreign policy co-operation is discussed and agreed on.
  I hope that what I have said is a reasonably full exposition of the legal provisions that separate this part of the treaty from ordinary, orthodox Community action. We spent a great deal of time ensuring that the advantages of co-operation were not bought at the expense of freedom of action. We were not alone in doing so, as others wanted to achieve the same end. Let me cite three examples, all of which have been mentioned during the debates on the Bill.
  There is nothing in the treaty, or in real political life, to prevent us from pursuing our national policy on dependent territories, such as Hong Kong and the Falkland Islands. As I have said, member states must agree unanimously that a particular issue needs to become the subject of joint action. That being the case, Britain would have to agree specifically if Hong Kong or the Falklands, or any other issue, were to become the subject of joint action. In addition, attached to the treaty is a declaration on dependent territories, recognising our right, in cases of irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the 12 and those of one of our dependent territories, to act in the interests of that territory.
  Secondly, there is the question of membership of the Security Council, which is dealt with specifically in article J5, as we and the French were keen that it should be. Article J5 suggests that members of the Security Council that are also members of the Community should work together. Well, that happens already. The article suggests that we should inform partners of events in the Security Council. That, too, happens already. The treaty contains no suggestion of a joint European seat on the Security Council. Indeed, it assumes the opposite. The specific responsibility of the existing permanent members from the European Community—the United Kingdom and France—under the United Nations charter are recognised in the treaty.
  I know that several right hon. and hon. Members visited New York recently and saw the United Nations in action. One or two of them have told me that Britain and France both have as their current permanent representatives on the Security Council particularly strong-minded and experienced ambassadors. Those representatives work

  177
  closely with the Spanish ambassador, who represents an elected member of the Council, and with the other nine Community ambassadors in New York. However, there is no question of the responsibilities of Britain and France under the United Nations charter being undermined, either now or in the future. As emerged in a recent debate in this Chamber, Britain and France currently contribute more than any other country to the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Lest the Foreign Secretary, because of the nature of interventions, reaches the conclusion that what he is saying has the unanimous support of the Committee, I say simply that I am surprised that he is taking such a long time to explain why foreign affairs initiatives could be successfully stopped. The right hon. Gentleman must realise as well as I do that, in all international institutions, unanimity is normally a recipe for inaction.
  Mr. Hurd: I am under no temptation to assume that my remarks have the unanimous support of hon. Members. Indeed, with regard to the Bill, that is the least of my temptations. The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords on this point previously. It is from experience, rather than from a doctrinal or theological standpoint, that I say that, in respect of all sorts of matters that come up in the Community, members should persevere until unanimity is achieved.
  It simply does not make sense to box one or two members into a corner, making it necessary for them to go back to their Parliaments and say that, while they felt strongly about the matter in question, they had been outvoted. I am not in favour of that kind of situation. That is why, in spite of a good deal of pressure during the negotiations, we held out—we did so successfully, and we were not alone—for the legal provisions and the emphasis on unanimity that I have described. The hon. Gentleman thinks that that impedes action; I believe that, in practice, it does no such thing.
  4.45 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Let the Foreign Secretary tell the Liberal Democrats not to be so pessimistic. They ought to look at page 130 of the treaty, where it is made abundantly clear—no one seems to have noticed this—that when there is a qualified majority in matters of foreign affairs and security, every member state is under an obligation to go to the extent possible to avoid preventing a unanimous decision. Are not the Liberal Democrats being unduly pessimistic? Does not the declaration indicate quite clearly that the Government are under a legal obligation in this respect?
  Mr. Hurd: It is true that the treaty contains an exhortation, which was put there by people who were disappointed that we had managed to retain the principle of unanimity. We have no difficulty in accepting the admonition that we should do our best to achieve unanimity. That was an attempt to meet the point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). However, the treaty is perfectly clear. Naturally, the main criticism comes from
  178
  those who think that unanimity is an impediment to effective action. My practical experience suggests otherwise.
  Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend was good enough to ask me to write for the Conservative manifesto committee the paper on the future of Europe. I should be glad if he would address himself to the text of that document and to the question of unanimity, which he has just been stressing. I am sure he appreciates that article J8(2) states:
  "The council shall act unanimously, except for procedural questions and in the case referred to in Article J.3(2)."
  My right hon. Friend will note that the definition at the beginning of article J3 refers to the procedure. Paragraph (2) of that article states clearly that, when joint action is being adopted, the Council shall define matters on which decisions are to be taken by qualified majority. My right hon. Friend says that all of this is governed by unanimity. If he thinks that I am wrong, I hope that he will point out how it is so.
  Mr. Hurd: I have done so already. My hon. Friend was so busy preparing his intervention that he did not hear my answer to his question. I have already described at some length the double lock procedure that governs article J3(2). I shall not repeat myself, as my hon. Friend will find my words in Hansard. There is a double lock to ensure unanimity before article J3(2) can be operated in any particular case. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in preparing the next Conservative election manifesto's section on Europe, following ratification of the treaty. In view of our joint experience, we may find a good deal of common ground. However, we are not yet at that point.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) raised, perfectly correctly, the situation in Yugoslavia. This is an unfavourable example, which is why the hon. Gentleman referred to it. No one looking back at this tragedy will be able to feel anything but anger and frustration. From the beginning, I felt—and I believe that I said—that it would be unreasonable to suppose that, however great might be the harmony between the 12 members of the Community, we could impose peace in Yugoslavia. It is not possible to impose peace from outside when people are determined to fight and kill each other.
  I do not want to spell out the whole history of policy on Yugoslavia because the House debated it recently. I just record in that context my conviction that it has been entirely right for the members of the Community to act together and that any other course would have been damaging, perhaps disastrous.
  The most difficult point along the road was that cited by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford—the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia in January 1992, decided upon on 16 December 1991. Some critics in this country, notably my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, and some people outside—Germans, Austrians and others—believed that the Community recognised Croatia and Slovenia too late. My noble Friend Lord Carrington, the Opposition Front Bench and my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs over which he presides believed that we recognised too early.
  I do not believe that the timing was decisive in what followed. I do not think that it would have made sense to have withheld recognition much longer, or that the timing of recognition had any effect on the tragedy which

  179
  followed in another country. But in the context of this debate it is worth pausing for a moment to consider what the alternative was to agreed Community recognition at the time when we recognised.
  The alternative would have been that the Germans and others would have recognised earlier than we did, and the British, French and perhaps some others would have recognised somewhat later. I cannot believe that that disintegration of decision taking would have had anything but an unhealthy affect. Certainly there would have been no effective pressure on President Tudjman to accommodate his policies to the Serb minority of Croatia, which is the argument usually put forward for later recognition.
  Dr. Cunningham: Does not that tragic example highlight the problems of working together in cooperation and unanimity? Is not the reality that the Germans were threatening, and had been threatening for some time, to act unilaterally and that, in doing so, they forced the hand of the Community in a disastrous way? We are still living with the consequences of those disastrous decisions, taken for the worst of all possible reasons, and certainly not for good foreign policy reasons.
  Mr. Hurd: I do not accept that analysis, and the historian will not either. The Germans held back for a long time under strong pressure from their own public opinion and their own analysis of the position. I do not think that it would have been a good thing or in any way helpful in the relationship between Croatia and Serbia if the Germans had recognised two or three months earlier. That would have had no good effect. Therefore, I do not think that disintegration of policy co-operation could have been helpful. It would have been deeply unhelpful and would have prevented us from doing the things that I am coming to.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: If the Community managed to persuade the Germans that they should delay for a few months, perhaps the Foreign Secretary could explain why in the case of Macedonia, although the majority of Community countries were in favour of recognition, one, Greece, has still been able to stop recognition. Why, if it was right in the case of Croatia, is it not right in the case of Macedonia? May we have a straight answer, please?
  Mr. Hurd: Exactly the same procedure is being followed. We are trying to wait until we achieve agreement. I hope that we can make decisive progress on that matter fairly soon. I do not want to wreck that by going down the road along which the hon. Gentleman is tempting me. It is an important matter. I hope that we are reasonably close to an outcome which will help the people in Skopje and Macedonia.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does not that whole tragic business illustrate two points—first, the desirability of acting together and, secondly, having clone that, the fact that we have a lot to learn, because it is surely shameful and shaming to all of us that an independent, recognised sovereign state such as Bosnia should have suffered as it has over the last year?
  Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point. We are learning all the time. A common foreign and security policy does not transform the European union into a defence organisation. Therefore, my hon. Friend's
  180
  criticism, which is widely shared, goes further than the Bill. He is one of those who, I think, would have wanted recognition earlier.
  I am coming to what the member states of the European Community have done. It was right for the member states of the Community, acting together, to ask Lord Carrington to undertake pioneering work for a settlement. It was right for the member states of the Community, acting together, to set up the monitoring mission which is doing valuable work through the region. It was right for the member states of the Community, acting together under the British presidency, to summon the London conference last August and there, acting together, to set up the framework of peacemaking provided by Lord Owen, on behalf of the Community, and Cyrus Vance, on behalf of the United Nations. It was right for the member states of the Community, acting together, to provide large amounts of humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia, with Britain, France and Spain—all member states of the Community—having contributed most to the life-saving effort since then.
  In the real world in which we live, it is notable that when President Clinton undertook a thorough, critical review of United States policy towards the former Yugoslavia, he concluded by putting American energy and influence behind the objectives that we in Europe had set —a negotiating framework, the pressure of sanctions, the humanitarian effort and the pursuit of war criminals. That is not a record of success; no one is claiming that. The frustration and anger remain, but it will be right to continue working together among the 12, carrying forward the effort to make peace and to keep the peace when those principally responsible for the fighting realise that they cannot achieve stable or accepted goals without a negotiated settlement.
  Mr. Spearing: The Foreign Secretary has been generous in giving way. In most of his speech, he has been painting an attractive and, I hope, a true picture of international co-operation under title 3 of the Single European Act. But we are considering the treaty, where different conditions apply and where there is an obligation for a common foreign and security policy to be established, under article 1, covering all areas of foreign and security policy. Apart from the initiation of the Commission, which is formally entrenched, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) mentioned, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the general council of the Community will be in effect the general council of the union, and the same Ministers, with the same Commission and the same COREPER, will be dealing with a range of commercial, political and international affairs, conceivably at the same meetings and with each other at the same time? Does not that predicate a coming together? It is separate in the treaty, but surely it will be together in practice.
  Mr. Hurd: In the treaty, we are certainly not repealing those parts of the treaty of Rome or the Single European Act that govern these matters. The hon. Gentleman has spent almost a lifetime criticising those articles. We are not satisfying him by repealing them. We are creating a separate structure for this purpose. The structure of how the policy is to be elaborated is set out. General guidelines are to be adopted by the European Council which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, operates by consensus. Within

  181
  those guidelines, there are to be common positions and joint action established by the Council, prepared by the political directors, with the Commission fully associated. I have been over those points.
  The common positions and the joint action are to be decided unanimously. We spent hours on that point. Many people wanted majority voting installed as a guiding principle for this part of the treaty. They did not succeed. If we ask how the common positions and the joint action are to be arrived at, we find the answer: it is by unanimity. Then we have to meet the hon. Gentleman's point: how do we expect to do anything by those means? In practical terms, if we are to do anything substantial in that sphere, we need to do it by unanimity.
  Mr. Peter Shore: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. Would not he be better able to illustrate his point if he itemised the failures and deficiencies of political co-operation in the Single European Act and, having identified the failures and defects under political co-operation, he pointed to the improvements in machinery and commitment that are contained in title V under the new Maastricht Act?
  Mr. Hurd: I have been trying to give a reasonably objective account of experience in working the present system. I hope that I have not exaggerated its merits, because it has many demerits, and we are working all the time and learning from experience; but I hope that I have set it out objectively. What the treaty does is to put some aspects of the present system into treaty form—for example, the presence and importance of political directives.
  5 pm
  It also establishes—I have set out the four or five crucial ways in which it does so—that this is a separate process from that of ordinary Community life. Of course, we have to work the process and we have to make it succeed. I am not in favour of its being swept up eventually into the ordinary work of the Community, just as I am not in favour of the Home Office subjects—the struggle against the drug trade and terrorism—being swept up in that title. That is why I find so bizarre the amendments that would have that effect as regards the European Communities Act 1972. I am not in favour of that; I favour keeping the pillars separate and making a success of them, acknowledging, as I have said, that there will often be an overlap between the political and the economic, but believing that the machinery established here provides for that, for example, in the role of the Commission.
  Here is a way of operating which works, which adds already to the effectiveness of our foreign policy and which does not inhibit it—when we wish to do something independent, we can do so. Here is a treaty which enables that to continue and to progress, not towards a final unitary or federal structure but towards greater effectiveness and good sense. I believe that this part of the treaty is worth while and that we should reject amendments that enfeeble or distort it.
  Dr. Cunningham: I want to begin with a few comments about amendment No. 30 to which the Secretary of State addressed himself somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but in case he was serious in what he said about amendment No. 30,
  182
  I think that he ought to recognise that it was tabled simply as part of the determination to secure a debate on these issues and not with the idea of asking the Committee to divide on it. I have no intention of doing so. That deals, I hope clearly and succinctly, with the question why that amendment is on the Order Paper.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's general explanation of his concern about the provisions of the Maastricht treaty in this area of common foreign and security policy. I agree with his analysis of the implications of the proposals. I agree that the treaty includes an agreement on a common foreign and security policy, one of several policies of co-operation which are part of the new European union. I agree that the new arrangements will replace the system of European political co-operation which, as the Foreign Secretary said, has existed now for some considerable time, and which has been one of the stepping stones along the way to these new proposals.
  I also point out to the Committee that, in talking about the external pillar of European union which relates to common foreign and security policy, article B of the common provisions, which establish the arch of the union, supported by the pillars, sets out five broad objectives, the second of which concerns foreign and security policy, and reads as follows:
  "to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
  The tenor of the exchanges across the Floor and the interventions in the right hon. Gentleman's speech have been quite surprising. It is as though co-operation in foreign policy and security was something entirely new, something of which we had had no experience or in which we had never participated before. The reality is that, for almost half a century, in various ways, this country, under Governments of both main political parties, have been involved in exactly that kind of co-operation.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
  We have had co-operation in the United Nations, co-operation in NATO, co-operation in the Western European Union and co-operation in the European Community itself. It is passing strange to me that the whole idea of co-operation, which is one of the foundation stones on which the Labour party to which I have always belonged was built, should strike such terror into people's hearts.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does it not occur to my right hon. Friend that when there has been discussion, debate and action on co-operation, for example, in the Gulf war, with the United States—and more so with the United States than with fellow members of the Community—there has been no controversy, in the main, on the Opposition side? Co-operation with the United Nations has never been the subject of any kind of controversy. However, will my right hon. Friend not recognise that our concern is not with the fact that there should be co-operation—of course there should be—but with steps that lead directly to a federal Europe and the remarks made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)? Would my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) therefore accept the distinction?
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not recognise any steps in these proposals towards a federal Europe. I do not support the idea of a federal Europe. It is not our party's policy to support the establishment of a federal Europe, and I do not believe that the proposals that we are discussing today can in any way lead my hon. Friend to draw that conclusion.
  Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: Let me deal with one intervention at a time. I am quite willing to give way, but I want to deal with my hon. Friend's intervention first.
  It is the whole idea of co-operation itself which is in danger of being lost in this debate because of a tidal wave of sturm and drang, if that is an appropriate phrase, when by comparison what we need is a little good old English sang-froid.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I just want to underline the point that he is making. Many of the interventions in the debate so far have forgotten that the principles of co-operation in the European Community were clearly laid down in title III, not only the association in all the proceedings of the Commission but a phrase such as
  "The Presidency and the Commission, each within its own sphere of confidence, shall have special responsibility for ensuring that such consistency is sought and maintained."
  And it goes on to talk about security. These principles were established when the Single European Act went through the House, voted for by many, including the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
  Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps the process of the Single European Act through the House is not such a good example. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it was guillotined through by the Government of the right hon. Baroness Thatcher—not exactly the kind of precedent that we would want to refer to in these circumstances.
  Mr. Rowlands: As someone who is neither a German nor an Englishman, and therefore have no sang-froid or anything else, may I point out to my right hon. Friend that we are trying to draw attention to, if we get the chance —the tragedy these days is that Front Benches do not wind up debates, they just open them and then do not reply to them—is the difference between the language of the Single European Act and the language of paragraph 4 of article J.1. If he does not recognise the difference of language, I do not know where his language comes from.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry if my hon. Friend is a little sensitive about the fact that I did not refer to him as a Welshman. I regard myself as British rather than English. I was just trying to enliven the debate with a touch of humour, since it has been dragged down into turgid minutiae for too long—but I have learnt my lesson.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney rose —
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way for the moment.
  The European Council has the role of issuing general directions for the harmonisation and implementation of European Community foreign and security policy, including agreeing guidelines for matters for possible joint action. As we know, the Council meets twice a year and operates by consensus only. It passes its agenda to
  184
  meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers. That is what happens under article J.3(1), which has already been mentioned.
  As with previous European political co-operation, the Council of Foreign Ministers is then charged with reaching, so far as that is possible, a common position
  "on any matter of foreign and security policy of general
  interest in order to ensure that their combined influence is exerted as effectively as possible by means of concerted and convergent action."
  As the Foreign Secretary said, that is a development of the existing state of affairs.
  The first set of four specific policy guidelines for joint action was agreed by the European Council in the declaration at Maastricht. They were: the conference on security and co-operation in Europe process; the policy of disarmament and arms control in Europe, including confidence-building measures; nuclear non-proliferation; and the economic aspects of security, especially control of the transfer of military technology to third countries and control of arms exports.
  I do not understand why anyone believes that we are somehow threatened—or, indeed, that our position is not strengthened—by seeking Europewide co-operation in those four crucial areas of international affairs. I certainly do not feel threatened by the idea that we should co-operate in those areas.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Surely the anxieties arise not in relation to further co-operation—everybody would welcome that—but in relation to the narrow areas in which the British national and public interest does not necessarily coincide with the European interest. A clear example must be the Falklands war, in which there was no European support whatever, although there was a clear case of aggression against the British national interest.
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's premise, but I share the view expressed by the Foreign Secretary in response to several interventions on the same subject—that there are two tests to be passed before anything can be agreed by qualified majority voting, and that those tests both require unanimity. The idea that a course could be forced upon our country, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) suggests, is not borne out by a careful and accurate reading of the proposals.
  Sir Russell Johnston rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: The second point is also apposite. Under the proposals we—and, for that matter, our European partners—reserve the right to act bilaterally, or in the line of our duty and obligations in other spheres of international affairs, whether those involve the Falklands, Hong Kong, Belize or the Commonwealth, or in any other circumstance which is not the business or the responsibility of our Community partners. No one, least of all I or the Labour party, suggests that those rights and obligations should be abandoned or jettisoned because of the treaty.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me; the second part of his answer has largely dealt with the point that I intended to

  185
  make. The simple test is: if we wanted to, could we mount another operation similar to the Falklands operation? Is that right and ability in any way precluded or affected by the treaty? The answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second question is no.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I must tell the Committee, especially Conservative hon. Members, that the biggest threat to Britain's foreign policy and defence interests, and to our interests in the world in general, is the appalling state of our economy: The biggest threat to our interests results from the complete mismanagement of our economic affairs over 14 years. That is why our influence in the world is threatened and will continue to be threatened.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  5.15 pm
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall make a little further progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  It is significant that some matters are not included in the list of the first agreed matters for co-operation that I mentioned. Industrial and technological co-operation in armaments is not included, and neither is involvement in humanitarian intervention measures. Transatlantic relations are not included either, at least for the moment.
  Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman said, as did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that this is all down to unanimity. They both say that we do not have to do things if we do not want to. If there is an area of policy in which we do not wish to be involved, we can be gloriously independent and follow the interests of the United Kingdom alone. But that is not what the treaty says. It says:
  "The Union…shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy".
  We are committing ourselves, whether we agree or not. We are committing ourselves to agreeing a policy.
  Dr. Cunningham: We are committing ourselves to agreeing a policy for common action where it can be agreed. If it cannot be agreed, we do not have it. In simple language, that is exactly what the treaty says. The Council of Foreign Ministers will decide which matters should be matters for joint action, and article J.3 goes on to empower the Foreign Affairs Council to decide that certain matters may be decided by qualified majority voting. A resolution to use qualified majority voting may be taken at any stage in the adoption of a subject for joint action—assuming that that has already been unanimously agreed. The Foreign Secretary cited the example of agreeing on sanctions against a country; that is a simple practical illustration.
  Since all those decisions were taken at Maastricht, things have moved on, principally at the Lisbon summit last year, and also subsequently at Edinburgh. The Lisbon Council concluded that:
  "The CFSP"—
  that is, the common foreign and security policy—
  "should contribute to ensuring that the Union's external action is less reactive to events in the outside world, and more active in the pursuit of the interests of the Union and in the creation of a more favourable international environment."
  Who could disagree with that?
  186
  "This will enable the European Union to have an improved capacity to tackle problems at their roots in order to anticipate the outbreak of crises. Furthermore, the Union will be able to make clearer to third countries its own aims and interests, and to match more closely those parties' expectations of the Union."
  I should have thought that that would have enjoyed a general welcome.
  It was also specifically with a view to identifying areas open to joint action that the Maastricht European Council issued a statement in which the Council was invited
  "to prepare a report to the European Council in Lisbon on the likely development of a CFSP with a view to identifying areas open to joint action vis-a-vis particular countries or groups of countries".
  At Lisbon, a framework was also set out which included, among other things:
  "systematic co-operation between Member States in the conduct of policy on any matter of foreign or security policy…Joint action…seen as a means for the definition and implementation by the Union of a policy in the framework of the CFSP in a specific issue…must necessarily…satisfy the objectives…set out…For each area, the Union should define specific objectives",
  such as
  "strengthening democratic principles and institutions, and respect for human and minority rights; promoting regional political stability…contributing to the prevention and settlement of conflicts; contributing to a more effective international co-ordination in dealing with emergency situations; strengthening existing co-operation in issues of international interest such as the fight against arms proliferation, terrorism and the traffic in…drugs; promoting and support good government".
  We could start on that point here at home. A little charity in that regard at least would help enormously, as we have not seen many examples of good government in Britain for a long time. All the objectives are surely ones that should have widespread support, not only in the Committee, but in our country.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend tell us in what context the frequent French military involvement in the Francophone countries of west Africa would come? Would it be authorised or would it be debarred by the European Community under unanimity in foreign policy? Or could the French just carry on regardless?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has been here for the duration of the debate. Clearly he has missed the points made by some of our hon. Friends, the burden of whose argument has been that anyone's ability to act unilaterally or individually will be completely removed by the treaty. My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. Either countries can act in what they regard as their vital, if misguided, national interests, as he describes, or they cannot. I say that they can and that the proposals do not threaten their ability to do just that.
  Mr. Dykes: The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the precedents for this, including the Lisbon summit. The matter goes back to the obvious link with the Single European Act. Some of the wording is different, but article 30 under title III is the exact precursor in considerable detail of the joint foreign policy. It refers to the formulation and implementation of a joint European foreign policy. Article 2(c) says:
  "The determination of common positions shall constitute a point of reference for the policies of the High Contracting Parties."
  Nothing could have been couched in stronger terms even then.
  Dr. Cunningham: The point is well made. In Edinburgh, the European Council broadly endorsed the work at Lisbon. There will, of course, be further discussions about what should be part of that framework of conditions and what should be part of the agenda for a common foreign and security policy.
  I now turn from the theory to the reality. We all recognise that what was perceived for decades as the main security threat not only to ourselves, but to the whole of western Europe, is no longer there. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact no longer exist, but the dangers that now arise are quite different. They are political and often based on ethnic instability in parts of the former Soviet Union, in the area around the Mediterranean and in the middle east. We need to reassess our stance in terms of foreign policy and how we operate, and militarily. I shall deal with the defence implications in a little while.
  We support the implementation of common foreign and security policies which enable the Community and its member states to maintain their roles on the world stage and to contribute to the transition which is taking place now from the old confrontations and the old certainties to the different and, in many ways, far more threatening instability which approaches ever closer to the European continent—indeed, it involves some countries in Europe already.
  Such policies must be based on agreed principles. The implementation should have as objectives the maintenance of peace and security, the peaceful settlement of disputes through respect for international law, the prevention of aggression, mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions of armed forces and armaments, the promotion of social harmony and international order based on respect for human rights, and the improvement of living standards in the developing countries. That agenda, which is my party's political agenda, is not very different from the beginnings of an agenda for the European Community, to which I referred earlier. That is a sensible approach to the development of Community foreign policy.
  The areas cited resemble the ways in which the Community behaves and in which it handles problems in other contexts, such as the important discussions on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and other external trade negotiations. Major member states, such as Germany, the United Kingdom and France, often react differently to international political events. Institutional initiatives will not take away those differences. Only a process characterised by new initiatives, experiments and positive experiences can result in a common foreign policy.
  The first stages will have to be based on intergovern-mental co-operation, which, in practice, will function effectively only if, among all others, the major member states reach basic agreement. For the time being, it is not realistic to expect those member states to distance themselves from the comparative advantages, some of which have already been referred to, or from the advantages of economic power, of nuclear power or of permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, simply to favour a European Community framework whose reliability is not yet proven and which, in some respects, we may want seriously to question.
  Those are the considerations that should govern our approach to a common foreign policy. At this stage, we make our position clear. Unlike the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who has left the Committee, we support the view that the tests of
  188
  unanimity should be built in, and that we simply could not move to qualified majority voting on all these important matters.
  Mr. Spearing: Most hon. Members probably agree with my right hon. Friend on qualified majority voting. In the past few moments, my right hon. Friend has persistently and consistently used the phrase "a common foreign policy", yet he and the Foreign Secretary, who stressed the phrase, have on occasions pointed out that one will come to a policy by unanimity where it is possible and where it is advantageous. Surely if one is to have a foreign policy as a nation, one must take a consistent and coherent stand over the whole range of issues. Surely that will not be so easily possible. There may be deadlock, as predicted by several hon. Members.
  Dr. Cunningham: I understand my hon. Friend's intervention, but I do not understand his conclusion. In reality, it is unrealistic to suppose that, when important matters of national interest are involved, nations, whether this country, Germany or France, will abandon their own specific and important interests. I have repeatedly made that clear. The proposals do not expect countries to act in that way, and they do not anticipate that they will. That is the important and simple conclusion to draw. I am a little disappointed and somewhat surprised that my hon. Friend, who has spent far longer than I have dealing with European Community affairs in great detail, fails to draw such a fairly obvious conclusion.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. This procedure shows the advantage of a Committee stage. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments about what I have been doing for the past few years—unhappily and unwillingly. [HON. MEMBERS: "You enjoy it."] I do not. I should far prefer to deal with domestic matters and not to be diverted to constitutional matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that inside the Council, as on domestic and legislative matters, the natural interests of a nation often have to be suppressed to get some form of agreement? Although those interests may not be abandoned, they may not be publicly articulated, because there has to be some trade-off.
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not want to upset or antagonise my hon. Friend, but he gave a passing impression of enjoying his long and effective chairmanship of the Scrutiny Committee. If he did not really enjoy it, he kept that well disguised. We always thought that he was enjoying it, which is why we enjoyed it—and he was very effective, too.
  Of course nation states will be expected to surrender some of their sovereignty—a very emotive word—and, sometimes, although not always, it will be in their best interests as well as the common interest to do so. That has always been the case in modern government and politics, and there is nothing new about it. As I said, we have done that for decades in the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth and other international decisions in which our country has been involved.
  I do not shrink from conceding that argument, but I oppose the continuing theme of the debate that such decisions will be forced on us, or that we will always be obliged to make concessions as a result of the proposals, as that is not my interpretation of the treaty.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  5.30 pm
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I must move on.
  On the defence implications of the proposals in the treaty on European union, there is an important debate about the right vehicle for the future, and whether it should be NATO—certainly not as it is presently constituted—the Western European Union, or a completely new organisation; or whether, during the inevitable and necessary change to the position of NATO or WEU, we can modify them to take on a new role.
  No exact fit exists. NATO, as we know, includes the United States of America and Canada, and is all the better for that, and some members of WEU are not members of the European Community. We all recognise, however, that the circumstances have changed fundamentally, and that our institutions and plans must change too.
  The successful management of those changes is vital to our national and international interests, but we need better systems, and before we abandon any of the old systems, we need to be convinced that those proposed in their place would be at least as effective and, hopefully, more so. I need a lot of convincing that, at least for the foreseeable future, we should not retain NATO and change its role, but that is on the agenda for discussion, as is the role of WEU. In the Community, as well as in NATO, there are conflicting views about all that.
  I cannot speak for the new French Government, but the outgoing Government appeared to believe that Europe should have its own defence identity and that it should not be based on NATO. My party's position, and I believe that of the Government, has been the reverse: it should be based on NATO, which is a proven and effective organisation with which we have had long and effective associations. The debate must continue.
  NATO's existence makes it unnecessary for the European Community to have its own military role. NATO remains the principal defence organisation for western Europe and, as it links with the United States and Canada, we have a powerful force. In the foreseeable future, NATO will have to retain its role in the territorial defence of western Europe.
  The NATO rapid reaction force was established in recognition of that fact. That is why we supported NATO leaders in their Rome declaration that the organisation is the essential forum for consultation among its members and the venue for agreement on policies bearing on our security and defence commitments and those of our allies.
  Mr. Corbyn: I have been following closely my right hon. Friend's remarks on the defence implications and the development of a defence role for NATO or WEU. Can he tell us precisely where he thinks the threat is coming from and what he thinks that defence organisation will be defending Western Europe against?
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not know whether to conclude that my hon. Friend does not think that we should be involved in any defence alliances. If that is the thrust of his intervention, I disagree with him. First, to deal with the question about threat, Europe is threatened by instability in the middle east, in the former Yugoslavia and in the former Soviet Union. We are threatened because, by an accident of history, countries which are unable to deal with the consequences of the break-up of the Soviet Union,
  190
  either politically or economically, have found that they are major nuclear weapons powers and they do not know how to get out of that circumstance. It is a little wide of the mark to suggest that there are no threats.
  If the point of my hon. Friend's intervention was that the old threat—the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union —no longer exists, I acknowledged that earlier. However, we do not have defence agreements or alliances simply for those reasons. We are regularly urged to intervene in conflicts, as in Somalia and other areas, simply to safeguard humanitarian aid and so we need military forces and alliances. Perhaps those forces will be trained differently and have different roles and objectives, but we will certainly need them for those circumstances. The question is how, and on what basis should the forces be organised?
  Before my hon. Friend's, intervention I had said that the decision to establish a NATO rapid reaction force was the result of a realignment of NATO strategy and consequent defence requirements following dramatic international political changes. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the changes in eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Warsaw pact, the NATO policy of flexible response—with the maintenance of large-scale forward defence forces on the central European front—was no longer relevant to the new environment.
  The magnitude of the changes was first recognised at Heads of Government level at the Turnberry summit in 1989. The following July, at the NATO London summit, Alliance leaders extended a hand of friendship to eastern Europe.
  NATO will inevitably field smaller, restructured active forces, which will need to be highly mobile and versatile so that allied leaders will have maximum flexibility to decide how to respond to a crisis, whatever its nature. Increasingly, it will rely on multinational corps, made up of national units.
  NATO's new strategic concept was also influenced by the debate within the European Community on a European defence identity. Nine members of the Community are members of NATO. The creation of the Alliance's new strategy and the negotiations on the new European Community treaty—when defence proved, and continues to prove, to be a sensitive issue—took place simultaneously and have tended to conflict with each other. Perhaps in some circumstances they have delayed each other, but the announcement of a new strategic concept in November 1991 was welcome.
  In contrast, the new NATO force structure was quickly announced in May 1991. It has been alleged that that was done partly to pre-empt European Community discussions on separate European forces. I do not know whether that is true but I know that we must make some important decisions about the future development of NATO and WEU and Britain is well-placed, and is indeed obliged, to play a prominent part in those discussions.
  Much of the debate about the theory of the treaty and its implications will seem a little dusty to our fellow citizens. Striving, as we are, to reach common ground in the European Community, we currently seem to be suffering several disastrous setbacks. It is difficult to conceive of greater co-operation over foreign, security and defence policies, when apparently we cannot even resolve the implications of the common fisheries policy between ourselves and the French. It does not provide a good

  191
  example to either our European Community partners or our citizens as they see what is happening in the fishing war with the French.
  It was suggested earlier today that we should send bigger Navy vessels. These days, it seems that, if we send out a Navy vessel, we have to send a few British trawlers to safeguard it. Our Navy vessels do not seem able to look after themselves against the French fishing trawlers. That example shows the worst side of the Community, as the French display their determination to press their national interests in spite of Community agreements—a policy which is to be deplored.
  It is important that we should know as quickly as possible the attitude of the new French Government to the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. That is another example where the Community has signally failed to act, not only in our best interests, but in the interests of many other countries, including developing countries.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I have given way to to the hon. Gentleman twice already, and must press on.
  We have discussed the determination of the Federal Republic of Germany to force recognition of Croatia on the Community for the worst possible reasons, with disastrous consequences. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) that it is curious that the Federal Republic of Germany was able to get its way against the combined views of, if not all the other 11 members, certainly the majority, but the majority has failed to get its way in respect of the long overdue recognition of Macedonia, which meets all the tests and requirements.
  Given the appalling circumstances in the former Yugoslavia, I hope that we will not allow the earlier mistakes to be repeated in terms of the integrity of Macedonia and the safeguarding of its citizens.
  Mr. Cash: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are reports that the French Government are currently keeping their options open over Maastricht? Does he not agree that it would be extremely valuable if they made it clear that only 51 per cent. of the French electorate voted in the election more or less in favour, and only 36 per cent. of them subscribed to the treaty?
  Dr. Cunningham: I have heard all that before. The only surprising part of the intervention was that the hon. Gentleman referred to the French Government—I did not think that they had yet been appointed. So far, only the Prime Minister has been appointed, as far as we can tell. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be rejoicing at the advent of a right-wing Conservative Government in France, although I cannot say that I am. We shall have to see what happens. Certainly the attitude of the French towards those two important issues will be important for the well-being of the Community as a whole, and will provide an important test of whether there will be any hope of achieving in practice the objectives of the Maastricht treaty.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  5.45 pm
  Dr. Cunningham: No. I must bring my remarks to a conclusion.
  In the context of joint common action in the Community, is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that he is receiving all possible support from our Community partners in his campaign—which has the Labour party's complete support—to secure the release of Paul Ride and Michael Wainwright from their unjustified incarceration in Iraq? Are our European Community partners doing all they can to help us?
  Are our Community partners doing all they can to help us in the Government's determination—again, they have the Labour party's support—to protect the Kurdish peoples and the Shia Muslims in Iraq from the appalling actions of Saddam Hussein? I intervened in the Foreign Secretary's speech on this issue, and took his reply to mean that there was no change in Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Saddam Hussein, sanctions and Iraq. I hope that that was the right conclusion to draw.
  As the Foreign Secretary knows, we have been pressing for some time for a variation in the terms of the sanctions, especially in respect of humanitarian aid to the Kurdish people and the Shia Muslims, so that we can take the aid out of the hands and control of Saddam Hussein and direct it towards those people. At an appropriate time, will the Foreign Secretary pursue that issue with his colleagues, both in the Community and the United Nations?
  Mr. Winnick: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's comments about the need to give every possible assistance to the direct victims of Saddam Hussein's policy of terror and repression. I know that my right hon. Friend might believe that I have a prejudice, but does he not agree that the Community's record on Iraq has not been good? Germany played an active role—more active than ours, although it was unfortunate that we played any role at all —in building up Saddam Hussein's war machine, including the installation of gas. Is it not true that, if we had initially relied on a common foreign policy to combat the criminal aggression of Saddam Hussein towards Kuwait in 1990, we would never have ended the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait?
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend raises several issues. First, I am not sure, sadly, that the Germans did play a worse role than the British in creating Saddam Hussein's war machine. Given what I now know about the supergun affair and Matrix Churchill, I am not sure whether our record is better or more admirable than the Germans'.
  The point that my hon. Friend raises about the European Community common foreign policy is one of the four points agreed for the agenda on arms control and the common approach to it throughout the Community. That is one of the reasons why that policy has my strong support. We should learn the lessons of creating monster war machines that end up in the hands of murderous villains like Saddam Hussein. We should learn the lessons together and act together in future to prevent a repetition.
  I have a criticism of Her Majesty's Government's attitude to a nuclear test ban treaty. France—one of our Community partners—Russia, and the United States of America have already announced their participation in a moratorium on the testing of nuclear weapons. Of the five major nuclear powers, only Britain and China have opposed a complete test ban agreement. No further testing

  193
  is necessary for either defence or scientific reasons. Whatever further work needs to be done could be adequately conducted under laboratory conditions. That conclusion has widespread support in the scientific community in this country and elsewhere, including the United States of America.
  Why does not the Foreign Secretary make one of the tests of a common foreign policy and security approach in the Comunity the adoption of a nuclear test ban treaty? If agreed, it would not only be a big step along the way to promoting the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons—one of the objectives—but a vital step towards the successful renegotiation of the non-proliferation treaty, which is due for renewal in 1995. It would be an excellent test for common action in the Community, especially as there are only two nuclear weapons powers among the Community members.
  I hope that the Foreign Secretary will use his undoubted skill and experience to seek better co-operation in the Community on all the issues I have raised, especially the last one.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Let me begin by associating myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and issuing a mild rebuke to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I think it a pity that my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman spoke so early in the debate; it would have been better if they had summed up after others had spoken. As a rule, the arrangement has much to commend it. I realise that they will be able to speak later, and they may well do so; but I wanted to make the point.
  I agreed with much of what was said by both the right hon. Member for Copeland and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I was slightly surprised, however, that neither picked up one of the points made last week, in a shrewd and perceptive speech, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). He spoke of China's emergence into enormous economic strength, and pointed out that in the next century the balance of power would effectively move from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
  That, more than anything else, is a reason for European cohesion and co-operation, and that above all makes me an enthusiastic supporter of my right hon. Friend. I believe that it is in all our interests for the nations of Europe—with the nations of the present Community at the centre —to work closely together. I do not believe that they should sacrifice their individual sovereignty—none of us thinks that, and both my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and the Foreign Secretary have consistently made the point—but I feel that we should all work together, for the good of everyone.
  During the first general election in which I played any part—the 1959 election—I acted as ADC to the candidate in Grimsby, Lincolnshire. That was the famous Macmillan election, which began with a television broadcast featuring Eisenhower and Macmillan looking at the globe. The recruitment of Eisenhower to aid his election prospects was, perhaps, a slightly unscrupulous use of a foreign visitor by the old wizard Macmillan, but it was
  194
  nevertheless extremely effective. The slogan that emerged from that meeting rather dominated the election, certainly in our part of the world: it was "peace and prosperity".
  Two aims that concern all whom we represent—and, indeed, everyone in the European Community—are the ability to live in peace and the existence, or at least the prospect, of prosperity. I believe that we shall be better able to achieve that if we work together within the Community.
  Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cormack: I will do so later, but I want to develop my arguments first.
  One of the amendments strikes at the heart of what many of my hon. Friends who call themselves Euro-sceptics constantly advance as a powerful argument. I agree with that argument, which holds that we need a broader and wider Europe. One of the most significant features of the Maastricht treaty is the fact that it allows for an expanding Europe and an expanding Community. Already Finland, Sweden and Norway are ready to join, and I hope that they will do so. I hope even more that, before the end of the decade, the newly independent nations of eastern and central Europe will also be able to join.
  I believe that it will be possible to achieve de Gaulle's Europe—extending from the Atlantic to the Urals—in our lifetime. It will not be a tightly centralised, monolithic, federalist Europe; it will be a Europe of diversity, and of strength through diversity. A Europe working in co-operation, however, would have a much greater chance of being a peaceful Europe than would a fragmented Europe.
  I do not really understand the purpose of amendment No. 227. It proposes the deletion of article 238, which governs entry into association agreements. That would make it more difficult for us to offer co-operation and participation to the nations of eastern Europe: it therefore stands in the way of our achieving the very goal that non-federalist Europeans such as myself want to achieve. I do not think that it is very sensible.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Copeland and others have mentioned some of the events in Europe that make co-operation so necessary; indeed, they have been mentioned a good deal. We have a fragmented Soviet Union, an enormous area that now includes four nuclear powers. Russia—the great Russian federation—is teetering on the brink of what could be internal upheaval and catastrophe. Was there ever a greater need for cohesion and co-operation among the other European nations? That is brought home to us particularly strongly by what has happened over the past year in the former Yugoslavia.
  I make no apology for wanting to say a bit more about that. It has been mentioned by almost every other speaker, and I take a particular interest in the subject. In all my years of involvement in public life, I have never felt a greater sense of sadness and shame than in the past 12 months when witnessing the brutality, repression and appalling atrocities that have been perpetrated, especially in Bosnia. No hon. Member on either side of the Committee can have observed the evacuation of Srebrenica in recent days with anything other than a sense of shock and shame. It is an indictment of our failure, as well as an illustration of our need to work together.

  195
  I do not for a moment accuse the Government of not trying to take initiatives; nor do I accuse other European nations of not trying to participate in ending the conflict. Indeed, I pay tribute—I am sure that all other hon. Members will echo my view—to the extraordinary calm and bravery of our own troops who are now in the former Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, as soldiers have told me, it is a shaming experience for United Nations forces—some of them British—to be forced to witness the killing of women and children, and not to have a mandate enabling them to deal with the perpetrators of such atrocious deeds. It is clear beyond serious challenge that most of those deeds are being performed by the Serbs; it is also clear—as has been illustrated by that brave man General Morillon—that, even in the past two or three weeks, there has been bombardment from Serbia. Planes and troops have entered Bosnia from that country.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have talked of the wisdom or otherwise of recognising Bosnia. I accept that the recognition of Bosnia may well have been premature. I was one of those who were anxious for Croatia to be recognised, but I believe that there are differences between the two. None the less, Bosnia was recognised, and from that moment it became an internationally recognised sovereign state.
  I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong and flawed in both the international system and our European policies of co-operation and cohesion if, within days of its recognition, a country can be the subject of aggression, and if, for a year following its recognition, it can be the subject of repression, brutality and the appalling horrors of ethnic cleansing, which bring to mind the worst excesses and terrors of the second world war.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the root cause of the problem in Yugoslavia is that it is a federal state which believes in ever closer union, in a single institutional framework, in the free movement of peoples, and so on? The same applies to the old USSR. Is it not possible that that is the root cause of some of the problems in Bosnia?
  6 pm
  Mr. Cormack: No, I do not believe that the analogy which my hon. Friend seeks to draw is either accurate or good. Many of the ingredients in the old Yugoslavia do not apply to the European Community. The same is abundantly true of the former Soviet Union.
  The unfolding tragedy of the last year has shown, in very sharp measure, the need for the nations of Europe to work together to preserve the peace. It has also highlighted the fact that we are a long way from having got it right. There is no point in arguing again over the points that some of us made a year or more ago. We felt that, rather than rule out the doctrine of the deterrent, we should make it plain to Serbia that we were prepared to use force. Some of these tragedies could then have been avoided. However, blood has flowed; people are dead. We cannot put the clock back.
  I hope and pray that the Vance-Owen plan—which, for all its imperfections, is subscribed to by two of the three parties—will come into effect soon. There will then be a new challenge for both the United Nations and the European Community. Bosnia will not exist as an independent sovereign state merely because three people have signed a piece of paper. It will exist as an independent
  196
  sovereign state only if there is the will, determination and resolution to ensure that heavy weaponry is not available to the warring factions. Bosnia will exist as an independent sovereign state only if there is a willingness to create either a European Community or United Nations protectorate so that the peace can be kept and so that people who recently lived together can live together again.
  Only last week I called on a constituent—a Serbian from Croatia. Living with her are some of her Serbian family members from Bosnia. They told me then, as they told me in the past, that until relatively recently they lived together in friendship and that people intermarried. Theirs was a model of how an ethnic "mix" can work. The day before I called to see her last week, a letter had been smuggled out telling her that one of her relatives, a Serb, had been shot down by Serbs in the streets of the town where they lived. The widow had been refused access to the body, which had lain in the street and had been attacked by dogs. She had not been allowed to bury her husband's body. That is happening in our Europe today. We should take it as a spur to greater action to try to achieve European co-operation and integration.
  What is the use of bandying around words such as sovereignty, important though such words are, to people like that? As the right hon. Member for Copeland said, whenever one enters into an international agreement one surrenders some sovereignty. Had we not done that, we should not have gone to war in 1914 or in 1939, and we should not have won the cold war. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that is what collective security is all about.
  I believe that out of our European Community it is possible to forge greater collective security, with greater protective power, than our continent has ever enjoyed. I believe, too, that if we do not do that, the messages of impotence that will go out to the territories of the former Soviet Union will be dire indeed. I urge all my right hon. and hon. Friends, whose scepticism I respect and which, to a degree, I share, not to allow themselves to become bogged down in legalistic niceties. I urge them to realise that there is an opportunity to forge a degree of collective security, and that if we opt out of the treaty now and turn our backs on the other 11 nations of the Community, we shall jeopardise that opportunity.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend has frequently had his say. This is the first time that I have intervened in these debates, and, as it may be the last, I want to make the point that we shall jeopardise, to the peril of our children and grandchildren, the opportunity to live in a peaceful Europe. That is why I believe that this is the right course to take. I believe entirely in what the right hon. Member for Copeland and the Foreign Secretary said in their speeches: that we preserve, by insisting upon unanimity —I should vote against it if it did not—our ultimate independent sovereignty, some of which should be pooled in the interests of the future peace, stability and prosperity of Europe.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: For some considerable time the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has been an able advocate of the Bosnian cause. I cannot imagine that any hon. Member who has just listened to him has failed to be deeply impressed by the passion with which he spoke and by the perception that he brought to

  197
  bear on Bosnia and the fate of the former Yugoslavia. Although I do not think he said so in terms, the hon. Gentleman made what, in my judgment, was one of the most persuasive arguments in support of a common foreign and security policy for the European Community that I have ever had the privilege to hear.
  I have no reservations about a common foreign and security policy, nor do I have any reservations about the common defence policy to which, in my judgment, it will inevitably lead. I believe that to be right, for some of the reasons that have been given by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South. Europe needs policies that result in a far greater integration of our attitude towards foreign and security affairs. I believe, too, that the very momentum which will be created by the Maastricht treaty, once signed and ratified, will inevitably bring about that integration. In particular, it will bring about a far greater degree of integration in defence matters. The terms of the treaty may not make that legally inevitable, but I believe that events will necessarily make it so.
  I do not for one moment minimise the difficulties involved in the evolution of a common defence policy. If, however, one thinks back over the history of the Community, the fact that matters have been inevitable has not necessarily meant that they have been easy to achieve. Sometimes it appeared that the more inevitable a stage in the development of the Community was, the more the difficulties that stood in the way of the achievement of that objective.
  We should consider this issue against the background of the Single European Act and the treaty. They necessarily imply that a greater degree of economic integration will also lead to a much greater degree of political integration. If economic integration leads towards political integration, the inevitable consequence is that we shall require a common foreign policy. If we have a common foreign policy, we shall also need a much greater degree of integration on security matters. One cannot have that, in my judgment, without a common defence policy as well.
  The progress will not be institutional; it will not be determined by the passage of the Bill with whose Committee stage we are at present concerned. The progress will necessarily be organic. It seems to me that, if one had wanted to stop this progress, one would have had to take the austere position of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who I see is not with us today. He has had in the past a wholly consistent attitude in these matters and was arguing a long time ago that the mere fact of economic integration contained political implications which, in his judgment, it was improper for the United Kingdom to contemplate.
  I believe that when we embarked upon the process of economic integration we established, perhaps not knowingly at the time, a number of objectives. Of those objectives, a common security and foreign policy was certainly one and, for the reasons that I have already given, an inevitable consequence of that would be a common defence policy.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing that the institutional arrangements are not really needed and that political integration in both foreign and security policy and defence policy will evolve in an organic way.
  198
  Why, then, does he think that it is necessary to include these provisions in the treaty? These are international legal obligations. I take it that he agrees that they are a good idea, but his arguments suggest that they are not necessary, so why is he going along with them?
  Mr. Campbell: The fault may be one of delivery, or indeed one of comprehension. It would be better perhaps not to speculate on which it is. Let me make it perfectly clear that I believe that the development of a common defence policy, which is hinted at in the terms of the treaty that we are discussing, will be an organic matter. The point that I was endeavouring to convey was that, as soon as we entered into an economic community rather than a free trade area, we set ourselves upon a path towards a much greater degree of political co-operation, and the path of political co-operation, in my judgment, inevitably led to arguments, compelling in themselves, for much greater co-operation in foreign policy, security and, ultimately, defence policy as well.
  That was why I cited the example of the hon. Member for Southend, East. He at least saw, as long ago perhaps as the accession of the United Kingdom to the treaty of Rome, that the first economic step contained within it political implications which were objectionable to him. It is a pity that many others who now find this treaty so objectionable were not so minded at the time when the hon. Member for Southend, East foresaw with such clarity what we might be discussing today.
  There is another economic argument which, in relation to defence policies, is at least worthy of consideration. It lies somewhat pragmatically in the cost of defence procurement. It is clear that, in order to continue to afford to procure equipment, it will be increasingly necessary to do so on a co-operative basis. The increasingly sophisticated nature of defence equipment makes it extremely expensive.
  A country such as ours will therefore find itself facing a choice. Either it will have to go it alone, which will be expensive, perhaps becoming entirely, or substantially, reliant upon the United States of America—and I think that many would see that as politically undesirable and as having adverse economic consequences for the United Kingdom—or it will have to continue to enhance and encourage co-operative projects with our European allies. The more common our procurement becomes, the more easily will joint defence policies be implemented.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. and learned Gentleman rightly pays a tribute to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Does he not realise that these views were held by many hon. Members, irrespective of party, and that he is rightly saying what some of us foresaw at that time? In respect of security, does he not agree with me that real security comes from something much deeper than having weapons, and that real security for a community is the ability to have employment and a secure future for one's family and oneself? The Procrustean way in which the European Community operates will probably breed great dissatisfaction and there may well be a problem of internal security, which could produce very ugly and difficult scenes and problems, not least for us in this place.
  Mr. Campbell: I was with the hon. Gentleman until he got to Procrustean, and at that point I am afraid that he

  199
  lost me—not because I did not understand the meaning of the word, but because from then on he was saying something that I simply could not agree with. It is right that he has been a sceptic, in the genuine sense of the word, about the European Community. If I ought, in generosity, to pay him the same tribute as I paid to the hon. Member for Southend, East, I am very happy to do so. He can claim consistency in that respect at least.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that security does not depend simply on the number of tanks, weapons or men under arms. Security is a much more fundamental issue. Indeed, the more we can satisfy the economic aspirations of the members of the former Warsaw pact, the less we may need to be concerned about the prospect of large-scale immigration. If there are ways of doing this that involve economic assistance to those countries, it could be argued that a Community of 12 might be better able to give that assistance than countries operating on an individual basis, and thus to ensure the security of the former Warsaw pact countries and of ourselves as well.
  I will examine this matter for a moment against the background of changing attitudes in the United States of America. It would appear that the new Administration have fixed on a level of 100,000 troops in Europe, but none of us can believe that this number has been set in concrete. The next time the United States budget requires to be trimmed, it cannot be imagined that that number will be sacrosanct. A United States senator of my acquintance said to me not long ago that, if it came to bringing troops home from Europe or preserving a defence installation in his state, there would really be no choice.
  It is clear also that the attitude of the new Administration in the United States is to expect Europe and the Europeans to take a bigger share of the responsibility for the defence of Europe. That is not a new concept; we have been talking about burden sharing for the past four or five years. The question that now arises in a very sharp way is how that can best be done, and not just in the short term.
  I accept that for the foreseeable future we shall require the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I accept that the bridge of the Western European Union is a necessary part of the greater responsibility for the defence of Europe which the Europeans will have to take. But we must also on an occasion such as this have some regard for the long term. I believe that in the long term Europe will require to have its own defence policy.
  In the debate there has already been reference to the fact that NATO contains not just the United States of America, but Canada as well. It was said that this was a good thing and highly desirable. But we should ask ourselves how many troops the Canadians have in mainland Europe. At the moment there are 1,300, and by the middle of next year they will have none at all and all their bases will be closed. I believe that if there is a change in Government there may be a slight modification to that policy, but the commitment of Canadian resources to Europe is clearly very substantially under review.
  The United States of America is increasingly influenced by economic considerations, as the conduct of President Clinton's campaign eloquently demonstrated, and we know that it has embarked upon a fundamental review of its defence commitments. I believe that the United States will remain in NATO and I trust that Canada will continue to play an important part in NATO, but in the long term it is surely right for the European Community to consider
  200
  how it can best preserve its own security, with that necessary component, among others, of sufficient and adequate defence.
  The co-operation to which the Secretary of State referred will, if it is effective, become one of the most compelling arguments for yet closer integration. As the debate has developed, a number of hon. Members have made it clear that they are of the view that title V will lead to an erosion of national sovereignty. The focus of that attack seemed to be on the introduction of joint actions to be taken in areas defined by the Council
  "on the basis of the general guidelines from the European Council".
  Some interventions demonstrated that hon. Gentlemen were breaching the first canon of the construction of all statutes and treaties—that one must read the document in the round and not extract pieces or proposals to justify one's own position. In particular, it is perfectly clear from paragraph 2 of article J.3 that any single member state can insist that there is no majority voting on a subject, and that all decisions connected with a joint action must be taken by consensus. That is self-evidently the case in paragraph 2 of article J.3 and it necessarily qualifies other parts of the title. To extract parts of the title and seek to allow them to stand alone is to fly in the face of any sensible construction of the provisions of the treaty.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that we should take the document in the round. In that sense, the document we are discussing, the title as part of the treaty, has an enormous effect on individual countries' policies. For example, under the commmon defence policy, what is the future of Irish neutrality or the non-nuclear defence policy of the Danish Government and people that has already resulted in one no vote in a referendum and that I hope will contribute to a second no vote in a referendum?
  Mr. Campbell: I understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I do not understand what point he seeks to make in relation to what I have been saying. At Maastricht, Denmark was able to negotiate and obtain a derogation in relation to certain matters. There is no common defence policy—that is the fundamental mistake in the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The title seeks only to establish a common foreign and security policy. I believe that in due course there will be a common defence policy and the treaty refers to that possibility, but, in relation to the hon. Gentleman's intervention—
  Mr. Corbyn: What about the coalition?
  Mr. Campbell: The coalition that we have established is based on an accurate reading of the treaty. That seems to be a reasonable coalition, and we should be happy to admit the hon. Gentleman to the coalition were he to satisfy that condition.
  Mr. Sweeney: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the primary rule of interpretation is that one gives the words their plain and ordinary meaning? In any interpretation of article J, is it not clear that the treaty leads us inexorably towards a common foreign policy and a common defence policy?
  Mr. Campbell: No; the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Let me invite him to join the coalition of those who have read the treaty and understand it. I believe that, in political terms, it will lead in due course to a common defence

  201
  policy, but title V deals only with the matters contained within the treaty. Although it refers to a common defence policy, it does so in a necessarily qualified way and, as a consequence, it cannot be claimed that title V leads inevitably to what the hon. Gentleman is now claiming.
  Mr. Marlow: Let us try once again. I tried to raise this question with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and he managed skilfully to evade the issue. Paragraph 1 of article J.1 states:
  "The Union…shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy…covering all areas of foreign and security policy."
  Is that ambiguous or clear?
  Mr. Campbell: It is perfectly clear. What is ambiguous in the hon. Gentleman's mind is the extent to which the independence of action of the United Kingdom is prejudiced by signature to the treaty, and in particular to title V. It is perfectly correct that the provision reads in the terms that the hon. Gentleman has elucidated, but he must read article J.3 in its entirety to understand that the United Kingdom has the right to opt out at any stage of any provision of any policy which article J.1 might establish. That is the point for Tory Members.
  The title seeks to establish a common foreign and security policy, but it also permits the United Kingdom to opt out of that in every material respect. What are described as joint actions can be taken only on the basis of unanimity if any member of the Community declines to accept them being taken on a majority vote basis. That misunderstanding has run through a remarkable number of interventions, in particular that by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) during the speech of the Foreign Secretary.
  Nothing in the treaty would have precluded the United Kingdom from carrying out the operations in the South Atlantic in 1982. Nothing in the treaty would have precluded the United Kingdom from following an interest of its own, separate and divisible from the interests of other members of the European Community, and to represent it as in some way trenching upon that competence is to misunderstand and misrepresent the position.
  I have some criticisms of the treaty because I do not believe it goes far enough. We still rely too heavily on the intergovernmental approach. I am not entirely impressed by the notion that the Council remains in these matters the highest authority, that the role of the Commission remains largely unchanged or that the role of the Parliament continues to be limited and is merely to be consulted. I should like the policy to go further and reflect a greater degree of political integration, but this is the only treaty we have. Although I believe that there is an inevitability about that greater integration, none the less we have in the treaty an important step in the right direction.
  In the unstable post-cold war world of rising nationalism and ethnic disputes, where once again the boundaries and frontiers of Europe are being redrawn, and not always as a result of peace conferences, the need for further economic integration and for greater political integration should no longer be seen as separate issues. The Maastricht treaty recognises that and looks upon the common foreign and security policy as constituting a basic element of further European union. We should also—and
  202
  this was hinted at in the speech by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South—recognise that not only do we in the Community have the ability to fashion and form policy commensurate with our economic power and political stability, but we also have obligations.
  Stating a moral obligation in the context of foreign affairs does not always evoke a ready response in the listener, but the picture that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South painted of what is happening in Europe, of our impotence and indecision, was a compelling argument for precisely the foreign and security policy which title V seeks to achieve. There is unquestionably an argument that the sometimes quoted observation of Henry Kissinger who said "When I want to speak to Europe, who do I phone?" is still as true as it was when he made it.
  The creation of a common defence policy in Europe will be extremely complex and the present double-hatting between NATO and Western European Union may be, in military terms, difficult to manage, and, in political terms, has quite a lot of criticism attached to it. Therefore, in the arrangements that necessarily assume the continued existence of NATO for the foreseeable future, the use of WEU will, in many respects, appear to some to be a short-term solution; but a short-term solution which ought, by itself, to create the circumstances in which a longer-term solution of the kind the title provides for, developed in a way in which I believe it will be, will be extremely advantageous to the people of western Europe.
  It is fair to say that I am disappointed that title V does not go as far as I would wish, but I am not all that much disappointed, because I believe that time and the inexorable course of events are substantially in my favour.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this set of amendments. When we began this debate last Thurday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) acknowledged that there is a danger that the distinction between the intergovernmental and Community pillars dealing with foreign affairs may be eroded, since disparate aspects of foreign and security policy are "inextricably woven together."
  As the excellent research paper produced by the Library staff puts it,
  "it is fiction that foreign and security policies can somehow be compartmentalised."
  Obviously, any common market implies some form of co-operation between member nations in certain areas. That the European Economic Community should entail certain common postures on areas of foreign policy has been manifest from the day it was created. I would not attempt to argue otherwise.
  However, it is also a fiction that the formulation of a common foreign and security policy can be isolated from Community involvement and preserved in the field of intergovernmental co-operation. There must be a significant overlap between the two. Article 228a is a perfect example of the fact that such linkage between the pillars is anticipated. Another example is article J.11 which furnishes the supposedly intergovernmental pillar in foreign and security policy with largely the same institutional framework for the Commission and European Parliament as that of the European Communities.

  203
  As other hon. Members have pointed out, article J.9 states:
  "The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out in the common foreign and security policy field."
  That such links are to be found between the two pillars is unsurprising. Nor is it new. When Ministers argue that much of what is contained in Maastricht's title V already exists in the European political co-operation arrangement, as amended by the Single European Act, they are partly correct.
  The Commission already has a role in the formulation of Community co-operation on foreign policy. Indeed the wording of article J.9 must have been lifted from the Single European Act, article 30(3b) of which reads:
  "The Commission shall be fully associated with the proceedings of Political Co-operation."
  But that is only partly correct, because Maastricht's
  "Provisions on a Common Foreign and Security Policy"
  go far beyond what was envisaged by the Single European Act. The Single European Act specifies in article 30(1) that the nation states shall
  "endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a European foreign policy'.
  Such endeavours left considerable discretion to the European nations over which areas would be included within the boundaries of political co-operation.
  If you will, the menu was available a la carte. But Maastricht is a set menu and it states in article J.1(1) that
  "all areas of foreign and security policy"
  are to be covered by the common policy. Maastricht replaces the a la carte conception of European political co-operation, as envisaged in the Single European Act, with an insistence on a common policy which is comprehensive in scope.
  I refuse to believe that when, in the Single European Act, we agreed to revisit political co-operation five years on, we envisaged that European political co-operation would evolve into the all-embracing common policy set forth by Maastricht. If we had, I am certain that there would have been far less support for the Single European Act, because it would have implied acquiescence to an irreversible erosion of our national powers.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Member is making a simple and effective point. Is there, or will there be, the additional problem that all those who now wish to join the Community will have to accede to all the terms of the treaty, as the Foreign Secretary said in evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs recently, including common foreign and security policy provisions? Some of the applicants have neutrality clauses in their constitutions. I wonder whether there is any derogation related to this treaty for the neutrality clauses in their constitutions. Has the Foreign Secretary explained that? I should welcome some clarification.
  Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Member makes a good point and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will respond to it at the conclusion of the debate.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member is making the case which many of us have made—that whatever the separation in the plans the edifice will not be supported by pillars or buttresses. It will be a whole. Does he agree that one of the major features is the reorganisation of the Commission, together with its directors-general and staff? Is he aware that recently, in the new Commission, Mr. van den Broek has been given responsibility for external policy
  204
  and political relations and common security policy and enlargement negotiations? He is, in effect, the Commission's foreign secretary. That is a new feature in the system.
  Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Member makes a powerful point. We have Ministers' assurances that the formulation of a common foreign and security policy will be made with the unanimous consent of all the nations and that Britain will be able to block any measure to which it objects. When they say such things, it is clear that they are casting a blind eye on the declaration of voting in matters of common foreign and security policy which are tacked on at the end of the Maastricht treaty. Let me remind hon. Members of what that says:
  "The Conference agrees that, with regard to Council decisions requiring unanimity, Member States will, to the extent possible, avoid preventing a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision."
  Mr. Hurd: It is not Ministers' assurances that provide for unanimity but the treaty. We had long hours of discussion about that and many people wanted majority voting to be the rule in the treaty. That was not agreed. The treaty provides for unanimity. It is absolute, with the exception of the point about the double lock which I went into. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here at that time. The declaration is a consolation prize. It says "to the extent possible". It is a declaration. The treaty makes it clear how the policy is to be put together. It is to be put together to the extent that there is unanimity. My hon. Friend is perfectly right that I used the same words. There is a case. He is right about the sanctions in article 228a, but, if he reads the article carefully, he will see that it provides that before the Council can move to sanctions and the economic aspect, there has to be a common position, or a position on joint action. That is unanimous.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was right in what he said about Mr. van den Broek. There was a good example this weekend. A troika of Ministers went to Moscow and Mr. van den Broek went with them. If we are considering seriously how we should handle the present situation in Russia, we must accept that it has a political and an economic aspect. That is perfectly orderly. Equally, there is a Community aspect and a policy co-operation aspect, an overlap. What the treaty does for the first time is prevent a steady expansion of Community competence into that overlap by the provisions that I detailed at length for the pillar.
  Mr. Sweeney: When I listen to my right hon. Friend, I am momentarily lulled into a false sense of security—[Interruption.] I do not want to feel insecure. The provision clearly says:
  "Member States will, to the extent possible, avoid preventing a unanimous decision."
  What could be clearer than that? Taken in conjunction with the general thrust of title V and the provisions of article J, we are clearly dealing with serious stuff. Article J.1(4) says:
  "The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity."
  Mr. Marlow: In an important speech yesterday, one of Europe's foremost statesmen, dealing with the vital subject of what is happening in foreign policy, talked about
  "dreams of society that have inspired many good and clever people."

  205
  One might interpret the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) as representing a dream of society that inspired many good and clever people. But the statesman from whose speech I quoted added:
  "When that dream was impossible, it led quickly and inevitably to tyranny."
  That speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Sweeney: We know, and are proud of the fact, that Britain lives up to its commitments in the EC more fully than does any other signatory. That is the difficulty about my right hon. Friend's comments. We will abide by the spirit of article J. That will result in our being bound to go along with the formulation of a common foreign policy. The first words could not be clearer:
  "A common foreign and security policy is hereby established"
  and it goes on to say that it will cover all areas of foreign and security policy. There is no mention of an opt-out for our policy on, say, Hong Kong or the Falklands.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hesitate to try to persuade the hon. Gentleman, in view of the efforts of the Foreign Secretary, but he must read the treaty as a whole and ascribe to it the language in which it is written. The declaration is an exhortation, an encouragement to people to seek to achieve unanimity. There is no obligation in the declaration. Article J.3(2) makes it clear that there is no obligation on the United Kingdom to fulfil joint action which is arrived at under the provisions unless the United Kingdom is willing to agree that there should be majority voting. Consensus is necessary—
  Mr. Spearing: Or pressure.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman refers to pressure. It is political pressure, and it is political pressure which we should be capable of resisting if we thought that it was in our interest to do so.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Sweeney: We are reluctant to resist political pressure whenever we are accused of being anti-communautaire. As I said, of all the EC member states, we are the best at obeying the rules of the club. Because I believe that we would obey the rules, I do not want them widened to impose obligations on us, even if they are imposed morally rather than absolutely.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman will accept that Governments, even the present British Government, have foreign policies that vary according to the exigencies of the time and in relation to the way in which world events develop. The fact that one says that one has a foreign policy does not mean that everything in that policy is filled in. Unless there is unanimity in any area of foreign and security policy, it does not become part of the foreign policy of the European Community.
  Mr. Sweeney: Once it became policy, we should have an obligation to support it, even if our interests as a nation state were in conflict with it. As I said, we are proud of the fact that Britain lives up to its commitments as a member
  206
  of the EC. I do not doubt that that will continue to be the case, for our forthright actions, our living up to our word, are a flattering reflection on our national character.
  We will not ignore the declaration on voting, even if it is not binding. Ministers must agree with that. For ever saying no will not bring us to the heart of Europe, and an argument adduced by Ministers in support of ratifying the treaty is that we want to be at the heart of Europe. If at any time we disagree with our European partners on progress towards a common foreign policy, we shall undoubtedly be accused of not being at the heart of Europe. I can hear it being said now.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Is not the whole premise of my hon. Friend's argument based on the understanding that every time we have an argument we lose it? Does not history teach us that every time we have had an argument with our European colleagues, we have tended to win it? So the fears that he has, and which seem to run through his whole argument, are based on that false premise.
  Mr. Sweeney: What worries me is that the British people, who have shown in successive opinion polls what they think of the treaty, do not seem to be winning the argument with the Government. It ignores political realities to suggest that Britain will oppose all measures supported by a majority of our partners whenever we consider those measures to be against our nation's best interests. Hence, given the intention of the declaration on voting, it is clear that a veto in the area of foreign and security policy will be left to extreme cases, and they would already be covered by the Luxembourg compromise.
  Mr. John Carlisle: I intervene lest my hon. Friend feels somewhat beleaguered. I assure him that there is much support for the spirit of his argument and for the feeling of distrust, perhaps of the political system—possibly distrust of one's political masters, both here and in Europe—to put into fruition the so-called spirit of the treaty. He is right to point out the anomalies that he has described and the fears that he expresses on behalf of many, including many outside this place. If it is any comfort to him, I assure him that he is not alone, not just in the Committee; he has many friends outside as well.
  Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, as usual, is forthright and outspoken in support of the British people.
  The formulation of a common foreign and security policy implies a severe constraint on our ability to shape our foreign policy in the manner we think best. Article J.2 says:
  "Member States shall ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions."
  I am not convinced that our European partners interpret that obligation in the cavalier fashion demonstrated by our Ministers. Once we have agreed to pursue a common foreign policy, we may use the veto given by the unanimous voting requirement to block particular policies within an area of the common policy, but our partners would probably consider it a breach of the spirit of the treaty, if not of its letter, to block the development of a common policy for a broad policy field.
  Likewise, once a common policy is open to development in all aspects, it is not clear that divergent

  207
  national policies may be pursued freely, even in areas where no common policy has yet been devised. Let me cite a case in point.
  The second half of article J.5(4) pronounces:
  "Member States which are also states of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States fully informed. Member States which are permanent members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, ensure the defence of the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter."
  In other words, our ability to perform our most important international functions as we see fit is impeded. In the Security Council, we must "concert", or work together, to find and support a common position, always with France and with other nations as necessary when they sit in the Security Council. Will our views always be consistent with theirs? It seems improbable, yet we are given no opt-out from the obligation to concert.
  Mr. Hurd: I note the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument. He is abandoning the attempt to prove that the text of the treaty makes any imposition on us. On the whole, Conservative critics have done the same. He is arguing the case for what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) called political infection. He is saying that, in practice, we would not be able to use the veto which, as a result of our discussion, he and others generally acknowledge exists.
  My hon. Friend talks about the Security Council. We are permanent members by virtue of the charter of the United Nations which long antedates the treaty of Rome or any subsequent European instruments. We had a long discussion on that very point, and I tried to explain to the Committee how it works in practice. What now happens in practice will be established by article J.5 of the treaty. We keep our partners informed; we work with them and concert with them. This is without prejudice to our responsibilities under the UN charter. Nothing that we are required to do under the treaty can prejudice the way in which we perform our duties as a permanent member of the Security Council. The only basis on which we are permanent members is the charter. That is light years away from the concept of our giving up to a European seat. We are not. The careful negotiation and formulation of the article to which my hon. Friend refers proves that to be true—it is without prejudice.
  Mr. Sweeney: I am certainly not abandoning the argument on the wording of the treaty. I am trying to put it in the context of the overall position of our defence and foreign policy.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
  Mr. Sweeney: I should like to make progress, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Spearing: As has been said, the Foreign Secretary makes a very appealing case, but is not there a flaw in his argument? He is saying that we are putting in the treaty only what already happens through co-operation. In so doing, will we not lose the chance to use a little less co-operation if we think necessary because the treaty imposes a moral obligation, if nothing else? At the moment, we may give our co-operation and wholehearted consent whereas the treaty could introduce an element of coercion.
  Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well, but I would go further—it not only could but does introduce an element of coercion. Moreover, through our status as a permanent member, our role in the Security Council is largely being relegated to that of Community spokesman. We can at least take some solace in the fact that the European union will have two vetoes on the Security Council while the United States, Russia and China still have only one each.
  I am especially happy to have caught your eye, Mr. Lofthouse, because we have reached the point where we can return to the biggest issue confronting us over Maastricht. The main intent of the Maastricht treaty is to create a European union. That point has been submerged during much of the Committee stage as we have been channelled by the Bill to concentrate on the changes that the treaty on European union makes to the European Economic Community treaty, the treaty of Rome. However, the significant changes that are made to the existing Community treaties are complementary measures undertaken to facilitate the fundamental goal of the creation of the European union. In covering title V, the group of amendments allows the Committee to return to the fundamental question—do we want to be implicated in the creation of a European union?
  At the heart of the treaty on European union is the desire to build the political unification of western Europe. That is what the treaty on European union is all about. The common foreign and security policy which we are discussing is part of that. The irrevocable fixing of exchange rates which we discussed last week was another part. European citizenship is yet another part—and the list goes on.
  I do not want political union. I do not want the political unification of Community countries, which will be affected by the treaty on European union. I do not believe that most of the British nation want political unification and, in their hearts, I do not believe that most hon. Members want it, either.
  Mr. Rogers: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this country has for many years participated in various international organisations with regard to foreign affairs and defence policy? We are part of NATO and have given up a measure of British sovereignty. We participate in the Western European Union and the United Nations. What is so awful about participating with the same countries in some form of economic union?
  Mr. Sweeney: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. We have participated in various agreements with other nations, but the treaty of Rome and its subsequent amendments are fundamentally different in nature from NATO and all the other treaties into which this nation has entered, because they involve a surrender of sovereignty. They involve not merely an agreement for a specific period of time, an agreement which can be changed, but a self-perpetuating system with its own court and its own institutions, which grows bigger and more influential all the time.
  If we adopt this aspect of the treaty, we shall give entirely the wrong signals to our American partners in NATO. At a time when America is experiencing serious economic problems and has had a change of Government, which is likely to make the United States more isolationist than hitherto, if we set off what is seen as an embryo

  209
  European defence bloc, the way will be clear for the United States to begin withdrawing support from NATO. That is my fundamental objection to this part of the treaty.
  As I have said, we all agree that some co-ordination of policies is necessary to make the single market work. Let us leave it at that and stick to the present system of European political co-operation as formulated in the Single European Act. Let us say no to political unification, no to title V and no to the common foreign and security policy.
  Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), although, if I were to follow precisely what he said, I should have some difficulty knowing where to start. It will be no surprise to him to learn that I disagree with almost all that he said because we approach the subject from a different standpoint. However, it would be very unfair if, following his speech, mission control at Great College street, run by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), was to recall him or not field him again because he is a perfectly good advertisement for those who share his views. It would be unfair if he were not fielded again.
  Other interventions have reflected rather more realistically the obvious scepticism about the ability of the foreign policies of member states to converge. Given the divergence of national interests and the way in which the outlooks and international experiences of nations differ, that is a statement of the obvious. At least we know what we are dealing with, and what our starting point is, when we are dealing with article J and debating this group of amendments. However, a wholly realistic recognition of the state of those divergent interests and of patently obvious differences in national outlook should not weaken our support for the article or divert us in any way from progress in the formulation of the common foreign policy that I should like to see, which is embodied in article J.
  7 pm
  Different fears were expressed before the Maastricht treaty was negotiated. Some members of the Labour party made the point that attempts to construct a common foreign policy, far from having the beneficial effects that were being advertised, would reduce the ability of member states to act. I do not think that these fears are borne out in the treaty—in its body or in its small print. In the course of the debate today, there have been references to the very careful and pragmatic balance, in the provisions of article J, between the unanimity that is required in formulating policy and what the Foreign Secretary referred to as the double-locked use of qualified majority voting with regard to any joint action that is agreed.
  All the time, of course, these provisions and the scope described in article J stay in the domain of respective Governments and within the responsibility of their intergovernmental machinery. Notwithstanding the competence of the Commission, which is properly described in article J, I support the use of intergovernmental machinery, rather than a system whereby these matters would be taken more within the scope of the Commission. This must allay the fears of any reasonable person.
  Indeed, having listened with considerable care and interest to the Foreign Secretary's speech, I think that he was beginning to err on the side of caution and thereby
  210
  damaging our chances of adventure, or at least progress, in these matters. The Foreign Secretary had to play to the audience of his friends behind him, but I believe that that audience was unrepresentative. The right hon. Gentleman erred on the side of caution by failing to give as full a presentation of the article's meaning as I think was justified. The treaty's provisions nudge us on, inch us forward in the development of a common foreign and security policy, as is timely. It also makes much sense to add some legal obligations. I fully recognise that, in article J, an element of legal obligation is added to the good faith and practice that have been adopted since the inception of European political co-operation in 1970 and the adoption of the provisions of the Single European Act 1987.
  As is obvious from the debate, however, this is too much for some. There are hon. Members who are patently not open to persuasion about the wisdom of following the course outlined in the treaty. The hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan gave the impression that these people believe that our country's role and status in the world are still such that any number of British gunboats are worth more than the influence of all the states of the European Community acting together. That is simply not an accurate reflection of Britain's current status and power in the world.
  Mr. Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if we should refuse to ratify the treaty, there would be nothing to prevent us from co-operating with our European partners, and therefore nothing to be lost in terms of the collective strength of joint action?
  Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We should be falling back on the political co-operation that we have been practising since 1970. I support article J because it strengthens and advances that political co-operation in these fields. I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman does not go along with that. He objects to something that reflects a philosophy relating to all aspects of the Maastricht treaty—that by acting together, by combining our influence, we can be more effective. That is what I support in this context, as in the context of other aspects of the treaty.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that what the United Kingdom's gunboats—that is the hon. Gentleman's word; it is not the one that I would use—achieved in the Falkland Islands could have been achieved by the European Community's saying with one voice, "Naughty, naughty, Argentina—move out."
  Mr. Mandelson: I do not think that what was achieved could have been achieved in that way. However, I would much more readily have looked to and drawn on the strength of the European Community acting together in support of our action in relation to the Falkland Islands. The hon. Gentleman ought to acknowledge that, within the scope of article J, if we want to act in relation to any future episode as we did in the case of the Falkland Islands, the treaty will not inhibit us.
  As has been made clear, some hon. Members fear that greater European integration would fatally compromise our Atlanticist bonds. In expressing that view, those hon. Members ignore the fact that the United States is encouraging that integration as it lessens its own European engagement following the end of the cold war. I am not

  211
  one of those who would like to see those bonds broken. I happen to believe that the United Kingdom's links with the United States and the defence arrangements to which we subscribe as a member of NATO are extremely important and entirely necessary. However, I do not think that they will be in any way compromised by greater European integration and the pursuit of a common foreign policy.
  There are also some who prefer to focus on the faraway dream of east and west coming together in the form of a united states of Europe. That is a diversion from the co-operation that is possible here and now. In this regard, the view that I express represents the attitude of most members of my generation. To a certain extent, there is a generational split in approaches to these matters, but I do not want to be overly agist.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Mandelson: I make a small point, and I am sorry that I have provoked more interventions.
  Mr. Corbyn: I have looked at "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", and I see that my hon. Friend and I are of broadly similar ages, but we may have a different outlook on the matter. If the Maastricht treaty, as proposed, allows Britain to get involved, wrongly in my view, in another Falklands-type adventure and it does not fetter individual action, what is the point of it in achieving a unified foreign policy and why is the provision there at all?
  Mr. Mandelson: Because in many circumstances the European Community, acting together through a common policy, would give greater impetus to the foreign policy aims and goals to which we subscribe than we would otherwise be able to support and achieve by acting separately and alone. It is a simple point, and it underpins my approach to these matters. It is most constructive to promote joint action through a common policy among those states between whom co-operation is practical and achievable—that is, member states within the European Community. Generally, international problems are intensified, not alleviated, by the failure of the European Community member states to act together. It is hardly sensible to suggest that incipient chaos—for example, as we see it in eastern Europe and to a much more graphic and immediate extent in Russia—is more likely to be resolved by a looser and less co-ordinated western Europe. The opposite is the case. Member states will always give greater impetus to their policies by working together. That is the simple truth, which is at the heart of the article which we are discussing.
  Forging a common foreign policy in Europe does not mean that we should stop promoting British interests abroad, especially in commerce, industry and finance. For that, we need more and better diplomatic representation and freedom to act worldwide in Britain's interests. In saying that, I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) at the end of the Budget debate last week. He described the way in which the foreign and diplomatic service has been decried, demoralised and in many areas decimated by the former occupant of No. 10 Downing street, in wicked alliance with the Treasury.
  Obviously, in comparison with more heartrending spending cuts made by the Government, cuts in the foreign service may not seem important. However, they are a false
  212
  economy and the proposed scaling down of posts should be resisted strongly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I hope that in due course, if not tonight, he will say that he is prepared to take more to arms in defence of the foreign service of which he is the political head.
  What then should be the Community's foreign affairs and security agenda? What should be the priorities for action? Mr. Hans van den Broek, the external political relations Commissioner, suggested in an interview in the Financial Times on 8 March that his priorities were negotiating the enlargement of Community membership and involving eastern Europe immediately as much as possible through trade and market access prior to full membership. He also said that he was conducting the Community's role in the former Yugoslavia. That must be welcome. He said that he was trying to put the Community behind Russia's reform effort. We have learned in the past few days of his efforts with the triad of Ministers in Moscow over the weekend.
  I have no time to comment on anything but the last activity in relation to Russia. I want to do so briefly, because I had the opportunity of visiting Russia this month on a delegation headed by my noble Friend Lord Healey, under the auspices of the St. Andrew Foundation and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. When one conducts a visit like that using public funds, one should, where possible, report back to the House. I cannot do so at length, and it is difficult to sum up in a few observations the issues posed to Community policy by events in Russia, where not just one but three revolutions are taking place—a political and democratic revolution, an economic revolution and a national revolution, as nationalities within Russia vie for some form of national and self-expression.
  7.15 pm
  I want to make a few quick points about aid for Russia, which needs to be targeted for specific objectives. The aid should not be bundled across in vast quantities immediately; it can and should be given in tranches. It is wrong for the European contribution to this effort to have been so muted and tardy, and for the leadership to have passed so obviously and so visibly to the United States. I do not decry the commitment of President Clinton, but there are dangers in the United States seeming to be acting alone in offering aid to Russia. It is politically undesirable for President Clinton's domestic constituency and his public for the United States to be presented in such a way that it seems to be acting unilaterally. That is wrong, and will contribute to the erosion of the public support that President Clinton needs for the aid programme which he is promoting. It is also bad from the point of view of the Russian public that aid to Russia seems to take the form of manna from Washington or from the White house.
  To rely on the International Monetary Fund and the World bank is also probably wrong. They have slow and cumbersome working methods. In stepping up aid to Russia, we have to base that action much more on direct Government-to-Government aid. It needs to be multilateral. The Japanese will no doubt fall in, but Europe, including Britain, should be fully involved.
  Aid should not be seen as a reward for actions taken by the Russian Government, but should be an incentive to encourage desirable actions. An attitude has grown up of,

  213
  "Do this and we will reward you." That is the wrong approach. Aid needs to act as an incentive, an enabler or a facilitator.
  Mr. Corbyn: In his visit to Russia, did any thought cross my hon. Friend's mind that the headlong rush into a market economy has been a catalyst in the destruction of Russian manufacturing industry, which has in turn created the problem of imported goods and the devaluation of the currency? Does he not think that there is a case for planning in the Russian economy to ensure that such a crisis does not continue?
  Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend talks about a headlong rush. I assume that it is the speed of the transition that he is objecting to rather than the goal of moving towards a market economy. If it is to be prosperous, it is essential for Russia to move towards a market economy. The sort of market economy that I advocate is a mixed, managed market economy, which has at least been the model in this country in the past and in other western European countries.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am sure that my hon. Friend has observed that the Russian Government have asked specifically for several billion dollars' worth of aid to help support the social security system in Russia which they cannot finance by themselves, and so the caricature of the current Russian Government as being simply orientated towards laissez-faire market reforms is quite false. One of the best things that the United Kingdom and the European Community could do would be to support that kind of social security programme.
  Mr. Mandelson: Of course, our hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was offering a parody of President Yeltsin's policies and what is happening in Russia, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) therefore makes a good point, certainly about the need for a social welfare system. But an essential condition for any successful transition of the Russian economy is to get things under control and to stabilise the economy. Hyper-inflation is a very real and dangerous threat for Russia at present, and it is imperative to get its central bank and its credit system on a proper footing.
  I believe that aid should be used in this way and for this purpose, rather than the way in which state enterprises are presently being financed, by printing money. It would be much better to stop the printing of money and to get the money supply in Russia under control, and, instead, use aid from the West to finance the state enterprises and former state enterprises in Russia.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I suggest to him that he is now giving a discourse about the general state of the Russian economy and nation rather than about what we should be discussing, which is the common European policy, its merits or otherwise?
  Mr. Mandelson: I am pulled back into order immediately and willingly, Dame Janet. I am only sorry that I did not make it clear that the points that I am
  214
  making about aid for Russia are entirely in the context of the policy of the European Community and what aid we might promote and develop for that country.
  I would just conclude my point by saying that Russian aid means more than money. It must mean know-how and management skills. It must be multilateral, it needs to be in at the ground floor and it needs to be delivered as promised. There could be nothing more dangerous for the situation in Russia than for western countries to make offers that do not subsequently stand up, to say that we will do something and then not do it. It would be very dangerous indeed.
  European integration is not just good for trade and economc growth; it supports the essential steps needed for the strengthening of peace and security in Europe and in the world. Those who gleefully point out every occasion when member states fail to act together or are slow to do so are doing the cause of peace and security no favours whatever. It is easy to point out where people fail or where they do not readily or properly come together to act in the most beneficial way, but we should not be gleeful in pointing the finger. We should instead be encouraging action of a different sort, the pooling and combining of the influence of member states in beneficial and profitable ways.
  All too often, European sceptics point to the obstacles and illustrate the inadequacy of Europe's response to events and conclude, by taking a great leap in logic, that European co-operation is therefore bound to fail because it has not always been successful in the past. The basic question remains: are the difficulties and tensions described in this debate best met by weaker or stronger co-operation within Europe? Should our response be a resigned shrug or greater efforts to force joint action within the European Community? My strong view is that we should be doing the latter and that we should be combining our influence in a way that maximises our strength and role in the international community rather than weakening and undermining it.
  Mr. Marlow: I hope that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will forgive me if I do not follow him on his blueprint for Russia. I am rather more concerned about the blueprint that somebody else wishes to impose on the European Community.
  We had a lovely speech from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who speaks for the Liberal party. He suggested that we should look at the treaty in the round. It was as if he were suggesting that the treaty is not really a treaty at all but a pious expression of goodwill or a statement of intent rather than a treaty of 134 detailed clauses and provisions.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
  Mr. Marlow: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman has never been involved in business, bought a house or had to sign a contract, because if he is as cavalier in doing that as he is when he looks at the treaty, heaven help him.
  Mr. Campbell: Before the hon. Gentleman develops this theme, what I said and what he clearly understood me to say was that it is not appropriate to take out of the treaty a phrase, a sentence or a paragraph which suits his argument. He must read the treaty as a whole. That is why

  215
  the provisions with regard to unanimity and consensus necessarily qualify those passages in the treaty which he sought to put to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Marlow: I can reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have read the treaty. But I am a little concerned about his saying that one should not take individual items out of the treaty and make deductions therefrom, because he himself has done just that. For example, he referred to paragraph 6 of article J.3, which is the doctrine of imperative need, that
  "In cases of imperative need arising from changes in the situation"
  individual nation states can take their own action, that there is an opt-out, that it is rather like the Luxembourg compromise where, when vital national interests are at stake, one can take one's own view. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman believes that the Luxembourg compromise can still be used and, if so, how long he reckons that the doctrine of imperative need will survive all the other provisions of the treaty. If he wants to look at the treaty in the round, may I draw his attention to paragraph 2 of article J.2:
  "the Council shall"—
  not "may", but "shall"—
  "define a common position. Member States shall ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman says one thing, the treaty says another.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. Hurd rose—
  Mr. Marlow: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and then I will give way to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my hon. Friend. I trust that he will bear in mind that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) makes a very good living at being a lawyer in Scotland where he dissects very cleverly, on behalf of many individuals, including companies in which I have an interest, details of such things as treaties like this.
  Mr. Marlow: This puts a very interesting complexion on it. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be more careful when he looks at the treaty in future, because it is legislation. It is the law of the land.
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is obviouly at the beginning of a slashing speech, but if he is going to quote extensively from the treaty, I hope that he will quote sentences as a whole. He said, in his slashing way,
  "the Council shall define a common position".
  "Whenever it deems it necessary" is what the treaty says as a qualifier on that. My hon. Friend will also accept that how it is to define a common position, how it is to define join action and by what procedure is all clearly laid down in the treaty.
  Mr. Marlow: As ever, that intervention by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was reasonable and persuasive, as was his speech. Everything that he said in his speech was reassuring. It is as if he was telling us not to worry because nothing would happen, it was all there before, all these powers existed in the Single European Act, there was no difference in the treaty, we had a double lock
  216
  and everything would be all right. What my right hon. Friend said was masterly and reassuring, but it was not persuasive because those of us who have read the treaty, and read it in all its respects, not just in the common foreign and security policy, know that for every item in the treaty that is reassuring, there is another item, another route through the treaty, which is very far from reassuring and which has a very different impact on the sovereignty and position of the House of Commons and this country. As I said to my right hon. Friend in a previous intervention, article J.1 says:
  "The Union…shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy…covering all areas of foreign and security policy."
  It does not say the union might do something about it, or could, or may if it feels like it, if it gets out of bed on the right side. It says that the union "shall" co-operate in every area of foreign and security policy.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not the real weakness of the Government's position the fact that, although they talk about the importance of the veto, the House has a veto over the ratification of the Maastricht treaty, yet my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says that we must ratify it because if we do not we shall lose influence and power in the European Community? The power of veto to which my right hon. Friend refers is as useless as the power of veto that the House has over the ratification of the treaty. At every stage it would be said that we were behaving in an anti-communautaire fashion, and that we could not do that without losing influence. Is that not the fundamental absurdity of the Government's position?
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend makes powerfully a point that has been equally powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney)—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Marlow: Hang on, let me finish.
  This is the "heart of Europe" argument again: we must ratify the treaty if we want to be at the heart of Europe, and having done so, and being at the heart of Europe, we then have to accept all the commitments made in the treaty. The treaty says that we "shall" have a common foreign and security policy, so, by jingo, we shall have one.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is at it again. He is quoting only those parts of the paragraph that suit his argument. The paragraph says:
  "The Union and its Member States shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy, governed by the provisions of this Title".
  That necessarily means that article J.1(1) is governed by article J.3. The hon. Gentleman is falling into the trap of selecting those parts of the title that suit his argument and disregarding any part that contradicts it. If I may say so, he is behaving like a slick lawyer.
  Mr. Marlow: I am almost tempted to say that it takes one to know one, but of course, Dame Janet, I would not say anything like that. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes his point—he has made it before. He says, "This is what I find in the treaty; that is what you find in the treaty.

  217
  We look at it in different ways. You are taking a selective piece out of the treaty, but my selective piece of the treaty is totally different."
  We have had those debates and arguments before. We had them in 1985, over the Single European Act. Many of us asked the Government various questions then, and the Government said, "It does not matter; the Act is simply about the single market. There is no transfer of power." Yet now, who will make the decision on the 48-hour week? Who will make decisions on immigration policy? The Government got it wrong then. I dare say that the hon. and learned Gentleman got it wrong, too—and, by golly, he is getting it wrong now.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is making trenchant points. I also have the greatest sympathy and agreement with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) accept that the very fact that the arrangements will be made under a separate pillar but will, so it is claimed, be subject to international legal obligations will create the most massive confusion? The need for joint action plans could easily arise in the middle of the night. When there is a need to make an immediate decision, the 12 member states will be running around to one another with lawyers, administrators, Foreign Secretaries and Ministers of State—if Ministers of State are still in place—trying to arrive at positions. The idea is absurd. At the moment, at least we can make our own decisions, as we did on the Gulf.
  Mr. Marlow: If my hon. Friend is referring to potential bureaucracy and suggesting that a common foreign policy will be an imitation in foreign affairs terms of the common agricultural policy, it is most responsible of him to bring such comparisons to the notice of the Committee. Clearly we must be concerned about such issues.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Marlow: In a second.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, East—
  Mr. Campbell: Fife, North-East.
  Mr. Marlow: Even more—north and east Fife; I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said that he was in favour of co-operation with the other nations of western Europe on foreign and security policy—I presume that that means defence policy; I do not know whether there is a great deal of difference between security policy and defence policy. We are all in favour of that. We all agree that if we have friends and interests in common we want to co-operate with our friends with whom we have those interests in common. But we do not and will not want to do that through the provisions of the treaty. Some of us believe that the treaty does not go about the matter in the right way, and that, rather than helping and making matters better, it will make them worse.
  Mr. Spearing: Is it not possible to reconcile the apparent conflict between the hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Secretary on the question of having to have a single policy, but having to arrive at that policy by unanimity, which, as the Foreign Secretary and other hon. Gentlemen have insisted throughout the debate, seems to
  218
  suggest that there is some sort of lock or safeguard? Rather like article 99, which requires, ultimately, a common system of taxation and so on, and says that that shall be achieved by unanimity, the provision does not remove the obligation, but, by the requirement for unanimity, it forces discussion and a certain amount of compromise and trading, because that is the only way in which unanimity can be reached on the single policy that is mandatory within the text of the treaty.
  Mr. Marlow: I take the view that if we commit ourselves to allowing the union to define and implement a common policy covering all areas of foreign and security policy—the treaty says that it "shall" do so—and if we commit ourselves to the declaration, and to being at the heart of Europe, the hon. Gentleman's argument is powerful.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would say —and any sane person would agree with him—that we want to co-operate with our European colleagues on foreign and security policy. I am sure that that is right. I should be happy to co-operate with other European nation states on defence policy and foreign policy and I hope that the co-operation will develop and improve, and one day be greater than it is today. But there are ways of achieving that. Either such things can happen organically or a blueprint can be imposed from above. Organic development, where we take people with us, will work. Informal co-operation, in which different nation states have different views but decide to pool their views and come together on a common policy, will work because there is no coercion and no moral blackmail. But the formal policies set out in the treaty, and the complex procedures for applying them, may well have the opposite effect, trying to lock unwilling partners into a common policy that some people find disagreeable. That will cause stress and distraction, and will weaken the objective that the Foreign Secretary and I share.
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. Marlow: I give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's courtesy. Does he recognise another weakness? There has been a general willingness by most people, including myself, to accept co-operation between European countries—certainly between the countries in the Community. I consider that perfectly logical. However, if the treaty comes into force our suspicion, justified or otherwise, will be that the closer the co-operation, the more likely it is to lead to a type of federal set-up. Therefore, whereas previously we would have taken such co-operation as a matter of course, which would cause no controversy among those of us who oppose the treaty, after the treaty came into force we should be constantly on our guard lest it lead to the dangers to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mr. Marlow: I follow the hon. Gentleman in believing that there will be a feeling, if things go on as they are at the moment, that the treaty is being imposed on an unwilling and reluctant European public by the political elite of the European states that make up the Community. I believe that the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers will arise. If they do, there will be a great deal of resentment about the way in which the treaty has been put together and about the lack of proper consultation with the people,

  219
  especially in this country. At the moment, we do not even have the chance of a referendum. If great issues come out of the treaty which cause great stress and disagreement within the United Kingdom, where people have not even been allowed to have a vote on the subject, I tremble to think of the popular reaction.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says that it is all different now. He says that previously we had a monolithic European Community, whereas now we have the three pillars. We are now discussing the pillar on foreign and security policy. My right hon. Friend says that the institutional control and management of this pillar is different and that we have more independence. That is all true. However, my right hon. Friend then says that we are winning the argument, that things are coming our way, that everyone now agrees with us and that the powers are coming our way. They are not, are they?
  In all the areas and in every area of policy in which the European institutions had power before the treaty, they still have those powers; in the new areas the treaty gives them powers that they did not have before or extends the powers that they had before. The treaty is not rolling back the frontiers of bureaucracy. It is not rolling back the powers of the Commission or of the European Parliament. By the treaty, we are increasing them, especially in this pillar. We are not winning the arguments and we are not gaining ground; we are losing ground to European institutions.
  Mr. Hurd: I do not think that my hon. Friend will find that I have ever said that the treaty of Maastricht would roll back those powers. What I have said in these debates is that it represents a check to the centralisers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Why? We have been committed for many years under the treaty of Rome and under the Single European Act, as the Opposition and a number of my hon. Friends, although not those who oppose the treaty. have been, to an ever-closer union of peoples. That has not been defined. It is defined in the treaty of Maastricht in a way that makes it absolutely clear that the ever-closer union embraces and can include work together as Governments. That is the novelty and that is why I am justified in saying that the treaty, which is not a perfect treaty but a compromise treaty, represents a check to the centralisers. The centralisers recognise that, which is why they preferred the Dutch draft, which was rejected.
  Mr. Marlow: As my right hon. Friend says, the centralisers have not got as much as they wanted. However, my right hon. Friend also says that the treaty is a check to the centralisers. Within the meaning of the English language, to give the centralisers more power than they had before, even though one does not give them as much as they have asked for, is not a check. I see it as a gift to them.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware, as I am, that during the passage of the Single European Act, I kept asking Ministers for a clear definition of what "union" meant. Many of my hon. Friends who voted for the Act did so believing what they were told at the time. They now find that "union" meant what I always believed it meant, which was why I was so concerned about and so opposed to the Single European Act. I did not oppose it because I opposed co-operation in Europe; I did not and do not. I am opposed to tying the United Kingdom and especially the citizens of Scotland, who have another union—the
  220
  Union that created this Parliament, which is why we understand what union means—to this union. So many misleading things have come about because people have not fully understood what the meaning of "union" is and was.
  Mr. Marlow: I shall touch on that subject in a few seconds.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: In answer to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the word "check" only means to slow down? It does not mean to stop. If a policy arises in the European Community—in the union—with which it wants to go ahead, all that the processes will allow us to do is to check it—to say, "Think again." If the Community thinks again and decides to go ahead, nothing in the world will stop it as long as we want to stay part of the European Community, which we have every interest in continuing to do. The point will go on arising. It may be in the Community's interest not to be checked. We shall lose influence and we shall lose power if we insist to the contrary. We shall have exercised our check—"Good night and thank you very much." The issue will go forward as the union wants.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Marlow: It is a one-way street with a ratchet in it. There is no turning back and every time we move forward, it becomes part of the acquis communautaire. There is no sign or potential legislation from anywhere to suggest that that will not be the case. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) knows, there will be a conference in 1996 with a view to increasing and enhancing the powers of the treaty. The ratchet will move forward yet again.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary smiles. I point out that his predecessors in 1986, when we discussed the Single European Act, also smiled if people said that it was a one-way street and that we were moving progressively towards a federal Europe. I grant that my right hon. Friend may be right to smile. That may not happen, but the provisions of the treaty and the commitment of the United Kingdom to be at the heart of Europe make it far more likely that it will happen than that it will not happen.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1986, we had a major debate on the Single European Act? Although he may not remember, I raised almost exactly the same point with the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Howe. In reply, as reported in Hansard, he said in effect that I was living in a fantasy world about the prospects of a federal Europe and, furthermore, that these were horror stories for little children which should not be disseminated. Those are exactly the arguments which we are hearing now. We have been proved right. Nobody doubts that the treaty has all the ingredients necessary for a federal state and a central bank. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are being given the same run-around that we were given before?
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully. Some say that he is wrong; I do not say that he is wrong. Some say that we have many protections, not least the protection of subsidiarity. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wants to say that subsidiarity is important and wants to give proof that subsidiarity will

  221
  work in this area, as in others, he can cite the 48-hour week. He can tell us that he is quite convinced that under the new procedures of subsidiarity, we in Parliament alone will be able to decide whether there should be a 48-hour week in the United Kingdom. If he can do that, we may take some heart from the fact that the ratchet is moving in the other direction. If not, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) must stand.
  Mr. Rowlands: Should not the Committee have at least one modest objective in obtaining information from the Foreign Secretary? Although the language of the Single European Act, which says that member states
  "shall endeavour jointly to formulate and implement a European foreign policy…shall take full account of the positions of the other partners…shall ensure that common principles and objectives are gradually developed and defined",
  is simple and gentle—the language of co-operation—it is to be replaced by the language of article J.1. There is a qualitative difference in the language. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us why one has to move from the Single European Act to this. From a practical point of view, what is the difference between the two types of language?
  Mr. Marlow: It is the difference between "may" and "shall". I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any children. To say to a child, "You may go to bed", is different from saying to a child, "You shall go to bed." There is a great deal of difference in terms of the result one anticipates from using the two different words.
  I take two examples from the treaty, one of which I have used already and to which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has just referred. The kernel of the debate and the basis of a common defence and foreign policy is paragraph 1 of article J.1. There is no ambiguity. It states:
  "The Union and its Member States shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy"—
  I would prefer to call it a common defence policy because
  they are much the same—covering not some but
  "all areas of common and security policy."
  By ratifying the treaty we are committing ourselves to that. Whatever the qualifying phrases, whatever other parts of the treaty say or those that want us to ratify it might say, and whatever little bits of it that they care to select from title V, that is the part which matters supremely and above all else.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: When we are told that we may rely on the fact that the other structures mean that no votes will be taken without the agreement of the United Kingdom, should the hon. Gentleman not remind the Committee about the Luxembourg compromise, which he briefly mentioned but did not spell out? Initially, we were told that it was a way to protect our interests, then we were told that it was not in the treaty and then we were told that it was no longer relevant because "We have now moved on." Will the hon. Gentleman underline the fact that occasionally those beautifully presented compromises somehow disappear two or three years down the line?
  Mr. Marlow: I think that that is known as the principle of progressive erosion of national powers and it seems to have worked effectively so far.
  Mr. Hurd: In answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), rather than make a further intervention later, may I say that it is perfectly true that the language of the treaty is more elaborate than the language of the Single European Act. In some ways, that Act has an advantage. I gave examples of the way in which sanctions would be introduced and on the role of political directors, which I think are helpful. I gave examples defining the role of the Commission and showing that it has the right to propose but not a monopoly—excluding the role of the European Court. Those are advantages. They show that co-operation in foreign and security policy is moving in a sensible direction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was also kind enough to give way to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She mentioned the Luxembourg compromise, but the huge difference is that that is not in the treaty. I do not want to go into an exposition of the strength of that compromise now, but it is not in the treaty—
  Mr. Cash: It is not in the treaty.
  Mr. Hurd: That is exactly my point—whereas article J.8 is in the treaty and it lays down the only way in which a common foreign and security policy can be constructed. It is very clear—it is in the treaty. That is what I mean. I am not saying that the formulations in the treaty are perfect, but the way in which foreign policy and security co-operation is defined and organised, and the way in which common positions and joint action can be taken, is clearly set out and is a check to those who believe in centralising—that it is inevitable that the Commission should steadily increase its powers on such matters—and to qualified majority voting. It is a check to those ambitions.
  Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend, as always, is a master of reassurance. If he is telling the Committee that we no longer want to be in the heart of Europe. I am sure that the Committee will be reassured. If my right hon. Friend is not saying that, the powers and provisions remain within the treaty. My right hon. Friend said that the Maastricht treaty is an elaboration of the Single European Act and that changing the word "may" to "shall" is an elaboration, but that is not my understanding of the English language.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend is slightly misunderstating the impact of article J in so far as he says that its significance is contained in J.1(1). Has he not omitted article J.1(4), which is far more explicit and states:
  "The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with"?
  Is that merely elaborate language?
  Mr. Hurd rose—
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me? I shall have a go and then I am sure he can put me right.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose—
  Mr. Marlow: Hang on. Can we have a plastic number system so that we can follow one after the other?
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton has an important point. The Government are committing themselves to forswearing unanimity and going along with majority voting. They are committing themselves to being at the heart of Europe and to wanting a common foreign and security policy. That is the apple of the Government's eye; that is what they want and what they are committed to.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Marlow: First, I must give way to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The extract that my hon. and learned Friend for Burton read out states:
  "The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with."
  How will the Council do it? Will it have a foreign policy police? What are the provisions to enable the Council to ensure that those activities are carried out? What provisions will ensure that
  "The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of mutual solidarity"?
  What will happen if we do not do so and if we do not sound enthusiastic? What will the Council do about it? [Interruption.]
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hurd rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before anyone continues, there is an undercurrent of conversation and a running commentary from seated positions which I find unacceptable. Also, interventions are becoming longer and that is not acceptable either. They must be shorter and crisper.
  Mr. Hurd: I shall intervene for the last time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has been very generous.
  In reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, those concepts of loyalty and support are for propositions that, by definition, we have already accepted.
  Mr. Marlow: We have rehearsed those arguments. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says that there is no pressure upon us to accept those common policies, but many of us believe that my right hon. Friend is keen to generate common policies, very keen that he should not appear to be obstructive and keen to be enthusiastically at the heart of Europe.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Marlow: How can I resist my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)?
  Mr. Budgen: Would my hon. Friend like to comment further on the Foreign Secretary's rather patronising remark aboue "elaborate language"? I dare say that in 1815 we might have been patronising about other European nations, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend takes the view that if the other nations of Europe use such elaborate language—[Interruption.]
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind hon. Members about my remarks on running commentaries and private conversations.
  Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the nations of Europe use that elaborate language we must at least allow them the dignity of assuming that they know the language that they are using? We must not treat them in the way that some head boy of Eton would deal with a little boy who does not really know what he is saying.
  Mr. Marlow: One of the problems with language, whether it is elaborate or not, is that the treaty is written in different languages in different countries and we are not sure whether it means the same thing in each country.
  Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend is studying the article that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence) read out so clearly and to which the Foreign Secretary said that we were already committed, will he remind the Foreign Secretary that the commitment that we entered into under the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome largely concerned trade? Powers over trade were controlled in Europe. However, as about 80 per cent. of our foreign policy must come from trade, and as the treaty enforces the powers in such a way that it would allow the Community to act upon us, it is very worrying.
  Mr. Marlow: As always, my hon. Friend makes his point in his own personal and convincing way.
  I am also concerned about article J.1(2), which talks of safeguarding the independence of the union. What does that mean? What is the independence of the union? We are a group of nations that work together on foreign, agricultural and trade policy. Why does the treaty have to mention the union's independence? I would understand if it mentioned interdependence, but not independence.
  8 pm
  We, as a nation state—as the United Kingdom—are concerned about our independence. Does the treaty mean that the union looks upon itself as a nation state, and its independence must be secured? I do not think that that matter has been touched on or debated. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary winds up, I should be interested to know what is meant by safeguarding the independence of the union, as it is an important issue.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend know that a paper was submitted to the Conservative manifesto committee shortly before the decision was taken in which the words "independent sovereign states" appeared? Some 40 minutes later, a vote was taken and those words were deleted. I, of course, remonstrated and made the appropriate noises to those involved as I found it an extraordinary state of affairs—and one that I never understood. Now, as I look at the Maastricht treaty and its mention of the independence of the union, I can appreciate exactly what was going on.
  Mr. Marlow: I hope that we shall hear more about the independence of the union and what it means, as it is important. The implications are significant, and we should know what they are.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told us not to worry as we were merely discussing a pillar, and matters would be kept under control. He said that there was a double lock and European institutions would hardly be involved. Article J.5(3) states:
  "The Commission shall be fully associated in these tasks."

  225
  When we look at the earlier part of the article we find those tasks, which include representation of the foreign and defence policies of the union. Does that mean that President Delors, in his fast car, surrounded by a motorcade, will be driving around Europe telling us about European foreign and security policy? Will we see more delusions of grandeur from the jumped-up, tinpot Napoleon who currently runs the Commission?
  Mr. Hurd rose —
  Mr. Marlow: Just in time, my right hon. Friend has decided not to respond to that point.
  Mr. Hurd: Because precisely the opposite is provided for under J.5(1) of the treaty, which is deliberately drafted to make it clear that the Commission does not have that role, which is somebody else's.
  Mr. Marlow: The presidency certainly has it. The treaty also provides that where the presidency is involved, the Commission shall be fully associated. The Commission is involved not only in the representation, but in the implementation of the foreign and defence policies of the union. Does that mean that it has powers to ensure that the common policies, once agreed, will be applied? What are those powers? Who is giving them? How will they be organised? How will they be constrained?
  Article J.6—which is not as significant as article J.5, but none the less is significant—begins:
  "The diplomatic and consularmissions of the Member States and the Commission".
  Apparently, the Commission has diplomatic and consularmissions. They are probably to deal with trade and agriculture, and they probably exist at present. However, we should ask whether they should exist and whether they need to exist.
  As my right hon. Friend has said, the treaty provides for the presidency to front-up the operations and speak on behalf of everyone else. If the presidency is doing that, why does the Commission need to have all the legations and delegations scattered around the world? Is it because it is trying to build up its power and prestige within Europe? Does it want to build up its influence over and control of European institutions as a whole?
  Article J.7 deals with the European Parliament—an institution which has not until now had much power, or a great role or influence within foreign policy, and certainly none within security policy. Article J.7 states:
  "The Presidency shall consult the European Parliament".
  The Single European Act mentioned informing the European Parliament, but now we must consult it. Is "consult" a more elaborate word than "inform"? I am not sure. I rather take the view that if I consult someone, I ask his or her opinion. If I ask for an opinion and a bona fide opinion is given, I am honour bound to take account of that opinion. If I inform somebody, I just tell them whatever I am going to do and, whether the other person likes it or not, it will happen anyway. Consultation is different from informing.
  The European Parliament will also have powers to question and debate, as we have in our Parliament. I am not sure whether, when we question and debate, we influence Ministers in the House, but let us assume that we do. If we have that power, the European Parliament, through the treaty, will gain that power over foreign and
  226
  security or defence policy. That is not a marginal or trivial issue, as other institutions in the European Community will have massive powers that they did not previously have.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If my hon. Friend does not know the difference between consult and inform, I shall tell him. If he came to me for a consultation, I would inform him to sit down, stay down and shut up.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend engages in the debate in his usual inimitable fashion—there is no more to say. He certainly would not get a fee for that advice, although he might try to charge one.
  Article J.8(3) states:
  "the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common foreign and security policy and may submit proposals".
  The Commission can initiate, and it is present all the time with its agenda. We are going to elect the—I was going to say something rude—people to the Commission for eight years at a time, which is a long time.
  When we consider the slush or cohesion fund, and the fact that southern Europeans want to get money out of the Commission, we realise that the small countries of the European Community are great supporters of the Commission. That is because they look on the Commission as their defender against the major states of Europe. The Commission has an immense amount of power, and is now to be allowed to make proposals on foreign and security policy. Does it sound as though the argument is coming in our direction and things are moving our way? Does it sound as though we are putting a check on the centralisers? It depends on how one considers the matter, but that is not my view.
  Article J.9 states:
  "The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out in the common foreign and security policy field."
  The difference between what is stated here and what was stated in the Single European Act is that, under the Act, the Commission was fully associated with common foreign policy, but not with security or defence. The ability to defend one's people, nation and country against outsiders is what nationality and sovereignty are about. Now, the Commission will have powers in that sphere. Is that marginal or small? Should we not worry about it? We are told that it will go away and that it does not matter. We are told that the Maastricht treaty is just a small matter designed to carry out some tiny tidying up of the Single European Act. It is nothing of the sort—it is massive, and it transfers powers to institutions which we have been wary of in the past and have every right—in fact, duty—to be wary of in future.
  Sir Richard Body: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is common knowledge in Brussels that the Commission never proposes anything unless it is assured of the support of the German Government in Bonn? Therefore, the same will inevitably apply over defence and security. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are to have a German foreign and defence policy, and the German interests will predominate, as is always the case in any sort of federal union where one member state is larger and more powerful than the others?
  Mr. Marlow: I am keen to co-operate with other European nation states and other European countries within the European Community in terms of defence and

  227
  foreign policies where we share common interests. There is nothing wrong with that, but I am concerned about the structure that we are handing to the centralisers and federalists of Europe.
  Article 152 states'
  "The Council may request the Commission to undertake studies…and…submit…proposals."
  The Council is there, and, if anything needs to be done in
  regard to foreign and security policy, its secretariat can act. Under article 152, however, the Commission can also be involved: it can act as a civil service. Responsibility is moving from the secretariat to the Commission. When we return to the matter in 1996, no doubt it will have completed that movement: the secretariat will have faded out, and everything will be decided by the Commission. Slowly, slowly—or, perhaps, not so slowly—catchee monkey.
  Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Marlow: In a moment.
  Mr. Cash: It is about the Commission.
  Mr. Marlow: It is all about the Commission, is it not? According to article 153, the opinions of the Commission shall be taken into account when the rules of procedure are being adopted. This is "committology": the Commission must be asked how it wants matters to be organised and run—in preparation, no doubt, for 1998, when the Commission will push the secretariat to one side. The Commission will be involved in everything; everywhere it will have the opportunity to devise matters in its own interests—in the interests of control from the centre, and in the interests of a federal Europe.
  Mr. Cash: Has my hon. Friend noted article 228a, which states:
  "The Council shall act by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission"?
  Does he appreciate something that is hidden away in the body of the treaty, and not contained in article J? Article 228a also states:
  "Where it is provided, in a common position or in a joint action adopted according to the provisions of the Treaty…relating to the common foreign and security policy, for an action by the Community to interrupt or to reduce, in part or completely, economic relations with one or more third countries, the Council shall take the necessary urgent measures. The Council shall act by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission."
  I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that, when we get into the business of economic relations, not only has the Commission the power of initiation and of making the proposal; action on that proposal is to be taken by qualified majority. This is relevant to the aftermath of the Gulf war, the question of South African sanctions and many other matters. We are bang slap in the middle of an arrangement that allows the Commission the right of proposal, initiative and qualified majority voting. I should like to see the Foreign Secretary or his Minister get out of that one.
  Mr. Marlow: I shall not follow my hon. Friend in trying to trap my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I shall give way to my right hon. Friend if he wishes to intervene.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Will my hon. Friend
  228
  confirm what has been said by many other hon. Members —that a common position can be arrived at only by unanimity?
  Mr. Marlow: For reasons that I understand, my right hon. Friend has not been present for all the debate; but we have been around that track several times. I am sure that he will have an opportunity to read the Official Report, and to note that copious answers have been given to the point that he has raised. I am not surprised that he has raised it, for it is about the only strong point that the Government seem to have raised today.
  Article 147 is a nice, interesting little article. Which is more important, Dame Janet—the Council or the Commission? I know that you think the Council is more important, but you have been caught out: you are not right. Article 147 states that the Council can be convened by the Commission. If the Commission feels that it wants to present a proposal or take an initiative, it can convene the Council. In that event, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State would have to take his feet off the table, catch a taxi and then an aeroplane and go over to Brussels, because the Council had told him that he must be there. That is what the independence of this country is coming down to. Our foreign policy, our defence policy and our Ministers will be at the beck and call of Mr. Delors and Mr. van den Broek, the Commissioners in Europe.
  What have we got? Nothing. Supposedly it is all minor —all small stuff, small fry; it will have no effect. Supposedly we are winning the argument, yet the Commission can summon my right hon. Friend the Minister. It can represent European foreign and security policy, and implement that policy. It has consular missions throughout the world. The European Parliament will be consulted. The Parliament will be able to set up committees of inquiry under article 138c, which gives it the power to do so. If we send troops to the Falkland Islands or do something in Hong Kong, there will be some wretched inquiry in Brussels or Strasbourg to ask why, and my right hon. Friend the Minister will have to traipse meekly across to answer questions in the European Parliament.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the language that the Foreign Secretary dismisses so grandly as merely the elaborate language of degenerate European nations could be used against us in a thoroughly damaging way, because of the active role of the European Court? We are very fortunate in having a Minister of State who is a great supporter of the European Court, because it is a political court. In the way that we expect of the Whips office, the Minister believes that anything that is in his favour must be constitutionally correct. He sees the European Court as a good political court, because it supports his view. If, on the other hand, the European Court happened to disagree with the Minister, we might find that it all worked very much to our disadvantage.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has made his point. He is a lawyer. I am very fond of my right hon. Friend the Minister—
  Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
  Mr. Marlow: As I am so fond of my right hon. Friend, I shall allow him to intervene.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Perhaps my hon. Friend will do the Committee a favour. No doubt he can answer my question: it has been referred to by our hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), whose quotation is bound to be accurate. At what point did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary use the phrase "the elaborate language of degenerate nation states"?
  Mr. Budgen: He did not; he used the word "elaborate".
  Mr. Marlow: I think that the word that my hon. Friend is playing with is "elaborate". That is the word used by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am afraid that I cannot remember everything that my right hon. Friend said; I know that it was all very good stuff, and convincing, but I was not convinced.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I assume that my hon. Friend is confirming that our hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West quoted our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary inaccurately.
  Mr. Marlow: I regret that I am unable to do so, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister. I cannot remember everything that has taken place, and my right hon. Friend has not been present throughout the debate. We are both in a certain amount of difficulty.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Marlow: Yes, for the last time.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend stops talking about the European Court, may I ask whether he was in the House the other day when our right hon. Friend the Minister of State asked when the court last passed a centralising judgment—made a centralising decision? There was a bit of difficulty in answering the question, but that difficulty has now been resolved. Yesterday, the European Court decided, against the national interests of this nation state, that there shall be an equality of pension date. That is totally consistent with European Community policy for the equalisation of retirement date between men and women, and totally against the policy followed by consecutive Governments in this country. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to ask our mutual and charming right hon. Friend what is now his response to that point, which he raised himself the other day.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. and learned Friend is being a little mischievous. There is a solution in article 3b of the treaty, which deals with subsidiarity. The treaty has not been ratified yet; when it has been ratified, my right hon. Friend will go to the court, taking a copy of the treaty, and will draw a big red line under article 3b. Once the court is appraised of subsidiarity, it will all be all right: all these decisions will be rescinded, and will be given back to national Governments. If my right hon. Friend believes that, he believes in fairies.
  We have had a lot of fun. I am sure that everyone has exaggerated the position, as we always do in these debates. The difference of opinion between the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and a lot of my colleagues and me is that we view the treaty in a slightly different way. The Government had no alternative but to sign the treaty. They want to be at the heart of Europe.
  230
  Having signed the treaty, the Government are obliged to defend every jot and tittle, every dot and comma of the treaty; otherwise we shall not be at the heart of Europe.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Otherwise, we shall lose influence.
  Mr. Marlow: Yes, otherwise we shall lose influence. The Government have to support that which they signed. Although the world has changed, although the treaty was signed 15 months ago, athough the needs of Europe are different now, although the Danes have said no, although the French jolly well nearly said no, although the Germans have not ratified the treaty, although there are problems in eastern Europe and Russia and although we live in a different world, we still, apparently, have got to support this nonsense.
  The Government base their case on trust. If we sign and ratify the treaty, it isn't going to happen: don't worry, boys; don't worry about these details; don't worry about the legislation—they won't do it, they can't do it, they haven't done it in the past. Haven't they? What happened with the Single European Act? Is this not an echo, a ghost from 1986 when we were told precisely the same—it doesn't matter, it won't happen? But it did. If we ratify the treaty now, precisely the same will happen again. Look at the text; look at the detail. Put not trust in Jacques Delors, the Commissioner. To do so will mean that we shall be defied and disappointed.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a speech yesterday in which he talked of people having had a dream of society that had inspired many good and clever people. This treaty, I am sure, is a dream that has inspired many good and clever people, but, as he said, as that dream was impossible it led quickly and inevitably to tyranny. And that is what we must avoid.
  Mr. Gapes: I shall avoid the temptation to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). All I would say is that, just because one is paranoid, it does not mean that they are not out to get us. Unfortunately, we have strayed away from the important issues relating to European security, a matter that should feature in our discussions on this part of the Maastricht treaty.
  Yesterday, the Clinton Administration announced that it is to reduce the number of its troops in western Europe to 100,000–50,000 fewer than the figure which the Bush Administration had planned. The implications for the future defence and security of Europe are significant. It could be the precursor of further reductions.
  In the light of those troop reductions and of the changes in France after the election of a right-wing nationalist Government, we have to consider the implications for the relationship between NATO, the Western European Union and the European Community and the other institutions of European security and defence.
  In the spring of 1991, before the Maastricht treaty was adopted, there was controversy about the positions taken by the French Government and the British Government concerning the relationship between the Western European Union, the European Community and NATO. The Foreign Secretary had discussions with his then Italian counterpart, Mr. de Michelis, who now has other things to occupy his time. Six months later, on 4 October, they came up with a joint declaration. Before that, we were told that there was no way in which the British Government would allow the European Community to

  231
  have a defence component and that defence and security were to be kept separate. Just as the "F" word was not going to appear, the "D" word also would not appear in the treaty.
  The Anglo-Italian paper, published in October 1991, included the following interesting paragraph, paragraph 8. It said that the
  "WEU should be entrusted with the task of developing the European dimension in the field of defence. It will develop its role in two complementary directions: as the defence components of the Union and as the means to strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance"—
  that is, of NATO.
  That was not sufficient for the French. There was quite a lot of controversy. I refer to a report published in The Independent on 30 October 1991 in which the then French Foreign Minister, Mr. Dumas, said that there were clear differences between the British and French Governments.
  He said:
  "We talk about the common defence of Europe for Europeans and by Europeans, whereas the British talk about the politics of common defence. It is quite obvious that the Atlantic alliance is at the moment the primary instrument of defence, but that does not prevent the Europeans from thinking about the future of their own security in Europe and for Europe."
  In the same article, our Foreign Secretary was quoted as saying:
  "We have been trying to probe on this, various answers have been given, but more probing is needed."
  The probing went on for a few more weeks. Eventually we came to the position that was adopted in the Maastricht treaty, which has already been quoted extensively. I do not intend to quote the whole of it again. If, however, we compare the Maastricht treaty with what was said in May last year when we debated the Queen's Speech, we find that the Queen's Speech said that the Government
  "will aim to develop the Western European Union as a means of strengthening the European pillar of the Alliance and the defence component of the European union."
  I stress the words "defence component".
  According to article J.4 of the Maastricht treaty, paragraph 1 says:
  "The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
  It does not refer to a defence component; it refers to a common defence. The Prime Minister, speaking in the debate on the Queen's Speech, said:
  "Increasingly, countries that join the European Community will also join the Western European Union, as the European pillar of a common defence effort; but, if the need ever again arose, it would be through NATO that the members of the WEU would defend themselves. Any European country joining the WEU will still look to NATO —including the American presence in Europe—for its defence."—[Official Report, 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 50–73.]
  There are significant differences between the positions outlined in article J.4 of the Maastricht treaty, the Queen's Speech, the Prime Minister's remarks in May of last year and the position of some important western European countries, including the previous French Government. I have no reason to believe that the new French Government, when formed, will be any more Atlanticist or sympathetic towards an Atlanticist approach than their predecessor.
  The other interesting point to note is that the result of the referendum in Denmark led to the conclusions adopted at the Edinburgh meeting on 12 December 1992. In the
  232
  section on the decision of the Heads of State and Government concerning certain problems raised by Denmark on the treaty of European union, the so-called Danish decision, section C includes the following interesting formulation:
  "The Heads of State and Government note that, in response to the invitation from the Western European Union (WEU), Denmark has become an observer to that organisation. They also note that nothing in the Treaty on European Union commits Denmark to become a member of the WEU. Accordingly, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications, but will not prevent the development of a closer co-operation between Member States in this area."
  8.30 pm
  That raises some interesting questions. What will happen in 1995—it is hoped that it will be in 1995—if Austria, Sweden and Finland, which are neutral countries and not in the WEU, or in NATO, unlike Denmark, join the European Community? Will they wish to and be allowed to join the WEU? If they do not, what will be their position in relation to their status with regard to the European Council when it discusses with whichever country holds the presidency at that time these questions related to foreign security policies?
  I have looked very closely at what has been said in recent months by our Government and some other Governments and I am not at all clear as to what that position will be. Perhaps nobody is clear about it. It could be that the reason that they are not clear is that we know that another intergovernmental conference is to be held in 1996. We also know that the 1948 Brussels treaty which established the Western European Union runs out in 1998, after 50 years. Therefore, there is a very uncertain period in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference of 1996 and in relation to what will happen to the WEU in 1998: its relationship to the European ministerial Council and to the European Commission, and, through them, to the Community as a whole.
  Mr. Simon Burns: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has looked very carefully into this matter. Does he agree with me that the speech that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made in Berlin in December 1990 is crucial? Would he comment on the points made in that speech, which are particularly germane to the point that he is discussing now?
  Mr. Gapes: Unfortunately, I do not have with me a copy of the Foreign Secretary's speech in 1990. I have some other documents, but I did not bring the whole library into the Chamber. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help me with that.
  Mr. Burns: I would assume that, given that the hon. Gentleman is making his speech about the future of the WEU, he would be familiar with my right hon. Friend's speech, in which he discussed the revitalisation of the WEU. Given the hon. Gentleman's interest in and knowledge of the matter, does he agree with my right hon. Friend's thesis?
  Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that clarification. The concept of the revitalisation of the WEU goes back virtually to when it was stillborn at its inception. I can recall the declaration by Genscher, who was then the German Foreign Minister, with the French Foreign Minister of that time, 1984, about revitalisation. There was

  233
  also the first ever ministerial meeting of defence Ministers, which I believe that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) attended on occasion. The concept of the revitalisation of the WEU is something that many politicians in many different countries have talked about.
  The problem with the WEU is that it is a bit like a character from a Pirandello play—it is an organisation seeking a role. It may be that in the Maastricht treaty it has now found a role as a bridge between it and NATO, or, in the French conception, as potentially a replacement for the Atlantic alliance.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he is using his expertise most excellently in analysing the matter, irrespective of the point of view. I have just received an answer from the Minister of State to a question that I put down today relating to the position of Denmark. I asked which articles of title V were excluded by the Edinburgh decision and he says:
  "The position of Denmark agreed at Edinburgh clarifies, though it does not alter, either the text of the treaty of European union or the obligations taken on by those who ratify the treaty. That applies to title V of the treaty as it does to other provisions. At Edinburgh, Heads of Government noted that Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the union which have defence implications."
  That may help my hon. Friend. The point is that the obligations are the same even if they do not participate.
  Mr. Gapes: I suspect that my hon. Friend is correct in that assessment; no doubt the Minister will intervene if he is not.
  Mr. Burns: Given that the hon. Gentleman was commenting on past experiments to try to revitalise the WEU, and given that my right hon. Friend's speech in Berlin in December 1990 put forward a number of options for revitalising the organisation, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could tell us which of those options he thinks would not be capable of bringing about the revitalisation that he is discussing.
  Mr. Gapes: I will come later in my contribution to my own prescriptions in my own time.
  I want to draw attention to the question of enlargement, because it seems to me that there are clearly significant problems if neutrality is seen as being defined in the old way of east-west politics. The previous Swedish Government—and this is taken further by the present Swedish Government—have said that since the cold war is over and the Warsaw pact no longer exists, what have they to be neutral against?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said earlier, some of us were concerned that enlargement might be stopped because of too rapid a move towards consideration of the questions of common defence and the relationship of the European Community with the Western European Union. Clearly, since the events of November 1989, that has changed. It is now clear that, for the Austrians, the Swedes and, probably, the Finns, just as currently for the Irish, it is no longer an obstacle to their membership of the Community, even to membership of the Community with this close relationship to the WEU.
  However, other difficulties could arise, not with European countries, but with the United States.
  Mr. Rowlands: As I understand it—I think it was from evidence that the Minister of State and his officials gave to the Select Committee quite recently—no applicant will have the right to derogate, or even to strike the Danish deal, when it applies to join; it will have to accept every obligation under the treaty as it stands.
  Mr. Gapes: That is what we were told. It remains to be seen what happens in the negotiations on the detail of the particular countries when they come to join the Community. None of us can predict what will happen over the next two or three years.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Sometimes there is confusion in the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to the difference between a security policy and a defence policy. According to the union treaty, the union does not have a defence policy; it has a security policy and therefore there is no incompatibility with a neutral country assuming the full Maastricht acquis, while remaining neutral. That is perfectly clear.
  Mr. Gapes: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, although I draw attention to paragraph 1 of article J.4, which talks about
  "the eventual framing of a common defence policy which might lead in time to a common defence."
  The phrase "might in time" is an interesting concept, but it is in the treaty. Despite the negotiations and the Government saying that they would not allow defence to be included in Maastricht, nevertheless it is there. Perhaps the Minister could explain why.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman, who is knowledgeable about these matters, that those words were carefully chosen, and the Government were party to including them in the treaty. If the hon. Gentleman reads them with great care, as I am sure he has, he will see that I am correct in saying that there is no defence component to the union treaty.
  Mr. Gapes: I assure the Minister that I have read the words with care. I should be grateful if I could now develop the rest of my argument.
  Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 2 of article J.4, which states:
  "The Union requests the Western European Union which is an integral part of the development of the Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications."
  So the Western European Union is an integral part of European union.
  Mr. Gapes: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: In seeking to be helpful to the Commmittee, the hon. Gentleman read out the word "requests," which was also a very carefully chosen word. It does not say "instructs"; it says "requests". The Western European Union is free standing from the union.
  Mr. Spearing: It is an integral part of it.
  Mr. Gapes: I agree with my hon. Friend. I move on to other concerns.
  The American Administration, for budget reasons and because of domestic pressures, will be looking to reduce military spending in those places where there are no

  235
  members of Congress protecting defence plants and contracts in their own states. It will be looking to make reductions in those parts of the world where they will cause the least possible damage to the United States' internal political consensus. It is therefore quite likely that there will be further reductions in the American military presence in Europe in future.
  Britain and other members of the European Community should take care in the debate leading up to the intergovernmental conference in 1996 and the one in 1998 on the future of the Western European Union not to send the wrong signals to the American people and Administration. It would be short-sighted of us if, by our own actions, we precipitated an unnecessarily hasty American withdrawal from Europe.
  I do not believe that that is the policy of the current American Administration; it was not the policy of the previous one. The reappointment of Mr. Seitz as the American ambassador is to be welcomed as he clearly understands Britain and British politics and will convey accurate messages to his Government, unlike some of his predecessors.
  In discussing the role of the Western European Union as a putative defence component or defence arm of the European Community, we need to be careful that we are not signalling that we are ready for the Americans to withdraw from Europe.
  8.45 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: Given that the hon. Gentleman is so worried about defence and about sending the wrong signal to the United States, why at the Labour conference did his party continually call for cuts in defence spending? Most recently in the House, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and many of her colleagues were telling the House to cut £7 billion from defence.
  Mr. Gapes: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) some weeks ago in which he made clear the position of the Labour party and pointed out that the cuts being being planned by the present Government and the trend for future years would be in line with the policy that was voted by recent Labour party conference. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses his remarks to defence Ministers rather than to me.
  I believe that we need to ensure that western Europe does not give another wrong signal through EuroGaullism. There is a danger that the French and British nuclear weapons and their continued development could be perceived as an obstacle to further nuclear arms reductions in the United States, Russia and other countries.
  It is regrettable that the British Government have not done more to persuade the Ukrainians to ratify the START 1 and START 2 treaties and to move towards the elimination of the nuclear weapons on their territory. Clearly there are financial reasons; the Ukrainians have no money and are asking for western financial support. The recent visit by President Kravchuk led to certain undertakings and commitments, but what will be more important in terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its review conference in 1995 will be a firm commitment by Britain to join Russia, France and the
  236
  United States in a nuclear weapons test moritorium as was called for by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
  Today the campaign has been launched for a test ban and I hope that the House will have a chance to vote for a British nuclear test ban so that we can join the other countries that want to establish a comprehensive test ban treaty. That would be the best possible way to guarantee the continuation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the implementation of article 6 of that treaty under which the states with nuclear weapons pledge to act in good faith to secure real measures towards nuclear disarmament.
  Our past contributions in global strategic and tactical terms were small, but as the Russian and American arsenal are cut the British and French represent a larger proportion of a smaller total. Therefore, we are potentially important players in negotiations if we choose to be so. If we send the wrong signals, we shall be an impediment to further progress, but if we work for further negotiated and verified disarmament, our role will be crucial to the future not only of our continent but of the whole human race.
  Reference has been made in the debate to the role of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. It is interesting that the Maastricht treaty refers to that. I suspect, although I was not a party to the discussions, that the wording in the treaty has far more to do with trying to assuage German concerns about Germany not being a member of the Security Council and with Germany not feeling that it is being given the involvement internationally that its economic and political strength warrants than it has to do with the conspiracy theories about President Delors, about which we heard so much earlier this evening.
  Mr. Corbyn: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the permanent membership of the Security Council of the United Nations, does he not think that this is a good time to put forward proposals for reform of the United Nations so that that body more properly reflects the world's population and its make up and the lack of Security Council permanent representatives from Africa and Latin America?
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I do not think that we can reform the United Nations under this amendment this evening.
  Mr. Gapes: I agree with my hon. Friend, Mr Morris, but I will not give in to the temptation to stray into that area.
  We need to look at Europe's role in the world collectively. Those people who are opposed to a common foreign and security policy have to answer one question: what is their alternative? Is their alternative, as it seems to be with other opponents of the process of European integration, a return to what has been called national sovereignty? Is national sovereignty in defence, security and international relations something which, when we look back over the centuries of the history of this continent, has brought us lasting peace, harmony, friendship and co-operation? Did it bring us that in the hundred years war, in the thirty years war, in the Franco-German war, in the Crimean war, in world war one or world war two?

  237
  The arguments for a common foreign and security policy, based on working out a consensus position among the major economic, political and military countries in this continent, are unanswerable.
  Mr. Winnick: Is there not a danger of my hon. Friend lightly dismissing the concept of national sovereignty? I am not aware that we have any mandate to do away with national sovereignty or that it is the wish of the people of this country to do anything of the kind. To try to avoid the tragedies that have occurred, and none more so than in the 20th century, in Europe, is it not necessary to make a distinction between co-operation and the federal concept which my hon. Friend seems to be aiming for, where we would not be in a position to decide our own policy?
  I remind my hon. Friend of what happened in 1991 over the invasion of Kuwait and the way in which this country and the United States acted decisively against criminal aggression but there was not as much response from the other countries of the Community—at least not from the majority of them.
  Mr. Gapes: There is some truth in what my hon. Friend has just said about 1991 but I do not believe that the concept of national sovereignty, as it has been espoused by some hon. Members today, could bring about the kind of international action against aggression that my hon. Friend and I both supported in 1991. The problem with those people who take what I regard as a narrow-minded nationalist opposition to all things European and to all things concerning the European Community and who try to cloak themselves in the phrase of national sovereignty is that they fail to explain how this nationalist position would add to the security of this country. In a world with nuclear weapons, in a world of aircraft, with international environmental disasters and diseases, how on earth can we, on our own, deal with those problems? Some people, it seems, believe that because we are an island—but I gather from Government policy not for long—we will be able to be immune from events in other countries.
  The strength of political and economic co-operation in Europe will require co-operation on the security level as well, in the widest sense. By "security", I do not just mean defence. Defence is an important component of security, but we have also to take account of the economic, political, social and environmental aspects of security for our country and our people.
  Reference has been made to federalism. I am not a federalist. I believe that the kind of Europe we are creating is a mixture between the confederal and federal. The institution has some federal aspects. I regret that, where we do not have more intergovernmental co-operation, there is a democratic deficit.
  I am worried that some aspects of the common foreign and security policy and the home policy are being developed in such a way that there is neither effective scrutiny by nor accountability to the House of Commons nor to the European Parliament. In time it is inevitable that the European Parliament will demand—and I support this—more and more control over decisions taken in the collective name of the European union.
  If we believe in true democratic accountability in our Governments, whether it is nationally or internationally, we should support such developments. The House does
  238
  itself a disservice by not recognising that the European Parliament is an ally rather than an enemy in exercising democratic control over the executives, the civil servants and the Government Ministers. For those reasons, I support the Maastricht treaty, although in my view it is inadequate in the respects to which I have referred.
  Mr. Corbyn: My concerns surrounding the foreign policy section of the Maastricht treaty are that I believe that the proposals with which we are presented are designed to enhance the power of the European Commission over the powers of the individual member states without any concurrent increase in the democratic accountability of those organisations. The reason that I make that assertion is that the proposals put forward envisage the establishment of a sort of shadow agency that will be able to make proposals on foreign policy, as has been said today, and that additionally there is no increase in reality in the power of the European Parliament to have any say in what those proposals are, or to call to account the civil servants who will be making those proposals. So there is a transfer of power away from national parliaments towards the European Commission without any consequent increase in democratic accountability.
  Mr. Macdonald: While I do not agree with my hon. Friend's interpretation of the treaty, I accept that the Foreign Secretary underplayed its significance, considering, for example, that title I says in article B that the United Kingdom shall be committed
  "to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy".
  That obligation to frame a common defence policy goes far beyond the sorts of co-operation between international bodies and states to which the Foreign Secretary referred.
  9 pm
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which underlines the fact that we are moving towards a common European defence and foreign policy. That being so, one must ask who proposes it, who controls it and what it is for—[Interruption.] I have asked that question of my Front Bench—[Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. If hon. Members do not wish to listen to the hon. Member who has the Floor, I suggest that they stay quiet or leave the Chamber if they want to have a conversation. I wish to hear the hon. Member.
  Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Morris.
  I have expressed some concerns because we live in an era in which, thankfully, the cold war is at an end. Some of us were not particularly enamoured of the cold war, anyway. We now believe that the military expenditure and arms race involved in the cold war resulted in, among other things, massive budget deficits in the United States and the destruction of the Soviet Union.
  In the development of the idea of a common European foreign and defence policy, the obvious question is, against whom are we defending western Europe? Where is the external threat, and who is the enemy? I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who, speaking for the official Opposition, said that the enemy was the instability in the

  239
  former Soviet Union, in the former Yugoslavia and in the middle east. Obviously, there is serious instability in those areas.
  We cannot deal with the instability in the middle east by pouring arms into every sheikhdom and country in the region and so increase tension, any more than the deployment of large numbers of troops in the former Yugoslavia, awful though the situation is there, will necessarily bring about the resolution of that conflict. So what are all the forces for and what is the purpose behind what we are doing?
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: How could anyone have foreseen the Falklands conflict or the fact that Iraq would invade Kuwait? Such things happen out of the blue, meaning that we must have the protective shield of NATO around us. It would be easy to give in to the hon. Gentleman's argument, but our nation would be left vulnerable, and that would be stupid.
  Mr. Corbyn: That was an interesting intervention, because neither event to which the hon. Gentleman referred was within the NATO sphere of influence—nor, we are told, was undertaken by NATO. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Falkland Islands are in the southern hemisphere, whereas the NATO sphere of influence is restricted to the northern hemisphere, north of the tropics, and the territory of member states and their dependencies. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was without the NATO sphere of influence, although the hon. Gentleman is on a fair point in that the NATO command structure and intelligence network were used to support the Gulf war effort.
  I did not support either of those wars. Indeed, I was active in opposing both, and the subsequent chaos in the middle east, with the poverty and hunger there, hardly testifies to the success of the operation, in which 300,000 people died, or the huge expenditure by the British Exchequer on the Falkland Islands. At some stage, somebody will have to grasp the nettle and decide that such a level of military expenditure is not peace but a long-term armed truce that drains us all of our resources.
  I believe that a common European defence and foreign policy will lead to further arms expenditure and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear know-how. We should take such issues extremely seriously. Title V states that the objective of such a policy shall be
  "to safeguard the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union".
  What exactly does that mean? Do the "fundamental interests" refer to what is happening in the south Atlantic or to some perceived external threat from a non-member state such as Scandinavia, north Africa or Iceland?
  Do they refer to the preservation of what I believe is an extremely unjust world economic order? That is where the development of a common foreign and defence policy will lead to more wars like the Gulf war, which is, happily, behind us, although the peace has yet to come to the people of that region. It will also lead to further interventions in third-world countries which attempt to assert their economic independence from an unfair world economic order. In other words, the north-south element of the agenda must be examined seriously.
  It is also important to examine how foreign policy decisions are made. There are many imperfections in the workings of the British constitution: we do not live in a
  240
  democracy, we do not have an elected head of state or an elected upper Chamber, and we do not have an accountable judiciary. We have only an elected House of Commons, in which the Prime Minister can use the royal prerogative virtually to pass legislation. Indeed, the Government were legally advised that the Maastricht treaty could be passed in that way.
  However, there is some accountability for what the Executive are doing in terms of foreign and defence policy. Under the Maastricht treaty, with a common foreign and defence policy, that accountability will not exist. It will not exist in the European Parliament, which can question but not call to account. It will not exist here, because we shall always be told that policy is being made somewhere else.
  Article J.1(2) talks of safeguarding
  "the common values, fundamental interests and independence of the Union",
  but what does it mean? What are the common values which it is attempting to defend and which the security policy is attempting to underpin? Why is it trying to strengthen the union of the member states? What is the purpose of the various paragraphs of article J.1?
  The proposals in article J.1 represent a departure from the usual foreign policy-making and a move towards something new. Article J.1(4) states:
  "The Member States shall support the Union's external security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with."
  That paragraph raises a number of serious questions, and some examples spring to mind.
  Earlier today, we talked about what I believe was the premature recognition of Croatia by Germany. It was not an objective foreign policy decision, but a quid pro quo for support for the exchange rate value of the pound against the deutschmark within the ERM. It was also part of a buy-off to enable Britain to opt out of the social chapter at a later stage.
  The French have a predilection for military involvement in certain west African countries, on the basis that they have an inalienable right to decide who should be in government in francophone countries. To what extent would we be dragged into approving and supporting such acts? When questioned about that, the Foreign Secretary seems to want to have it both ways. He says that we can undertake these as independent acts, but not in concert with the rest of western Europe. These are serious questions. What is the purpose of this part of the treaty, if it is not to drag us into some kind of unified foreign policy, and therefore a series of military adventures?
  The same applies to the foreign policy and constitutional position of individual member states. Ireland voted in a referendum to support the Maastricht treaty. In my view, it did so mistakenly, but that was its right. The Irish people had an opportunity at least to vote on the treaty as a whole. Maastricht undermines fundamentally the principle of neutrality enshrined in the Irish constitution—just as, in my view, it undermines the non-nuclear, or anti-nuclear, parts of Danish foreign policy and the constitution of Denmark. These issues have to be dealt with seriously.
  We are told that everything is underpinned by the principle of unanimity in the Council of Ministers in respect of proposals received from the Commission. I am

  241
  not sure that it is. The article says that, where there is agreement, there can be majority voting. Let me pose a hypothetical case. If the Commission had proposed, and the Council of Ministers had agreed, that Kuwait should be given support to deal with its problems with Iraq, and if decisions had been made by majority voting, the conduct of that conflict would have been in the hands of a majority in the Council of Ministers, which could have imposed on member states decisions with which they did not agree.
  I did not agree with the Gulf war, but I have to say that the proposition I have just posed would have resulted in the dragging of member states and their troops into a conflict over which they no longer had any individual control.
  Mr. Dickens: Surely the attack on Iraq was mounted by the United Nations Security Council, and had nothing at all to do with the European Community or NATO. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.
  Mr. Corbyn: It was not mounted by the Security Council. The United Nations called upon Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, but at no stage were the forces in the Gulf region under United Nations command. Indeed, under the terms of the United States constitution, troops of that country may not go into conflict other than under the control of its commander-in-chief, who is the President.
  Let me return to the question of majority voting and the effect that it would have on particular defence and foreign policy initiatives. The Foreign Secretary has heard my comments. If he wishes to intervene, I shall happily give way to enable him to clarify the implications.
  Mr. Hurd: Under the treaty, defence policy would not be a matter for this process. It would be a matter, if anything, for the WEU as the defence component of the union.
  Mr. Corbyn: So the Western European Union would make decisions about the operation of defence policy. But what about the accountability of forces during the operation of any specific conflict? There must be some very clear control in this field, just as there has to be clear control in the promotion of a common defence or foreign policy.
  Article J.2 says:
  "Member states shall … consult one another within the Council on any matter of foreign or security policy of general interest in order to ensure that their combined influence is exerted as effectively as possible by means of concerted and convergence action.
  Whenever it deems necessary, the Council shall define a common position."
  It then says:
  "Member states shall ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions."
  I come back to the examples of the way in which Germany recognised Croatia, the way in which France operates in west Africa, the way in which the British Government operated in the case of the Falklands or the way in which the British Government are so closely tied to the interests of the United States militarily and as a whole. Any person who is seriously concerned about the democratic accountability of institutions and about
  242
  bringing peace and disarmament to the world ought to be worried by the proposals in this section of the proposed treaty.
  9.15 pm
  It also has serious implications for membership of the United Nations. I made an intervention earlier in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) about membership of the Security Council; Mr. Morris rightly called me to order because I was going wide of the treaty. There is an important point involved, in that it puts obligations on the two permanent members of the Security Council from western Europe—Britain and France—who have to represent the interests of the western European community as a whole rather than their own individual interests. When there is a conflict, how are those representations to be made?
  I come back to the example of the Falklands. There was not agreement throughout western Europe on the attitude of Britain. Sometimes there were abstentions; sometimes no statement was made. How can a member of the Security Council represent two conflicting points of view? Is precedence to be given to the national interest or to the western European interest? These are serious practical problems.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Following the interesting intervention of the Foreign Secretary about the role of the Western European Union, can the hon. Gentleman, perhaps with the help of Ministers, clarify the significance of this simple statement on page 133 of the treaty:
  "in order to facilitate the strengthening of WEU's role, the seat of the WEU Council and Secretariat will be transferred to Brussels."
  How does the hon. Gentleman think that that will strengthen or facilitate the role of the WEU? Can the Government explain how the WEU will become stronger or more significant simply by moving to Brussels?
  Mr. Corbyn: If it is transferred to Brussels, presumably it will be handier for the NATO headquarters and also for the offices of the European Parliament; perhaps more importantly, it will be handier for the Commission itself. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and I may disagree fundamentally on many aspects of foreign policy, but I think that we would both agree on the need for genuine and real accountability for what is done in our name. Transferring power to the Commission or to the Western European Union would not achieve that accountability.
  I note that accountability is not transferred to the European Parliament or retained in this Parliament. It just goes off to some place in the middle, and the Commission gets on with what it wishes to do. There are serious problems with that aspect of the treaty.
  I should like to mention briefly the curious notion under article J.8.5, which says:
  "Without prejudice to Article 151 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, a Political Committee consisting of Political Directors shall monitor the international situation in the areas covered by common foreign and security policy and contribute to the definition of policies by delivering opinions to the Council".
  It seems that we are revisiting the whole argument about a European central bank. Many of us have the deepest misgivings about the establishment of such a bank, with no accountability to member states and an office life of eight years, in which it can do what it likes, provided that it supports the market economy throughout Europe, despite

  243
  the social consequences. There is no time limit on the period of office of the political directors, and there is nothing about who they would be or where they would come from. But I ask the quite serious question: what on earth are these political directors to do, where do they come from, to whom are they answerable and how do we get rid of them if we do not like what they do?
  Mr. Spearing: The questions and their answers illustrate the importance of either getting a reply from the Foreign Secretary before we vote on this matter or perhaps returning to the matter at another stage of the Bill. Can I remind my hon. Friend that, earlier in the debate, the Foreign Secretary said that this directorate and committee was, as it were an extension of the intergovernmental function of the Council, as distinct from, not the opponents but the other wing within the Commission? In that sense, he may be right in seeing a competition between the centralist Commission and the centralist intergovernmental institution. But in either case my hon. Friend is right. They are both central and may be bidding against each other.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am not entirely sure how it benefits the people of Europe—
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes 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 59, Noes 292.

  Division Nol. 217]

  [9.20 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ashton, Joe

  Lord, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bayley, Hugh

  McAllion, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  McCrea, Rev William

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Madden, Max

  Body, Sir Richard

  Maginnis, Ken

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Mahon, Alice

  Canavan, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Cann, Jamie

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cash, William

  Redmond, Martin

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Cryer, Bob

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Simpson, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Trimble, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Winnick, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Gould, Bryan

  Harvey, Nick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

  Leighton, Ron

  Mr. Ted Rowlands.

  Lewis, Terry

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Alton, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Amess, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Ancram, Michael

  244

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Ashby, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkins, Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baldry, Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Freeman, Roger

  Bates, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gale, Roger

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Gallie, Phil

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Booth, Hartley

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gorst, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hague, William

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butler, Peter

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hendry, Charles

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

  Hunter, Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jack, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan, Alan

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

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

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  245

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sackville, Tom

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Luff, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Shersby, Michael

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maclean, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  Malone, Gerald

  Sproat, Iain

  Mans, Keith

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stern, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Stewart, Allan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Streeter, Gary

  Milligan, Stephen

  Sumberg, David

  Mills, Iain

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thomason, Roy

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tredinnick, David

  Norris, Steve

  Trend, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Trotter, Neville

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tyler, Paul

  Page, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Paice, James

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walden, George

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waller, Gary

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Ward, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pickles, Eric

  Waterson, Nigel

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Watts, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitney, Ray

  Redwood, John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Richards, Rod

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Riddick, Graham

  Willetts, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wolfson, Mark

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 230, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 206'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 237, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 154'.
  No. 138, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert 'except Article 29'.
  No. 139, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert 'except Article 78c'.
  No. 140, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert 'except Article 78g'.
  246
  No. 153, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert 'except Article 123'.
  No. 154, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert 'except Article 179'.
  No. 155, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert 'except Article 180b'.
  No. 151, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
  `but not last sentence of paragraph 8 in Article 160b of Title IV thereof.
  Before I call Mr. Cash, may I make it clear that the subject of the amendment is very narrow.
  Mr. Cash: Indeed, Mr. Morris, it is a narrow subject but it is a very important amendment.
  Amendment No. 230 would exclude article 206 in title II of the treaty. I see that the Paymaster General, who is going to take a close look at these narrow issues, is in his place so I hope that we shall have a reasonably good debate.
  Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend deal with [Interruption.]—
  Mr. Cash: I am sorry, but I cannot hear my hon. Friend.
  The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat his intervention?
  Mr. Knapman: I asked my hon. Friend whether he would deal with fraud, which seems to come under the subject of internal finance. I appreciate that fraud is a very narrow subject.
  Mr. Cash: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) has drawn my attention to that important matter because article 206 falls into three categories. First,
  "The European Parliament, acting on a recommendation from the Council which shall act by a qualified majority, shall give a discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has immediately homed in on the fact that, in order to be able to give the right kind of discharge, it is necessary for the Court of Auditors to—
  The Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Stroud would understand that he is not able to stand in the Chamber when another hon. Member has the Floor.
  Mr. Cash: The giving of that discharge raises the question of the financial system through which the Community functions. Article 206b states that both
  "the Council and the European Parliament … shall examine the accounts"
  and the financial statements and audits. Before giving any such discharge, the European Parliament could ask the Commission to submit evidence and it would be obliged to take appropriate steps to implement any observations that the Parliament might make on expenditure. That begs the essential questions, how much would that extend the Commission's powers and to what extent would the Court of Auditors, which is involved in the process, be capable of arriving at an accurate assessment to determine whether the Commission could give a discharge for a budget?
  The Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am a member, only considered the 1991 budget —the Council's discharge—on 3 March this year. A number of hon. Members will know that there has been

  247
  considerable disquiet in the Court of Auditors about the way in which the Community's finances have been operated and sorted out.
  I have the Court of Auditors' report. It is well known that Mr. Carey, who has recently been an extremely eminent member of the Court of Auditors, has been exceedingly critical of the manner in which the powers of the Court of Auditors have been operating and, I think, would operate, even today. There is a good reason for that, and much of it is contained in the excellent report. When somebody of Mr. Carey's distinction, who has inside knowledge of the Community's finances, makes the sort of criticism contained in the report, we have every reason to be deeply worried about the basis on which the discharges of the budget are being conducted.
  The Select Committee has the power to refer matters either to the European Standing Committee or the House as a whole. When faced with a report and a discharge that raises matters of profound political or legal importance, we have the power to recommend that the matter should be dealt with on the Floor of the House. In the most recent Select Committee meeting on 3 March, it was decided that the draft Council recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Community for the financial year 1991 should be further considered by the House rather than by European Standing Committee B. That gives the clue to the difficulty raised by the discharge for last year.
  A difficult question arose on the financial management, value for money and evaluation in respect of Community funds, and the need for member states to assume their responsibilities more fully.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
  Notice being taken that strangers were present, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 327.

  Division No. 218]

  [9.35 pm

  AYES

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Mr. Eddie Loyden.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bates, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Batiste, Spencer

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Alexander, Richard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Alton, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amess, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Ancram, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Ashby, David

  Bowis, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ashton, Joe

  Brazier, Julian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bright, Graham

  Atkins, Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burns, Simon

  Barnes, Harry

  Burt, Alistair

  248

  Butler, Peter

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butterfill, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mildred

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth. N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Churchill, Mr

  Hague, William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Colvin, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Congdon, David

  Hanson, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Harvey, Nick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Couchman, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Hendry, Charles

  Cummings, John

  Hicks, Robert

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

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Davidson, Ian

  Horam, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

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

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dixon, Don

  Hunter, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dover, Den

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jessel, Toby

  Dunn, Bob

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Key, Robert

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Evennett, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Faber, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fabricant, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

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

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knox, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forth, Eric

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Legg, Barry

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Leigh, Edward

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodsprtng)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lewis, Terry

  French, Douglas

  Lidington, David

  Fry, Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gapes, Mike

  Luff, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gamier, Edward

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Gill, Christopher

  McCrea, Rev William

  249

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maclean, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Madel, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Spring, Richard

  Mans, Keith

  Sproat, Iain

  Marland, Paul

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stephen, Michael

  Merchant, Piers.

  Stern, Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Stewart, Allan

  Milligan, Stephen

  Streeter, Gary

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Sykes, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Needham, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thomason, Roy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexiyh'th)

  Norris, Steve

  Tracey, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Tredinnick, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trend, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Page, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Paice, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Patnick, Irvine

  Viggers, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Walden, George

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waller, Gary

  Pickles, Eric

  Ward, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Watson, Mike

  Rathbone, Tim

  Watts, John

  Redwood, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Richards, Rod

  Whitney, Ray

  Riddick, Graham

  Whittingdale, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wilshire, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Yea, Tim

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sackville, Tom

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Shersby, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Cash: Before that interruption, Mr. Morris, I was dealing with article 206 of the treaty and explaining why I thought that it was unnecessary and undesirable for it to be included. I had drawn attention to the fact that the European Select Committee—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. These amendments are extremely tricky and very detailed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has a great grasp of the amendments which he has tabled. Would it be possible for you to ask
  250
  right hon. and hon. Members to withdraw so that those of us who are interested in this group of amendments can hear the debate?
  The Chairman: It could be the trickiness of the amendments that is causing hon. Members to discuss them. I hope very much that they will now listen to these very narrowly drawn amendments.
  Mr. Cash: As I was saying, the Select Committee on European Legislation decided on 3 March that the discharge of the Commission's budget for 1991 was of such importance that it should be discussed on the Floor of the House—that is, here; that hon. Members needed to debate the matter because of the manner in which taxpayers' money was being dispensed, and that the whole basis upon which the fraud is perpetrated in the Community needed to be discussed by hon. Members in the House.
  I have to say that the Committee and the Treasury were not particularly enthusiastic about much of what they came across when they looked at what is in this document, which, although the subject is narrow, has a very wide ambit—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Most of these people here may not want to hear my hon. Friend, but I do, and I cannot.
  The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must remember that there are no "these people"; there are only hon. Members in this Committee. There are three minutes until the 10 o'clock motion, so may we please listen to the hon. Member?
  Mr. Cash: The Court of Auditors has some very powerful indictments, very powerful criticisms, of the way in which the European Community has been running its affairs. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present and I hope that, in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown, he has been paying special attention to the fraud which is being perpetrated in the European Community and for which the British taxpayer is paying. I will give a number of reasons why I believe that the discharge of the budget for 1991 demonstrates that this whole exercise is a travesty of accountancy and fraud.
  The court noted that its observations arise from errors and mis-statements commonly resulting from inadequately drafted legislation and from organisational failures which mean that the errors themselves cannot even be detected. So the taxpayers do not even have the redress that the Court of Auditors can provide because the legislation is so inadequate and sloppy.
  I see that the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation is in his place. He knows, as do other members of the Select Committee, exactly what is going on in the Community. The Community is run on the taxpayer, but in the most inefficient and negligent manner and the Court of Auditors is doing all it can to improve that position.
  In particular, the court says that more progress needs to be made to make the reform of the structural funds—
  It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report progress.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 299.

  Division No. 219]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dicks, Terry

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Duncan, Alan

  Alton, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Amess, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Ancram, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arbuthnot, James

  Eggar, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ashby, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Faber, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bates, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forman, Nigel

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Booth, Hartley

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  French, Douglas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fry, Peter

  Bowis, John

  Gale, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gallie, Phil

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  Bright, Graham

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gorst, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burt, Alistair

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Butler, Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hague, William

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Churchill, Mr

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Harris, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Congdon, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hicks, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Couchman, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

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

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Horam, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  252

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Redwood, John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Key, Robert

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

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

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lightbown, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Stephen, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Maclean, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sumberg, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Madel, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Malone, Gerald

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Thomason, Roy

  Marland, Paul

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Merchant, Piers

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Tracey, Richard

  Milligan, Stephen

  Tredinnick, David

  Mills, Iain

  Trend, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trotter, Neville

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tyler, Paul

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Ward, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Watts, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wells, Bowen

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Whitney, Ray

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Page, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Paice, James

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Willetts, David

  Pawsey, James

  Wilshire, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wolfson, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Wood, Timothy

  253

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Irvine Patrick and

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ainger, Nick

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

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Denham, John

  Allen, Graham

  Dewar, Donald

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dixon, Don

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Ashton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Barron, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  Battle, John

  Enright, Derek

  Bayley, Hugh

  Etherington, Bill

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flynn, Paul

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Foulkes, George

  Blair, Tony

  Fraser, John

  Blunkett, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Boateng, Paul

  Galbraith, Sam

  Body, Sir Richard

  Galloway, George

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Gapes, Mike

  Boyes, Roland

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bradley, Keith

  Garrett, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gerrard, Neil

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

  Gill, Christopher

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Burden, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Butcher, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Stephen

  Gordon, Mildred

  Caborn, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cann, Jamie

  Grocott, Bruce

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gunnell, John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Cash, William

  Hall, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Hardy, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clelland, David

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Henderson, Doug

  Coffey, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Corbett, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cox, Tom

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cran, James

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hume, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hutton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Alistair

  Ingram, Adam

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  254

  Jamieson, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jessel. Toby

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Radice, Giles

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Randall, Stuart

  Keen, Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Redmond, Martin

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Reid, Dr John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Richardson, Jo

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Knapman, Roger

  Robinson, Geoffrey ("Co'try NW)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Legg, Barry

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Leighton, Ron

  Rogers, Allan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Litherland, Robert

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lord, Michael

  Salmond, Alex

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McCrea, Rev William

  Short, Clare

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan

  McFall, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McMaster, Gordon

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

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Madden, Max

  Snape, Peter

  Maginnis, Ken

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Alice

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mallon, Seamus

  Spellar, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marek, Dr John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marlow, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Straw, Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Michael, Alun

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Milburn, Alan

  Trimble, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Turner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Walley, Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wilkinson, John

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Olner, William

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Parry, Robert

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mr. Alan Meale and

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

  Pope, Greg

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. At the beginning of our deliberations, the Prime Minister promised the House that we should have every opportunity to debate the Bill, line by line, in a Committee of the whole House. I put it to you, Mr. Morris, that if the Government are to force it through with all-night sittings and are able to do so only with the support of the Liberals, that is a sickening abuse of the procedures of the House.
  The Jopling report, which is to be debated, emphasised that we should not debate after 10 pm. What logic is there in discussing issues of this importance through the night, especially when we do so only because of the treacherous Liberals?
  The Chairman: The House has made its decision.
  Mr. Cash: Before the vote, I made it clear that a number of important matters affected the taxpayers of this country who are discovering for themselves that the fraud that has been perpetrated in the European Community has been growing. I said that it was increasingly difficult for judgments to be made by the court, which identified two main reasons for deficiencies in financial management and control.
  The first is inadequate drafting of legislation. For example, there may be a failure to specify adequate control arrangements, as with certain aid programmes or objectives and with structural fund training measures. Alternatively, it is said that the nature and purpose of support may not be easily amenable to control, as is the case with certain argicultural price compensation aids.
  Secondly—[Interruption.]
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly and quickly?
  Mr. Cash: Secondly, it is said that there ma. y be organisational deficiencies leading to errors or irregularities, which may not be detected or corrected. In the court's view, such problems with financial management, affecting the accounting and control of European Community finances, occur both in the Commission and in the member states, and the Commission has not checked sufficiently that national accounting and control arrangements for revenue and expenditure are adequate. What we have here is an indictment not only of the Commission but of the member states themselves. The finances of the European Community are in dire straits. The money of taxpayers is being thrown away.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: In view of my hon. Friend's concern about the way in which money is spent, may I ask him why he does not welcome the Maastricht treaty's provisions for the installation of the Court of Auditors as a full institution of the Community, as well as the increased powers of the European Parliament in respect of the Commission?
  Mr. Cash: The very simple answer is that it should not be within the competence of the European Parliament in particular to deal with matters that are the concern of the electors and taxpayers of this nation. Such matters properly fall to be decided by the House of Commons.
  Mr. Taylor: We, too, could do that.
  Mr. Cash: What an extraordinary thing to say. If we were to operate on the basis that everything decided here should be decided also in the European Parliament, there would be different reports from different institutions. We should have double jeopardy and the recycling of money, and nothing would be achieved. Half the trouble that we experience arises from the fact that there is not a sufficiently clear distinction between the functions of the House of Commons and the functions of the European Parliament. What my hon. Friend suggests would create even more confusion.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the number of auditors' reports that have exposed appalling fraud in the budgets of the European Community. Does he know that when this country held the presidency of the Council of Ministers our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—no less—attempted, time and again, to raise this matter? The Chancellor himself told me that as soon as he tried to expose the fraud, the other delegates took up their newspapers. That is how much they cared about fraud in the European Community.
  Mr. Cash: Indeed, and when the Select Committee on European Legislation visited the Court of Auditors it was given a very clear, verbatim account of the amount of fraud being perpetrated in the Community. The fact that Mr. Carey has been so critical of the present arrangements indicates that he does not believe that even what is proposed in this treaty would solve the problem. The real question is whether we shall be able to achieve a proper degree of control. The House of Commons has the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. A system that has been well established over centuries keeps proper control of our finances so far as is conceivably possible.
  I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir. P. Hordern) is getting to his feet. This may be his first intervention in these debates, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I gladly give way.
  Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend is describing accurately the faults brought out by the European Court of Auditors and the faults that are inherent in the Single European Act which I believe he supported. He is right that there is no mechanism for putting these faults right. In the Maastricht treaty there are provisions for examination by the European Parliament of the European Commission. Surely that must be a significant advance over the position which my hon. Friend so accurately criticises. I cannot understand how he can object to the provisions in the Maastricht treaty that allow for some improvement in the position.
  I tell my hon. Friend this in case he did not know the Comptroller and Auditor General himself, as well as some hon. Members, contributed to the effort to get the improvement. My hon. Friend ought at least to acknowledge the significant improvement which has been obtained in the treaty.
  Mr. Cash: Irrespective of whether we want an improvement in the manner in which the finances of the Community are scrutinised and in relation to the discharge of the budget of the Commission, I still maintain that the

  257
  real question, which lies at the heart of this issue, is the division of functions. An increasing volume of activity is being transferred. New competences, including the structural fund, are being transferred. I see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is unsure about it. I must ask him how we got ourselves into the position 18 months ago of agreeing an illegal budget retrospectively. I hope that he will respond, because that was a monstrous state of affairs. When such circumstances arise, hon. Members are entitled to ask what will happen with all the increased competences of the European Parliament and the Community institutions.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend reflect for a moment on the well-researched observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) who has been a distinguished member of the Public Accounts Committee for a long time and who has given much thought to this matter? However, my right hon. Friend will not face up to two facts. First, many of the countries of the EEC are conniving at fraud. There is clear evidence that Italian Governments have from time to time connived at fraud, particularly in the agricultural sector. Secondly, the only way in which fraud could be rooted out would be to finalise the arrangements by which the EEC had the appurtenances of a single state—that it was given its own police authority and its own enforcement authority. Otherwise, it is inevitable that nation states, particularly where they condone fraud, will simply frustrate the inquiries of the Court of Auditors.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a lengthy intervention.
  Mr. Cash: It may have been lengthy, but it was important and accurate. I can give chapter and verse to illustrate the very point that my hon. Friend has made. Paragraph 11.10 on page 181 of the report of the Court of Auditors says:
  "Implementation of the Community legislation is rendered more difficult by the absence, in particular, in the Greek and Portuguese regions visited by the Court, of a viticultural land register or official plan of parcels. The vineyards are identified by a mere indication of their surface area and by vague references to their limits (names of the owners of neighbouring plots or topographical details: roads or water courses). It was for this reason that, in 1986, the Community decided to finance the establishment by the Member States of a vineyard register which would make it possible to identify, on a permanent basis, the vineyards belonging to each holding."
  I give the next few words with deep regret:
  "However, work on the setting up of this vineyard register —which, according to the legislation, was to have been completed by 31 July 1992 in Spain and Greece and should be completed by 31 December 1995 in Portugal—is progressing slowly and, at the time of the Court's visit, had not resulted in any kind of improvement of the instruments for controlling the measures financed by the EAGGF Guidance Section."
  10.30 pm
  That is one example of what is going on. I would be quite astonished to read this in the Court of Auditors' report for last year were it not for the fact that I took part in a debate on the Court of Auditors' report four or so years ago, and I find that almost exactly the same kind of criticisms are being made now as were being made then. So why should I take the blindest notice of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham says when he suggests
  258
  that we should go hell for leather down this route, accepting all these spurious claims that they will improve matters, when it is quite clear on the evidence that it will not happen? What some hon. Members will not and cannot understand is that the problems that are inherent in this treaty, difficulties that are inherent in trying to solve problems on pieces of paper, have no regard to the inherent corruption and veniality of many of the agriculturalists in other member states. I say that, I am afraid, with bags of evidence to support it. If hon. Members want to challenge me, I will take most of the night reading out the examples set out in this document.
  Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. It is most generous of him. Taking his encyclopaedic knowledge of the report of the Court of Auditors, can he tell me if it has anything to say about the very fine line between expenses and corruption? For example, does it give us the price of the jet which Mr. Delors has at his disposal and which has "EC President" on the side, or of the fleet of stretch limousines which travel everywhere with him—Citroens, of course—covered in flags and all transported at the expense of the value added tax money which is collected and is about to be swollen by tax on fuel which will be charged to pensioners in this country? Does it say anything about that in the report?
  Mr. Cash: I am sure that there are items which, one way and another, have not made their way into this report for reasons of sensitivity. As we are now moving towards what appears to be—over our dead bodies, as it were—a federal state, I have no doubt that an official secrets Act will be brought in to complement all this and to make sure that we cannot get access to that kind of information.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Seriously, could my hon. Friend remind our right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham that there is little point in adding yet another fraud investigation body, this time for the European Parliament, if we add, as we are doing in this treaty, massive new spending and responsibilities for the EC, based on artificial prices which are an economic nonsense? There is no way in which one could stop fraud, even if one were to set up a thousand departments and give them a thousand Citroens in which to travel round, looking for trouble.
  Mr. Cash: Indeed, and the iniquity of the common agricultural policy, the iron hoof of monopoly, is well known to those who have studied the problems of the corn laws and the rest of it, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, whose affection for Cobden is matched only by my affection for John Bright. I suspect that Richard Cobden would be absolutely appalled at the way in which this monopoly arrangement in the common agricultural policy is being operated, because there is very little distinction between the degree of moral corruption that lies at the heart of the way the CAP is operated—I say that not merely as a generalisation but on the evidence that I can produce—between the common agricultural policy and the corn laws of the 19th century, particularly in their impact on the third world. The Court of Auditors makes some stringent criticisms of the way in which European Community finances impinge on poverty-stricken people in the third world.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cash: I shall be glad to give way to my hon. and learned Friend.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: As my hon. Friend paused for a moment, I could not stop myself asking him whether he recalled an incident that I may have told him about in the past, involving a company in Burton that had an unsatisfactory experience when it went to Italy and tried to buy a company there. The Burton company's representatives were presented with one set of books for the shareholder, another set for the would-be purchasers and a third set for the taxman. Some planes were revving up nearby, loaded with cases of cash about to be spirited away to Switzerland. That Italian company was supposed to be reputable, and a most reputable company from my constituency had intended to take it over. I need hardly add that we would not touch it—any more than we ought to touch the financial arrangements that are to be forced down our throats as a result of Maastricht.
  Mr. Cash: Indeed. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I shall not be spirited away to Switzerland, at least in the immediate future, and certainly not before the end of the debate. I am fascinated to hear of the example that he cites, because it is matched by our experience. Many such Fred Karno examples and Crazy Gang incidents pour out of the reports of the Court of Auditors. However, at the heart of it all lies a serious tragedy: for every person who gains massively as a result of the frauds, which are organised on a massive scale and run into billions of pounds, there are other people in the Community who can hardly scratch together enough money to buy themselves a decent pair of shoes or set of clothing. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) does not seem to think that that is true. Perhaps there are no poor people in his constituency who could well do with the money that is ripped off from the system.
  Sir Russell Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about poverty, he should acknowledge that poverty in this country has increased enormously under the Tory Government. If he is talking about cheating and fraud within the European Community, he must also readily admit that the Court of Auditors and the other Community institutions do their utmost to prevent them.
  Mr. Cash: That is the whole problem, if I may say so. I have great affection for the hon. Gentleman, so I withdraw any suggestion that he may be attempting to look two ways at once. But it is wrong for him to suggest that we should not criticise the basis upon which the internal finances operate.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I do not say that.
  Mr. Cash: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should give the matter careful consideration. The evidence suggests that nothing has been clone and, on the basis of the arguments that I have presented and will continue to present, I do not believe that anything much will be done.
  Let me take another example to which the Court of Auditors referred.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, although so much fraud is going on in the Common Market, the Tory Ministers who go across there are not taking up the complaints about it? Ministers go across and
  260
  discuss things with their opposite numbers at the Council of Ministers. Leon Brittan is there, too. He is a Tory; what is he doing about it? I find it odd that Tory Ministers accept that massive fraud, yet hammer Lambeth Labour councillors whose only crime was to try to improve standards for their constituents. My brothers and their friends at Clay Cross were done by the Tories, too. Why is there one standard for Labour councillors and another for all those who are engaged in fraud in the Common Market? Why are Tory Ministers turning a blind eye to all the corruption and fraud about which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is talking when they hammer, surcharge and kick out of office people in Britain?
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman will not take me down the route of criticising Tory or Conservative Members or ex-Members. I reserve my criticism for those who espouse federalism and all its works and pomps. Criticisms can be levied against those who want to take us down this iniquitous, fraudulent route, but not against Tory Members because we know our principles on these matters. We insist on having proper scrutiny of the finances of the Community.
  Mr. Michael Lord: Is not the truth of the matter that we are criticising not necessarily political parties or personalities, but the absurdity of the system? In a nation that has prided itself on being honest and efficient in the way in which it conducts its civil life, our taxpayers are being hugely penalised for no other reason than that we are far more organised than the other 11.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The plain fact is that for every penny that goes in fraud, somebody loses because the whole basis of accountancy, of audit, of budgetary arrangements and of the discharge of the Commission's budget, which is tied up with the question of internal finances, is whether people have balanced the books properly, whether there are hidden items and whether there has been fraud. It is essential that the system is as good as it can be.
  My great-great-grandfather was one of the first auditors in the 19th century. He was the chairman of the committee of inquiry into George Hudson, the railway king. I do not suggest that such practices have not been observed in the past. I am saying that as a result of his efforts—he went on to found the Institute of Chartered Accountants—there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of our auditing arrangements, which is why I paid tribute to members of the Public Accounts Committee and others. We have developed systems that, to a considerable extent, make the systems elsewhere in the European Community compare unfavourably. Our system is good. Their systems are sometimes virtually non-existent.
  I am concerned that, for example, the Mafia will become deeply entrenched in the finances of the EC. I do not for one minute say that the Mafia is not already entrenched. However, I believe that the more centralisation we have, the greater is the probability that there will be an increase rather than a decrease in corruption. We should take that point seriously. As the amount of resources increases, so the opportunities for people to jump on the bandwagon or to get their noses in the trough grows. If hon. Members regard such subjects as being of minor importance, so be it. I and many hon. Members, whether in favour of the federal inclinations of the

  261
  Community or not, do not want the existing system to be perpetuated. We want to know whether the purported improvements under these arrangements will make a hap'orth or half an ecu of difference.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, although we can all think of individual acts of fraud, the biggest is the common agricultural policy itself, which still accounts for more than 50 per cent. of the EC budget? Does he also accept that part of the act of fraud that comes under the CAP is the set-aside scheme? There was the example of a British farmer some years ago who received approximately £220,000 on the agreement that he would not farm that land for five years. Could the hon. Gentleman anticipate the reaction of the media if an unemployed or redundant coal miner or steel worker was given £220,000, told not to mine coal for five years and to go to the Costa del Sol—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The subject of the amendment is narrow and the hon. Gentleman is straying well beyond it.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Cash: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was beginning to spread his wings a little, Mr. Lofthouse, but he made an important observation on internal financing. I gave the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Francis Maude, evidence that I had accumulated which showed the way in which the set-aside system was being deployed, which is why I chose that example. Just as there are so-called vineyard registers which are not vineyard registers, in parts of Germany and Italy the maps that one might have expected them to use to determine set-aside are not used. I discovered that in parts of Germany maps that pre-date the second world war are being used, and that in parts of eastern Germany no one has the faintest idea of who owns what.
  The idea that we are playing a game of fluff with this subject is a misunderstanding of what is going on in the European Community. As the Community enlarges its competence, internal finance become more serious, as does the fraud that goes with it. If a huge area of eastern Germany does not have the type of land registry system that we would expect, if the Italian systems are incapable of being properly monitored, and if there are moving olive groves in Greece and no one can tell who owns what, we are bound to find that the vast amount of money that we are paying to the European Community is draining away down the plug hole.
  When the Foreign Secretary tells us that by our efforts in these debates we are putting Britain down the plug hole, I would answer that we ought to concentrate on the practical questions which underpin our objections—fraud, corruption and the inability to maintain internal financing —and not on theological federalism.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend have time to mention the appalling fraud in EC tobacco subsidies, which are costing more than £1,000 million, especially in view of the tragic information that we received from the tapes half an hour ago that the head of the tobacco division of the EC's Agriculture Department, Mr. Antonio Quatraro, has jumped out of a window and committed suicide because he is alleged to have shown favouritism to
  262
  Italian tobacco producers? When we think of the shortage of money for essentials in Europe and of unemployment, is it not appalling that all that money should be spent on wasteful subisidies to grow high-tar tobacco to be dumped in the third world?
  Mr. Cash: That is disgraceful and it does not surprise me one bit because my hon. Friend and I have had reason to study the way in which many people have been trying to snuff out the opportunity for people to advertise tobacco or even to smoke it. We now find that the subsidies have been the subject of unbelievable frauds, and I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing our attention to that tragic case.
  Sir Richard Body: Surely only in this country and Denmark is there sufficient knowledge of what is going on, through our census systems, to provide any form of policing. That information is not available in the remaining 10 countries. There is an almost total absence of such information in Italy and it is almost completely absent in Portugal—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has said—and the other countries. We cannot pursue the allegations of fraud and will never achieve any sensible control over the extravagance of the common agricultural policy until the other 10 countries have the same sort of information that Denmark and the United Kingdom have.
  Mr. Cash: Absolutely—and it is interesting that my hon. Friend should mention the United Kingdom and Denmark. Ultimately, those of us with a much more refined belief in the rule of law are fighting hardest to preserve democracy. That is the key element. I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just entered the Chamber—no doubt he has not come to listen to my speech. I missed him during the debate on economic and monetary union that went through the night; he is, after all, in charge of the finances of this country. I had hoped that we might have had at least one or two observations from him on the way in which our economic and monetary affairs are being handed over to other countries to run.
  I gave an example of the manner in which the Court of Auditors had had difficulties over Greece and Portugal, but that is not the end of the matter. I understand from the document that, in Spain,
  "an effective instrument for controlling plantations has only existed since 1986, the year in which a 'register of vineyards with entitlement to replant' was opened in certain of the autonomous regions of the country."
  Regrettably, the all-too-familiar picture re-emerges. The report continues:
  "This register does not, however, meet all the requirements of Community legislation. In Castille-La-Mancha"—
  the very spot where Don Quixote was doubtless tilting at windmills—unlike us—some centuries ago—
  "for example, vineyards which had already been grubbed up but in respect of which the grubbing-up operation had not been regularly declared were entered in the register."
  To quote some Ministers who say it, the fact of the matter is that the document justifying entry in the register only states the fact that the wine grower is the owner of the vineyard and that he made a grubbing-up declaration on a certain date.
  The report continues:
  "the date of grubbing-up is not clearly indicated in any declaration submitted and recorded at the time the operation was carried out."

  263
  That is not what we would describe as fraud of the sort associated with the corruption of the Mafia. It involves a way of life and a way of business.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: It is called the enterprise culture.
  Mr. Cash: It is certainly enterprise viniculture. The way in which such people approach the issues involves their culture. That is one of my basic objections to the treaty. It is not merely a matter of simply drawing on a piece of paper some sort of glorified nirvana for the benefit of the bureaucrats, so that they can ease their consciences. It is not so that the bureaucrats can assume that bits of paper have been prepared or that—as in the previous debate—the bureaucrats come up with a so-called pillar to overcome the difficulty posed by the Commission and Mr. Delors wanting a bit more foreign policy control. These pieces of paper are very dangerous indeed; moreover, they do not work.
  Recently, I had dinner with a former Prime Minister. She asked me for my view on Europe. I said that I thought her task much more difficult than Churchill's. She asked why I thought that. I said, "He was faced with bombs and aircraft; you are faced only with pieces of paper." Those pieces of paper have a deceptive way about them, particularly when they are locked into legal requirements: they are far more difficult for us to deal with.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and I spent many years as fellow members of the Standing Committee on European Legislation. My hon. Friend has been to the Court of Auditors with me. We had a very interesting time. The Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), is laughing: he obviously does not think that the Court of Auditors has been doing the job that it ought to have been doing. The fact is, however, that we have had first-hand experience of the underlying questions about which the court was concerned.
  Mr. Carey, whom we met—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford remembers him—has been very critical not only of the basis on which things are going, but of the way in which they would go under these arrangements.
  Mr. Skinner: What did she say about the bits of paper?
  Mr. Cash: I will not elaborate on that conversation. I will say, however, that she had, and still has, a very clear idea of the need for value for money. She knew what was going on.
  I regret to say that, in the same report, the very question that was at the centre of one of her practical concerns—the Fontainebleau agreement, and our rebate—is now under attack from other member states, including Germany. The Court of Auditors' report has quite a lot to say about that.
  Mr. Skinner: They need the money to pay for the vineyards.
  Mr. Cash: That is true.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has just come in. I do not wish to leave any hon. Member out of the debate; I am sure that everyone wants to contribute throughout the night. I must say, however, that the Court of Auditors' reports have some important things to say about fishing activities, with which I shall deal in due course. What is going on now in relation to fishing
  264
  operations has a great deal to do with the way in which the moneys are disbursed: our fishermen are worried about the way in which the system functions, and that has led to many of the comments in the reports.
  I briefly mentioned the court's view about the progress still needed to make the reform of the structural funds fully effective. Hon. Members may recall that there was a motion relating to cohesion funds last night. I do not know why we were in a position to vote on a matter that relates to the Edinburgh summit, which, as far as I know, has no authority whatever. I have no way of knowing whether it is possible for us to vote on a matter relating to cohesion funds, when, as far as I know, there is no authorisation in law. I have the greatest difficulty in understanding that.
  The structural funds are part of the European Community's responsibilities. Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)— now a senior Minister of State—and I were in the House when the structural funds were first given substantial refurbishment. That refurbishment, the internal financing of which is the subject of the Court of Auditors' report, amounted to an absolutely massive increase in the amount of money which was made available under them.
  11 pm
  We are pouring out huge sums of money on a regional and social engineering exercise, compatible with the treaty as it is developing, that is essentially socialist in nature. [Interruption.] I suspect that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) knows what I am about to say. I should like to know whether any of the money which is being frittered away on these corrupt and fraudulent activities and which is not being properly audited in these other countries could come to this country to help to pay miners who are being thrown out of work as a result of the decision that was taken by the House last night. I should like to know whether my miners, in Madeley and elsewhere in the Stafford constituency, could obtain. genuine access to that money.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Can my hon. Friend make it abundantly clear to the Stafford constituency miners, and to all the people of Britain, that not one penny of the cohesion fund will come to Britain? The real tragedy is that our friends from Northern Ireland, who attend these debates so assiduously, cannot get a penny, while a few miles away, in the Republic of Ireland, money is being poured in from the cohesion fund. This was slipped on to the Order Paper late last night when no one knew, and it appeared to break every parliamentary rule and convention. It is a terrible scandal. Nobody cares. Nobody has looked into it. Sadly, no one here can now do a thing about it.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend has, as usual, made an extremely good point. What lies at the heart of—
  Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is the last statement by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) remotely true? Has the Clerk advised you that the authority of the House of Commons has been usurped in the way that my hon. Friend suggested?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. If we read what the Select Committee says, it tells the whole story. There is no precedent in the history of the United Kingdom Parliament of money being

  265
  allocated for legislation before it has been approved. I will give my hon. Friend the papers, if he likes to come along here and get them.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is nothing out of order at this stage, but I advise hon. Members to stick to the amendment. We are from time to time going well beyond the scope of the debate.
  Mr. Cash: I am sticking rigidly, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Lofthouse—
  Mr. Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I appreciate your ruling on the matter, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said is, I believe, a calumny on both your office and that of the Clerks. I also believe that you should rule on whether or not his accusations are accurate.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I cannot rule upon it.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. One ought to seek clarification before attempting to speak. I hope you will therefore understand why I raise this matter. It is in order, I imagine, to look at the way in which
  266
  the Community looks after its funds and resources and at how it attempts to police them. It is relevant, therefore, in this debate to cover those aspects.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. May I make it abundantly clear that there was no question of me in any way criticising the Clerks or the occupant of the Chair? What I criticised was something that happened last night which was absolutely shameful. It was not the fault in any way of the Chair or the Clerk. My hon. Friend knows that, if he likes to come along, I shall show it all to him.
  The First Deputy Chairman: It would be a good idea now to get back to the debate.
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The statement made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) seems to me to be of great importance and seriousness. If indeed moneys have been expended without the authority of Parliament, surely that is a matter for the whole House to discuss with some urgency. There is a basic principle in law in this country that Government expenditure is not made without the authority of the House.
  The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Cash: It may not be a matter for the Chair, Mr. Lofthouse, but it is certainly a matter for hon. Members, as I am sure that you will appreciate. Therefore, it is in order for us to discuss these questions because, if our own Parliament is to go in for an illegal budget, which was admitted by Ministers last year, and is now agreeing in resolutions to arrangements which affect the manner in which we dispense money to the cohesion fund, which has not yet been established, because this treaty is not yet through—which is what I understand the position to be —then quite clearly we have reason to be deeply concerned.
  My complaint about these provisions and the internal financing of the Community is that there is not the structure, or, as the Court of Auditors says, the organisation, the equivalent of Standing Orders, or the equivalent legislation to ensure that rules are properly obeyed. That is the problem. That is what is at the heart of all this and what concerns me. If we are now slipping into the same kind of thing as a result of giving spurious authorisation before the treaty has been ratified to cohesion funds, I fear for the future of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has suggested that I should get the parrot off my shoulder—or words to that effect—but this Maastricht treaty is a dead parrot; the only problem is that it keeps on talking.
  I wish to concentrate on the important questions that are the crux of this matter. The economic and political defeatism that lies at the heart of not monitoring the internal financing of the Community, which, by common consent, is not being done properly, is the exact opposite of the way in which we have built up our democratic institutions. It is the divergence of our cultural and our practical approaches to these questions that causes so many of the difficulties that we experience in relation to provisions of this kind.
  When it comes to the discharge of the Commission's budget or, indeed, to what happens next year if all this has gone through, and I am asked what I think about whether we ought to give more power to the European Parliament on all these matters, I will look at what is going on, knowing perfectly well that the European Parliament will not be able to cope with it, whereas I know that the House could. I do not want these provisions to go through. This is not an improvement. It does not follow that, merely because we are giving people more power, giving ever-greater opportunities for closer union—indeed, actually creating a union, not merely closer union—we will improve the internal finances of the Community.
  At the end of the day, the bottom line in all Parliaments is the raising of money and the dispensing of public expenditure. [Interruption.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Cash: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East was raising a point of order, but, unfortunately, he has just tottered into the Chamber.
  Mr. Dykes: I have got the vapours.
  Mr. Cash: I am now told that he has got the vapours. I do not know whether that was a point of order, but it was made from a sedentary position.
  268
  The problems that I was identifying in respect of the structural funds are extremely important to what is happening in the Community. Those structural funds are being vastly increased at an unacceptable rate.
  It was made clear by some, but not by the Government, that, as part of the deal at Edinburgh, the Germans were to receive substantially increased structural funds and cohesion funds to enable them to improve standards of living in eastern Germany. The money involved ran into billions of pounds.
  I should like to know whether it is a good idea for us to be giving vast amounts of money by way of transfers of resources to eastern Germany when the Germans are investing massively through the Treuhand or otherwise —
  Mr. Dykes: Treuhand.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend speaks German so eloquently he might be thought to be a German.
  The Germans have now managed to raise their level of investment in eastern Europe to 85 per cent.
  I know that you are watching me with great care, Mr. Lofthouse, and I understand why, and I would not want to dissuade you from doing that, as I will stick rigidly to the internal finances of the Community. I am now coming to the second point to which the court has referred.
  Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cash: No. I have great affection for my hon. Friend, but it does not extend—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is not giving way.
  Mr. Wells: Can my hon. Friend explain himself? He was referring to 85 per cent. of what?
  Mr. Cash: Some 85 per cent. of the foreign investment that has been accumulated in eastern Europe has come from German sources. I do not hold that against the Germans, but if they have all that money to invest in seed corn in an area that is outside the European Community because it is a low wage area, I should like to know, in relation to the internal finances of the Community, why we arc paying billions of pounds to eastern Germany. That is the practical point that I wanted to make.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: We should like to know how it was that eight nations came back from Edinburgh saying, "We are going to be in billions", but no one was saying who would have to pay for it. Surely that is what is wrong with the internal finances which are the subject of the amendment. They all came back from Edinburgh and were treated as national heroes, but we are still trying to find out who will have to pay for it. Someone is being conned and we should know who it is. I should like to know the facts and if my hon. Friend could find out, we should be greatly obliged.
  Mr. Cash: At the heart of my hon. Friend's intervention is another important point. If we make transfers on the basis of these socialist theories to other countries and the money simply goes down the plug hole with corruption and so on, the member states will have encouraged an attitude of mind which is self-perpetuating. They simply want to draw more and more money into the system with less and less control over it.
  Mr. Corbyn: May I bring the hon. Member back to the structural funds? Many people are concerned about the vast funds that go to road construction and other construction projects in Greece, Spain and Portugal, often against the strong opposition of environmental interests and of people who live in those areas. Governments have accepted this money because they have been told that it has to be spent within a limited time and it ends with them riding roughshod over local planning, environment and agricultural considerations. Does the hon. Member not think that these are serious matters which are endemic in any highly centralised economic undertaking?
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Cash: It has not been often that I have found myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, but he has put his finger on an important point there.
  In the Court of Auditors' report, severe criticisms are made of the manner in which, in the aftermath of earthquakes in Italy, the system has been operated. It is well known that the system has not resulted in the money going to the people who are earthquake victims. It has gone to line the pockets of contractors and jerry builders and that group.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cash: I am besieged on all sides, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In replying to the intervention from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is dealing with an area which causes immense concern to many Conservative Members and, it appears, to many Opposition Members as well: that structural funds are not spent for the purpose that they appear to be allocated for. They are allocated, in fact, to various countries as inducements. They are being spent exactly as the hon. Member for Islington, North said—on unnecessary infrastructure projects. The sums are merely spent because they have that money in the pipeline, in the bank, and if they do not spend it by a specific time, they will lose it and will not get an increased allowance under the structural fund in the following financial year.
  Mr. Cash: That is yet another valuable insight. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), the former Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, has just come in. I bet that he would not have approved of all the fraud that we have been unearthing as we go through this Court of Auditors' report. It is a matter of considerable interest to the people of this country.
  I should like to come back to the intervention from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I have here a reference by the court to the reconstruction projects in areas devastated by earthquakes, which have received New Community Instrument—NCI—loans and interest rate subsidies.
  The court concluded that although the aid was justified —and who would not have wanted to give aid to those wretched earthquake victims?—there were considerable delays and weaknesses in the financial control of the work.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse, I wonder whether you have had
  270
  notification from the Liberal party and the Welsh nationalist party that, when they voted with the Government for the debate to continue, they would be frequently, if not continuously, absent from the debate which they, by their votes, kept going?
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Cash: The court concluded that
  "although the aid was justified, there were considerable delays and weaknesses in the financial control of the work."
  The court recommended that where finance was
  "not used in accordance with the objective, the Commission should request repayment of the interest subsidy."
  That must be regarded as a serious matter—[Interruption.] I am delighted to note, with the entry into the Chamber of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), that a kind of telepathy is at work. We thought that his hon. Friends had lost the "c" in Liberal Democrats. It was becoming difficult for us to be sure whether they would be attending our proceedings.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend has been speaking to the amendment for a considerable time. How can any Liberal Democrat comment on his contribution, not having been present for most of it?
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that pertinent intervention and I shall, albeit briefly, return to the point raised in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford about the counterpart fund rules and responsibilities in respect of eastern Europe. Indeed, I was about to consider the question of internal financing in that connection when my hon. Friend raised the issue with me. We are told in respect of eastern Europe that the
  "monitoring of the planning, implementation and control of projects which are contracted out is inadequate, while internal control and monitoring of the European Development Fund are insufficient."
  That is stated by the Court of Auditors, so we should be wary about allowing increased competences. The greater the competences, the greater the amount of internal financing; and the greater the corruption that I am exposing, the greater the reason for reducing the amount that goes into internal financing. In other words, there is less reason for the Maastricht treaty, which is expanding competences in every direction.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fourth resource among the elements of resource that member states contribute to the financing of the Community is a percentage of VAT receipts? As member states increase their VAT receipts, they increase their contributions to the Community. Accordingly, does he agree that that fourth resource should not be expanded—[Interruption.]—by the decision of a member state?
  Mr. Cash: There seems to be such overwhelming rejection of the hon. Gentleman's argument that I, too, have no hesitation in disagreeing with him. But with respect to the Trentham pit, it is a pity that we cannot be guaranteed the kind of money that is available to the German and French coal miners. Lest I be ruled out of order, I mention the coal issue, Mr. Lofthouse, because it is related directly to internal financing. The European Commission has authorised for 1991, the last year for

  271
  which figures are available, £6 billion by way of EC state aid for the coal mines in Germany. For France, the sum is £2 billion and for the United Kingdom £160 million.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I take the hon. Gentleman's point—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is a good point."] It may or may not be a good point. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there has been fraud or questionable auditing in coal mining matters, that is in order, but if he is not suggesting that, it is out of order.
  Mr. Cash: It would be out of order were it not for the fact that I shall now deal briefly with RECHAR, which relates directly to the absolute iniquity of the fact that the miners of the United Kingdom—as a result of the accountants—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may feel, is he suggesting that there has been fraud in the allocation of RECHAR? If not, he is out of order.
  Mr. Cash: I am glad to respond to that point, Mr. Lofthouse. The question of internal financing may be partly a matter of fraud, but it may also be a matter of wrong accounting. As you may recall, Mr. Lofthouse, the great issue about RECHAR is the manner in which the United Kingdom has organised the accounting arrangements for the moneys that would go to the coalfield communities. Therefore, I believe that I am in order and, as I promised, I will remain faithful to your injunction to stick to the issue in question.
  Mr. Home Robertson: What I have to say may be helpful. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the money is being applied fraudulently. Surely the problem identified by Commissioner Milian is that the British Government were embezzling European Community money which was not being used as additional money, on top of funds which would have been spent by the Government in any case. The lack of additionality has been a case of fraud by the Government in the use of EC funds.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) must now stick to auditing and fraud or I shall continue to rule him out of order.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful to you, Mr. Lofthouse. Internal audit and fraud are adjacent issues, but I will finish with the question of coal mines and audit because I have made my point.
  Another difficulty is that of the practices used by the European Commission to collect revenue, and this is an extraordinary state of affairs. The Court of Auditors states that the practices used by the Commission are contrary to the financial regulation. In other words, not only is the House—according to Ministers last year or the year before —engaging in illegal budgets, but the Commission itself is collecting revenue in a manner contrary to financial regulation. We are told that a number of gaps arise owing to the fact that management responsibilities are shared by the Commission and the member states.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) will be interested in my next point. The court also concluded that there were deficiencies in the supporting documentation—some of which appears to have landed beside me, although I am not sure from where—submitted by member states in respect of agricultural guarantee expenditure.
  272
  I have already given a number of examples of fraud and the way in which the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund has been defrauded, but I wish to cite another example.
  Mr. Lord: With regard to fraud, is not the basic fact that elected representatives must keep very sharp and careful control of expenditure? We all know how difficult it is for district and county councils to do this. It is also difficult for the House of Commons —
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is difficult for me to ascertain whether the hon. Gentleman is in order. The buzz in the Chamber is so great that I cannot hear what he is saying.
  Mr. Lord: I am sorry about that, Mr. Lofthouse. I was asking my hon. Friend—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.
  Mr. Lord: I am sorry, Mr. Lofthouse. I thought that I had addressed you by name.
  11.30 pm
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must face the Chair.
  Mr. Lord: I shall face the Chair throughout my intervention.
  I was putting to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) the point that fraud is very difficult to control. Uncovering fraud is a crucial part of the role of elected representatives, whether they are members of district councils, county councils or the House of Commons. A crucial task of public representatives is to keep a very sharp eye on public expenditure. It is difficult enough to do that at the level of a national Parliament, but it is almost impossible at the European level, where one encounters Commissioners and all the problems to which my hon. Friend is referring. I should like my hon. Friend to indicate that he accepts this point and to comment on it.
  Mr. Cash: I am very happy to do so. The really important question is whether we have a system buttressed by people who are asking the right questions. That is the importance of Prime Minister's Question Time and of the questions that are put by members of Select Committees.
  Mr. Corbyn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, before drawing his remarks to a conclusion, will give some indication of the means by which this fraud was uncovered and of the powers of individual Members of this or any other national Parliament to question those who perpetrated the fraud and to ensure that those people are prosecuted.
  Mr. Cash: In the first place, there is. power to seek evidence from, for example, members of the Court of Auditors—a power which is sometimes exercised. Just as we visited the Court of Auditors, members of the court could visit this country. I note that the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation has such enthusiasm for this debate that he has come into the Chamber twice. I have no doubt that, if the Committee were to agree, he could invite members of the Court of Auditors to visit this place so that we might achieve the symmetry that has been referred to. Thus the internal

  273
  financing of the Community could be reported upon directly. The Court of Auditors could explain to us how it had arrived at its conclusions.
  Mrs. Gorman: The Court of Auditors uncovers fraud, but the sums involved are so astronomical—recently £45 million was fiddled by, I think, the wine growers in the south of Italy—that it is impossible to recover them without bankrupting countries—and Italy is bankrupt already. Is not the ultimate fraud and obscenity that people in this country are unable to sleep tonight because the VAT man is breathing down their necks? They cannot put together the money that they need to pay their VAT bills, and they will go out of business tomorrow.
  Mr. Cash: I was delighted with the reforms in the Budget which I hope will go some way to improving the position which my hon. Friend has mentioned. It was a remarkably good provision in the Budget which will relieve small businesses of the difficulties which they have been experiencing.
  If I may turn to matters relating to fisheries—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Before my hon. Friend moves on to fishing, will he, to try to prove the point, ask the Treasury Minister what progress has been made over the 17 million lire paid to the Mafia for the delivery of non-existent fruit juice to NATO headquarters in Palermo? No matter whether it was found out by the European Parliament, the fraud department or anybody else, we have told the Government four times about it, but we have yet to hear about anything being done. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the problem is not finding the fraud but in getting anyone to do anything about it.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is completely right. Non-existent fruit juice is not an enjoyable drink. If, in addition to that unpleasant drink, we find that they are ripping us off at the same time, the most serious penalties should be visited upon these people. Apparently there is no way of identifying where the fruit juice is or even whether it ever existed.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is talking about fraud or the misuse of public money, particularly money which has come from the hard-pressed taxpayers of this country. Are we in a position to do anything about it when so many within the Community, whether they are part of the Commission or are members of the European Assembly, are part of the gravy train which is using the money? The European Community appears to have huge sums of money which it can spend on taking people to Strasbourg and to Brussels. Is it likely, therefore, that the people there will do anything about the abuse or that the House will have a real say in getting the fraud exterminated from the activities of the European Community?
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend has made yet another extremely valuable intervention with his usual vehemence, enthusiasm and conviction. The real problem is that nobody is doing anything about it. As long as we allow ourselves to be neutered as a Parliament, and as long as that other body which is the neuter of the European
  274
  Parliament is allowed to expand its neutered competences, nothing will be done about it. The problem is called political defeatism.
  I see a Government Whip shaking his head. I remember conversations with him in the past when he agreed with every word I had to say on the subject. I have not the slightest doubt that he is putting me in his little black book because an hon. Member is not supposed to make rude remarks to Whips on duty. I am watching him with great interest; if for one minute his poker face slips and he shakes his head yet again, I have to say that we, too, note these things down in our little black book.
  Mr. Corbyn: I asked earlier about how fraud is discovered. The hon. Gentleman said that, theoretically, the Court of Auditors could be questioned by a Committee of this Parliament. What powers do we have to do anything about the fraud in EC institutions on structural funds, the CAP and in many other areas? People throughout Europe pay taxes and much of that money seems to find its way into the hands of the Mafia or into grandiose, unwanted and often badly built construction projects that are of no use to anybody. We need to know how to sort that out.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. There is an arrangement by which member states are responsible for monitoring many of those funds and invigilating in questions that arise in connection with them. Fraud could also be dealt with not merely by macro-economic reports—which is what the reports are —but by individual citizens in each member state. It is open to British courts to take action on fraud, but the issue that I am addressing is the internal financing of the Community. I mention that again in case hon. Members did not hear me refer to it recently. Macro-economic questions are an aggregation of individual frauds, which are often substantial. People may laugh about that fraud, but we should not forget that the British taxpayer pays for a great deal of it.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend not think that it is unwise for anyone to imagine that nation states which are being asked to police the substantial largesse that they receive, and especially politicians who are often re-elected on a platform of such expenditure, will apply themselves in the disciplined way that we understand is necessary?
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is right. There is a kind of Parkinson's disease, let alone a Parkinson's law, in relation to the competences of the European Community. The greater the competences, the weaker the body politic, and the more the Parkinson's disease works its way into the accounting system.
  Mr. Leighton: One of the reasons for rampant fraud in the Community is that the investigation, inspection and policing are carried out by the member states. Inspectors have no real motivation to investigate because any money that they save does not go to their Governments but back to the Community. Many officials in Italy seem to be working hand in glove with the Mafia. Can we be confident that they are carrying out any inspections at all?
  Mr. Cash: I can speak from personal experience because I spoke to the Court of Auditors a few years ago. I was told about a case in southern Italy in which the court was trying to get hold of dockets for a transaction. Every

  275
  time the court officials arrived at one town, the dockets had been moved to another. It was a kind of merry-go-round. For the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentions, it is difficult to exercise control.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Gentleman agrees, I hope, that we must have confidence in our own state and administration and in co-operation between neighbouring states before we can criticise the super-Euro state. I am apprehensive about fraud ever being properly investigated in the European Community, because since 1983–84 the fraud of international investments perpetrated mainly on people in Northern Ireland and Great Britain has not been properly investigated by the British or Irish Governments. If we cannot look after fraud on our own doorstep, how can we expect fraud to be properly looked after in Europe?
  Mr. Cash: The experience, as I have understood it, in Northern Ireland and the difficulties with these transfers of cattle from one side of the border to the other and back again—
  Mr. Rogers: It is a carousel.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a carousel. It is an incredible state of affairs. Every time they go round, they collect another lot. There is a remarkable story, which I have no reason to doubt is true, of fraud with regard to cattle and their slaughter in Italy. It was decided that a convenient way of identifying fraud would be to ask the Italian farmers to produce as evidence of slaughter the ear of an individual beast. It was not long before there were a lot of cattle with only one ear wandering round the plains of Italy. Then somebody else had an idea and people cut off both ears, so that they got double the amount of money and still kept the cattle on the plains of Italy. The ingenuity of these fraudsters is unbelievable.
  Not only is the story true; it is an indication of the lack of accountability and audit.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Barry Porter: My hon. Friend knows full well that I have some sympathy with his general views about the efficacy of the European Community. However, I hope that he will think about facing reality, and the reality is this: the bulk of the official Opposition went home ages ago. I counted them and about 40 to 50 hon. Members are left here, of whom 10 to 15 have no option but to be here—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. What has that got to do with this amendment?
  Mr. Porter: A great deal, Mr. Lofthouse.
  The First Deputy Chairman: As far as I can ascertain, it has nothing whatever to do with the amendment.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful to you, Mr. Lofthouse, for dispatching that irrelevant intervention.
  I wish to move on now, as I would have done but for the enthusiasm of hon. Members who, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), wish to participate in the debate because they appreciate the impact that all this is having on their constituents. What I cannot understand is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, who generally sympathises with us in this
  276
  matter, is not prepared to take the kind of interest in the debate which his views, as expressed to me in the past, would suggest. That is a matter for him, but it is not a matter for him to come along to the House and start moaning and groaning—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is a matter for the hon. Member to address himself to the amendment and not to his hon. Friend.
  Mr. Cash: I am delighted to be able to ignore my hon. Friend on this occasion.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman made a point about fraud and its effect on the British taxpayer. Will he give an estimate of the amount of money that has disappeared in fraud from the £14 billion that was paid by the British taxpayer between 1980 and 1990 to the Common Market? These grants are paraded about as though the European Community were giving us something, whereas all it is doing is giving us some of our own money back. It goes to Brussels, is laundered and comes back in a much smaller proportion, and yet it is paraded as though something is being conceded to us.
  Of the £5 billion a year that we now contribute, will the hon. Member hazard a guess at how much disappears in fraud? My constituents, who are very hard pressed to meet the demands on them for local tax, income tax and VAT, which now dominates tax revenue, would certainly be interested to know. If that figure were widely disseminated, there is no doubt that the widespread hostility to Maastricht would be greatly reinforced.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is talking about the kind of financial carousel that we see with the cattle in Northern Ireland. As the money goes round and round the system, no doubt people are taking their slice of it all the way round, and that makes a substantial contribution to the fraudulent activities that we are discussing.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a governor of the European investment bank, and we contribute 19 per cent. of its capital. It is a matter for concern that, irrespective of the amount that we contribute, we are financing huge tranches of Italian industry. We get back out of the bank far less in loans than do the Italians, who I understand receive 40 per cent. of all the loans made. If I am wrong —my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East appears to have the vapours again. Every time such a matter is mentioned he says that what is being said is nonsense. I should be delighted if he would intervene if he can explain to me where I am wrong. Clearly he does not dare to speak, because he knows that he does not have the facts; he shows that he disagrees with me, but he does not come up with any evidence.
  Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cash: Yes, of course.
  Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for at last giving way to someone who is informed on such matters. He has previously failed to do me the honour of giving way to me on other such matters, which has distressed me. Does he agree that the European investment bank is financed basically by Government guarantee—that the money is raised on the money markets of Europe and of the rest of the international community, and then re-lent? Perhaps the interest rates and charges of the European

  277
  investment bank are unattractive to British investors and more attractive to Italian investors. It is wrong for my hon. Friend to mislead the Committee by suggesting that we are giving money from our Treasury and our taxpayers to that bank. I should be grateful if he would make that clear.
  Mr. Cash: I should be more than happy to confirm what I have just said: that the European investment bank has a system and that part of that system concerns the making of loans. On the figures that I have—I am always open to correction and always delighted to be corrected whenever necessary; I would never want to mislead the Committee in any way—40 per cent. of the loans made are made to Italy.
  Another matter that should be the subject of close audit and scrutiny is the fact that France appears to get about 25 per cent. of the European investment bank grants in aid to small businesses, whereas the United Kingdom receives only 2 or 3 per cent. The auditors should examine that imbalance closely. As with coal subsidies, we get the wrong end of the stick. If there were a level playing field in the European Community, as we are making a substantial contribution of 19 per cent. of the capital of the investment bank there would seem to be good reason for us to expect an equitable sum by way of return. I do not know what the reasons are.
  The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): If my hon. Friend wants to know anything about the borrowing from or the lending by the European investment bank, he can look in the annual report which is available to him. All the figures are shown and divided clearly there. I do not have the figures with me tonight, because they have nothing to do with the amendment.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has been given some latitude tonight. He has strained my patience from time to time. In our previous encounter, although he identified the movement of finance, he identified no fraud. We must get back to the amendment. The debate has been going on for a long time. It is becoming very tedious and repetitious in many aspects. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Cash: Indeed.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. You will have heard the Paymaster General say that this debate has nothing to do with the European investment bank. If the guarantee given by the United Kingdom on behalf of United Kingdom taxpayers was called upon to be taken up, that would surely be a matter of interest in the internal finance of the European Community.
  The First Deputy Chairman: That point is hypothetical at the moment. The Chair is not responsible for what the Paymaster General says.
  Mr. Cash: The report by the Court of Auditors deals at some length with the European investment bank and its functions. I will leave it at that.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. But does the report deal with fraud?
  Mr. Cash: It does deal in part with questions that relate to fraudulent activities. I will now move on to fisheries matters, which are of great importance to this country at the moment. I will describe some of the problems that have arisen in relation to internal financing, as exemplified by the report by the Court of Auditors.
  I cite the example of a Portuguese sardine fishery. It is regrettable that a system was set up in relation to a Portuguese sardine fishery. I see that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that great Euroenthusiast, has now come into the Chamber. This is a matter which falls directly within his responsibilities. Perhaps he can throw some light on the problem.
  The producer organisation in question had established a withdrawal period of fewer than 115 days for all vessels. As the Commission had accepted the approach prescribed for that producer organisation, compensation was paid for days on which no fishing would be carried out anyway. That added about 40 per cent. to the European taxpayers' contribution. It is incredible that such a thing can be allowed to go on. It is not just a question whether the Court of Auditors has identified that problem after the event. The question is how the arrangements are set up in the first place and how they go on with nothing being done. That is an especially bad case.
  Another example concerns Spain, which is dealt with on page 111 of the Court of Auditors' report of 15 December 1992. It states that, after some investigation,
  "Finally, an on-the-spot inspection revealed that one fishing vessel that was in dry dock for repairs had not submitted its 'rol de despacho' and, that therefore, this period may be considered a period of fishing activity."
  Those examples have caused the Court of Auditors considerable concern and they ought to cause us concern, especially given the great difficulties that fishing problems have caused us recently.
  12 midnight
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As one sardine to another, may I say that if any fraud is being committed, it is by the hon. Member boring us to death all night unnecessarily?
  Mr. Cash: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend was able to get up and to sit down as quickly as he did. I would not want to refer to his state of mind, but the Committee shuddered as he collapsed in a heap after that brilliant intervention.
  Many matters need to be brought out in this debate and no doubt many other hon. Members would like to speak. I should be only too delighted to ensure that the issue can be given the thorough investigation that it deserves, as I have only scratched the surface of the subject.
  Sir John Cope: My invervention might be helpful to the Committee at this point, particulary if I deal with the amendment. I appreciate that it has many ramifications and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has gone through many of those lying a long way behind it. In doing so he has made out a good case against amendment No.230, which he tabled.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford may want more elaborate controls. At one time he seemed to suggest total integration of the Community and a federal state with a strong central authority as the only solution to fraud in the Community. That does not appeal to me, and

  279
  I am sure that it does not appeal to him either. Nevertheless, he seemed to suggest that it was the only way to deal with those problems.
  I realise that my hon. Friend would want to go much further to control Community expenditure and the way in which it is dispensed, but in my view that is not an argument for passing the amendment. On the contrary,. if the amendment were passed it would delete some of the very provisions in the treaty which strengthen the fight against fraud—and I hope that I am second to none in wishing the fight against fraud to carry on.
  Many criticisms of expenditure have been made arid all sorts of examples of fraud within the Community have been produced, mostly from the reports of the Court of Auditors. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to the report on the 1991 budget, which the House debated on 10 March.
  Mr. Leighton: Does the Minister agree that the best way to end fraud would be to do away with the awful common agricultural policy, in which fraud is endemic? Should we not exercise some sort of subsidiarity and let each country run its own agriculture?
  Sir John Cope: I do not agree, but I will return to the CAP a little later.
  Amendment No. 230 seeks to remove that section of the treaty which replaces the existing article 206b with a new article 206. The new article repeats many of the words in the existing article, but adds in paragraph 1—significantly —that special reports by the Court of Auditors are to be examined, where relevant, by the Council and the European Parliament.
  The real addition, however, occurs in paragraphs 2, 3 and the fourth paragraph, which strengthen the fight against fraud in the Community, and we are all agreed that it is desirable to do that. It would be a mistake not to include in the treaty those paragraphs or the other sections which strengthen the fight against fraud and which were negotiated at Maastricht. It would, therefore, be a mistake to pass amendment No. 230.
  A number of other issues have been raised, to which I should respond at least briefly, although some of them were less than central to the argument about amendment No. 230. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was concerned that the imposition of value added tax on fuel would swell European Community funds, and an Opposition Member raised a similar point. As I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford acknowledged, it is a mistake to imagine that the calculation of the VAT resource is done on a standardised basis. That issue relates to amendment No. 57, which appears in a later group of amendments.
  I reject the charge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and others that Ministers have not taken up the fight against fraud in the Community. We have done so in a series of ways during our presidency, and also in the negotiation of the Maastricht treaty, particularly in article 206, which amendment No. 230 seeks to delete.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend has just skipped over an important issue by saying that the Government did their best over that section of the Maastricht treaty dealing with fraud. What was done to reduce fraud? It would be helpful to know that. We have had about two hours of debate on fraud, but we are still
  280
  unconvinced that we are able to do what should be done about the high level of fraud and corruption in the Community.
  Sir John Cope: We have, on a number of occasions, stated some of the steps that were taken in the Maastricht treaty. Article 206, to which the amendment relates, plays an important part in that process. It gives enhanced powers to examine the Commission's implementation of the budget. The Court of Auditors is required to give a statement of assurance on the reliability of the Community's accounts. The European Parliament has additional powers to obtain the necessary information in the course of examining the Commission on the basis of the annual report. Under article 206 of the Maastricht treaty, that power also covers any relevant special reports made by the Court of Auditors.
  In the past few months we have had some other successes in the fight against fraud, some of which will be discussed in the House on other occasions not connected with the Maastricht treaty. Amendments to the financial regulations mean that the Commission's spending proposals must in future be accompanied by a justification of each programme on grounds of cost-effectiveness. I attach considerable importance to that. It will help the Council of Ministers to make proper decisions about the implementation of the various programmes leading to expenditure.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is being very helpful.
  Let us suppose that, as a Conservative Back Bencher, I receive evidence of what I consider to be misuse of public structural funds given to, for instance, Portugal. Should I raise the matter with my right hon. Friend, or should I go direct to the Court of Auditors? How does a Back Bencher who is concerned about what he sees as the misuse of public funds—or fraud, or corruption—raise such matters?
  Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend can take whichever course he chooses. Certainly I would encourage him to come to me, if he wished to do so, with information about any fraud that was being perpetrated in connection with Community funds or, for that matter, in connection with United Kingdom Government funds. I would encourage him to approach me, or whoever is doing my job. Of course, if he wished, he could approach the Court of Auditors directly.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I have more confidence in our Treasury team than some other hon. Members may have expressed, so I am delighted to hear that we should approach my right hon. Friend or other members of that team.
  Every day we see evidence of such practices. For example, Air Portugal has just been given a subsidy which puts it in a uniquely competitive position; the same has happened with Iberia, Air France, Sabina and others. That puts all the United Kingdom airlines at a disadvantage. To whom should I address my comments if any discipline is to be introduced into those unfair aviation arrangements?
  Sir John Cope: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that fraud is involved, or whether he simply dislikes decisions which have been properly arrived at. It could be either. If he is referring to fraud, I encourage him to come to me in so far as British Ministers are concerned;

  281
  if he is concerned about the policy which leads to decisions that he does not like, he can by all means approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
  Mr. Beggs: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the rumour throughout Northern Ireland that large sums are being paid to terrorist organisations by business men for protection. He will know that our Government permit those moneys to be set aside against taxation. Does he know whether comparable practices take place in other European countries? Does he know to what extent payments may be made to the Mafia and other organisations in the Community which can be set against taxation?
  Sir John Cope: I am not sure how that question relates to what we are discussing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, I have had some responsibility for related matters in the past and the matter that he raises would probably come before the House as part of the Finance Bill debates. I can give him no information off the cuff about other countries' taxation provision in relation to such payments, but in any case the payments that he has mentioned will not come out of Community funds. They are payments made by individuals or companies from their own funds; the question is how they are treated in the context of national taxation, which is not a matter related to these amendments or to the treaty.
  Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) referred to the Mafia. I do not think that any hon. Member believes that the Mafia comes by any of its income in what one would describe as a legal manner. The Mafia derives its income mainly by means of extortion and fraud. From what has been printed in the press and other reports, it seems that the Mafia creams off a great deal of money from the Common Market—from funds provided by this House through payments to Europe. In those circumstances, what assuance can the right hon. Gentleman give me that the Mafia declares its income for tax purposes, never mind other individuals trying to get money that they can then give to the Mafia as protection money?
  12.15 am
  Sir John Cope: When I was in the Northern Ireland Office I visited Italy to look into the fight against the Mafia, so I have some knowledge of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but not enough to answer his question authoritatively off the cuff. Italy's national taxation arrangements are a matter for that country. It does not arise out of the amendment. What does arise out of the amendment and what was also referred to in the debate was the extent to which the Mafia might be taking European money to which it is not entitled. That is exactly the sort of matter that the Court of Auditors is there to investigate, uncover and report upon. It is therefore important for the role of the Court of Auditors to be strengthened. Under the Maastricht treaty it becomes a full institution. That is not a matter towards which the amendments are directed, but it is relevant to the discussion so far. Italy is a net contributor to the budget, so the point about British funds is an arguable one.
  All Community money should be properly spent. The Court of Auditors exists to see that that is done, and the
  282
  treaty assists the Court of Auditors to do so. It is important for the Committee to bear that point in mind at this stage in the debate.
  To judge from the interventions, one of the matters of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and some of his hon. Friends is the increase in the structural funds and the cohesion fund that is taking place now. That increase was agreed when Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister. It followed through in all the Budgets, including the 1993 Budget. We have already discussed the conclusions arrived at in Edinburgh, and there will be other opportunities for debate. We shall need to debate the new own resources decision when it is made, but that matter is not before the Committee now. The matter before the Committee is the question of increasing the powers of the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament to pursue fraud—something which is entirely desirable.
  Mr. Leighton: The right hon. Gentleman relies on the Court of Auditors. What powers of investigation, policing and control does it have?
  Sir John Cope: The powers are set out in the treaty. If the hon. Member refers to articles 188b and 188c, he will see them set out there. That is not, however, the article to which the amendment is directed. Those powers are strengthened in many respects by the Maastricht treaty. They are incorporated in the first part of the treaty. Under the treaty, the Court of Auditors is transformed into a full institution.
  Mention was made of practices contrary to the financial regulations having been discovered by the Court of Auditors. In future, of course, when the Maastrict treaty is ratified by all states and comes into force, the powers of the Court of Auditors to pursue matters of that kind will be increased. It will, for instance, be able to go to the European Court of Justice if it wishes.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) expressed concern in an intervention that there was a problem as to whether member states policed strongly enough within their countries. The remedy for that is to strengthen the Court of Auditors as this treaty does, to strengthen its ability to go to the member states, to co-operate with the auditing authorities, which is what it is required to do, as appropriate, and to pursue fraud wherever it occurs.
  It would be a great mistake for the Committee to pass amendment No. 230, or for that matter the other amendments in this group, as this would have the effect of weakening the fight against fraud, which we all wish to strengthen, as has been shown by everyone who has spoken in the debate.
  I said that I would mention the common agricultural policy, which comes partly under this amendment because the amendment strengthens the Court of Auditors and the Parliament's powers in respect of that as well as of other items of expenditure. The reform of the common agricultural policy agreed in Brussels last year involves significant changes in the way in which subsidy payments are made. In particular, there is an anti-fraud measure known as the integrated administration and control system across all member states. It is relevant to mention this, particularly in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as we shall all no doubt be getting complaints from farmers

  283
  before long about the detail of the checks being put in place by the Community to control expenditure on the CAP.
  If we get such complaints, it will ill behove us to complain too much about them because, as the Court of Auditors' reports have made clear, there has been fraud by United Kingdom farmers as well as by overseas farmers. In addition, by applying this across all 12 member states, we shall improve financial control and the fight against fraud in the CAP.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The comments that my right hon. Friend is making are very important. I am sure that he will understand that those of us with large farming constituencies get evidence from our own farmers that nation states are not pursuing the necessary documentation and all the things that our farmers are complaining about. Who should I come to with these complaints?
  Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend can come to me if he wishes, but I would suggest that he went straight to our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My information from him is that they are all implementing the system that I have just described.
  Amendment No. 230 would weaken the fight against fraud when we all wish to strengthen it. I therefore suggest that the Committee reject the amendment.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: On the last point, I imagine that it is not coincidental that we have all had a letter from the Minister of Agriculture today setting out provisions for the integrated administration and control system. I notice that he is offering to undertake meetings after Easter. Perhaps he had better go and meet the farmers in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
  Our concerns on the questions dealt with in this group of amendments are: first, that the Community budget—it is really a matter of common sense as well as propriety —should be deployed effectively to achieve the objectives of agreed policies; secondly, that financial transactions should be properly accounted for and subject to proper audit; and thirdly, that there is efficiency and fairness in both the raising and the spending of funds.
  We are, after all, talking about a very large budget—over £54 billion for the current year—to which the United Kingdom, as we have heard, is one of the largest net contributors. How it is raised and how it is spent is clearly of enormous importance. It is important both in terms of propriety of spending and value for money. It is also important politically, and is an extremely sensitive issue. Nothing diminishes more quickly public confidence in the Community and its institutions than the knowledge, or even the suspicion, that public money is being misapplied or wasted.
  When the House considered the report of the Court of Auditors a few weeks ago, deep concern was rightly expressed on all sides about the errors, the irregularity, the waste and the fraud which was evident on a disturbing scale in a number of the Community's financial affairs. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who is not here at the moment, regaled us at length with examples earlier this evening. The extent to which the hon. Gentleman, in a long speech, relied precisely on the report of the Court of Auditors to which he now wishes to deny extra powers, appears to be a deep contradiction in his argument.
  284
  Some of that waste, irregularity and fraud is the responsibility of member states; some is the result of legislation that is unclear or inconsistent between member states, and some is the result of inadequate supervision by the Commission. Whatever the cause, it is wholly indefensible, and much more urgent and resolute action needs to be taken if it is to be rooted out. It is crucial to ensure that public money is not squandered or misappropriated, and to restore public confidence in the value of Community action and expenditure.
  No one should underestimate the damage inflicted by irregularities, waste and fraud such as that identified in the Court of Auditors report. Despite the quality of the work of the Court of Auditors, if we recognise some of the limitations that the court identified on its own ability to investigate, we are left with the suspicion that only part of the problem has been uncovered in its report.
  The real question before us tonight is how far the changes brought about by the Maastricht treaty assist the control and scrutiny of Community finances or whether they weaken it. Of course, they strengthen scrutiny and control and are to be welcomed.
  The treaty provides in article 78c, which the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford would delete, for the Commission to have
  "regard to the principles of sound financial management."
  That is straightforward common sense, but none the less it is important that it is enshrined in the treaty.
  The treaty also states in article 160c:
  "The Court of Auditors shall examine the accounts of all revenue and expenditure of … the Community"
  and
  "shall provide the European Parliament and the Council with a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions."
  That is an important provision, which should usefully enhance the role and powers of the Court of Auditors.
  It is particularly important, bearing in mind the fact that sources at the Court of Auditors were quoted in The Guardian of 27 November 1992 as saying:
  "If we had to certify these accounts, we would not do so."
  They were referring to the 1991 accounts on which the hon. Member for Stafford dwelt at such length.
  Clearly, with the treaty in place, the auditors would have much more powerful leverage, first, to require accurate accounting information and, secondly, to insist that irregularities are ended and abuse stamped out. That requires action particularly by member states as well as by the Commission. That requirement, too, is strengthened in the treaty by the provisions of article 183a, which says:
  "Member States shall take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the Community as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests."
  12.30 am
  That can be taken to answer some of the concern that was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham North-East (Mr. Leighton) about how far member states did not have an incentive to ensure financial probity when the only possible beneficiary was the Community. I do not draw such a sharp distinction between the interests of the member states and those of the Community. There is a commonality of interest here, and that is what the whole treaty and the process of integration is about. In this respect as well, the treaty takes steps to improve on the present unsatisfactory situation.

  285
  The powers of the European Parliament are also increased in the treaty in these matters. Article 180b, which the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford would delete, requires the European Parliament to examine the financial statement and the annual report by the Court of Auditors and empowers it to call the Commission to account over its expenditure and financial control. The Commission is obliged by the article to submit all necessary information to the European Parliament at its request, to act on its observations, and to report on its observations, which reports will also go to the Court of Auditors. So, again, we see a tighter loop of financial control and democratic accountability being established.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member is presenting a very favourable picture of the Maastricht treaty and the Court of Auditors, and about the extension of its powers. Will he comment on this quotation from a distinguished business man, a past director of N. M. Rothschild and Sons, a director of Jardine Matheson, Trafalgar House, Kwik Save and other companies, and a trustee of the Post Office pension fund—I quote precisely from his article:
  "To travel round Europe is to realise that people everywhere have lost faith in their governments and the unaccountable bureaucracies which, dispensing 50 per cent. of each country's wealth, foster corruption, influence-peddling and inefficiency."
  That is from a very respected business man with a considerable banking background, who has that view of the European Community. I particularly draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to his phrase in the article "fostering corruption".
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That was a very long intervention.
  Mr. Smith: I have already condemned the corruption in the Community, just as we all would. The thrust of my speech is to show how the provisions in the treaty strengthen the fight against such corruption, but the quotation the hon. Gentleman mentioned referred to more than 50 per cent. of expenditure, he said. Therefore, that could not have been referring to the Community budget, which is a mere 1 or 2 per cent. of the Community gross domestic product.
  Mr. Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify precisely what Mr. Leach said. He talked about the Governments of the various countries that comprise the Community spending more than 50 per cent. of the product of their countries. That situation, fostering corruption, and with the bureaucracies of Europe, would further foster corruption, inefficiency and influence-peddling, to use the phrases that Mr. Leach used.
  Mr. Smith: It seems to me that Mr. Leach was referring to an entirely different situation. He was questioning the share of GDP which goes on public expenditure. That is another matter which we could debate here at considerable length. It clearly was not referring to the scale of the Community budget, which nowhere near approaches the sort of figures that the hon. Member was referring to. In any event, to the extent that corruption is a problem, and to the extent that it is inadequately addressed within the Maastricht treaty—I would not claim that the treaty is perfect in this respect—the answer is to go further in
  286
  tightening the scrutiny and accountability, not to eliminate from the treaty, as this group of amendments would do, the very proposals that have been agreed with our Community partners to try to improve matters.
  As I was saying, the European Parliament has a part to play. It is an additional element of democratic accountability to the financial scrutiny and reporting provided in article 180b. Through the treaty, the responsibilities of the Court of Auditors, the member states and the Commission are strengthened in undertaking the task of monitoring expenditure and taking necessary corrective action.
  Putting those provisions in the treaty and into law will not of itself guarantee that all irregularities, abuses and fraud in the EC budget are eliminated, but it provides the machinery through which they can be more readily tackled, and that is a significant step forward.
  I have said that, on that and other matters, the treaty is far from perfect. It would have been good, for example, to see penalties set out for irregularities and fraud applied to member states, Community institutions and other responsible bodies. The need for those must be kept under review, depending on the experience of how much difference the provisions of the treaty make in practice. We urge the Government to impress on the Commission and other member states the importance we attach to the proper control and supervision of the budget.
  In a number of important respects, achieving more effective Community expenditure will also require changes in policies as well as improvements in financial control and accountability. I need not rehearse the powerful arguments in favour of the fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy in respect of specific and flawed regimes, to some of which the hon. Member for Stafford referred. We think of the olive oil scheme in Corfu, when aid was paid for three times the amount produced. Nobody can condone such abuse. It is important that the schemes are themselves reformed or, if they cannot be reformed, abandoned, in addition to financial scrutiny and accountability being improved.
  Mr. William Ross: As Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land frontier, we have a particular interest in the amendment. I hope that the discussion goes on for some time, so that I have an opportunity to tell the Committee of some of the problems that are experienced across that land frontier. I also hope that, before he concludes, the hon. Gentleman will dwell on some of the problems that arise because of that land frontier with another state.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is far better qualified than I to comment on that issue. The general points I am making about the improvements provided for in the treaty and the ways in which they could be strengthened will be of assistance in that matter.
  As I was saying about the CAP, not only must we reform the schemes, or abandon them if they are incapable of reform, but we must change the general philosophy of the CAP, because it has resulted in consumers and Governments subsidising even very profitable operations, thereby producing much more food than the Community needs or can sell at cost on world markets.
  Considerations of common sense, efficiency in resource allocation and the realities of international competition

  287
  and co-operation will, sooner or later, force further reform of the CAP. We must do all we can to make sure that that happens sooner rather than later.
  Mr. Lord: Is not one of the problems of the CAP and farming the fact that we, as a nation, are being penalised for our efficiency? When milk quotas were introduced into the Community, it was a matter of a modest amount of work for the Government to put them in place through the milk marketing boards, which quickly obeyed the rules and fell into line. The Italians do not know where their dairy farmers are, how many cows they have or which valley they are in. How on earth can such a system be monitored? Are we not trying to do the impossible?
  Mr. Smith: I agree that we are to some extent paying the price of efficiency, but we are also paying the price for being late in signing up to the next stage in the development of closer Community co-operation. Another lesson that we should learn is that if we get in late and are forced to sign up to arrangements that have been shaped mainly by the influence of other member countries, they are likely to be arrangements which do not work especially to our advantage.
  Mr. Lord: That point is frequently made but, in this instance, we are not late but are ahead of the rest of Europe. Our farming and farmers and the way in which we have organised our marketing are in many ways light years ahead of the rest of Europe. We and our farmers are being penalised for all the years of efficiency and hard work.
  Mr. Smith: There is much in what the hon. Gentleman says, but what should concern us most in this debate is what can best be done about it. Should we turn our back on the Community as some people, such as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), argue with great sincerity and vigour, or should we ensure that our voice is heard in all the deliberations on the Community's future and that our views and influence are taken seriously because we are seen and known to be wholehearted and sincere in our commitment to close European integration? Should we take the lead in setting the agenda so that issues such as the reform of the CAP will enable the rest of the European Community to catch up with the efficiency that our farmers have achieved?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite repeated attempts at reform, expenditure on the CAP is now far higher than it was last year or the year before and that the mountains of food are breaking all previous records? Would not it be far more realistic for the Labour party and the Government to accept the simple fact that there is no possibility of reforming the CAP under the present structure of the European Community? Would not it be much better to start with the assumption that it is a waste of time trying to reform it because it cannot and will not be reformed? If we started with that assumption, we might be able to get something done about it.
  Mr. Smith: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's argument, on this as on other aspects of the treaty, is that he would abandon the mechanisms that we have, collectively and co-operatively, to bring about reform with our European partners. He would abandon them for a very uncertain future in which we are not even part of the Community and will clearly not be able to shape developments. He clearly prefers not to be a part of those
  288
  developments. That is the sincere and strongly held view of a minority of hon. Members. I respect that view and am prepared to argue about it, but I favour working for closer co-operation between member states in order to deal with precisely those problems identified in the Court of Auditors' report and to bring about the fundamental reforms needed in, for example, the CAP. We shall be much better placed to do that if we are part of the process and framework established in the Maastricht treaty than if we abandon it.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman says that we should seek closer co-operation, but is he not forgetting what happened with the introduction of milk quotas? Milk farmers went to bed at night with a milk production that was worth absolutely nothing. Anyone could join in or leave without any financial consequences. They woke up in the morning owning something called a "milk quota" which, across the nation, must have had a value of countless millions of pounds. Was not that an obscenity, because overnight and out of thin air it created huge sums of money for farmers? Surely to heavens, the hon. Gentleman could not support any system that produced such a crazy idea. Why should we embark again on a path that we have followed so foolishly for so long?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive case for reform, but I shall not be tempted into further debate of the details of the common agricultural policy. Suffice it to say that it will have to be changed sooner or later. Let us make it sooner. We shall secure change by building political support for further reform through the Community.
  In these, as in other respects, the Maastricht treaty is, above all, a framework. What is made of the framework will depend upon political will and upon the determination of member states to ensure that, in the many respects in which action is needed for the purpose of securing effective budgetary and other policies, appropriate action is taken. I believe that the provisions of the treaty make that more, rather than less, likely.
  For these reasons, Opposition Members are certainly unable to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford and his hon. Friends.
  12.45 am
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 269, Noes 56.

  Division No 221]

  [1 am

  AYES

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Lord, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Meale, Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cann, Jamie

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Cash, William

  Raynsford, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Reid, Dr John

  Cran, James

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davidson, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dixon, Don

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Gill, Christopher

  Watson, Mike

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Winnick, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Jessel, Toby

  Knapman, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Leighton, Ron

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Lewis, Terry

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Ainsworth, Peter (Easf Surrey)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Alexander, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alton, David

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Ancram, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Dover, Den

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baldry, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Elletson, Harold

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evennett, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowden, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forman, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Freeman, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  French, Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Butterfill, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gorst, John

  Churchill, Mr

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Congdon, David

  Hague, William

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Couchman, James

  Hanley, Jeremy

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

  Hannam, Sir John

  292

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Patnick, Irvine

  Harris, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hayes, Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Heald, Oliver

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hendry, Charles

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hicks, Robert

  Redwood, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Richards, Rod

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Riddick, Graham

  Horam, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

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

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jack, Michael

  Sackville, Tom

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shersby, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Spring, Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sproat, Iain

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Knox, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Stephen, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Stern, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Stewart, Allan

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Streeter, Gary

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sumberg, David

  Lidington, David

  Sykes, John

  Lightbown, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Thomason, Roy

  Luff, Peter

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maclean, David

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

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Madel, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Trend, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Trotter, Neville

  Mans, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Walden, George

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Waller, Gary

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Ward, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Merchant, Piers

  Waterson, Nigel

  Milligan, Stephen

  Watts, John

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Whitney, Ray

  Moss, Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Needham, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wolfson, Mark

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wood, Timothy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Norris, Steve

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Page, Richard

  Question agreed to.
  Question put according, That the amendment be made:—
  The committee divided:Ayes 37; Nose 263
  Question accordingly negatived.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 1, line 9 leave out 'and IV' and insert 'IV and VII'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following: New clause 14 —Amendment of protocols—
  'No notification shall be given that the United Kingdom assents to the amendment of any part of any Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union (whether or not it is also annexed to any other Treaty) unless a draft of the notification has first been approved by Act of Parliament.'.
  New clause 30—Revisions of the Treaty (No. 2)—
  'The Secretary of State shall, whenever proposals are made, or are to be made (whether by the Commission or the United Kingdom or another Member State of the Union), under Article B in Title I of the Maastricht Treaty for revision of the policies and forms of co-operation introduced by the
  Treaty—

  (a) lay before Parliament a report setting out the nature of the proposals and their potential effect on the interests and obligations of the United Kingdom, and

  (b) so far as is practicable, secure that the United Kingdom's conduct of the negotiations on the proposals is in accordance with Parliament's opinion of them, as manifested in the form of Resolution, enactment or otherwise.'.

  1.15 am
  Sir Russell Johnston: The Committee will—
  Mr. Cryer: I think that the hon. Gentleman is the thickie who has fixed all this up. He does not have a brain
  cell between his ears—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order.
  Sir Russell Johnston: If you have any opportunity to eject the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Dame Janet, I think that you should take it.
  Mr. Cryer: She cannot do that in Committee.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hour may be late, but it is no excuse for bad manners.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The Committee will recall that our first debate, 19 days past, was on a Liberal Democrat amendment to the effect that title I should be incl:uded in the Bill. The argument for including title VII is substantially the same; it is to bind more closely together than the Government would wish the pillared, intergovernmental structure of Maastricht and the supranational institutions of the Community. In fact, it would move things in a federalist direction. The Minister of State accepted that in the debate on title I on 1 December. I remind him that on that occasion he said:
  "There are two sides to the amendment. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber replied frankly when the hon. Member for Leicester, South said, rightly, that the purpose of the structure of the treaty—this is at the centre of the Government's negotiating position and I believe that the Opposition are not unsupportive of that position—is to separate out common foreign and security policy, and interior justice policy, and to make them separate intergovernmental pillars and not part of the treaty of Rome … The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber replied, perfectly frankly—this is the position of the Liberal Democrats and will come as no surprise to anyone that he indeed wanted to bring those areas of intergovernmental activity into the treaty of Rome. He wants a single structure—what we here have come to call a federal state."
  He later remarked more briefly:
  294
  "There are also a number of people in Europe who share the federal views held by the Liberal party. That is why, in the course of the negotiations leading up to the treaty, the Dutch Government sought to introduce a unitary text that would indeed have made all these matters areas where the Commission had the sole right of initiative, and would have made all the areas that we will discuss in Committee justiciable by the European Court of Justice."—[Official Report, 1 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 181–86.]
  The trouble with the Minister is that, while he understands that the Liberal Democrats would have preferred Maastricht to produce a single structure rather than a pillared structure, as it is described, he does not understand what the word federal means. I say that in all friendliness. He has demonstrated that many times in Committee. I see that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is obtaining paper so that he can take notes. I remember that the Minister of State and I had a series of exchanges one night, although I cannot remember which one. I also remember that on 26 June 1991 I quoted the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl—the quotation is not very long, but it is exceedingly clear—speaking on 27 May when he accepted a doctorate at Edinburgh university, saying:
  "Thinking as a European and being firmly rooted in one's own native soil, I am convinced that in order to succeed, Europe will have to learn to live by the motto of 'Unity in Diversity' … a very sound and pragmatic structural principle of the sort of federal system we have in mind for Europe. Europe will be a federal Europe—it will not be a unitary Europe."—[Official Report, 26 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 1032.]
  It can hardly be clearer than that.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when he quoted me I referred to what we have "come to call" federalism in Britain. Of course, I recognise that the word "federal" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. I think that in Britain the shorthand meaning of the word "federal" is a unitary structure. That is something that the intergovernmental pillars have arrested.
  Sir Russell Johnston: That is what we call beating on a closed door. During such education as I succeeded in obtaining at Edinburgh university, the word "federal" certainly did not mean what the Minister has described it as meaning—nor does it have that meaning in any of the states described as federal states anywhere in the world.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is not the root of the word "federal" the same as that for the word "treaty"?
  Sir Russell Johnston: The answer is, frankly, that I do not know. It may be true, but I am not sure of its relevance even if it is.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Russell Johnston: Is the hon. Gentleman going to enlighten me?
  Mr. Winnick: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is happy to discuss the matter at this hour or whether it is any consolation to him to know that those of us who are critical of the treaty believe that it is the road to a federal set-up, and that what Chancellor Kohl said is true. Although the Government keep on denying that here, if the treaty is passed it will undoubtedly lead to the sort of federal Europe of which the hon. Gentleman is so passionately fond, which should please him.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said.

  295
  The amendment, arguing as it does for the incorporation of title VII, gives me the opportunity to stress that federalism is about decentralisation and the entrenchment of subsidiarity, not about centralisation. Federalism is about limiting central power.
  Article N of title VII is particularly important as it specifically requires that an intergovernmental conference will be convened in 1996
  "to examine those provisions of this Treaty for which revision is provided".
  The various subjects are listed in the fourth annex, but I shall discuss the fact that the provision provides the Government with an opportunity both to involve national Parliaments directly in discussion and to look beyond the narrow requirements to the need to develop a more open constitution for the Community.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will remember the assize in Rome to which we both proceeded in December 1990. Despite all the criticisms to which it was subjected, particularly by some Euro-sceptics among the British delegation, I believe that it was a truly remarkable occasion, on which it was demonstrated that there was considerable common ground. The assize has not met again since, although I believe that it was agreed that it should meet before now. When the Minister has finished consulting the wise men in the Box, I hope that he will take the opportunity to tell us why that is so.
  My main point, however, is that many Members in this Chamber and in others in different parts of the Community understandably complain that national Parliaments are being side-tracked in the development of European policy and have no opportunity to make an input. It seems to me that the 1996 intergovernmental conference creates an opportunity for the United Kingdom to take an initiative whereby national Parliaments—along with Members of the European Parliament, the Commission, Governments and, indeed, observers from applicant countries—could participate directly in an open investigation of the best democratic structure of the future enlarged and enlarging Community. There is no doubt that, whatever side of the argument we take, the nature of democracy in the Community provides no satisfaction.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has come round to admitting that the Maastricht treaty, as it is now constituted, will not lead to greater democracy in western Europe. Why, then, is the hon. Gentleman supporting the treaty, if the best he can offer is a conference in three years' time which may or may not decide on a system imposing greater accountability on the Commission and European institutions?
  Sir Russell Johnston: With respect, it is not a question of admitting anything. My hon. Friends and I have said the same from the outset. Of course the Maastricht treaty is not perfect. Of course there is a considerable democratic deficit. We support the treaty because we think that it is the best, most balanced negotiated agreement that could have been achieved at the time, and that it would cause great instability in the whole Community—and the whole of Europe, for that matter—if it collapsed. That is not to say that we do not seek to improve things; the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) surely accepts that we never cease to do that.
  I do not want to talk about defence again, as we talked about it all afternoon, but it is one of the items mentioned
  296
  in annexe 4. The Western European Union is now developing a specific role in the Community, so perhaps this is the time to ask whether the existence of a parliamentary advisory assembly in the WEU presents a further opportunity for representatives of national Parliaments to make a direct input into Community decision making as the WEU extends its role, without necessarily affecting the balance of the institutions as such.
  I seriously ask the Government to consider those possibilities. I do not think that we should close our minds to any way of providing a better opportunity for elected representatives to express their views within the Community or even on its margins. The institutionalisation of the parliamentary assembly of the WEU, for instance, could be compared with the provision for a Committee of the Regions: it is a parallel organisation, although it will not necessarily be at the heart of the institutions, the Commission, Parliament, Council and Court.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear that the Committee of the Regions has no power to do anything, no budget of its own and has to share its secretariat? All that it can do is to pass motions which will no doubt be approved and are said to be very helpful by members of the Commission.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The fact that the hon. Gentleman asks me to set the record straight suggests that I made it crooked in the first place, which I did not. Of course the Committee of the Regions is an advisory body; the hon. Gentleman is quite correct. Indeed, the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU, with which I compared it, is an advisory body of exactly the same kind.
  I say this to the hon. Gentleman seriously, although it is difficult to be serious at this time of night. Surely a parliamentarian does not deprecate the opportunity to express a view to the Government of the day, to set out what one wants to happen and perhaps—or perhaps not, of course—to influence people. That is what politics and democracy are about.
  Mr. Spearing: Inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman may have illustrated a fundamental difference of opinion between various hon. Members. He asks for the opportunity to express a view, to have a say, to influence, to cajole, to request. That role has a place in a democracy. Does he not agree, however, that in this Parliament at least parliamentarians believe that a proper Parliament has the power, in the end, either to support or to defeat an Administration and to decide its own taxation, legislation and government? The hon. Gentleman suggests that the various assemblies and groups that he has mentioned, including the assize, should be a sort of public echo chamber and not what we understand to be a Parliament in a democratic country—one which decides the Administration and can destroy it at will, if it so wishes.
  1.30 am
  Sir Russell Johnston: I have heard that story before. I do not deny what the hon. Gentleman has said many times. [Interruption.] I am not making a direct comparison—[Interruption.]—between existing—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. If the two hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches wish to have a private conversation, perhaps they would go outside and have it.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to you, Dame Janet. I was saying that I am not making a direct comparison between existing national Parliaments and the Community institutions, which are in a state of evolution. A national Parliament is, in a way, a finished product. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not making that comparison.
  I should appreciate it if the Minister would explain whether the changes made under article O, which is concerned with applicant countries, provide a new opportunity for applicant members to become involved in aspects of the union without taking on the full responsibilities of the union and becoming full members. We are talking about this pillared structure. If one goes to eastern Europe at the moment—for instance, to Poland —they say again and again that what they are most concerned about is the achievement of greater security. Is there any possibility under the new arrangements whereby Poland might, for example, be able to join WEU or be associated with the common foreign and security policy without necessarily becoming a full member?
  The hour is late. I do not intend to detain the Committee further, nor do I propose to press the matter to a Division. Despite what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, I am satisfied that these issues are discussed in a progressive way. My view is different from that which is held by many, but I believe that it is right.
  We are not yet at the end of this long process. Hon. Members may, however, be encouraged by the words at the end of title VII, which is headed "Final Provisions." The final words read:
  "Done at Maastricht on the seventh day of February in the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two. [Here follow the signatures]."
  The end is nigh.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) for indicating to the Committee that in a sense this is a probing amendment that he does not intend to press to a Division. The amendment seeks to include the provisions of title VII of the treaty—that is, the final provisions—within clause 1(1) of the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman told the Committee, it is similar to other amendments that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats which seek to incorporate into our law more of the treaty than the Bill itself does.
  The cumulative effect of the amendments that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats would be—some of them, the Committee will recall, have already been negatived—to list more or less the whole of the Maastricht treaty as a Community treaty for the purposes of section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972.
  Members of the Committee will now be familiar with the reasons why the Bill incorporates only titles II, III and IV of the Maastricht treaty, and the other provisions only
  "so far as they relate to those Titles".
  It is a course that the Committee has been round before. Nevertheless, perhaps I ought to explain briefly the structure as it relates to title VII, which is the subject of this amendment.
  It is, as the Committee will be aware, necessary, before the Government may ratify this treaty, to incorporate into our domestic law those provisions of the Community treaties under which Community rights and obligations effective in this country arise. This is done by listing them
  298
  in clause 1(1), with the result that they fall within the definition of the Community treaties for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972 and may be implemented through that Act.
  The intergovernmental provisions of the treaty—that is, titles V and VI—are therefore not included within clause 1(1). These parts of the Maastricht treaty do not provide a basis for the adoption of Community legislation. They neither give rise to rights or obligations under Community law, nor amend the Community treaties.
  The provisions of title I, the common provisions, and title VII, the final provisions, fall into what I might define as a grey area. While they do not themselves directly form a basis for the adoption of Community legislation, they nevertheless in some cases relate to other provisions of Community treaties which can give rise to Community rights and obligations. In some cases, they directly amend the Community treaties. Hence it is necessary to give these provisions effect in our domestic legislation as well. This is achieved in the phrase contained in clause 1(1) of the Bill, which says:
  "together with other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those Titles"
  that is, titles II, III and IV.
  All the provisions in title VII, the subject of the amendment of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, relate to a greater or lesser extent to the provisions of the Community treaties in this way and are therefore already included in clause 1(1). Article L, for example, deals with the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, which is clearly relevant to the operation of the Community treaties. Article L is therefore included so far as it relates to titles II to IV. Part of article L, however—hon. Members pointed this out when we debated this subject—paragraph (b), relates to title V. So that would be included under this formula.
  —Article M—
  Sir Richard Body: Before my right hon. Friend leaves article L—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: If I can just finish this, of course, I will give way to my hon. Friend.
  Article M describes how the union treaty affects the Community treaties. It is also included in the scope of the Bill. So are articles N on treaty amendment and O on accession, and I will just respond to the specific point that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber made.
  Article O makes it explicit that new members may join only the union, not just the Community, thereby committing themselves to accepting the whole of the CFSP and interior justice chapters. The question that the hon. Member posed approached it from the other end, as it were: would it be possible in the future, perhaps, for potential member states—I dare say he was thinking of countries in eastern Europe—to accede to, say, just the intergovernmental pillar? That is an interesting subject for discussion that might arise at some point in the future.
  I do not think that I can say any more than that, but it is an interesting thought and one that those of us in this country, at any rate, who are anxious to encourage and consolidate the democratic processes in those eastern European countries might look on with sympathy. The provisions that I have just listed relate to the treaty of

  299
  Rome and the other Community treaties which may be amended under article O, or to which new members may accede under article R.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) in a moment and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  As titles V and VI can also be amended and would also be acceded to, it was appropriate to include them, using the "so far as they relate" formula rather than in an unqualified way. Similar considerations apply to articles P, Q, R and S, which all apply to titles II to IV and titles V and VI.
  Sir Richard Body: Let me take my hon. Friend back to article L. Is it not the case that article L extends the powers of the European Court of Justice and that, if the Council of Ministers agrees upon any conventions, it will be within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to interpret the meaning of that convention? Could that not have far-reaching consequences for Britain and for the House?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not think so. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I shall try to respond to it.
  Article L specifically excludes from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice all areas of the treaty except, first, those covered by the treaty of Rome. the ECSC and the Euratom treaty as amended here, and secondly, by article K.3(2)(c) on interior justice, which allows member states to give the European Court of Justice an interpretation role in international conventions if they choose to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) raised the same point in an earlier debate.
  Of course, I accept that, if member states chose to do so, they could seek the opinion of the European Court of Justice on international conventions.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that the Minister referred to articles N and O of title VII. Article O, on potential new members, states:
  "The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded which such admission entails shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant States."
  It does not spell out, and the Minister has not mentioned exactly, what criteria are to be used for the admission of new member states to the Community. Is there to be a judgment on their economy, the methods of ownership, social ownership or otherwise of their economies, their constitutional arrangements or the checks and balances in their constitution? The Minister should spell those things out.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Most hon. Members will know that the broad and quick answer to the question is that any applicant state must be prepared to accept in full what is known as the acquis communautaire. It is also accepted that any applicant member state should be what the other member states, including ourselves, would regard as a properly functioning democracy. Thereafter, the details would be a matter of negotiation. We are about to embark on three or four negotiations, and there are individual areas where some members states may seek derogations.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make a little more progress, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  When the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber proposed a similar amendment earlier in the Committee stage, I said that I found its purpose difficult to discern. Those parts of the provisions of title VII which need to be incorporated into our domestic law will be so incorporated by the passage of the Bill. To include the whole title without qualification would, it seems to me—again this is a point that I made in an earlier debate—blur the distinction between the Community proper and the intergovernmental pillars of the union.
  1.45 am.
  It is only those Maastricht treaty provisions relating to the European Community treaties, to the adoption of Community law and to the creation of Community rights and obligations which require legislative backing.
  I repeat what I said earlier, that it seems to me bizarre to wish to include in our law more than is strictly necessary. There is only one plausible reason that I can think of to change the face of our legislation.
  I accept, without getting into the theological debate about what the word "federalism" may or may not mean, that the Liberal Democrats have always been quite open with the country that they favour a more unifying treaty —let us call it that—and no doubt would have supported the text advanced by the Dutch Government in the course of the Maastricht negotiations. I think that the fact that the Liberal Members should be putting forward this more centralised structure fits perfectly well with the position that they have held for a very long time on the European Community.
  I think that I am right in saying and no doubt, when the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) catches your eye, Dame Janet, if he is fortunate enough to do so, he will probably confirm, that the Opposition also believe in a more intergovernmental structure—
  Mr. Budgen rose —
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I will give way when I have finished this passage. The official Opposition believe in a more intergovernmental structure, rather than the single structure that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is seeking to advance. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West.
  Mr. Budgen: I am sorry to intervene at this point, but it is not my choice that I should do so. My hon. Friend was, a few moments ago, dealing with the question of accession. The Government have been very eloquent in talking about the reality of extending the Community, but is the position that eastern European countries will have to conform to the proposals for monetary union before they can join the Community? It is surely the grossest hypocrisy for the Community to say on the one hand, "You may join us," and on the other hand, "You may join us only if you agree to conform to monetary union." It is obvious that none of the applicant countries will be able to do that.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not want to engage in a debate on hypocrisy with my hon. Friend. Suffice it to say that the four members of the European Free Trade Area have judged that they wish to accede to the Community on the basis of the Maastricht acquisition. All the countries in eastern Europe wish eventually to join the European Community, and if and when they make an application,

  301
  the conditions that apply to their application will be the same as the conditions that apply to present applicants —that they will have to be prepared to accept the full Community acquisition at the time of their application. I do not want to anticipate what the full Community acquis may be in the year 2000, but if applications were to come forward from eastern European countries at that time, I think that they would be expected to take on the full acquis as are existing members.
  Mr. George Robertson: I do not want to disturb this happy cordiality, which has got the hon. Lady the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in such a state of excitement. I cannot help but reflect that some people could die in here and we would not know until they started to smell.
  The Minister said that the Opposition favoured a more intergovernmental form of treaty. He is right. We favour intergovernmentalism where it makes sense, but we are not in the business of making the sort of ludicrous gestures that the Government make when they negotiate valiantly, in effect, to remove the words "federal structure" or "federal vocation" and replace them with "ever closer union" and come to the House of Commons in the dead of night and try to pretend that they stand by, and have never departed from, the essential principle of intergovernmentalism.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee the Opposition's view of the amendment if or when he has an opportunity to speak. I stand by the position that the new structure of the union represents a holding back—I would not put it higher than that; I do not think I have done so at any stage—of the centripetal forces that have driven the Community over the past 25 or 30 years. I think that the intergovernmental structure is supported by the Opposition.
  The only plausible reason I can think of to change the face of our legislation would be to give the impression that, in our law, we regard the distinction between the Community treaty structure and the intergovernmental pillars as meaningless. As I said, I think that some Opposition Members wish that we had a single structure, so I understand why the amendment has been moved. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber for saying that he would not be pressing it to a Division. As he knows, his view is not shared on any other Bench in the Committee.
  Mr. Rowlands: The provisions in title VII, which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) wishes to incorporate into our domestic legislation, include a number of matters; the one on which the Minister concentrated, and with which I begin, is article N.2:
  "A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened in 1996 to examine those provisions of this Treaty for which revision is provided, in accordance with the objectives set out in Articles A and B."
  I hope that, as we debate the amendment, the Minister will
  identify the provisions in the treaty for which revision is being provided in accordance with objectives A and B.
  Mr. Spearing: I have glanced at that part of the treaty to which my hon. Friend refers and have marked it "open-ended?" because that seems the only interpretation
  302
  to put on the words, for A and B set out great principles and the words seem to allow for the revision of any provision in the treaty.
  Mr. Rowlands: It is open-ended in that sense, in that article N.2 makes a clear reference to the objectives in articles A and B. Let us remind ourselves of those objectives. They are to promote social progress, strengthen economic and social cohesion, establish economic and monetary union.
  "including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty … to assert its identity on the international scene … which might in time lead to"
  the implementation of a common foreign and security policy, and to the
  "framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
  So, if we want to discover what will be the agenda for the 1996 conference, we must look first at the objectives in article B.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question specifically. Five areas are specified for review in 1996: energy, civil protection and tourism, the legislative powers of the European Parliament, the CFSP and defence.
  Mr. Rowlands: That is a pretty comprehensive list. I have identified the specific part of the treaty which says that the common foreign and security policy must be on the agenda. The agenda for the 1996 conference, set out in title VII, is enormous. Throughout our debates, the Government have tried to persuade us that the conference will be neutral and that it will perhaps claw back responsibility for each of the five aspects to the nation state or that it will further enhance the principle of subsidiarity.
  The Minister nods his head as if that is the case, but the language describing the agenda of the conference is not the language of clawing back but that of proceeding from the bridgeheads established in the treaty towards a futher set of objectives.
  No one can read article B, which sets out the objectives of the next conference, and believe anything other than that the intention is to build on the bridgeheads established in the treaty and to move to full monetary union, a single currency and a common foreign policy and a common defence policy. It is impossible to read the language of article B, which refers specifically to article N and the agenda for the 1996 conference, and then say, as the Minister has, that the conference will be neutral. It is a conference designed to carry forward the objectives outlined in article B.
  Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is nonsense to suggest, as some of the most distinguished Government spokesmen have, that we should ratify the treaty and then rectify all the mistakes at the next conference? It is clear that the next conference will be merely a continuation of the defects of the present treaty.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valid point. One of the most forceful arguments put to us in the Select Committee was that we should close our eyes, hold our nose and sign the treaty because it is such a mess and so badly flawed that we shall have to unravel it. Presumably the 1996 conference can do that.
  The person who said that in his evidence was Lord Lawson of Blaby, who made a remarkable analysis of the

  303
  treaty. He destroyed almost all of it, with a rational and perceptive assessment of how the so-called ERM should never have been a glide path to full monetary union, and how it had collapsed because it was now being used for that purpose. He made a devastating indictment of the treaty's provisions for EMU. He also argued strenuously that, on political grounds, the only logical conclusion of the treaty was a fully fledged European state and Government, which was the only way to make sense of giving such powers to bankers and the only way in which the EMU provisions would work. In the end, the noble Lord said that we might as well ratify the treaty because it would be unravelled. No one believes that that is the objective of the 1996 conference as characterised throughout the treaty, particularly in article N.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that this treaty hands power to hankers, bureaucrats and generals and that nowhere in article B, which is apparently to be the agenda for dealing, in three years' time, with the inadequacies of the treaty, is there any mention of the lack of accountability on the part of the people who are to decide policy in the Community? Nowhere is there a reference to the question of the social policies of the Community as a whole, the condition of the people as a whole, or the state of the environment as a whole. We have only a proposal that all this might be dealt with in three years' time, with no thought whatsoever for the principal objection to the treaty—the complete lack of any democratic accountability in the case of the Community's institutions.
  2 am
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend's analysis of the totally undemocratic nature of the institutions that are being established is absolutely right. There is a notion, for example, that the 1996 conference will undertake a democratic revision of the statutes of the nascent European central bank. By that time, we shall be in the latter part of the stage 2 process, and heading very rapidly for the establishment of the central bank. The statutes will have been drafted in the most marvellously rational, but unaccountable and undemocratic, way. The notion that we shall sit down in 1996 and unravel the protocol defies belief, not just by hon. Members but by anybody who has read the treaty.
  Mr. George Robertson: I fear that my hon. Friend may have left the entertaining subject of the ruminations of the Lord Lawson of Blaby. Why, when we did not believe a single word that Nigel Lawson said in this Chamber, should we believe everything he says now that he has moved to the House of Lords?
  Mr. Rowlands: I did not intend to give the impression that I believed every word he says. I referred to his rather impressive analysis of what has gone wrong with the processes. In this debate, we find ourselves in strange company. Indeed, my hon. Friend has found himself in very strange company for most of the time. What I find convincing is Lord Lawson's very simple proposition to the Select Committee that a single currency could be made acceptable only through the establishment of a democratically elected European super-Government. But the noble Lord argued that we should carry on supporting the treaty.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I very much regret that I am no longer a colleague of the hon. Gentleman on the Select Committee which discusses these very important matters —more important than the funding of political parties, which my own Select Committee is about to address. Does the hon. Gentleman know that Lord Lawson of Blaby is not the only person who takes this view? I have spent quite some time discussing Maastricht with my colleagues, and I have found that the overwhelming view is that the treaty will not work, that the whole thing is an utter mess and a complete failure.
  The only purpose of voting for the ratification of Maastricht is to ensure that the French, the Germans and our other European colleagues will not point at us as the reason for the failure of the treaty. It seems to me that that is a totally unsatisfactory and immoral reason for supporting a treaty that will give the powers of the elected members of the Westminster Parliament to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Rowlands: I shall vote as I have done throughout the Committee. I do not believe that there is anything democratic about the provisions in the treaty in relation to fundamental aspects of the issues that will affect my constituency.
  I want to make one point on a matter of dispute between ourselves and the Minister. I hope that those on our Front Bench will support our view that the 1996 conference will not be neutral. The agenda will not allow us, as it were, to roll back further the powers of the central forces of the system. On any objective reading of parts of the text of the treaty, there can be only a one-way process in 1996. Having already identified the first two clearly defined objectives in article B, I will shortly draw attention to another objective which, by any stretch of the imagination and by any interpretation, can mean only one thing at the 1996 conference.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the state of opinion within his party? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) drew attention to the state of opinion in the Tory party. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) may have read the significant article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) in which he described the proposals for monetary union as having already failed and having already been a nonsense. Also, with all the dignity and importance of having been a successful chairman of the Tory party, he described the way in which trouble had been brewed between Tory Members of Parliament and their constituency associations with a very important word, "shameful"—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I do not recollect any reference to title VII in that article.
  Mr. Rowlands: I do not want to cross you, Mr. Morris, so I will not pursue the issue raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). It is for us to discusss among ourselves how we relate within our parties.
  I want to confine myself to the text of the treaty. We have had to deal with the Bill in a curious way. Normally in Committee one deals with the text of a Bill, but we have had to use the text of the treaty. The aim of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and

  305
  Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is to incorporate part of the text of the treaty in the Bill. Therefore, we have to consider the text.
  The first part of the text concerned the proposal in title VII to hold a conference. My argument is that the conference will not be a neutral way to go forward. I was about to draw to the attention of hon. Members the fifth indent of article B, which relates not only to a general objective but specifically to article N(2) in title VII. So here we have a direct and clear linkage between title VII and article B. Let me remind the Committee of its terms:
  "to maintain in full the 'acquis communautaire' and build on it with a view of considering, through the procedure referred to in Article N(2), to what extent the policies and forms of co-operation introduced by this Treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community."
  I think that we all, even including the Minister, agree that the "acquis communautaire" is the central core of the Community. The supra-society was intended to roll back the "acquis communautaire" in one way or another. The 1996 conference is designed not to roll it back, but to build upon it. The provision in article B is directly related to N(2) in article 7 and the Minister cannot interpret that as anything other than what the conference intends—to build heavily upon the "acquis communautaire" and the new bridgeheads that the treaty will establish.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is giving his opinion, to which he is entitled. Let us look at the experience of the treaty. How many member states does the hon. Gentleman think entered the Maastricht negotiation in the belief and hope that the ensuing treaty would contain the intergovernmental structure? I shall tell him. One member state did that—the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Rowlands: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government if, single-handedly, they managed to create the intergovernmental pillar, of which I approve. However, I am reading the price that they paid for that. I spent four and a half years in the best drafting school that I have ever attended—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I do not know whether I was a good pupil, but I was certainly a willing one. I recognise drafting when I see it, and I also recognise compromises. The watermark of compromise runs through every article, provision and protocol of the treaty.
  One of the problems in the Committee has been the two-faced nature of the treaty. The intergovernmental pillar was a significant achievement for the Government, but the price they paid was having to leave language in the treaty that is capable of being interpreted as meaning the opposite. Title I has a paragraph that could be interpreted as relating to subsidiarity, while the next paragraph seems to favour centralising. I know all about the struggle and exhaustion of negotiations, because I was involved in extensive and tricky negotiations over the Falklands, Belize and southern Africa. One always remembers the watermark compromises in such negotiations.
  The treaty is a particularly gruesome example of watermark compromises. Those compromises show, because the text was not cleaned up after each compromise was agreed. Almost every article is capable of being interpreted in contradictory and diametrically opposed terms. The bridgeheads established in many of the articles
  306
  and protocols to gain the intergovernmental pillar are aimed in the other direction. Article N.2 purposefully drives forward the other face of the treaty.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. He says that the centripetal thrust of the Community is irreversible. The lie to that case is in the Maastricht treaty itself.
  First of all, he has accepted that the overwhelming majority of the states taking part in the negotiation would perhaps have wished to see a unitary structure of the kind that the hon. Member wants, and also the subsidiarity clause, article 3b, was principally pushed by the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom. Those two—I could list many more—are instances where the case that he is putting forward has been proven by the Maastricht negotiation not to be so.
  Mr. Rowlands: All the Minister is saying is that it is my judgment versus his judgment. He has not challenged me
  on the text. Does he argue that indent 5—
  "to maintain in full the 'acquis communautaire' and build on it"—
  is anything but the language of furthering and developing the essentially centralising nature of the treaty? Is he saying that that is neutral language?
  2.15 am
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Indeed I am saying that. Building on the Maastricht acquis, as we interpret it, means consolidating the pillared structure of the union and ensuring that article 3b is rigorously applied right across every section of Community activity. That is what I regard as consolidating the existing treaty.
  Mr. Rowlands: We are not going to make much progress if we can abuse or misinterpret language in that way.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend refers to the fifth indent. The last sentence gives the lie to what theMinister of State was saying, because the aim is to ensure
  "the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community."
  They are making absolutely sure that they are at this conference and that they will get more power as a result.
  Mr. Rowlands: That is the case that I have been making, and my right hon. Friend has underlined it. I had not reached that last line, but I am very grateful to him for doing it for me. Does the Minister believe that those words are neutral? I think that we will not get very far if words can be used like that.
  Mr. Davies: English is his second language. That is why I understand it.
  Mr. Rowlands: Let me ask the Minister of State whether the language is neutral throughout the treaty. What about this one? Is this neutral language? The protocol on the transition to the third stage of economic and monetary union says:
  "THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES declare the irreversible character of the Community's movement to the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union … Therefore all Member States shall, whether they fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of a single currency or not, respect the will for the Community to enter swiftly into the third stage".
  Is that the language of a neutral process that is going to go on until 1996 and beyond? I know that one

  307
  Government can opt out of it, but that is the language of a treaty that we are endorsing. It is a protocol, incidentally, that will go into our domestic legislation. This protocol is not left out of the title—it is within titles II to IV. It will turn up in our domestic legislation under this Bill. I ask the Minister—I now invite him to interrupt—does he believe that that protocol should become part of our domestic legislation?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Member—this is a matter for the Chair—is now discussing a part of the Bill that is not the subject of the amendment that we are talking about. I believe, Mr. Morris, that we are talking about the amendment. He is now referring to stage 3 of economic and monetary union, and he is well aware that the British Government have an opt-out to that part of the treaty.
  Mr. Rowlands: Is not that protocol, under this Bill, going to become part of our domestic legislation? Yes or no?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes.
  Mr. Rowlands: It is. So the language of this protocol will become part of our domestic legislation, and this is not some new bridgehead, this is not to be carried further to 1996 and beyond?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not the real point that, although my right hon. Friend the Minister says that the proper interpretation of these measures is that consolidation will happen in 1996 and the Federal Chancellor of Germany, Herr Kohl, says that these measures are but a stepping stone to a united states of Europe, under title VII the decision as to what these measures mean lies not with my right hon. Friend the Minister or with Chancellor Kohl but with the European Court of Justice? The European Court of Justice has declared time and again that it is the instrument not of the nation state but of the union, whose objectives it intends to advance. That means that what will be brought to bear upon us in the end is not my right hon. Friend's reasonable intrepretation of those words, but that of Chancellor Kohl—that the measures are a stepping stone to the united states of Europe. That is what we have all been saying, from start to finish of our proceedings.
  Mr. Rowlands: I understand the thrust of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention.
  May I test the Minister on another form of words in the treaty, and find out whether he can again argue that the 1996 conference will be neutral, as he has suggested? I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to article J.4(6), which contains another specific reference to article N.2 and therefore to the agenda and the issues that will be before the conference:
  "With a view to furthering the objective of this Treaty, and having in view the date of 1998 in the context of Article XII of the Brussels Treaty, the provisions of this Article may be revised as provided for in Article N.2 on the basis of a report to be presented in 1996."—
  What will be put on the agenda in 1996 under that provision in that article? We need to read back and find out what the previous paragraphs suggest, which is to elaborate and introduce
  "the … framing of a common defence policy, which might…lead to a common defence."
  The Minister has already admitted that the common foreign and security policy will be part and parcel of the agenda for 1996; that has been laid down. It is a treaty obligation that the conference will deal with those issues
  308
  —and it is not merely a general obligation. Paragraph 6 of article J.4 specifically states that the objectives in the previous paragraphs of the article will be on that agenda, and the central objective in those paragraphs is the framing of a common defence policy leading to a common defence.
  What does the Minister believe about that? He could, rightly, say that in 1996 we shall be there, and we shall veto, impede and obstruct any progress that might be made at the conference. I could understand that that might be the Government's position, but the Minister cannot deny that, if we accept title VII and a 1996 conference on those terms, we shall build into our processes a further bridgehead for negotiating towards the framing of a common defence policy and a common defence provision. That is included in article B as a general objective, and it is specifically included in article J.4, especially in paragraph 6, as part of the agenda for the 1996 conference.
  The Minister may say that we can turn up to the conference and try to throw as many spanners into the works as we can, and obstruct and create problems, drag our heels, shout, scream and even use our veto—we have the power of veto, although I shall have something to say about that in a moment—but all I ask him to admit is that, if we accept the 1996 conference in the terms described in the treaty, we shall have to defend and fight and scream against the process written into the treaty, which the 1996 conference and its agenda are designed to further.
  Why do we not now say that we do not wish to go down those roads in that way, so we should not allow article N.2 of title VII to become part of our domestic legislation?
  Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) had little to complain about in terms of the British Government's attitude towards a federal Europe? The hon. Gentleman was perfectly honest, unlike many of those who are in favour of the treaty. He has made it clear that he is totally in favour of a federal Europe. My hon. Friend is confirming that the 1996 conference will take the member states along the very road that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber wants. It is the road that will ultimately lead to a federal Europe, whatever the Minister and Opposition spokesmen may say and however much the word "federal" is not included in the treaty. It will be a federal Europe in the sense in which we understand the word.
  Mr. Rowlands: I also fear that that is the end game. It is openly admitted and fairly frequently embraced in one form or another by hon. Members. We should puncture the pretence of Ministers and of Opposition spokesmen that that is not the end game and that that is not the agenda of the 1996 conference, especially when many of the objectives and the detailed processes by which the end game will be achieved are written into the treaty.
  I listened with great interest to the Foreign Secretary. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to make the contribution that I should have liked to make in the debate on a common foreign and security policy. Again, I found the Foreign Secretary, quite rightly, trying to soothe us into believing that the words were little more than the words used before, and that the treaty went little further than the Single European Act did. The language is very different. We are apparently supposed to ignore the difference between "we should endeavour to agree and

  309
  co-operate" and "thou shalt define a foreign policy". We are told that the change in language does not mean anything, or that, if it does, the change is minimal. We live by language; it is our profession. We spend a lot of time with language. There are differences between the forms of words and that is why we should be sceptical.
  One of the running themes among Conservative Members has been that they were conned in 1986 on the Single European Act. I confess I was, too. I played little or no part in the proceedings on the Single European Act. I did not think that it was a bridgehead. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who wishes to embarrass the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), leaps up every five minutes and says, "Ah, but you signed the Single European Act, and in doing so, you signed this, and this and this." That may be the lesson that we have learnt since the debates of 1985 and 1986, and that is the lesson that we are determined not to forget when we go through the treaty line by line. We must study the words, the provisions and the agenda for the 1996 conference.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: We are constantly construing Acts of Parliament and treaties. There is a body, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) recently referred, that will interpret all the words. It is a question of judgment. The Court of Justice will apply to articles L to S. If it applies to those articles, it applies to article N. If a contentious matter comes up which the Court of Justice wants to challenge, whose judgment does it accept? It does not accept the Minister's judgment, but the European judgment.
  Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman, as always, makes a pertinent point. The Foreign Secretary argued, as the Minister did on an intervention, that there was a veto over the common foreign policy. He said that because decisions had to be unanimous, there was a veto. The Minister leapt to his feet during the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who said that the terms of article J.4 were that the "Union requests" the Western European Union. The word "request" means nothing more and is very gentle. It does not mean any further obligation. Article B, however, states:
  "The Union shall set itself … objectives"—
  to have a common defence policy. We could even accept such ambiguity of language, although I do not think that we should, if—to return to the observation that strikes me every time I read another paragraph of the treaty—it were not for the grubby watermark of compromise, and the way in which contradictory and rather deadly pieces were left in the treaty.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  2.30 am
  Mr. Rowlands: May I finish this point first, to keep the flow of the argument going? I am trying to produce a rational argument.
  Article J.4 contains the words, "The Union requests", but article B states "shall set … objectives"—two contradictory pieces of language. To add to the problem of deciding where the balance was struck, a mere declaration is included in the treaty on
  310
  "voting in the field of the common foreign and security policy".
  That provision was not seriously dwelt upon—
  The Chairman: Order. It was dwelt on during debate on the last but one group of amendments, and it is not particularly relevant to title VII. If it is, the hon. Gentleman is taking an awful long time to get to it.
  Mr. Rowlands: I shall get to it promptly. As the Minister admitted, the central five points on the agenda of the next conference in 1996, which is mentioned in article N.2 of title VII, will include common foreign and security policy. I was about to observe, Mr. Morris, that the bridgeheads for the development of that common foreign and security policy have been established in the way that Ministers have tried to present the case to us and in the language of the "Declaration on voting in the field of the common foreign and security policy", which says that the Maastricht
  "Conference agrees that, with regard to Council decisions requiring unanimity, Member States will, to the extent possible, avoid preventing a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision."
  That is a mere declaration, but what a bridgehead to have established before further revision in 1996.
  The Secretary of State said that there was no Luxembourg compromise around, but the declaration smacks of the language of that compromise. Although it says that we have a right to a veto, it also says that there will be ways to force us to abandon it, and, if there is a qualified majority, we will have to go along with it. That is the language of the Luxembourg compromise, and it has been written into issues of common foreign and security policy.
  Article N.2 tells us that the new conference will have at its centre the question whither the common foreign and security policy goes. That declaration will not resile from the provision in article after article to establish the principle of a fully fledged common security and defence policy of the kind that many of us believe is the worrying feature which is being trailered and flagged in the treaty, ready for the conference.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, which is considerable, and his analysis of the issues, but he mentioned article C, the "acquis communautaire", and how it fits in with the common defence policy. An important answer on the Danish compromise was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) earlier. In reality, the Danish people are being asked to vote in a second referendum on a press release put out after the Edinburgh summit. There is no fundamental change in the terms of the treaty.
  What will the acquis communautaire about the common defence policy be in 1996? Is there to be a common defence policy? Is there to be a common defence policy minus Denmark on the basis of a press release, while the treaty is exactly the same? How on earth will such matters be resolved? Should not the Danish people be told that they are being conned?
  Mr. Rowlands: From what I read, I understand that the Danish people are clearly observing the issues. One of the joys of having a referendum is that everybody, including politicians, has to concentrate and explain the terms of the treaty in language that members of the public can

  311
  understand, and thereby appreciate the issues. As a passionate supporter of the referendum, I believe that that exercise would also do us a power of good.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I agree, basically, with the hon. Gentleman's logic, and I know that the Welsh are attracted to occasional flourishes of oratory, but I did not greatly care for the expression, "the grubby watermark of compromise". I think that compromise is quite a good thing, and a necessary exercise in politics. We will never make any progress in Europe or the House unless there is a willingness to compromise.
  Mr. Rowlands: Of course, we spend our lives compromising—in our personal and political lives, as well as every other part of our lives. But I think that we are now discussing a grubby compromise because it has been created in an unstable treaty. That is my fundamental worry.
  I remember vividly that one of the earliest pieces of evidence that we received in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs came from one of the constitutional experts, Mr. Vibert. I was struck forcibly when he said that the treaty was basically unstable. Our debates in Committee have exposed the nature of that instability—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now in full flow, and must return to the amendment.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry, Mr. Morris. I was provoked by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and I shall resist that provocation.
  I support new clause 30, which states:
  "The Secretary of State shall, whenever proposals are made, or are to be made … under Article B in Title I … for revision of the policies and forms of co-operation introduced
  by the Treaty—
  (a) lay before Parliament a report setting out the nature of the proposals and their potential effect on the interests".
  Due to the treaty's instability and its potential negative consequences on the communities that I represent, I support new clause 30. I am worried: we cannot even get a lowest-common-denominator type agreement in Committee about what simple language means, so heaven help us when the policies in article B start to be implemented. What will happen when we start moving closer towards economic and monetary union and begin to frame a common defence policy? If, as I fear, the words contain a clear drift towards a Europe of a sort that I do not believe in, that policy should be subject to continuous scrutiny as proposed in new clause 30.
  Mr. Cash: New clause 30 stands in my name, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Due to the carte blanche provided by so much of the treaty, it is essential that, when the nitty-gritty is being worked out within, for example, the citizenship provisions—and
  "the rights and duties to be imposed thereby"—
  we should know what they are. The new clause would provide the opportunity for us to obtain a definition and receive Parliament's opinion. If we did not have that opportunity, we would be handing the whole lot over to an authoritarian Government.
  Mr. Rowlands: We ought to have a running commentary, as suggested in new clause 30, to ensure that we know the effect of any changes in the citizens provisions. But I am worried about another central aspect —the drive towards monetary union by monetarist means, which is written into article B and all the articles that
  312
  follow it. At least, if we passed new clause 30, the Government would have to present the House with proposals stage by stage, on a regular, methodical basis, to find out where we stood and how far we had got.
  The people I represent and my predecessors represented know the effects of monetarism on communities such as mine. Unemployment is rocketing in my area, even as a result of our membership of the exchange rate mechanism. Let us consider the consequences of returning to a fixed gold standard of the kind that we suffered in the 1920s and early 1930s: that led to male unemployment of 69 per cent. in my constituency in the 1930s.
  Fortunately, the Chamberlains of this world were driven off the gold standard—driven out of the ERM of the 1930s and away from the nonsense of monetarism, although they believed in it. The consequences of moving towards such a process, however, led to devastation—to the destruction of jobs, and to suffering and hardship in my community.
  My predecessors stood where I am standing, and argued passionately against such policies and processes. I have not come here 30 or 40 years later to endorse the proposal that others should act for us without our even knowing the effect. That is why I cannot support aspects of the treaty, and why I support the amendment. I want to ensure that, however difficult it is, we are able to hold on by our fingertips to some control over the processes that affect the lives, jobs and prospects of the people whom we represent.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. First, let me say to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that his credentials, and his support for federalism, have never been in doubt. It will give him no satisfaction to hear it, but I agree heartily with his definition of federalism, and with his definition of what the people of Scotland believe it to be. Whatever Ministers think, the hon. Gentleman has reflected the views of everyone I know in Scotland, and their interpretation of the word "federal"—and that includes members of the Government.
  Last Friday, I attended my constituency annual general meeting. Before and after the meeting, people came up to me and said, "Bill, why are you so worried? We have been assured by almost everyone we have talked to that the treaty is unworkable." I replied, "Well, for the first time in my life it has been suggested to me that I should support something that is unworkable." That strikes me as an illogical position.
  One reason for the amendments—particularly the new clause—is our belief that the matters concerned should be properly debated, so that the people of this country can at least be certain that our Parliament is examining all aspects of the treaty to find out whether it is unworkable, as I believe it is.
  Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman says that he explained to his constituency association—no doubt in Blairgowrie—that he was being asked to vote for something that was unworkable and that he does not believe in voting for something that is unworkable. However, he went through the Division Lobby to impose the poll tax, first on Scotland and then on England and Wales. He knew then that that was unworkable, and he

  313
  certainly knows now that it was unworkable. Why has he suddenly come to the conclusion that he should not vote for something that is unworkable?
  2.45 am
  Mr. Walker: You will recollect, Mr. Morris, that a long time ago I obtained Mr. Speaker's ruling on whether or not there was such a thing as the poll tax. Mr. Speaker ruled quite clearly that there was not—that that was something quite different. What I voted for was never a poll tax. I would happily have voted for a poll tax so that individuals who did not pay did not have a vote. I have never in my life knowingly supported something that I believed to be unworkable. I believe that even the best things can be made unworkable by people injecting into them systems, procedures and checks which make them unworkable.
  I made a living by sorting out companies which had problems. One of the things that life teaches us is that if we put into structures which are unworkable checks and balances which are contradictory and will not actually provide checks and balances, we should not be surprised if we end up with a shambles and chaos.
  Mr. Cash: Has my hon. Friend considered the following proposition: if 12 member states agreed unanimously to ratify the treaty and then, within the context of the European Court of Justice as a whole and within the framework of a legal treaty, thereby ensured that the mechanism was put in place for, as one of the articles says, an unlimited period, and if six or even fewer of those member states were committed to it, primarily because they believed that they would get subsidies, cohesion funds and the rest out of it, if the treaty is proved to be unworkable, as we are told that it will be, how will those six member states be encouraged to unravel that unworkable treaty when it has been proved to be unworkable just as the exchange rate mechanism was proved to be unworkable? Unanimous agreement to unravel it will never be obtained. An unstable structure will be created, which is known to be unworkable, which we shall never be able to get out of, and which is bound to collapse—just as the ERM is collapsing, and economic and monetary union with it. That will have a catastrophic effect on the rest of an unstable Europe—Kosovo, Macedonia, eastern Europe, and so on. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Minister of State is creating that very disaster?
  The Chairman: Order. That sounded to me like a Third Reading speech by the hon. Member for Stafford.
  Mr. Walker rose —
  The Chairman: Order. I know that it is late, but the hon. Gentleman should sit down until I have sat down. I hope that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will not go down that particular route and that he will now address the amendment.
  Mr. Walker: I trust, Mr. Morris, that at no point have I failed to address the amendment.
  The Chairman: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be tempted down another route. Perhaps he will now address the amendment.
  Mr. Walker: New clause 30 is an important new clause. It does not alter the treaty. If, therefore, it is agreed to by the Committee, it will have no effect on a treaty that the Government wish to be ratified. Clause 2 requires a further Act of Parliament before the United Kingdom can move to the third stage of economic and monetary union. The new clause requires Parliament's agreement to any alterations to the Maastricht treaty, brought about by articles B and N of the treaty.
  Furthermore, since we are already agreed that we shall now have a Report stage on the Bill, the acceptance of new clause 30 would not add to the consideration of the Bill, so it should not worry hon. Members. It is difficult to see, therefore, what possible objection Front-Bench Members can have to new clause 30, since it provides that this Parliament would have to approve any proposed alterations to the Maastricht provisions before they got set in stone—[Interruption.] Good heavens—I have had a remarkable effect on Front-Bench Members on both sides; they are now collaborating. Is this perhaps an indication, Mr. Morris, that they are discussing whether they can arrive at an understanding on this?
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister claims that he wishes to preserve the sovereignty of our Parliament. He also claims that he wants subsidiarity. I suggest that this new clause is a very modest test of the Government's good intentions. On the first page of the treaty we are told that it will probably have to be revised, so we understand that this is accepted. We must, it says,
  "maintain in full the 'acquis communautaire"',
  and to do that it will probably be necessary to revise both the policies and the procedures contained within the treaty.
  Having spent some time examining what this version of the Maastricht treaty has to say, I suggest that we owe it to the country and to ourselves—and, more importantly, to each of our constituents—to examine just as thoroughly any amendments subsequently proposed to the treaty. Hence I believe that the Committee will see, and the House will eventually see, that it would be wise to accept this new clause.
  I wonder also, when we are looking at what would happen if the Committee accepted the amendment put forward by the Liberals linked to this new clause—[Interruption.] It is often the case, Mr. Morris, that those who vote for us to stay up late abscond early and go to bed.
  Mr. Winnick: Although the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who moved the amendment, is not in his place for perfectly understandable reasons—he may be having a cup of tea —it is interesting to consider where all the others who were responsible for the Government's majority of five are. Why have they not stayed? Does it not show contempt for the Committee that, having voted to go on after 10 o'clock because the Government could not otherwise have got a majority, none of them is here now.
  Mr. Walker: One of the interesting things about parliamentary life is how others will vote for you to do the work, Mr. Morris. You may well have noticed that fact as you have to sit there as a result of a decision that was taken not by you, but by others. That seems to be the pattern for those who talk about compromise. The only compromise I have seen tonight has been the way in which the hon.

  315
  Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber was compromised by some of the things that were said to him throughout the debate.
  I have some questions to put to my right hon. Friend with regard to new clause 14. Does he consider that any amendment to the protocols is covered by the procedures in article N of title VII? Does he consider that arty new protocols would be covered by article N? Does he agree that any amendments to any protocols will have to be ratified by the United Kingdom before being effective throughout Europe? Does he agree that the House should have the opportunity to debate and approve any changes to any protocol?

  Protocols affecting Denmark, for example, were agreed at Edinburgh last December, in the hope that those changes to the treaty would persuade enough Danish people to change their minds and vote yes in their second referendum. If those changes to the Maastricht treaty as it affects Denmark were new protocols, amendments to existing protocols or amendments to the treaty itself, they require the approval by separate ratification of each of the 12 member states.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Can my hon. Friend tell the Committee to which particular new protocols placed on the treaty as a result of the Edinburgh Council he objects?
  Mr. Walker: If my right hon. Friend were not so impetuous, he would probably have waited to hear the rest of my question.
  Mr. Garel-Jones rose —
  Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend asked me a question and I am about to answer it. My right hon. Friend was being too impetuous.
  If those changes were not amendments to protocols or to the body of the treaty and therefore did not need separate ratification, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Maastricht treaty being put to the Danish people in their second referendum is exactly the same treaty as was put to them in the first one?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Before I answer that question, perhaps my hon. Friend misread his speech—
  Mr. Walker: I have not misread anything.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to be certain that I heard my hon. Friend correctly. Perhaps other hon. Members will dissent, but I thought that I heard him talk about new protocols which had been added to the treaty at Edinburgh. Will he tell me—
  Mr. Walker: I said "if" right at the beginning.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be kind enough to read that passage again. Other hon. Members seem to agree with me that he referred to new protocols which had been added to the treaty. Perhaps he can tell the Committee which protocols they are.
  Mr. Walker: It is unfortunate that we have such an impetuous young man on the Front Bench. To me. at any rate, he is a young man. If those changes to the Maastricht treaty as it affects Denmark were new protocols—that was what I said—
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I have not seen anyone in the Committee dissent from the proposition that a few minutes ago my hon. Friend read out a passage from his
  316
  speech which referred to new protocols in the treaty as a result of the Edinburgh Council. To which particular protocols is he referring? It is difficult for me to answer his question when I am not aware of which protocols he is talking about.
  Mr. Walker: I had wee laddies like that serving under me in the Air Force.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment. The question that I wanted to put—
  Mr. Terry Lewis: Chocks away, Biggles.
  Mr. Walker: Biggles was a fictional character; I was real.
  Either those changes to the Maastricht treaty as they affect Denmark were new protocols or they were not. Either the treaty is unamended and therefore no extra ratification is needed, or it has been changed to suit Denmark—in which case, separate ratification of such changes is needed. If my right hon. Friend the Minister had not been quite so impetuous, he would have given me the opportunity to put what I think was a reasonable question. It has been my experience in life that individuals who are unhappy, insecure or doubtful about their position tend to jump in very quickly.
  3 am
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I jumped in very quickly, but not because I am unsure of my position. I was in Denmark last week and the people of Denmark are labouring under the impression that protocols were negotiated on their behalf at Edinburgh which changed the basis of the treaty to which they said no in their earlier referendum. Is that not the most important point that we can make today, when we are talking about Denmark, because they seem to believe that they have been told—
  The Chairman: Order. We are not supposed to be talking about Denmark under these protocols, I think. We drifted into that and I accept that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was tempted down that route.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: We are talking about the protocols.
  The Chairman: We are not talking about what the Danish people feel about protocols under this amendment.
  Mr. Walker: The question I was trying to get through to my right hon. Friend the Minister was whether, through the mechanism of this new clause 14, or otherwise, my right hon. Friend can say that any amendment to any protocols or any new protocols will require the approval of the House of Commons before they take effect. And if not, why not?
  Mr. Cash: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the German Bundestag has given itself an agreement for a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag on whether or not it proceeds to economic and monetary union? Can my hon. Friend tell me under what protocol this has been agreed? All the other member states have had to agree to opt-outs of various kinds. How does it come about that the Germans have given this to themselves? It is a bit like Napoleon crowning himself to make himself Emperor of France.
  Mr. Walker: I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he is asking for, because unlike him I was not aware that the Germans could, would or had done anything that they could do unilaterally. I am not aware that any of our Parliaments or any of the nation state Parliaments can do that. My understanding is that if we are going to do it under the treaty of Rome it has to be agreed, and that all have to be in agreement with it. That is why—
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Does the interpretation of the answer that my hon. Friend has just given mean that the German Bundestag has, in effect, not ratified the treaty?
  Mr. Walker: The Germans, as I understand the situation, Mr. Morris—
  The Chairman: Order. We are dealing with article 7. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was being fairly tight in his speech, but he is allowing himself to be tempted down a number of different avenues. I hope that he will now get back to the amendment.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris, this is a treaty on European union. I would simply submit to you, Mr. Morris, that to consider the relationship between the different member states in relation to those protocols is reasonable as this is about a treaty on European union. It is not just about this House. That, after all, is what the Government are trying to do.
  The Chairman: We are on title VII, "Final Provisions".
  Mr. Cash: I know.
  The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member knows that, he should not have made the earlier submission, with a sort of laugh on his face. It is not really very funny at all.
  Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I draw the Committee's attention to title VII, article O, in the second paragraph, which deals entirely with agreements being submitted for ratification by all the contracting states. If hon. Members refer to those articles on ratification, they will see that the second paragraph says:
  "This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the Contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
  I would think that that would mean we could make references to the Danish referendum or to the various processes of ratification.
  The Chairman: What the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) did in his speech was to link those things in—and very skilfully—but I am afraid that there has been less skill on the other side so far.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Would my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, (Mr. Taylor) agree that there is no need to mention this any more? Instead of criticising the Minister of State, he should thank him very much indeed for confirming that no new protocols were agreed in Edinburgh, and that to that extent the people of Denmark have been cheated—and cheated shamefully—if anyone gives them the impression that they are getting the same exemptions as Britain got.
  Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that useful intervention. The people, politicians and members of the media in Denmark are taking careful note of our debates.
  318
  The Minister's impetuous response may return to haunt him. It will certainly be quoted, if not by the friends of the treaty, by those who, like many of my hon. Friends and me, wish to have the issues examined.
  Mr. Beggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible for Governments to make agreements to convenience each other, as with the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Two were signed—one to suit the Irish Republic and one to appease the British public.
  Mr. Walker: I accept that Governments can, and often do, present their side of an agreement to their electorates and dress it up in the way they would like them to understand what has been agreed. There is nothing new about that. I will not drift into discussing the Anglo-Irish Accord. I have expressed my view on that over the years. With the passage of time, the Maastricht treaty will enjoy the same degree of respect as the Anglo-Irish Accord enjoys because, like that accord, it has been oversold. I fear that the benefits of Maastricht will in many respects turn out to be the opposite of what has been stated.
  I come to amendment No. 96. Hon. Members may wonder why I have dealt with this group in reverse order. By beginning with the new clause, I thought that the Minister might jump in with a quick response. Considering my right hon. Friend's attitude when in the Whips Office or as a Minister dealing with the Maastricht measure, he has not disappointed me in that he reacted in the way I expected. I got out of him precisely what I wanted. That is why I dealt with the amendments in the group in reverse order. In other words, I tempted my right hon. Friend into intervening. He was endeavouring to show that he was brighter and more intelligent than I, which is the way I thought he would react.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister made a vital statement. I am wondering whether there is any means by which the Committee could convey a message to the Danish Parliament making clear what the Minister said. His statement made it abundantly clear that the people of Denmark are being conned.
  Mr. Walker: I have been to Denmark many times. In my previous incarnation, I used to trade extensively in Denmark and in other parts of Europe. When dealing with the Danish people, I always found that in factual matters such as article—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot give the history of his relationship with the Danish people. He can speak to amendment No. 96, which I accept that he was trying to do before he was interrupted by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  Mr. Walker: Before you interrupted me, Mr. Morris, I was about to say "article L". Will my right hon. Friend explain to me and to the Danish people what will happen?
  Does article L mean that the Court of Justice can override any interpretation of the Maastricht treaty made by the Council, the European Parliament, the Commission or any member state? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, no matter what interpretation he or his colleagues may place on any section of the treaty—such as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's interpretation of subsidiarity—article L means that the Court of Justice has the last word? Is it the court's interpretation of subsidiarity which will be law?

  319
  Scotland has a special interest in subsidiarity. I shall not get involved in a debate about it now because I have spoken about it at some length. I hope that at some point I shall find a suitable amendment to allow the people of Scotland to have their say about how their treaty of Union is being amended, which is very important in terms of subsidiarity.
  If the United Kingdom were to ratify the Maastricht treaty, would the provisions for the Court of Justice in article L apply immediately to the United Kingdom? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that? Does he agree that in any judicial review or dispute relating to Community matters a judgment by the Court of Justice would override one by the High Court or even the House of Lords? Does he also agree that a House of Lords ruling on the minimum wage, maximum working hours, equal opportunities or working conditions—all matters which are in the body of the Maastricht treaty, never mind the social charter—would ultimately be determined by the Court of Justice and not the House of Lords?
  Had my right hon. Friend the Minister not been so impetuous, we might have had the opportunity to speak. I and others who are carrying out our proper duties in relation to our constituents by raising fundamental issues which may lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom believe that it is right that we should have answers to our questions. One of the most disturbing aspects of our debates has been that Ministers have been intervening before people such as I have had the opportunity to make a contribution and ask our questions. It has meant that our questions have largely been unanswered.
  Why do I raise that point now? At the beginning, I mentioned that I had my annual general meeting last Friday. It is no secret that some of us who have taken a stand on Maastricht have been put under pressure from forces not within our own constituencies. I took a copy of Hansard containing my contribution to the debate on subsidiarity to my constituents and supporters who turned up for the meeting. I told them to read it carefully and tell me where my questions were answered. The absence of answers has formed a pattern throughout the debates. We are told, "Don't worry, chaps. The way we have this Maastricht treaty set up, you will have opportunities to ask questions and to influence." Is that the way the House of Commons is to be treated in the future? After all, we have not yet ratified the treaty properly. Sadly, my Government are not giving me an opportunity to put questions on behalf of my constituents and to receive satisfactory answers. What we shall have when this Bill has completed its passage is exactly what it was understood at the beginning to be. We have not had an opportunity to question adequately or properly.
  3.15 am
  In making that comment, I intend no reflection on the Chair. I was being entirely honest when I said at an earlier stage that I was astonished at how well you, Mr. Morris, had handled these entire proceedings. It is difficult enough to listen for long hours to debates, hoping that one will have an opportunity to participate and ask questions. It must be even more difficult to sit in the Chair and ensure that individuals like me stay in order. In that respect, Sir, you have done a remarkable job, as I am sure all hon. Members agree.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman has talked about pressure. Does he agree that it amounts to contempt of the House of Commons if a party organisation puts undue pressure of an hon. Member who is expressing his views? Surely it is contemptuous of Parliament to intimidate an hon. Member for the purpose of preventing him from expressing his opinions.
  Mr. Walker: I do not think that you will want me to enter into that debate, Mr. Morris. I shall say only that, throughout my life, I have been able to deal with such difficulties. If one believes in what one is doing, it is never difficult to explain why one is doing it. Problems arise if one does not believe in what one is doing. That probably applies to many hon. Members in respect of this treaty. They find it extremely difficult to justify the stand that they are taking. They make the point that, as the treaty is unworkable, people should not worry about it. If it is unworkable, we should not endorse it. The new clause would go a long way towards putting some kind of order into the disorder of this ghastly treaty.
  Mr. George Robertson: It is always a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), as following him means that his speech is finished. He is a gentleman with a considerable sense of humour, which he has been deploying well for the last 45 minutes.
  The real question that we ought to be asking ourselves at this absurd time of the night is why we should be discussing this matter in a debate on a Liberal amendment. I realise that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) moved the amendment with tongue in cheek. If he wanted to make a debating point —and what better time than the middle of the night to make a debating point?—he.could have said that, over the many dreary hours of this ratification procedure, he had moved amendments that he did not intend to support and, indeed, was determined not to support. The obscure aspect of the reasoning on this occasion is that the hon. Gentleman represents a party which says not just that it is in favour of the treaty but that it is enthusiastically for the treaty. Indeed, we are here at 19 minutes past 3 o'clock in the morning because the Liberal party was so enthusiastic about it that it wanted to debate the matter in the middle of the night.
  It would be a cheap debating point to say that only the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber has stayed to listen to the debate that his party inflicted upon the rest of us at this time of the night. He represents a significant proportion of his party, both in the quantitative and qualitative senses. Despite the provocation, I refuse to fall out with him, because we have been friends over many years. He is testing that friendship to destruction, but I still refuse to fall out with him.
  If the Liberal party was so enthusiastic to debate this in the middle of the night, why are Liberal Members not here to support the hon. Gentleman? He deserves their support; indeed, he requires it. I know that they were all waiting to hear what arguments he would deploy for folding title VII into the Bill.
  Sir Russell Johnston: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, there were a number here when I was speaking. It is stretching enthusiasm to an extreme to have it defined simply in terms of hon. Members being willing to come to listen to other hon. Members speak.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman says that a number were here to hear him. I think that the number was one for part of the time.
  Mr. Don Dixon: And he only came in to see what time he could get a closure.
  Mr. Robertson: No doubt he came in to find out what Bill his party had facilitated for the Government. However, I do not wish to be frivolous, because that would diminish the importance of the debate.
  There is still a genuine mystery about why the Liberal party would want to fold title VII into the Bill. It does not make sense for the Liberal party to want to do that. It makes no sense for us to do it. Even if one were a federalist and in favour of a unitary state, it would not make sense to follow the line of reasoning behind the amendment. I do not know whether the Liberal party intends to push the amendment at the end of the debate. I do not feel inclined to recommend to my hon. Friends that we should vote for it or abstain; we should vote against it, as we did on the Liberal amendment on title I, because it makes no sense.
  Sir Russell Johnston: May I be allowed to point out that at the beginning of my speech I said that we would not be voting on the amendment? Clearly the hon. Gentleman was not here or he was sound asleep.
  Mr. Robertson: Anybody who has followed the debate would excuse me for the latter. The record of televison will show that I was here and have been here more consistently than the other 19 members of the Liberal party who voted many hours ago to keep us here into the night.
  Mr. Rowlands: I strongly agree with most of what my hon. Friend has said about title VII. There is one temptation to vote for it: article R, paragraph 2, would make it clear that, if the Danes do not carry the referendum the treaty will be null and void and will not be ratified by us or anybody else. So there might be a case for putting article R, paragraph 2, into the legislation.
  Mr. Robertson: The problem is that we cannot pick and choose; we have to have the whole title or none of it. In any event, what happens in Denmark is a matter for the Danish people, and it should be left to them. It is not for us to interfere in their decision. The vast majority of the Danish parties will recommend a "yes" vote in the referendum on 18 May. The treaty will stand notwithstanding anything done in this debate.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The Danes are labouring under a misapprehension, which is being given to them, that if they do not ratify they will be thrown out of the Common Market and nobody will stand by them. It is incumbent on us to make clear the undertaking given by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that, if the Danes do not carry the referendum, that is the end of the Maastricht treaty. We must make it plain that we will back them on that. That undertaking is essentially contained in title VII.
  Mr. Robertson: The Danish people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds on the basis of the information that they already have. They are able to weigh all the arguments by the numerous people from this country who have gone to Denmark and those by their own political organs. I have no doubt that, at the end of that process, they will take a wise decision. Of course, on 18 May the Danish people will vote on the whole of the
  322
  Maastricht treaty, unlike people in this Parliament, who are dealing with the treaty minus the valuable social chapter. The treaty on offer to the Danes is radically different from and much more complete and balanced than the treaty that the Government have offered us. Amendments that have still to be debated may allow us to change that.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman lauds the intelligence of the Danish people. They decided on Maastricht last year. Why on earth is the rest of Europe almost saying, "If at first we don't succeed, let's try, try the Danes again"? How many times will they have to vote? As the Danes have to have a second vote because the majority against the treaty was narrow, why can there not be a second vote in France?
  Mr. Robertson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that the Danish Parliament has decided that the people should vote again following the discussions at the Edinburgh summit. The vast majority of Danish parliamentarians, who have as much right to make decisions as parliamentarians here, decided that Denmark should look again at the original result in the light of the improvements that the Danish Government obtained in Edinburgh. There may be cause for debate about the outcome of the Edinburgh summit, but the Danish Parliament, the Folketing, decided to ask the Danish people to vote again in the light of those changes. That is their custom, but it is not the custom of this Parliament. The Danes have decided that that is the best way to proceed, but this country uses Parliament for ratifications. That is the right way for us to proceed.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman heaps praise on the intelligence of the Danish people. Does that explain why the "Yes" vote seems to be crumbling, crashing, to well below 50 per cent.? Is that not part of the answer to the apprehensions that have been expressed about the Danish people?
  The Chairman: Order. Danish opinion polls do not come under the amendments that are before the Committee.
  Mr. Robertson: I appreciate that ruling, Mr. Morris. What counts, as we all say as politicians, is the vote on 18 May. That is the ultimate judgment.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Robertson: I shall not give way, because I intend to be brief so that other hon. Members may participate in this important debate.
  I return to my argument on title I: that an important principle unites not just the Front-Bench spokesmen, who have been accused throughout the ratification process of being in cahoots, but my hon. Friends, who normally do not agree with me about the outcome of the process. That principle is that we should not over-legislate on Europe. In relation to Europe there should be minimum United Kingdom legislation.
  Mr. Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend leaves entirely the whole subject of the future of the European Community, would he care to put on the record exactly what improvements the Danish Parliament has negotiated for its people for the referendum?
  The Chairman: Order. That is not relevant.
  Mr. Robertson: Not this evening, no. It will be decided on 18 May in Denmark, and that has nothing to do with the House of Commons.
  Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend give way? I do apologise to him.
  Mr. Robertson: I give way only and finally on the ground that Mr. Keir Hardie, former parliamentarian, was once an inhabitant of my constituency but went to my hon. Friend's constituency to represent it. Simply in the light of that sentimental fact, I will give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, whatever the reason. He told the Committee that the Danes were voting for the treaty plus the social chapter. But they are also now voting for the treaty minus monetary union, because what they did in December was to give formal notification that they would not go to the third stage of economic and monetary union. It is important to realise that, while accepting the social chapter, the Danes have rejected monetary union.
  Mr. Robertson: The Danes have indeed said that they will not proceed to the third stage of monetary union, and that is something on which they will be voting. It will be their decision. I would say to my hon. Friend, in relation to our distinguished predecessor, Keir Hardie, that on the eve of the first world war he called for a united states of Europe. Clearly that is not a tradition that has drifted down the Welsh valleys over the years.
  Mr. Rowlands: Not along the Maastricht lines.
  Mr. Robertson: Whether on Maastricht lines or not, I am not in favour of a united states of Europe, although I could see its attraction in a year like 1914.
  I go back to the main point of my speech, which is that we should not over-legislate. There are dangers here. European legislation has a particular, specific and privileged status in British law. It is that, where we legislate, we give precedence to European law, automatic precedence over domestic, United Kingdom law. We should therefore be wary of legislating where we need not legislate. This title in this part of the treaty is something that need not be part of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and need not be part of those United Kingdom laws affected by the Maastricht treaty or by any of the other treaties, and therefore we should reject the amendment.
  The principle of minimum legislation in the European area is something that should appeal both to those who are enthusiastic about Europe and those who are, to put it mildly, sceptical about the great European experience. That is what this debate is really about, however far it has ranged this evening. That is why I believe that this is an amendment that should not be supported.
  Mr. Greg Knight (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 27.

  Division No. 222

  [3.34 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Amess, David

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Ancram, Michael

  Ashby, David

  324

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bates, Michael

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Batiste, Spencer

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Booth, Hartley

  Key, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Bowden, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bowis, John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Bright, Graham

  Knox, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Burns, Simon

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Burt, Alistair

  Lidington, David

  Butler, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Luff, Peter

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sydney

  MacKay, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Maclean, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Colvin, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Congdon, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Conway, Derek

  Mans, Keith

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Marland, Paul

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

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

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Merchant, Piers

  Devlin, Tim

  Milligan, Stephen

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Dover, Den

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Duncan, Alan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Needham, Richard

  Elletson, Harold

  Nelson, Anthony

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Norris, Steve

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Forth, Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Page, Richard

  French, Douglas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Gale, Roger

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gallie, Phil

  Pickles, Eric

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Rathbone, Tim

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Redwood, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Richards, Rod

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Hague, William

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Harris, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Heald, Oliver

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfieid)

  Hendry, Charles

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hicks, Robert

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Horam, John

  Spring, Richard

  325

  Sproat, Iain

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Walden, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Stephen, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Allan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sykes, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Willetts, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes

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

  Mr. Irvine Patnick

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Timothy Wood

  Trend, Michael

  NOES

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  McMaster, Gordon

  Body, Sir Richard

  Meale, Alan

  Cash, William

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Cran, James

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Cryer, Bob

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davidson, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Don

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gill, Christopher

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Jessel, Toby

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Knapman, Roger

  Mr. Jeremy C'orbyn and

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Mr. David Winnick.

  Lewis, Terry

  Question agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 217.

  Division No. 223]

  3.45 am

  AYES

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cash, William

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Davidson, Ian

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Ancram, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ashby, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Congdon, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bates, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cran, James

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Booth, Hartley

  Devlin, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Dixon, Don

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowden, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowis, John

  Dover, Den

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Duncan, Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Elletson, Harold

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  326

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Merchant, Piers

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Needham, Richard

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Nelson, Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  French, Douglas

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gallie Phil

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Norris, Steve

  Garnier, Edward

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Gill, Christopher

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Ottaway, Richard

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Page, Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pickles, Eric

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hague, William

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Redwood, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Richards, Rod

  Harris, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Heald, Oliver

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hendry, Charles

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hicks, Robert

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Sackville, Tom

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Horam, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jack, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jessel, Toby

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Key, Robert

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Spring, Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Stephen, Michael

  Knox, David

  Stern, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Stewart, Allan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Streeter, Gary

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sumberg, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Sykes, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lewis, Terry

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lidington, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Lightbown, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Luff, Peter

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

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Malone, Gerald

  Waller, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  Ward, John

  Marland, Paul

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Meale, Alan

  Widdecombe, Ann

  327

  Willets, david

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Irvine Patnick

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Committee report progress.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Committee to sit again this day.

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

  ELECTION EXPENSES (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 1.
  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Burma
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  4.5 am
  Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: On 13 June 1992, troops loyal to the military State Law and Order Restoration Council in the area of Maungdaw came to Mohamed Ilyas Maung Nyo and ordered him, as a Muslim party worker, to go into Bangladesh and fetch Burmese Muslim refugees home. He refused. They arrested him and severely beat him, eventually so severely that he died on about 23 June. His family were then forced to bury him at gunpoint, and the military have returned regularly since to make sure that the body stays where it is. No relatives are allowed to tend the grave. SLORC says that he died of acute gastro-intestinal disease.
  Doctor Maung Nu, a constituent of mine, who is Mohamed Ilyas's brother, contacted me and spoke of this tragedy, asking how it could have happened and what Her Majesty's Government could do to stop this sort of thing continuing. It appears that his brother's crime was to be a party worker, believing in democracy under a brutal and despotic regime.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber should picture to themselves the reality. All the things that we take for granted in our daily lives, with our party organisations having party workers putting forward political messages in our constituencies—these basic freedoms are thoroughly abused and clearly can end in death in Burma today.
  The case that I have just spoken about is only a microcosm of what is going on in Burma. Of course, the best known example of the Burmese authorities' total abuse of human rights is the continuing house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. For those hon. Members who do not know, this remarkable woman led her party to an election victory, but the military regime has since refused to accept the result. Despite world condemnation, it has refused to allow her to take up her position as the rightful leader of her Government.
  She is married to Dr. Michael Aris, who, as I have to remind hon. Members, is a British citizen. Because she refused to be driven out of her country, she is kept in isolation, away from any contact with the people of Burma. It has got to the point where even Dr. Aris has not received any form of contact from her for some months, and to all intents and purposes her condition is now completely unknown.
  What kind of a regime is this that clearly separates families? For any parliamentarians, it should be a matter of great concern when a democratically elected leader of Government is denied access to her electorate. But, on a personal note, I cannot believe that an hon. Member could fail to be moved by the thought of this remarkable woman and her incredible stand against the massed forces of tyranny that constantly rage against her.
  I do not believe that enough is known about the facts and figures in Burma today. There are nearly 400,000 refugees from Burma in surrounding countries. There are nearly 1·5 million displaced Burmese in Burma who are unable to return to their homes because of SLORC action. Amnesty International has a list of over 1,500 people in prison on human rights charges. At least three elected Members of Parliament have died in prison. A vast number of people in prison for political offences have died.
  330
  The list is endless, and I do not intend to detain the House for long. I emphasise that this is a brutal and despotic regime that cares nothing for human rights, and we should do our utmost to bring it to an end.
  I am extremely pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the Front Bench. In asking what the Government can do, I fully accept that they have been in the forefront of those countries attempting to bring pressure to bear on Burma.
  I wish to highlight two areas of concern and ask my right hon. Friend some questions. First, is there not more we could do to apply pressure to China? China is the most important supporter of Burma. It has supplied it with some $1·5 billion-worth of arms since 1989 and offers it great protection in the United Nations. Surely it is time that we highlighted China's persistent support for the Burmese regime, particularly as the Chinese are clearly embarrassed by its activities.
  Burma is China's Achilles heel in its discussions with Britain over Hong Kong, in so far as the Chinese do not wish to have a spectre of human rights abuse hanging over their heads during the run-in to 1997, particularly if we make great efforts to highlight it across the world.
  We should put pressure on all our allies, without exception, constantly to make reference in the United Nations to China's role in this matter, if for no other reason than, to pay for the arms, apart from cutting down vast swathes of timber such as teak and destroying their ecology, the Burmese export heroin to the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. Some 50 per cent. of all heroin imports into the United Kingdom now come from Burma. That has a considerable effect on our young people so, there is a natural reason for doing something about it.
  Mr. Edward Gamier: While my hon. Friend is introducing a debate on human rights, he will have noticed that the Opposition Benches are entirely empty. Is that not a disgrace? The British Government can take practical steps in applying pressure on the Burmese Government to improve its behaviour, but next week my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visits Japan. Japan in one of the leading economic powers in the far east, and it has many trade links with Burma. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were to apply pressure on the Japanese Government to place levers on the Burmese Government, that might improve human rights in Burma?
  Mr. Duncan-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree with all that he has said. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister was listening carefully. Japan is certainly one of the countries that could do something to help.
  Surrounding countries in Asean could also do a great deal. We all need to bring pressure to bear on many of those countries to be more outspoken about these matters, not simply in their trade with Burma. My hon. Friend mentioned Japan, but there are also others. Britain is providing financial aid to many of those countries, and I am sure that there are ways in which we might seek to tie some strings to that assistance.
  A number of western companies exploring for oil and gas are working in Burma. I find that repugnant,

  331
  particularly as the regime is so unstable that it can benefit those companies nothing in the long run to try and extract some financial benefit from that country.
  I urge the Government to put extra pressure on China, which holds the key to this matter, and to the surrounding countries in Asean and to try to bring these matters to the attention of the United States so that more pressure can be applied to China and other countries.
  We must attempt to do whatever we can, and leave no stone unturned, to make sure that Burma returns to democratic government, particularly with its present elected Head of Government.
  4.15 am
  Mr. Jim Lester: I am delighted to support the Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) has been fortunate to obtain. I have been to Burma, and, like him, I have taken a very big interest in its affairs before and since the election there. I can say categorically that the present illegal regime is one of the worst in the world in terms of the interest it takes in its people, the way it treats them and the way it imprisons for 25 years, on trumped-up charges, Members of Parliament elected in 1990.
  I agree that we have to act together if we are to influence that country, which is so isolated and has been so isolated and so non-aligned that it left the non-aligned movement. It has now got back into the movement, and is trying in a cosmetic way to replace its existing isolation with a more influential role to improve the situation.
  I do not think that anyone who knows the country, or knows what is happening there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford has graphically described, would recognise that any of the changes that they are trying to bring about are other than cosmetic. It is a matter of tremendous frustration among people who care for that country, and many hon. Members present in the Chamber will recognise that in Rangoon there is a war cemetery with 30,000 Commonwealth soldiers' graves. They fought for that country.
  I would ask the Minister to continue to use the powers of the European Community in the way in which we act together. I cannot remember how many times the ambassadors in Rangoon have joined in expressing the full weight of our concern. When we have meetings with the Foreign Ministers of the Community and of the Association of South East Asian Nations, they should continue to apply the pressure for which my hon. Friend has called.
  I was in Bangkok recently, and raised the question of Burma with the new Government of Thailand. They put it that their relationship now was not one of friends but of acquaintances. I think the pressures are starting to apply.
  I would further request the Minister to see how the new American Administration take up the cudgels. One hopes that they will be every bit as determined as was Mr. Secretary Baker, who, when he went to the ASEAN conference, spoke very firmly about the situation as the Americans see it. There has been tardiness by ASEAN in applying the pressure which one would expect any country to apply to a neighbour who disgraces the standards of human rights about which all are agreed.
  The Minister will know that this month there has been an agreed statement in the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva which has been universally condemnatory. It
  332
  called for the military regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi and to re-establish the democratic Government who were elected in 1990.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward something that tends to get forgotten. Burma is a country of 40 million people. It is not a small country, but has tremendous potential in natural resources. It used to be one of the biggest rice exporters in the world but it now imports rice to stay afloat. I think that we should raise this question and use our influence with other countries constantly to remind the SLORC regime that they are part of the international community and are a signatory to many international conventions, but are disgracefully behind in terms of implementing and keeping to the high standards that I am sure all Members in this House want to maintain.
  4.19 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) for initiating this debate, and to my other hon. Friends who have contributed to it.
  The Government's position on Burma was set out clearly at the session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which ended in Geneva earlier this month, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred. The Minister of State said in his speech to the Commission:
  "Burma is another country where repression of human rights has become institutionalised. The military regime steadfastly refuses to accept the result of the 1990 elections, which gave a substantial majority—nearly 60 per cent. of the vote, and over 80 per cent. of the seats—to the party of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of the architect of Burmese independence … The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to her reflects international recognition of the desire of the Burmese people for a peaceful transition from a military straitjacket to a democratic system. Meanwhile the army can only stay in power by the familiar methods—secret police, censorship, a ban on virtually all political activity, political imprisonment and torture."
  The case raised by my hon. Friend, of the death of Mohamed Ilyas, apparently at the hands of Burmese soldiers, is but one deplorable example of the arbitrary and brutal nature of the regime. It appears determined neither to permit the exercise of democratic rights nor to hand over power to a Government formed by the representatives freely and fairly elected in May 1990. We and our European Community partners have made it clear that the attitude of the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council is unacceptable.
  The regime continues its efforts to circumvent the clear expression of the will of the Burmese people. Since 9 January this year, a national convention has been taking place in Rangoon to draw up a new constitution. We believe that Burma needs a new constitution which incorporates those changes in the political and economic system which the Burmese people have called for since the demonstrations in 1988.
  It must also provide safeguards for the rights of the ethnic minorities, but we believe that this constitution should be devised by the elected representatives, who have the mandate of the people—as, indeed, was laid down by the SLORC in their order 1/90—not by an unelected group who have largely been handpicked by the authorities.
  But one of the guidelines, to which the convention has been told it must stick, requires the constitution to

  333
  enshrine a leading role for the military in Burma's politics. According to the rules of the convention, delegates are forbidden to question this, which makes a mockery of the entire process.
  Meanwhile, repression and abuse of human rights continues. Although we welcome the release over the last year of more than 1,500 prisoners, an estimated 1,000 political prisoners are still believed to be held in Burma's jails. Those include a number of elected Members of Parliament, monks, writers and students imprisoned for expressing their political opinions.
  Most recently, two students were held by military intelligence in Rangoon for several days in March, during which time they were beaten and accused of distributing anti-Government leaflets. During the visit of the UN special rapporteur in December last year, former political prisoners and others who wished to contact the rapporteur were intimidated and threatened by military intelligence.
  The best known of Burma's political prisoners, Nobel peace prize laureate, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, will shortly approach the fourth anniversary of her house arrest in Rangoon. The majority of the Burmese people continue to regard her as the embodiment of their desire for peace, democracy and freedom, and are deeply worried by reports of her frail health. As comments in this House have shown, we in Britain are also deeply concerned about her situation. We have called repeatedly on the SLORC, in concert with our European Community partners and with other like-minded Governments throughout the world, to release her and allow her to remain freely in Burma, in accordance with her wishes.
  The 47th session of the UN General Assembly also passed a resolution calling for her unconditional release. Her Majesty's Government will continue to press for her release and the release of all prisoners detained in Burma for political reasons.
  There are disquieting reports of other human rights violations in Burma. Those include the forced conscription of porters for use in front-line areas. They also include abuses by the army, and also on occasion by insurgents, of civilian non-combatants in the war zones, including extrajudicial executions and rape. Freedom of expression in Burma remains non-existent, with all media subject to heavy and frequently arbitrary censorship.
  Together with our EC partners, we have made our views very clear on many occasions, most recently at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. A resolution condemning human rights abuses in Burma, which we co-sponsored, was passed by consensus on 10 March.
  As my hon. Friend said, Burma is one of the largest producers of heroin in the world. The international community is co-operating closely in efforts to stamp out the illicit drugs trade. The authorities in Burma are well aware that the problem of heroin addiction and abuse, often linked with AIDS, affects the people within as well as outside their borders. We welcome the efforts being made by UN agencies and the Burmese authorities to counter illegal drug production by developing infrastructure in the opium-producing regions and introducing substitute crops. We are concerned, however, that a number of
  334
  leading drug traffickers have been allowed to continue their trafficking activities unpunished. They are even able to invest the profits of their narcotics activities in other businesses in Burma with the acquiescence, and even encouragement, of the authorities.
  My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that Burma continues to direct scarce resources into the unjustified purchase of arms and into reinforcing the strength of the armed forces. We deplore this, and at our instigation the European Community decided in July 1991 on an embargo of arms sales to Burma. We have consistently urged other countries to take similar action. The European Community has made formal representations to China—one of Burma's principal arms suppliers, as my hon. Friend pointed out—and we have also raised the issue directly in bilateral talks with the Chinese and will continue to do so. In 1992, EC countries further reduced defence links by the withdrawal and de-accreditation of resident and non-resident defence attaches.
  Military repression has been particularly severe against ethnic and religious minorities. Since late 1991, more than a quarter of a million Burmese Muslims, or Rohingyas, have fled Arakan state to Bangladesh to escape abuses received at the hands of the Burmese armed forces. To date, fewer than a tenth of them have returned. The remainder are putting pressure on Bangladesh's own frail economy. We welcome the participation of staff of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the repatriation process on the Bangladesh side of the border. We hope, too, that agreement can be reached to allow UNHCR to operate on the Burmese side of the border, as well as in Bangladesh.
  We are also exerting pressure on the Burmese regime by means of aid policy. In November 1988, the Government, together with other EC Member states, stopped bilateral aid to the SLORC Government in protest at their seizure of power and persistent human rights abuses. This followed the bloody suppression of peaceful demonstrations in Burma. We have also put tight controls on multilateral assistance through the United Nations Development Programme. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe is in touch with my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development about scrutiny of the work of the UN agencies in Burma.
  We believe that it is the duty of the international community to maintain pressure on the SLORC to bring about the transfer of power to the civilian Government elected by the people in 1990. The United Kingdom and its EC partners will continue to work together closely to bring about change in Burma. I take my hon. Friend's point about including Japan in the process and encouraging it to use its influence. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will raise the matter when he visits Japan soon. We hope that lobbying by neighbouring Asian countries as well as by western nations will contribute to that pressure.
  The continued interest shown by the House reflects the genuine wish of people in Britain to see democracy, freedom and full respect for human rights restored in Burma. We shall continue to make every possible effort to help to bring that about.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Jury Service (Teachers)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications have been received from primary school teachers under taking standard assessment tasks to be exempt from jury service; and how many have been granted in each of the last two years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No statistics are collected on the number of applications for excusal from jury service made, the number of applications granted or the reasons for such applications. However, applications for deferral of jury service or excusal from jury service received from teachers summoned to serve during term time, and particularly during examination periods, are treated sympathetically.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disability
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether people with disabilities will continue to have priority on her Department's main employment and training programmes.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The inclusion of people with disabilities in the Department's aim group has meant, in effect, that they have had priority for a place on a suitable programme. At the same time as we introduce training for work, we are strengthening the priority that people with disabilities will have on these programmes. The effect will be that people with disabilities will have priority for a place not just on one suitable programme but on each one for which they are suitable. This represents a significant enhancement of the priority given at the moment to people with disabilities.

  The programmes for which people with disabilities will have priority for a place from 1 April are: training for work, jobclub, job interview guarantee, work trial and business start-up.

  In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his Budget statement, people with disabilities will be given priority on learning for work and community action.

  Restart
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have taken part in the restart scheme since its inception; of those how many went on to full time employment; and what has been the total cost of operating the scheme since it began.
  106
  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. Gerry Steinberg, dated 30 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 Restart Courses. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Since they were introduced in July 1986 to December 1992, 513,736 people attended Restart Courses at a cost of around £49 million.

  We do not however collect regular information on the numbers of people who subsequently start jobs. However, a recent national survey showed that 9·4 per cent. of the respondents were either in a job or waiting to start one. Many more had, of course, gone on to join another programme such as Jobclub or training.

  Restart Courses are not simply about applying for jobs. Research has shown that many people suffer a loss of confidence and motivation after a long spell of unemployment. The Restart Course, which normally lasts one week, aims to help such people set new and realistic goals for themselves, to feel confident about achieving them and to develop an action plan. This will help them apply for jobs or other employment or training opportunities to help them back to work. Indeed so far this year 90 per cent. of the people who completed courses went on to apply for an employment or other opportunity. Therefore a Restart Course should be seen as a stepping stone, often a very necessary one towards more help.

  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administrative 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 reply in the Library of the House.

  Graduate Unemployment
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information she has on the number of persons with university degrees who have been unemployed for(a) six months, (b) one year and (c) more than one year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest estimates (not seasonally adjusted) from the Labour Force Survey for Great Britain relate to autumn 1992, and show that of those people with a degree or equivalent qualification who were unemployed on the ILO definition, 91,000 had been unemployed less than six months, 28,000 from six to 12 months and 48,000 unemployed for over one year.

  Dismissals (Written Reasons)
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will take steps to ensure that employees can receive written statements of reasons for dismissal after six months of employment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. The two-year qualifying period, in line with that for making a complaint of unfair dismissal, strikes the right balance between the interests of employers and employees.

  Terms and Conditions of Employment
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to ensure that the written statement of terms and conditions received by employees working over eight hours a week includes details about redundancy selection procedures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no such plans.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence her Department has that employers are unilaterally changing their employees' terms and conditions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have received a number of letters to this effect, but employers cannot with impunity breach their contracts of employment with their employees.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to publicise the new right to a written statement of terms and conditions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  When the relevant provisions of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill come into force, the Department will issue a revised booklet, free of charge, explaining the right to receive a written statement of main terms and conditions of employment.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to amend the qualifying period for employees claiming unfair dismissal for(a) full-time workers and (b) part-time workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, currently before Parliament, will enable all employees to complain of unfair dismissal, regardless of their length of service or hours of work, if they are dismissed on maternity-related grounds, or for taking certain types of action on health and safety grounds, or for seeking to enforce a statutory employment protection right.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to amend the law to ensure that employees are protected from unfair dismissal when seeking to enforce a statutory right.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A Government amendment to the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, introducing a new clause which will make it automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service or hours of work, if the reason or the principal reason for the dismissal was that the employee had sought in good faith to enforce a statutory employment protection right, was approved in Committee in another place on 25 March 1993.

  Kilburn Skills
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received from Chief Superintendent David Jarvis of Kilburn and Harlesden police, North London, on the level of funding to Kilburn Skills, a training centre in the London borough of Brent; and if she will make a statement.
  108
  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have received no representations from Chief Superintendent David Jarvis of Kilburn and Harlesden police, on the funding of Kilburn Skills training centre which receives funding from both Brent council and North West London training and enterprise council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is therefore not in a position to make a statement.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will place in the Library a copy of the final version of the 1993–94 TEC operating agreement; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have arranged for a copy of the 1993–94 TEC operating agreement to be placed in the Library. Negotiations between the Department and the large majority of TECs on the 1993–94 contracting arrangements have been completed. We expect the remaining contracts to be signed shortly.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many current applications to industrial tribunals are experiencing a period of delay due to employer's insolvency(a) in the northern region and (b) in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average period of delay experienced by applicants to industrial tribunals in gaining a judgment where the employer concerned is declared insolvent.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the time taken between lodging a complaint and the promulgation of the tribunal decision is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The promulgation of a decision after the hearing would not normally be delayed because of an employer's financial position, and the majority of decisions are promulgated within three to four weeks of the hearing.

  Multinational Enterprises
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made in the EC draft directive on information and consultation in multinational enterprises; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An explanatory memorandum dated 24 March, which describes progress on the proposal to date, has been submitted by this Department to the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation. The proposal is likely to be discussed a number of times under the Danish presidency.

  Part-time Workers
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to increase the employment rights of part-time workers.
  109
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, currently before Parliament, will further increase the already substantial range of statutory employment protection rights, including for part-timers.

  The Bill will give all employees, regardless of their hours of work or length of service, the following new rights:
  a right for pregnant women to take at least la weeks statutory maternity leave;
  comprehensive protection against being unfairly dismissed on maternity-related grounds;
  protection against being unfairly dismissed or otherwise victimised for taking certain specified types of action on health and safety grounds; and
  protection against being unfairly dismissed for having sought in good faith to enforce any statutory employment protection right.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Training Board (Secretary)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 314, what post inspection by his Department took place of the Agricultural Training Board area office secretary based in Builth Wells whose grade changed in November 1988.

  Mr. Curry
  No formal inspection of Agricultural Training Board secretarial posts at Builth Wells was undertaken by MAFF in 1988. Furthermore, we have no record of any grading change affecting a secretarial post at Builth Wells in November 1988.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which professional services within his Department have been subjected to market testing within the last 12 months and with what result; and which will be subjected to market testing within the next 12 months.

  Mr. Curry
  In the past 12 months, within the definition of professional and specialist services given on page 13 of the "Competing for Quality" White Paper, the following professional services have been subjected to market testing: the purchase of books and journals for MAFF libraries; pesticide evaluations; staff training contracts; general recruitment contracts. In all cases, the result has been the award of contracts to the private sector.

  Over the next 12 months, the following professional services will be, or are currently being, market tested: IT systems, services and development; investigation services; staff training services; research and development; work carried out on MAFF's behalf by the laboratory of the Government chemist, the food science laboratory, Norwich and the central science laboratory; central services supplied to MAFF's agencies by MAFF.

  Integrated Administration and Control
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ask the European Commission to delay the implementation of the integrated administration and control system beyond 15 May.

  Mr. Curry
  The 15 May deadline for the lodging of area aid application forms is laid down in Community 110
  legislation. The European Commission insists that there can be no later date in order that detailed checks, including on-farm inspections, can be carried out while crops are still in the ground and before the end of the set-aside period, or in the case of forage areas during the period when the land is normally grazed. There is therefore no prospect of amending legislation to extend the deadline this year.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of badger setts, by country, closed or otherwise, seriously interfered with by or under licence from his Department's officials between 18 January and 15 March.

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue to farmers the documentation needed for them to submit area claims under the CAP reform arrangements.

  Mr. Gummer
  As indicated in my hon. Friend the Minister of State's reply of 29 March to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), at column 47, the documents for the integrated administrative control system will be sent to farmers in England and Wales on 2 April 1993. We held a press conference this morning and met representatives of the industry this afternoon to explain in full the IACS requirements. We shall continue to do what we can to ensure that farmers and their representatives are clear what they have to do to complete their application forms accurately and on time.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Teachers (Jury Service)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the current jury regulations to automatically exempt primary school teachers undertaking standard assessment tasks from jury service.

  Mr. Jack
  I have no such plans. It is, however, open to anyone summoned for jury service to apply for excusal or deferral if they have good reason for doing so.

  Police Training
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to ensure that specific instruction concerning racial incidents is included in police training courses.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The issue of racial attacks is specifically addressed at the specialist support unit for community and race relations training, which has been funded by the Home Office since 1989 and which provides training for force trainers and training managers.

  Trainers who have studied at the unit are used to provide training in community and race relations matters, within forces, as part of probationer training at district

  111
  training centres, and as part of more advanced training at the central planning and training unit and the police staff college.

  The second report of the interdepartmental racial attacks group noted that several forces used outside help, particularly racial equality councils, to contribute to such training, and that the majority of forces have reviewed or initiated race relations policies in relation to racial incidents.

  Prison Education Staff
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications of the recent court ruling that the acquired rights directive does apply to prison education staff from 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The implications of the judgment of Mr. Justice Ogden of 24 March in the case of Kenny and Woodroffe v. South Manchester college are being considered. South Manchester college, which was the defendant to the proceedings, has been granted leave to appeal.

  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is intended for all existing staff employed by the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service to be retained by the successor body; and what is the position over the existing UKIAS offices.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As I announced on 16 March, in columns 170–171, my right hon. and learned Friend has accepted the proposals for a successor body to UKIAS set out in the Malins report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. As indicated in the report, the plans for transferring staff to the successor body will be in line with the provisions of Council directive 77/187 (the acquired rights directive). The planning group envisages that a nationwide service will continue, with offices in the exsisting areas covered by UKIAS.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in hand for the successor body to the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service to advertise and appoint a director and other senior staff.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Members of the planning group established by my right hon. and learned Friend are now taking steps to establish the successor body to the UKIAS, as announced on 16 March at cols. 170–171. The recruitment of a director will be the first priority of the new immigration appeals advisory service.

  Police Discipline Procedures
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will issue his consultation document reviewing police discipline procedures.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am today issuing a paper which examines police discipline procedures in the light of the considerable changes which have been, and are being, made to personnel management in the police service. I believe that the existing procedures, which date from world war 1, fail to meet the requirement of the public for 112
  a swift response to minor failures in what is expected of police officers. The present procedures are also, in many respects, unfair to individual officers and yet, where there have been serious breaches of conduct, can prevent proper action from being taken quickly and sensibly.

  I have invited comments on the paper by 14 May and shall welcome views from everyone with an interest in these issues. I hope that interested parties, particularly the police staff associations and the Police Complaints Authority, will respond quickly so that there may be early and constructive discussion on the way forward.

  Copies of the paper are available to hon. Members in the Library and, as usual, in the Vote Office.

  Immigration
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list changes to the rules for visitors to the United Kingdom from India since 1989;

  (2) what further changes he is considering to the rules for visitors to the United Kingdom from India.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No changes in the immigration rules relating specifically to visitors from India have been made since 1989, and my right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to make any.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 448, how many of the 36 nationals of former Yugoslavia whose applications to extend their visits to the United Kingdom during 1992 were refused have been removed from the United Kingdom; to which countries they were sent; and how many have lodged appeals against refusal to extend their visits;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 March, Official Report, column 448, how many of the 134 nationals of former Yugoslavia whose applications for extension of stay in the United Kingdom in 1992 were refused; how many were (a) students, (b) au pairs and (c) spouses; how many in each category have been removed from the United Kingdom; to which countries they were sent; and how many have lodged appeals against refusal to extend their stay.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: Information in respect of the refusals referred to is given in the table.

  Refusals1 of applications for extension of stay by nationals of the former Yugoslavia, by certain categories: 1992

  Number

  Student

  34

  Au pair

  13

  Spouse2

  20

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 For probationary year.

  Information about appeals against refusals of applications for extensions, and about removals after refusal is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, no national of the former Yugoslavia removed from the United Kingdom is being removed to a war zone.

  Pornography
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to amend the obscenity laws so as to include a definition of pornography.

  Mr. Jack
  No. The term "pornography" has no legal significance, but the Obscene Publications Act 1959 already allows the courts to determine matters related to obscenity and pornography. Like our predecessors, the Government believe that any change in the definition of obscenity would be a matter of conscience for individual Members of Parliament and not a subject for Government legislation. However, as our record shows, the Government are prepared to offer their assistance and support to individual Members who have proposals for reform, provided that these appear to us to be workable, an improvement on the existing law and likely to command sufficient support in the House.

  As I said in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on 5 February at column 350, we are currently considering what improvements can be made in the enforcement of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and 1964, and other legislation relating to obscenity.

  Wolds and Lindholme Prisons
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total cost per week of keeping a man in(a) HM prison Wolds and (b) HM prison Lindholme.

  Mr. Jack
  The average weekly cost of keeping a person in Wolds remand prison from April 1992, when the prison opened, until December 1992 was £626. Available figures for Lindholme prison, a category C training prison with dormitory accommodation, for the year ending March 1992, show that the average net operating cost per inmate per week was £336. This comparison is misleading, since unit costs are higher in the period during which a prison opens and is 'filling with prisoners, as Wolds was doing in 1992.

  Offensive Weapons
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he proposes to reduce the carrying and use of knives and guns in the Greater Manchester area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no power to intervene in operational matters. I understand from the chief constable of the Greater Manchester police that he has set up a new unit specifically to deal with major armed crime. The force held an amnesty for offensive weapons last year.

  Strip Searching
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what security risks necessitate the use of strip searching in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A person detained in police custody may be required to undergo a strip search only if 114
  the custody officer considers it to be necessary to remove an article which, under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, he would not be allowed to keep. This includes any item which the person might use to cause physical injury to himself or anyone else, to damage property, to interfere with evidence or to assist him to escape.

  Prison officers in England and Wales may strip-search prisoners as a routine security measure for the purpose of detecting concealed weapons, drugs, explosives and other unauthorised items.

  Officers of HM Customs and Excise have powers to strip-search a person in a prescribed area if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he is carrying an article with respect to the importation or exportation of which any prohibition or restriction is in force. Suspected possession of weapons or explosives is covered by this category.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the rights of citizens to refuse to submit to official strip searching in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A person in police detention has no right to refuse to submit to a strip search if one is authorised by the custody officer. Where consent is withheld, such searches may be conducted by the use of reasonable force.

  Strip searching in prisons is considered to be an important feature of routine security checks, and is not subject to the consent of prisoners.

  A person who is required to submit to a search by an officer of HM Customs and Excise under section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 may appeal to a magistrate, or to the superior of the officer concerned.

  A person who is not exempt from control under the Immigration Act 1971 and who is seeking admission to the United Kingdom has no right to refuse to submit to a search of their baggage or person for documents by an immigration officer exercising powers under the Act. The power to search the person for documents is used sparingly and only where the circumstances justify it.

  Political Donations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation preventing privatised public utilities from making financial donations to political parties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have no plans to do so.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each of the last five years, the duration, value and nature of contracts awarded by his Department to Arthur Andersen, Andersen Consulting, KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock, Touche Ross, Ernst and Young and Price Waterhouse.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Details of the contracts awarded by the Home Office during the last five years to the specified companies, are as follows:
  115

  Consultant

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total value £

  Arthur Andersen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Andersen Consulting

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Review of prison laundries (4 months)

  Training needs in Emergency Planning Department (6 months)

  Review of charging procedures (1 month)

  Review of organisation of PNCO (4 months)

  Market testing scoping study (ongoing)1

  366,465

  IND Relocation Study (1 year)

  Crime audit of Nottingham City Council (5 months)

  Touche Ross

  Dtels management accounting system (12 months)

  Passport Agency study (2 months)

  Review of catering service at Fire Service College (3 months)

  Survey into motivation amongst police constables (3 months)

  Immigration Service survey of staff attitudes (5 months)

  922,399

  PNC project support office (1 month)

  Study into effective shift systems for the Police Service (3 months)

  Review of shift working patterns in the Immigration Service (3 months)

  Statistics Department strategy study (3 months)

  Contracting out of Prison Service catering (10 months)

  Radio Spectrum sizing study (6 months)

  Feasibility study for replacement MIS (3 months) preparation

  Emergency Planning Department message handling system (2 weeks)

  Preparation of model agreements (2 months)

  ED5 asset valuation (2 weeks)

  Study of Accountancy requirements (6 weeks)

  Ernst and Young

  Revision of Operational requirement (2 months)

  Privatisation of the IBA Terrestrial Transmission Service (1 year)

  Consultancy assistance in ensuring VFM from the court escort service (1 month)

  Market testing scoping study (ongoing)1

  1,494,807

  Provision of support for marketing and sales activity (Arthur Young prior to Amalgamation) (3 years)

  Validation of IT Strategy (3 months)

  Firearms Licensing Costs (1 month)

  Police roles and responsibilities (4 months)

  Services of temporary marketing manager (Arthur Young) prior to Amalgamation (9 months)

  Court escort area service (2 months)

  Artificial intelligence feasibility study (2 months)

  ICL domain review (2 months)

  PROMIS/SPITS strategy study (3 months)

  Price Waterhouse

  Preliminary financial advice in privatisation of the IBA (2 months)

  Advice on merits of computer programme (1 week)

  Marketing strategy for Prison Service clothing and texture group (3 months)

  Market testing consultancy support (6 months)

  1,330,913

  116 117

  Consultant

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total value £

  Transmission Service (10 months)

  Study into television licence fee (1 month)

  Marketing survey (3 months)

  Provision of financial advice on the privatisation of the IBA transmission service (10 months)

  Police activity sampling a pilot study (4 months)

  1 Where a fixed price contract has not been completed, duration is described as "on-going".

  Prison Service Union
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on his policy concerning recognition of the Prison Service Union; and what progress has been made in granting recognition.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The director general of the prison service met representatives of the Prison Service Union on 2 March for a wide-ranging discussion on prison matters. He said at that meeting that their request for recognition was being considered, but that the issues were such that an early decision was unlikely.

  Convictions
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of recorded crime in Cornwall and Devon has led to successful convictions in each of the last five years for which there are figures; what were the average figures for England and for the United Kingdom for the same years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proportion of crimes led to successful convictions in each of the last five years for which figures are available for each county; what was the average figure (a) for England, (b) for Wales and (c) the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

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

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answers 1 and 2 March 1993]: The information is not available. Information on recorded offences and court proceedings is compiled on different bases and a measure that combines the two therefore cannot be prepared. Figures for crimes cleared up by means of charge or summons were given in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) on 4 February at columns 291–92.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of Zimbabwe concerning the proposed treaty on drought and desertification.
  118
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how he proposes to respond to the UN Secretary General's appeal for humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government will make an immediate pledge of £7·5 million. This sum will be allocated as follows:£3 million for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to support its programme of assistance to returning refugees from Pakistan and Iran;
  £1 million for the International Committee of the Red Cross;
  £1 million for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan, for mine clearance;
  £1·6 million to respond to requests from nongovernmental organisations involved in relief, rehabilitation and development work;
  £0·9 million food aid contribution through the World Food Programme.

  This pledge is in addition to over £80 million of humanitarian aid provided by Britain for Afghanistan since 1980, of which £7·55 million has been disbursed in 1992–93 in response to an earlier UN appeal.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  Mr. Key
  The numbers and percentages of women in the Department of National Heritage and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are as follows:

  Grade

  Number of Staff

  Number of Women

  Percentage of Women

  1A

  1

  0

  0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  1

  25

  4

  1

  0

  0

  5

  19

  7

  37

  6

  8

  3

  38

  7

  52

  9

  17

  We are able to identify the number of women amongst our staff from our basic staff records. As a new

  119
  Department, we will not, until 1 April 1993, have complete personnel records or a personnel database covering all our staff. It is our intention to carry out an ethnic origin survey and disability survey as soon as possible after that date.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps are currently taken by his Department to monitor the effectiveness of the equal opportunities provision within the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Mr. Brooke
  Channel 3 and Channel 4 licences include conditions on equal opportunities for employment. The Independent Television Commission is responsible for monitoring licence conditions.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people respectively, in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Key
  Recruits to the senior grades of the Department of National Heritage, as to any grade in the civil service, are selected on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the Civil Service Order in Council 1991 applies. Various steps have been taken by the civil service commissioners to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community including: extending links with institutions of higher education; equal opportunities training for those involved in selection; using validated selection procedures.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when his Department last conducted surveys of(a) the ethnic origins and (b) women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  For women, there is no need for particular surveys, as the sex of employees is identified in our basic staff records. As a new Department, we will not, until 1 April 1993, have personnel records or a personnel database covering all our staff, and it is our intention to carry out an ethnic origin survey as soon as possible after that date.

  Royal Armouries Museum
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to attract private sector funding for the proposed move of the royal armouries museum to Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department is contributing £20 million to the project, and further contributions are being made by Leeds development corporation and Leeds city council. Merchant bankers acting for the armouries have now circulated a briefing memorandum to potential investors, who will be invited to contribute the rest of the estimated cost of £42 million. The Government fully support this important project, which will bring significant benefits to Leeds.

  Albert Memorial
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the condition of the fabric of the Albert memorial; and what plans he has to restore and conserve it.
  120
  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: A condition survey carried out in 1991 identified the need for considerable repairs to the ironwork, leadwork, stone-work, decorative tiling, statues and mosaics. A restoration scheme has therefore been prepared which addresses all these matters. The estimated cost of restoration is over £10 million. In view of the many demands on public resources at a time of very tight public expenditure control, I have had to postpone a start on this project. However, the Government remain committed to a worthy restoration of the Albert memorial. In the meantime, the protection and safety of the memorial is being assured.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Figures for the Diplomatic wing are:(a) Women:

  Grade

  Total staff

  Number of women in grade

  Women as a percentage of total in grade

  1

  7

  149

  —

  5

  —

  3·4

  2

  33

  1

  3·0

  3

  109

  4

  3·7

  4

  1

  —

  —

  5

  303

  13

  4·3

  6

  91

  6

  6·6

  7

  492

  74

  15·0

  Overall

  6,400

  2,265

  35·4

  (b) Ethnic minorities:

  Grade

  Total staff

  Staff who have declared themselves to be of ethnic minority origin

  Number

  As a percentage of total in grade1

  1

  7

  149

  —

  —

  2

  33

  —

  —

  3

  109

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  5

  303

  —

  —

  6

  91

  —

  —

  7

  492

  4

  0·8

  Overall

  6,400

  170

  2·7

  1 Response rate in voluntary ethnic survey: 89 per cent.

  (c) The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Diplomatic Wing) employs no registered disabled staff in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 or 7. One officer at grade 5 is registered disabled (0·3 per cent. of the grade). Overall 26 staff (0·4 per cent. of the workforce) are registered disabled.

  Figures for the aid wing are:

  (a) Women

  Total staff

  Women

  Per cent.

  Grades 1–3

  12

  0

  (0)

  Grade 5

  51

  8

  (15·6)

  Grade 6

  87

  11

  (12·6)

  Grade 7

  249

  40

  (16)

  Overall

  1,932

  830

  (43)

  121
  These figures include the Natural Resources Institute.

  (b) Ethnic minorities

  Total respondents

  Ethnic minority staff

  Per cent.

  Grades 1–3

  10

  0

  (0)

  Grade 5

  42

  1

  (2·4)

  Grade 6

  51

  1

  (2·0)

  Grade 7

  128

  1

  (0·8)

  Overall

  1.297

  106

  (8·2)

  These figures exclude the Natural Resources Institute.

  Disabled Staff

  (c) No staff in grades 1 to 7 are disabled.

  Overall 26 staff are disabled (1·34 per cent.) These figures include the Natural Resources Institute.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people respectively, in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Recruits to the senior grades, as to any grade in the civil service, are selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the Civil Service and Diplomatic Service Order in Council 1991 applies. Various steps have been taken by the civil service commissioners to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community, including: extending links with institutions of higher education; equal opportunities training for those involved in selection; using validated selection procedures.

  All recruitment advertising and literature makes clear that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is an equal opportunities employer. This message is underlined at the numerous careers events across the country at which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is represented. The diplomatic wing has set up a cadre of volunteers from amongst its staff of ethnic minority origin to represent the Department at such events. Its recruitment brochure for the fast stream of the diplomatic service includes a positive action message for women.

  In the aid wing, job advertisements for all vacancies for senior positions carry a statement confirming that the Overseas Development Administration is an equal opportunities employer. By the application of published criteria, the aid wing ensures that all suitably qualified candidates are considered objectively for appointment.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department last conducted surveys of(a) the ethnic origins and (b) women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office conducted their original surveys of ethnic origins in 1986. They have been continuously updated since then. The aid wing's agency, the Natural Resources Institute, is undertaking a major exercise to update its database. The gender of employees is identified in staff records. Statistics are updated at regular intervals.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the implications for the availability of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements of the agreements on subsidiarity reached at the Edinburgh summit.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Commission has not tabled proposals specifically aimed at controlling dietary supplements. Any such proposals would need to be judged against the subsidiarity criteria in the normal manner.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the European Commission has yet completed the review of its work programme commenced as a result of the agreements on subsidiarity reached at the Edinburgh summit; and what information he has about the possible inclusion within that programme of the production of a directive on dietary supplements.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No; work continues. Dietary supplements was not an area specified in the Commission's initial subsidiarity review. It is not clear whether or not the Commission intends to pursue an initiative on dietary supplements.

  North Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he possesses regarding the status of the Yongbyong nuclear facility in North Korea.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have conducted six inspections at the Yongbyon nuclear facility. They have since asked to inspect two further undeclared sites in Yongbyon, which the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea have refused, in breach of their safeguards agreement with the agency.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Indonesia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom maintains friendly and constructive relations with Indonesia. We are contributing substantially to Indonesia's development in key industrial sectors, and the opportunities for British business are enormous. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is looking forward to his visit there later this week.

  Pakistan (Chieftain Tanks)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of India concerning the sale of Chieftain tanks to Pakistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There have been no representations to us by the Government of India about the possibility of the sale of Chieftain tanks to Pakistan.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if pensions earned by retired members of the Hong Kong Government now living outside Hong Kong are paid in Hong Kong dollars or in the local currency.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Hong Kong Government pensions are payable in Hong Kong dollars, irrespective of where the recipients reside. In the case of United Kingdom officers who have retired in the United Kingdom, they may be paid in pounds sterling by the Crown Agents at the prevailing rate of exchange.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agreement has been reached with the Chinese Government regarding the payment of pensions to retired civil servants of the Hong Kong Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We reached the following agreement with the Chinese Government in the Sino-British Joint declaration of 1984:"The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government shall pay to such persons (public servants) who retire or complete their contracts, as well as to those who have retired before 1 July 1997, or to their dependants, all pensions, gratuities, allowances and benefits due to them on terms no less favourable than before, and irrespective of their nationality or place of residence."

  This provision is repeated in the Basic Law, the Chinese constitution for Hong Kong after 1997.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of pension arrangements of Hong Kong retired civil servants who now live outside the colony.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Hong Kong Government pensioners, wherever they reside, have the option of having their pensions paid directly by the Hong Kong Government or the Crown Agents in the United Kingdom. As far as we are aware, both methods of payments have proved to be satisfactory.

  Commercial Attachés
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many commercial attaches are currently serving in British embassies and high commissions overseas; in what countries; and how many had worked in industry before their appointment to the diplomatic service.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Porter) on 10 March at column 602. Commercial work is part of the responsibility of all our bilateral ambassadors and high commissioners and all our senior diplomats overseas have an understanding of the importance of commercial diplomacy and trade promotion.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from which articles, their paragraphs or their parts, Denmark is excluded from the obligations contained in title V of the treaty on European union, quoting in each instance the relevant parts of the Edinburgh decision and related treaty article.
  124
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The decision on Denmark agreed at Edinburgh clarified, although it does not alter, either the text of the treaty on European union, or the obligations taken on by those who ratify the treaty. That applies to title V of the treaty as it does to other provisions. At Edinburgh, Heads of Government noted that Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the union which have defence implications.

  EC Economic and Social Committee
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the members of the United Kingdom delegation to the European Community Economic and Social Committee.

  Mr. Garel-Jones

  Mr. Neville Beale

  Mr. Michael Bell

  Mr. John Little

  Mr. Kenneth Gardner.

  Dr. Felix Kafka

  Mr. Michael Mobbs

  Dr. Ann Robinson

  Mr. John Whitworth

  Mr. Campbell Christie

  Mr. Peter Dawson

  Mr. Tom Jenkins

  Mr. John Lyons

  Miss Ada Maddocks

  Mr. William Morris

  Mr. Roy Sanderson

  Mr. Alexander Smith

  Mr. Wilfred Aspinall

  Mrs. Jocelyn Barrow

  Professor William Black

  Mrs. Angela Guillaume

  Mr. Robert Moreland

  Mr. Michael Strauss

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. David Clark (South Shields)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy regarding the acquisition of information on possible breaches of international conventions or treaties relating to the conduct of hostilities in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is collecting substantiated information about violations of international humanitarian law which will be submitted to the UN commission of experts.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts relating to the acquisition of information on possible breaches of international conventions or treaties relating to the conduct of hostilities in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. However, the issue has been discussed with EC partners at regular intervals.

  South Africa
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what grants or donations the Foreign Office has given to the South African Rugby Football Union in the last five years.
  125
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  To mark the unification of the bodies that had previously controlled rugby union in South Africa, the British embassy in Cape Town donated 125,000 rand to the South African Rugby Football Union's township development programme in April 1992. A similar amount had previously been donated to mark the unification of the bodies controlling cricket in South Africa.

  Number of the Case

  Name of the Case

  White Paper reference! Law Report (if available)

  A. Magistrates Courts 9 references.

  C 118/88

  Suffolk Coastal District Council v. Nottcutts Garden Centres Ltd.

  Cm. 467

  C 134/88

  Solicitor for Mansfield District Council v. Payless DIY Ltd.

  Cm. 467

  C 145/88

  Torfaen Borough Council v. B & Q plc

  Cm. 1023/ (1989) ECR 3851

  C 166/88

  The City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v. B & Q plc

  Cm. 467

  C 195/88

  Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council v. B & Q plc

  Cm. 641

  C 232/88

  Derry City Council v. Hampden Homecare plc

  Cm. 641

  C 291/88

  Torfaen Borough Council v. Texas Homecare Ltd.

  Cm. 801

  C 304/90

  Reading Borough Council v. Payless DIY Ltd. and Others

  White Paper not yet published

  C 116/91

  Licensing Authority South Eastern Traffic Area v. British Gas plc

  Cm. 2065/ (1992) 3 CMLR 65

  B. Crown Court 4 references.

  C 23/89

  Quietlynn Limited v. Southend Borough Council

  Cm. 801/ (1990) ECR 3059

  C38/90

  R. v. Thomas Edward Lomas

  Cm. 1234/ (1992) 2 CMLR 653

  C 151/90

  R. v. Fletcher Prichard and North Riding Lamb Limited

  Cm. 2065

  C 116/92

  Huyton Wilson and Charlton v. Crown Prosecution Service

  White Paper not yet published

  C. High Court 22 references.

  C 126/88

  The Boots Company plc v. Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise

  Cm. 1234

  C 174/88

  R. v. Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal ex parte Hall and Sons (Dairy Farmers) Ltd.

  Cm. 1234

  C 306/88

  Rochdale Borough Council v. Anders

  Cm. 2065

  C 331/88

  R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Secretary of State for Health ex parte FEDESA

  Cm. 1457/ (1990) ECR 4023

  C 372/88

  MMB v. Cricket St. Thomas Estate

  Cm. 1234/ (1990) 2 CMLR 800

  C 71/89 and C 72/89

  R. v. IBAP ex parte BEOCO and Others

  Cm. 1457

  C 221/89

  R. v. Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd. and Others

  Cm. 1857/ (1991) 3 CMLR 589

  C 292/89

  R. v. IAT ex parte Antonissen

  Cm. 1657/ (1991) 2 CMLR 373

  C 350/89

  Sheptonhurst Ltd. v. Newham London Borough Council

  Cm. 1657/ (1991) 3 CMLR 463

  C 84/90

  R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte J. J. Dent and another

  Cm. 2065/ (1992) 2 CMLR 597

  C 243/90

  R. v. Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte Smithson

  Cm. 2065/ (1992) 1 CMLR 1061

  C 370/90

  R. v. IAT (1) and Surinder Singh (2) ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department

  White Paper not yet published

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  European Court of Justice
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 650, if he will list the rulings sought by courts as provided in article 177 of the treaty of Rome and the decision given by the court in each case.

  The Attorney-General
  Details of the cases referred to the European Court of Justice under article 177 by each of the named courts in the last five years are set out in the table.
  127

  Number of the Case

  Name of the Case

  White Paper reference/ Law Report (if available)

  C9/91

  R. v. Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte EOC

  Cm. 2065

  C 200/91

  Coloroll Pension Trustees Ltd. v. J. R. Russell and Others

  Cm. 2065

  C 321/91

  R. v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce ex parte Tara Meat Packers Ltd.

  Cm. 2065

  C2/92

  R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Cm. 2065

  C 11/92

  R. v. Secretary of State for Health ex parte Gallaher Ltd. and Others

  Cm. 2065

  C 124/92

  An Board Bainne Co-Operative Ltd. and Another v. IBAP

  White Paper not yet published

  C 128/92

  H. J. Banks and Co. Ltd. v. British Coal Corporation

  C 275/92

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v. Gerhart and Jorg Schindler

  White Paper not yet published

  C 432/92

  R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte S. P. Anastasious Ltd. and Others

  D. Court of Appeal 10 references

  C 262/88

  Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange

  Cm. 1234/ (1990) 2 CMLR 513

  C 301/88

  R. v. IBAP ex parte Fish Producers Organisation

  Cm. 1457/ (1990) ECR 3803

  C 15/90

  D. M. Middleburgh v. Chief Adjudication Officer

  Cm. 1857/ (1992) 1 CMLR

  C 1991/90

  Generics (UK) Ltd. and Another v. Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd.

  White Paper not yet published

  C 63/91

  Sonia Jackson v. Chief Adjudication Officer

  White Paper not yet published

  C 64/91

  Patricia Cresswell v. Chief Adjudication Officer

  White Paper not yet published

  C 127/92

  Dr. Enderby v. Frenchay Health Authority (1) and Secretary of State for Health (2)

  White Paper not yet published

  C 132/92

  Mrs. F. M. Roberts v. Birds Eye Walls Ltd.

  White Paper not yet published

  C 406/92

  The Owners of Cargo lately laden on board the ship "Tatry" v. The Owners of the Ship "Maciej Rataj"

  C 410/92

  Elsie Rita Johnson v. Chief Adjudication Officer

  E. House of Lords 5 references

  C 188/89

  Foster and Others v. British Gas plc

  Cm. 1457/ (1990) ECR 3313

  C 213/89

  R. v. Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Limited and Others

  Cm. 1234

  C 169/91

  Stoke and Norwich City Councils v. B & Q plc

  Cm. 1857

  C 271/91

  Her Majesty's Marshall v. Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority

  Cm. 1857

  C 328/91

  R. v. Secretary of State for Social Security ex parte Thomas and Others

  Cm. 2065

  Mr. Ghazanfer Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 34, what information he has received about the outcome of court proceedings in Pakistan concerning Mr. Ghazanfer Ali.

  The Prime Minister
  The two murder charges facing Mr. Ghanzanfer Ali were heard on 13 and 14 March. Both cases were adjourned until 8 and 12 April. We shall continue to watch developments.

  World Forestry Organisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representation he has had from Professor Ingvar Carlsson, former Prime Minister of Sweden, on the establishment of a world forestry organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None. Ambassador Ola Ullsten announced at the recent global forestry conference in Indonesia an initiative to establish a world commission on forestry and sustainable development. The Ministers concerned know of the initiative and expect to receive more information about it shortly.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people respectively in top grades of employment at the Cabinet Office.

  The Prime Minister
  Recruits to the senior grades, as to any grade in the civil service, are selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the Civil Service Order in Council 1991 applies. Various steps have been taken by the civil service commissioners to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community, including: extending links with institutions of higher education; equal opportunities training for all those involved in selection; using validated section procedures.

  The Cabinet office, which has signed up domestically to Opportunity 2000, is working towards achieving the civil service-wide benchmark of increasing the proportion of women in the top three grades to 15 per cent. or more by the year 2000. The Department continually seeks to encourage the employment of people from the enthnic minorities and those with disabilities.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Cabinet Office last conducted surveys of(a) ethnic origins and (b) the number women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A survey of the ethnic origins of all non-industrial civil servants was completed in 1988. The Cabinet Office introduced a computerised personnel database in 1991. All staff were given the opportunity to update their own entries, which include sections on ethnic origins. All new staff are given the opportunity to complete an ethnic monitoring questionnaire. There are no firm plans to conduct further surveys. The sex of employees is identified in staff records.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements; for Tuesday 30 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 March.

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

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses and flats have been built by housing associations in the London borough of Ealing, what were the associations concerned, the locations and the cost at 1993 prices in each of the past 10 years; how many future such developments are planned and at what locations and cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department does not keep the detailed records which would allow me to answer this question. I have referred it to the Housing Corporation and asked it to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities in England which are debt free.

  Mr. Squire
  Returns to the Department indicate that the following local authorities are debt-free for the purposes of the capital control system. The list shows authorities which had no money outstanding by way of longer-term borrowing at 31 December 1992, and a nil or negative credit ceiling at 31 March 1992.

  Bedford

  Bracknell Forest

  Broadland

  Chiltern

  Christchurch

  City of London

  Dorset

  Mid Sussex

  Ryedale

  St. Edmundsbury

  Sevenoaks

  South Bucks

  Swale

  Tunbridge Wells

  West Sussex

  Avon and Somerset Police Authority

  Devon and Cornwall Policy Authority

  Peak Park Planning Board

  Unitary Development Plans
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for which local authorities in London and the south-east of England unitary development plans(a) have been completed, (b) have not been completed, (c) are currently out to consultation and (d) are currently subject to public inquiry; and in respect of which plans he has issued his report.

  Mr. Baldry
  The London borough of Barnet adopted its unitary development plan in November 1991, and the London borough of Havering is due to adopt its UDP on 31 March 1993. All other London boroughs are currently preparing UDPs. Outside London, district authorities in the south-east of England do not prepare UDPs, but are required to prepare district-wide local plans.

  UDPs for the London boroughs of Hillingdon, Newham, Camden and Croydon are at consultation stage; those for the London boroughs of Barking, Merton, Brent, Bexley, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Haringey and Lewisham are on deposit for public inspection.

  The London boroughs of Hounslow, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Richmond and Kingston are currently holding public inquiries into objections to their UDPs; the following London boroughs have completed their public inquiries: Islington, Redbridge, Sutton, Enfield, Southwark, Bromley, Greenwich, the City of London, Waltham Forest, the City of Westminster, Harrow, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hackney and Ealing.

  Following a public inquiry, the inspector makes his recommendations direct to the local authority. The Secretary of State does not issue reports in respect of development plans.

  Council Tax
  Mr Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the amounts of council tax transitional relief granted to each(a) London borough, (b) other metropolitan boroughs and (c) other local authorities in England; and what is the amount of transitional relief as a percentage of the total transitional relief granted.

  Mr. Squire
  Authorities have been invited to submit claims for council tax transitional reduction scheme grant for 1993–94. We have no estimates of the amount of each authority's grant entitlement.

  Birds
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Joint Nature Conservancy Council inventory of marine sites of importance to birds to be produced.

  Mr. Maclean
  At present the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has no plans to produce such an inventory. The former Nature Conservancy Council published survey results of the most important areas for seabirds in the North sea and west of Britain, in 1987 and 1990 respectively. The JNCC's remaining survey work in the English channel and south-west approaches is about to be completed.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to safeguard the wider coastal and marine environment under the EC habitats and species directive.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's proposals for implementing the EC habitats and species directive will be issued in due course.

  Coastal Zones
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken by his officials to pursue the proposed EC directive on coastal zone planning and management.

  Mr. Maclean
  At present, the Commission has not published a proposed directive on coastal zone planning. The Government will take an active part in seeking to ensure that any proposals that come forward are workable and effective.

  Rented Property
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation that requires landlords to ensure regular servicing of appliances fitted within their properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990 require managers of houses in multiple occupation to observe proper standards of management and to keep existing facilities in good repair. These facilities include gas and electric appliances, and sanitary and cooking facilities. Failure to comply with the regulations is a criminal offence.

  Private landlords also have certain statutory obliga-tions to carry out repairs and maintenance under the
  132
  Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. These include ensuring that the installations for the supply of gas and electricity and for space and water heating are kept in proper working order.

  Homelessness
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory responsibility local authorities have to offer homeless families a choice in the type of temporary accommodation they are offered.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities have no statutory responsibility to offer a choice of temporary accommodation; this is a matter for their discretion in the light of local circumstances.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision he is making for the homeless people about to be evicted from the cold weather shelters; and how many beds are currently provided by those shelters.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the Government's £96 million rough sleepers initiative, we have provided funding of £1·5 million for this year's winter shelter programme, which at its height provided 400 extra bedspaces in nine winter shelters in central London. The purpose of the winter shelter programme was only to provide shelter for people in central London who would otherwise sleep rough over the winter months. The shelters will close at the end of March.

  Currently, around 170 of the 400 places are still in use; over 50 of these people have accepted offers of other accommodation, and the voluntary organisations running the shelters are continuing to help find alternative accommodation for those that remain. In doing so, they will be assisted by two new hostels funded under the RSI which opened this month, and which will provide a further 100 bed spaces; by vacancies in other London hostels; and by an estimated 100 units of permanent accommodation provided under the RSI becoming available in the last two weeks of March.

  East Thames Corridor
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total public funding being committed to his plans to encourage development on the east Thames corridor.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's preferred approach to the east Thames corridor is to put in place a planning framework which will seek to maximise the development benefits of public investment in infrastructure and urban regeneration over the next 20 years. It is not possible to estimate the total of public expenditure in the area over that period.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what effect the census validation survey has on the distribution of the standard spending assessments of population estimates for local authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on the level of grant through the standard spending assessment

  133
  formula population estimates to metropolitan district authorities of the under-enumeration formulas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Squire
  The effect of the census validation survey has been to ensure that the mid-1991 population figures produced by the registrar general for use in the calculation of standard spending assessments are as accurate as possible.

  We have looked most carefully at the mid-1991 population figures based on the 1991 census results, given their implications for standard spending assessments and revenue support grant entitlements. We are satisfied that the methods the registrar general has employed to produce these estimates, particularly in relation to the allocation of census under-enumeration, are the most appropriate in the circumstances and do not disadvantage metropolitan or any other class of authorities.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to adjust the standard spending assessments population estimates for Leeds and Wakefield because of the under-enumeration following the OPCS survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Squire
  The provisional mid-1991 population figures used in the calculation of the 1993–94 standard spending assessments already include allowances for the under-enumeration identified from the OPCS census validation survey.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he uses to allocate under-enumerations of population to local authorities for standard spending assessment purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Squire
  It is the registrar general who is responsible for preparing the population figures used in the calculation of standard spending assessments, including the formulation of criteria for allocating estimates of under-enumeration to local authority areas. He has set out the methods used to compile his figures in the OPCS monitor PP1 92/1, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Landfill
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the preliminary study prepared by Cooper and Lybrand on the subject of a levy on landfills and licensed rubbish dumps.

  Mr. Maclean
  A copy of the report "Landfill Costs and Prices: Correcting Possible Market Distortions" by Coopers and Lybrand was placed in the Library of the House on 9 February 1993.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources will be made available for the urban programme in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Squire
  I am pleased to announce a substantial urban programme funding package for 1993–94. Allocations to the 57 urban programme authorities in 134
  England for 1993–94 total £163 million. These resources will fund projects which have been approved in this and previous financial years. The allocations are set out in the table.

  An additional £20 million is being provided for urban partnership fund projects as part of the new capital partnership programme. Successful project bids under this initiative were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend, on 12 February 1993 [Official Report columns 834–35]. Together with the £232 million being made available for city challenge, resources will rise by £90 million to £408 million in 1993–94.

  Urban programme allocation 1993–94

  £ million

  Newcastle

  5·340

  Gateshead

  5·272

  Hartlepool

  1·309

  Langbaurgh

  1·331

  Middlesbrough

  3·325

  North Tyneside

  2·231

  South Tyneside

  3·158

  Stockton

  1·280

  Sunderland

  3·317

  Manchester

  9·048

  Salford

  4·529

  Blackburn

  2·115

  Bolton

  2·253

  Burnley

  1·396

  Oldham

  2·554

  Preston

  1·210

  Rochdale

  2·475

  Wigan

  1·704

  Liverpool

  12·364

  Halton

  0·968

  Knowsley

  2·615

  St. Helens

  1·185

  Sefton

  1·000

  Wirral

  2·340

  Birmingham

  14·847

  Coventry

  3·065

  Dudley

  1·030

  Sandwell

  3·148

  Walsall

  1·051

  Wolverhampton

  3·522

  The Wrekin

  0·6342

  Derby

  0·837

  Leicester

  3·143

  Nottingham

  3·530

  Barnsley

  1·342

  Bradford

  3·002

  Doncaster

  1·288

  Hull

  3·265

  Kirklees

  0·724

  Leeds

  3·473

  Rotherham

  1·486

  Sheffield

  3·940

  Hackney

  3·425

  Islington

  5·873

  Lambeth

  5·863

  Brent

  1·436

  Greenwich

  1·112

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1·707

  Haringey

  2·012

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·202

  Lewisham

  1·530

  Newham

  1·974

  Southwark

  1·826

  Tower Hamlets

  3·083

  Wandsworth

  2·110

  135

  £ million

  Bristol

  1·109

  Plymouth

  0·925

  Total

  162·834

  Greater London Council
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bodies, elected or appointed institutions or other groups now administer the responsibilities previously discharged under the auspices of the Greater London council; and if he will list the function of each.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: The responsibilities of the Greater London council were transferred to a number of existing or new successor authorities on 1 April 1986. The London residuary body issued in 1987 a booklet entitled "London Now" summarising in general terms which services and duties went to which authorities. I have arranged for a copy of the booklet to be deposited in the Library. On 1 April 1990 each inner London council became the local education authority for its area on abolition of the Inner London education authority. Functions inherited by the LRB as a consequence of the abolition of the GLC and of the ILEA and subsequently disposed of by them are reported in the LRB's annual reports which are laid before Parliament, copies of which are in the Library.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many agreements have so far been entered into under the hedgerow incentive scheme; what is the total length of hedgerow involved and the amount of money involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 March 1992]: As at 26 March 1993, 481 agreements had been made under the scheme since it was launched in July 1992, as a result of which some 640 km of hedgerow will be restored over the next five years. I will write to the hon. Member with regard to the anticipated cost of these works.

  Palm House, Sefton Park
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment when he will meet members of the action committee to save the palm house in Sefton park; what funds are available for the continued refurbishment of the palm house; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: The hon. Member will remember, that I wrote to him in November of last year, agreeing to meet with himself, Liverpool city council and members of the save the palm house committee. Since then, an urban programme grant has been approved in January 1993 and has secured the safety of the palm house structure and provided Liverpool city council with an opportunity to explore further options for the long-term future of the building and its environs.

  With this in mind, the city council's planning and development services department has proposals to establish a joint council/voluntary sector action committee
  136
  of its own. However, this is at a preliminary stage and subject to approval by the city council. Once this is formalised, a meeting can then be arranged.

  Toxic Waste Imports
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will consider holding an inquiry into the commercial trade in toxic waste with particular reference to trade between Germany and the United Kingdom;

  (2) what representations he is making to the European Commission regarding the import of toxic waste going from Germany to the ReChem plant in Pontypool;

  (3) if he will consider preventing the import of toxic waste from Germany to the ReChem plant at Pontypool;

  (4) what ports in the United Kingdom will handle the proposed imports of toxic waste from Germany destined for the ReChem plant in Pontypool.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: I see no need for such an inquiry. The UK Government have asked the German Government to ban the proposed shipment of hazardous waste from Hamburg. The UK's policy of self-sufficiency in final disposal for developed countries has been incorporated into the EC waste shipments regulation coming into operation in May 1994. I understand that the proposed shipment would be handled at Hull.

WALES

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what statutory provisions governs the responsibility of the Welsh Development Agency in respect of the conservation of flora, fauna, landscape and physiographical features.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The agency is subject to the same provisions as apply to other public bodies.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) which members of the Welsh Development Agency since 1975 were appointed because of their experience of and capacity in matters relating to the environment;

  (2) if he will list the existing members of the Welsh Development Agency showing which have experience of, and have shown capacity in, industry, commerce, banking, accountancy, finance, the organisation of representation of workers, administration, local government and matters relating to the environment respectively.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Appointments to the board of the agency are made on the basis of an individual's overall experience and expertise and having regard to the terms of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. Such appointments are rarely dependent on a single attribute.

  Each of the current members of the board brings a wide range of skills and expertise to the agency. Current membership is as follows:

  Dr. Gwyn Jones—Chairman

  Dr. Roy Bichan—Deputy Chairman

  Sir Donald Walters

  Mr. E. Glyn Davies1

  Mr Richard Brewster

  Mr. John Foley MBE

  Mr. David Malpas

  Dr. Pamela Kirby

  Mr. Philip Head2—Chief Executive

  137
  1 Ex officio member as Chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales.
  2 In accordance with the requirements of the WDA Act 1975, the WDA Chief Executive is appointed a member of the WDA Board.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which places the mammography screening service has visited in 1992 and 1993 to date; and where the service is currently planned to visit during the remainder of 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Breast Test Wales provides a breast screening service throughout Wales. Detailed information about the mobile screening programme in 1992 together with current and planned programmes for 1993 is not held centrally. This is available from the director of Breast Test Wales who is responsible for the management and delivery of the service.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria the mammography screening service has adopted in choosing the places it has visited to date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In line with national guidelines for breast screening, Breast Test Wales is working to a three-yearly screening cycle. Within these parameters, it is for the director of Breast Test Wales to provide the service taking into account support services and geographical planning.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many places the mammography screening service in Wales has visited on more than one occasion.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Following completion of the first three-year screening cycle in parts of south-east Wales, I understand that second round screening has begun in that area. Information about the locations involved can be obtained from the director of Breast Test Wales.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange for the mammography screening service to visit Merthyr Tydfil during 1993.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The decision about which locations the mobile screening service will visit in 1993 and beyond is the responsibility of the director of Breast Test Wales.

  European Community Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to secure that supplementary credit approvals for local authorities in Wales in 1993–94 on European regional development fund and RECHAR moneys are applied in line with the additionality principle.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Officials wrote to all local authorities on 20 January informing them of the arrangements which will apply to the issue of supplementary credit approvals to cover all ERDF grant-related expenditure incurred by them from 1 April 1993.

  ReChem Incinerator (Emissions)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the statement made by the parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on toxic waste monitoring,Official Report, 10 July 1992, column 777, if
  138
  he will specify the form of the investigation into the Gwent farmer's complaints about airborne emissions from the ReChem incinerator.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Between 1982 and 1984, various samples were collected by the farmer's veterinary surgeons and examined at veterinary investigation centres or at a private veterinary laboratory. In addition, senior veterinary officers from the veterinary investigation service made a number of visits to the farm in question. It was concluded that there was ample evidence to support the view that the animal problems were caused by common disease conditions.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of all community councils in Wales by district showing the electorate in each case.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Housing (Garden City)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Alyn and Deeside district council to discuss housing problems in Garden city, Deeside.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend met him and a delegation of members from the council to discuss a number of their concerns, including resources for housing, on 26 January. Welsh Office officials are meeting representatives of Alyn and Deeside district council today to discuss the full range of their housing problems and plans.

  Badger Setts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of badger setts, by county, closed or otherwise, seriously interfered with by or under licence from his Department's officials between 18 January and 15 March.

  Mr. David Hunt
  During the period in question, two licences were issued by the Department permitting interference with one badger sett in Clwyd and one in Gwynedd.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications he has received under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to enter dogs into setts; how many have been granted; and when, where and for what purpose.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Department has received four applications for licences to permit the entry of dogs into badger setts, only one of which has been approved. On 12 March, a licence was granted to allow the introduction of a dog into a sett near Denbigh, Clwyd for fox control purposes.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what conditions he has applied to licences granted for the purpose of entering dogs into badger setts.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The conditions for the one licence issued were that the licence was valid for a single day, that
  139
  a wildlife expert from the agricultural development and advisory service would be in attendance and that the operation should cease if there was any evidence of disturbance to badgers.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for increases in the budgets of the training and enterprise councils in the areas covered by pit closures in Wales for specific additional training schemes for former coal miners affected by the coal industry pit closure programme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have announced resources of over £106 million in 1993–94 for TECs in Wales—a massive investment enabling them to have on offer a range of opportunities including skills training at all levels and support for those wishing to start their own businesses. I will continue to review provision with the TECs in the light of developments in those areas relevant to the coal review.

  NHS Trusts (Pay Levels)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what analysis he has made of the salary percentage increases of top management in NHS trusts to take effect from 1 April; what assessment he has made of the impact of the Chancellor's 1·5 per cent. upper limit for public sector pay for 1993 on the pay increases for(a) top management, (b) senior medical staff, (c) nursing and (d) auxiliary staff in trust hospitals and other trust provider units in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  NHS staff including all those employed by NHS trusts are subject to the current public sector pay policy restricting settlements in the 1993 pay round to a maximum of 1·5 per cent. Offers made to date to staff groups covered by the pay review body and Whitley arrangements are within this limit.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what instructions he has issued to Welsh training and enterprise councils in relation to the submission of claims for invoices at(a) project approval stage and (b) expenditure incurred stage; what guidelines he has issued

  £ million

  Tax liability under

  Tax and national insurance liability under

  1993–94 regime

  1987–88 regime indexed to 1993–94

  1993–94 regime

  1987–88 regime indexed to 1993–94

  Taxpayers under the 1987–88 indexed regime

  Top 1 per cent.

  9,300

  12,500

  9,600

  12,800

  Top 5 per cent.

  19,300

  23,300

  20,900

  25,000

  Top 10 per cent.

  26,000

  30,600

  29,300

  34,100

  Top 20 per cent.

  35,700

  41,400

  42,100

  48,400

  Top 50 per cent.

  52,500

  60,500

  65,400

  75,000

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  8,100

  10,100

  12,100

  14,900

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  1,000

  1,400

  1,700

  2,300

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  230

  330

  480

  630

  Bottom 5 per cent.

  60

  80

  160

  210

  140
  as to the proper procedure if any TECs have been paid on the basis of claims submitted at project approval stage and in advance in need; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The TEC operating agreement sets out the procedures to be followed by TECs when submitting claims. TECs have recently been reminded to examine their systems to ensure that the terms of the TEC operating agreement are being met.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made towards meeting the guarantee on hospital waiting times under the patients charter in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Significant progress has been made in reducing waiting times in line with the patient's charter guarantees. The number waiting over one month for urgent hospital treatment is expected to have fallen from 717 in March 1992 to nil or virtually nil by the end of March 1993.

  By the end of this month, health authorities expect to have eliminated the waiting lists over 18 months for hip and knee replacements and cataract operations.

  The number of people waiting over two years for non-urgent treatment fell from 2,251 in March 1992 to 1,528 last September. During February, the number fell to 933 and it is estimated to have fallen during this month to about 100. If any are still outstanding at the end of this month, all will have been offered firm admission dates.

  This represents a magnificent achievement by Welsh health authorities.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax liabilities of taxpayers in 1993–94(a) including and (b) excluding the effects of changes in national insurance contributions compared with what their liability would be under the indexed 1987–88 income tax regime, giving figures for the top and bottom (i) percentile, (ii) 5 per cent., (iii) decile, (iv) quintile and (v) 50 per cent. of taxpayers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates are given in the table.

  Information for the bottom 1 per cent. of taxpayers is not available. The 1987–88 income tax regime has been

  141
  indexed to 1993–94 levels by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for independent taxation. For the purpose of the calculations the indexed regime of 1987–88 has been applied directly to the income base of 1993–94. In practice, retention of the 1987–88 regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 691, showing changes in tax and national insurance liability compared with an indexed 1987–88 tax regime, giving an estimate for 1993–94.

  Mr. Donnell
  Latest estimates of the average reductions in income tax liability resulting from the changes in tax rates, allowances and thresholds are in the table. The 1987–88 income tax regime has been indexed to 1993–94 levels by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for independent taxation. For the purpose of the calculations the indexed regime of 1987–88 has been applied directly to the income base of 1993–94. In practice, retention of the 1987–88 regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Average change in 1993–94 compared with 1987–88 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in 1993–94 £

  Income tax £

  Income tax and national insurance £

  Under 5,000

  60

  70

  5,000–10,000

  170

  240

  10,000–15,000

  260

  400

  15,000–20,000

  340

  470

  20,000–25,000

  430

  550

  25,000–30,000

  500

  610

  30,000–40,000

  430

  530

  40,000–50,000

  920

  1,010

  50,000–70,000

  2,400

  2,480

  70,000–80,000

  5,130

  5,200

  Over 80,000

  19,200

  19,200

  Average

  400

  480

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total proceeds from value added tax in each year since 1978–79, at 1993 prices; and what are the projections for each year to 1995–96.

  Sir John Cope
  The VAT proceeds at 1992 prices are as follows:

  Year

  Revenue £ Billions

  1978–79

  13·1

  1979–80

  19·2

  1980–81

  22·1

  1981–82

  21·3

  1982–83

  23·4

  1983–84

  24·5

  1984–85

  28·4

  1985–86

  28·0

  1986–87

  30·0

  1987–88

  32·4

  1988–89

  34·8

  1989–90

  34·8

  1990–91

  33·4

  1991–92

  36·6

  142

  Year

  Revenue £ Billions

  1992–

  137·0

  1993–

  239·0

  1 Latest estimate.

  2 Forecast.

  Forecasts are not available beyond 1993–94. 1993 prices are not yet available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of unpaid VAT written off by HM Customs and Excise for the last five years for which figures are available.

  Sir John Cope
  VAT write-offs are scheduled on a calendar year basis. A "written off" amount is where, for accounting purposes, a tax liability is removed from the records. However, the liability is not extinguished and may, if at a later stage circumstances change, be resurrected. The audited figures for the last five years are:

  Year

  £'000

  1987

  214,123

  1988

  209,471

  1989

  173,981

  1990

  208,024

  1991

  1512,284

  1 The figure for 1991 includes some £80 million written-off following a special review of long standing debts on the VAT ledger.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his plans to extend VAT to domestic fuel will include standing charges on gas and electricity bills.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 26 March at column 746.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for each region(a) the total increase in household costs, (b) the average household cost and (c) the average proportion of household income that will be consumed by his proposed extension of value added tax to heating costs (i) in 1994–95 and (ii) in 1995–96.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many traders were deregistered for value added tax because they had ceased trading in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Sir John Cope
  The numbers of traders who were deregistered for value added tax because they had ceased trading in 1990–91 and 1991–92 are as follows:

  Number

  1990–91

  119,486

  1991–92

  114,372

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what forecasts have been produced by the Inland Revenue for corporation tax receipts for 1992–93
  143
  and 1993–94 from (a) the major clearing banks, (b) other banks, (c) insurance companies, (d) other financial institutions and (e) privatised companies;

  (2) what was the estimate of corporation tax receipts forecast in 1990 by the Inland Revenue for the banks for 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what were the actual receipts of corporation tax from the banks for these years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Forecasts of the yield of corporation tax, and of advance corporation tax, are published annually in the Financial Statement and Budget Report issued on Budget day. It is not normal practice to release forecasts in the detail requested.

  Tax Remission
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases(a) inheritance tax and (b) capital gains tax was remitted or written off as irrecoverable for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total number of cases and amounts of inheritance tax and capital gains tax remitted off or written off by the Inland Revenue for each year since 1989 (figures for 1992 are not yet available) is as follows:

  INHERITANCE TAX

  CAPITAL TAX GAINS

  Number of cases

  Nearest £

  Number of cases

  Nearest £ thousand

  1989

  10

  70,730

  5,449

  10,856,000

  1990

  34

  225,549

  6,492

  12,076,000

  1991

  35

  413,038

  8,418

  29,721,000

  ODA RTA

  Toronto terms

  Trinidad terms

  Exceptional treatment

  Afghanistan

  Bangladesh

  Benin

  Benin

  Bolivia

  Bolivia

  Bolivia

  Botswana

  Burkina Faso Central African Rep

  Ethiopia

  Ethiopia

  Egypt

  Egypt

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Guinea-Bissau

  Guinea Republic

  Guinea Republic

  Guyana

  Honduras

  Indonesia

  Kenya

  Lesotho

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Mali

  Mali

  Mauritania

  Mauritania

  Mozambique

  Mozambique

  Mozambique

  Nepal

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Pakistan

  Poland

  Senegal

  Senegal

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Tanzania

  Tanzania

  Tanzania

  Togo

  Togo

  Uganda

  Uganda

  Uganda

  Western Samoa

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zambia

  23

  18

  13

  2

  144

  Debtor Countries
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many countries have had their official debt to the United Kingdom written off.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 22 March 1993]: Thirty-eight countries have received some form of official bilateral debt or debt service reduction from the United Kingdom Government. Twenty-three countries have received retrospective terms adjustment from the Overseas Development Administration entirely transforming old aid loans into grants. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has participated in debt restructurings on Toronto terms with 18 countries involving debt or debt service forgiveness equivalent to a one-third reduction in the present value of eligible debt, and restructurings on Trinidad terms with 13 countries involving debt or debt service forgiveness equivalent to one half reduction in the present value of eligible debt. In addition, two exceptional debt restructurings have been agreed with Poland and Egypt which reduce the present value of the stock of these countries eligible by 50 per cent. The details are set out in the table.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on instructions he has given to recover public funds from Barlow Clowes by means of legal proceedings against the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  Mr. Nelson
  An application in the names of the Treasury, Barlow Clowes liquidators and receivers, and others for leave to serve proceedings against BCCI is pending before the court. It would not be appropriate to comment on this or any other action arising out of the Barlow Clowes affair which is before the court.

  European Community (Convergence)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what requests he has received from institutions o f the European Community for a report on their programme for attaining convergence within the economies of the Community; what reply has been sent; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom presented a convergence programme in November 1991. A copy of this programme was placed in the House of Commons Library. It is our intention to submit an updated convergence programme during 1993.

  Equatorial Bank
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons for closing the Equatorial bank.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 March 1993]: No. I understand that the decision to petition for administration was taken by the Equatorial's directors.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to hold an inquiry into the events surrounding the closure of the Equatorial bank.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 March 1993]: I have no such plans.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when and by whom he was first informed of the problems that subsequently led to the closure of the Equatorial bank; and when he was first informed that the Equatorial bank was to be closed.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 March 1993]: As the Bingham report makes clear, information on supervisory matters is passed to the Treasury by the Bank of England at a number of levels. However, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual institutions.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the meetings, during the last year, he has had at which the Equatorial bank was discussed.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 March 1993]: I hold meetings from time to time with the governor or with my officials at which banking supervision issues are discussed. It would not be appropriate for me to disclose whether or not a particular institution was mentioned at any such meeting. Equatorial was, however, raised briefly by the hon. Gentleman at a meeting we had on 23 March.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Strip Searching
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what security risks necessitate the use of strip searching in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mates
  The purpose of the full searching of prisoners in Northern Ireland is to detect items such as explosives, weapons and drugs, in order to reduce the risk of escape and the potential for injury to prisoners, staff and visitors.

  RUC (Disabled Personnel)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve have been physically disabled as a result of terrorism to date; how many have been retrained and re-employed by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland; and what opportunities are available for retraining and reemployment within the Royal Ulster Constabulary for personnel disabled in service.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding reply sent on 10 March 1993]: The term "physically disabled" is difficult to define precisely, but current RUC records in relation to injuries as a result of terrorist attacks indicate that since 1970 a total of 7,025 officers have been injured as a result of terrorism. Of these, 121 have been granted medical retirement due to the extent of their injuries/illness.

  The Police Authority for Northern Ireland does not currently have the facility to retrain RUC officers for further employment. A serving or ex-RUC officer may apply in open competition through the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission for employment in the civil service, including secondment to the police authority. There are currently six civil servants employed by the police authority who retired on medical grounds from the RUC. Information as to how many such officers have been employed since 1970 is not readily available.

  Where possible, the RUC, through its welfare branch and occupational health unit provides support and rehabilitation for injured officers. This service extends to the provision of counselling help to the injured officers' families. In addition, the RUC benevolent fund provides continuing support for the officer and the family in both financial and social aspects of the trauma. However, the RUC does not have the facilities to re-train or re-employ every officer injured as a result of terrorism. Where a recovery period is required or where illness dictates (including sickness not related to terrorism), officers may be employed on restricted duties. On 10 March 1993, a total of 80 officers who had been injured as a result of terrorism were employed on restricted duties. This total includes a small number of disabled officers who, although eligible, decided not to seek medical retirement from the force.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Blood Donation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans he has better to promote the opportunities for the giving of blood by all those who work in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Michael Martin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 14 January,Official Report, col. 440, which detailed the arrangements provided in the Treasury where Members, their staff and staff of the House may give blood. Those apart, a proposal from the North London blood transfusion service that its mobile unit should be parked in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster is currently before the Administration Committee.

  Printing and Publication Costs
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what is the approximate cost per page to the House of printing and publishing one page of the Notice Paper and of the Order Paper.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: A number of copies of the Vote bundle is supplied to the House either complete or in various, pre-determined combinations of its 11 main sections. The page content of each section varies widely from day to day and Her Majesty's Stationery Office charges the House 18p for each page of every copy supplied.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many pages of the Official Report have been devoted to (a) oral and written questions to the right hon. Member answering on behalf of the Church Commissioners and (b) to the passage of Church of England measures, in sessions 1990–91, 1991–92, and 1992–93 to date; and what was the approximate cost to the Official Report of the preparation, printing and publishing of such pages.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: The price of the daily Official Report does not vary with page content. Over the period in question, it has been £6 for session 1990–91 and £7·50 for sessions 1991–92 and 1992–93. Information on the number of pages devoted to questions to the Church Commissioners and to Church of England measures and on the cost of their preparation by the Department of the Official Report is as follows:

  Oral and written questions (Church Commissioners) and Church of England Measures Costs incurred by the Department of the Official Report]

  Number of pages

  Number of questions

  Preparation costs £

  Oral questions

  1990–91

  7·2

  18

  79·92

  1991–92

  3·2

  7

  31·08

  1992 to date

  3·75

  12

  53·28

  Totals

  14·15

  37

  164·28

  Written questions

  1990–91

  3·35

  19

  35·91

  1991–92

  0·65

  4

  7·56

  148

  Number of pages

  Number of questions

  Preparation costs £

  1992 to date

  3·6

  26

  49·14

  Totals

  7·6

  49

  92·61

  Church of England measures

  1990–91

  10·25

  n/a

  175·50

  1991–92

  8·75

  n/a

  141·75

  1992 to date

  nil

  n/a

  nil

  Totals

  19

  —

  317·25

SCOTLAND

  Badger Setts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of badger setts, by county, closed or otherwise, seriously interfered with by or under licence from his Department's officials between 18 January and 15 March.

  Sir Hector Monro
  None.

  Forestry
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he plans to carry out the proposed review of incentives for forestry.

  Mr. Lang
  I and my fellow Ministers are keen to improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives in line with my statement on forestry in September 1991. We gave a commitment in the manifesto to review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment, and this will be completed by the end of the year.

  We have established a small group of officials, with representatives from the Treasury, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Welsh Office, Department of the Environment and the Forestry Commission, under Scottish Office chairmanship, to review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment, to review options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands and to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and environmental policies.

  Stracathro hospital
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current costs of providing accident and emergency services at Stracathro hospital; and what are the average costs for Tayside and Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  In 1991–92, average costs per accident and emergency attendance were:

  £

  Stracathro hospital

  45·00

  Tayside health board

  34·24

  Scotland

  34·96

  Community Midwives
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers and location of general practitioner community midwife schemes for each health board in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many community midwives there are in each health board in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  NHS Community Midwives by Health Board: head count at 30 September 19921

  Community midwives

  Combined duty nurses2

  Scotland

  298

  591

  Argyll and Clyde

  36

  49

  Ayrshire and Arran

  37

  2

  Borders

  —

  56

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6

  45

  Fife

  24

  —

  Forth Valley

  21

  14

  Grampian

  13

  85

  Greater Glasgow

  49

  21

  Highland

  12

  148

  Lanarkshire

  28

  29

  Lothian

  61

  2

  Orkney

  —

  17

  Shetland

  —

  19

  Tayside

  11

  64

  Western Isles

  —

  40

  1 Data are provisional.

  2 Staff who practise more than one profession:

  health visitors/district nurses/community midwives,

  district nurses/community midwives,

  health visitors/community midwives.

  Brackletter Waste Disposal Site
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce a decision on the compulsory purchase order for the Brackletter waste disposal site, Spean Bridge, Invernesshire.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I expect the decision on the compulsory purchase order for the Brackletter waste disposal site to be issued shortly.

  MV Havkong
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the investigations he is carrying out into all aspects of the incident on 23 January in Braefoot bay, involving MV Havkong.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: Marine safety is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The incident is the subject of investigations being carried out by the Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch and the Health and Safety Executive. The Scottish Office is not carrying out any separate investigation but close contact is being maintained with the Department of Transport.

  Housing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of its 1992–93 budget Scottish Homes has spent to date; if he will break this figure down by Scottish region and by category of expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: To date, Scottish Homes has spent £315 million of its total budget in 1992–93, representing 89 per cent. of the total budget. The breakdown by Scottish Homes district and by programme category is as follows:

  District

  Expenditure £ million

  Highlands' Islands and Grampian

  26·3

  Tayside and Fife

  41·0

  Lanark and Central

  37·2

  Edinburgh, Lothian and Borders

  41·0

  North and South Clyde

  54·3

  City of Glasgow

  99·5

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  15·7

  TOTAL

  315

  Programme category

  Expenditure £ million

  Partnership Areas

  22·7

  Inner City

  66·4

  Outer City

  36·9

  Smaller Urban Renewal

  7·4

  Urban Areas

  74·6

  Rural Areas

  42·6

  New Towns

  3·2

  Own Stock

  61·2

  TOTAL

  315

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the most recent figures for empty local authority housing in Scotland for(a) up to six months, (b) up to 12 months and (c) over one year; and if he will list the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The latest information on empty local authority housing in Scotland is published in table 17 of the statistical bulletin HSG/ 1992/8, "Housing Trends in Scotland—Quarter ended 30 June 1992". The bulletin is available in the House Library.

  Stracathro Hospital
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the estimated costs of transferring accident and emergency services from Stracathro hospital to Dundee hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: Most major trauma cases are already referred directly to the specialist Accident and Emergency centre in Dundee. Any transfer of the remaining cases together with the out-of-hours service could be absorbed within the existing Dundee hospitals at no extra cost.

  The Scottish ambulance service is currently examining the effects of the planned changes to determine whether it will incur additional costs.
  151
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the estimated annual savings in transferring accident and emergency services from Stracathro hospital to Dundee hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: The Board's proposal to transfer of accident and emergency service from Stracathro to Dundee is based on grounds of improving quality rather than in terms of cost-effectiveness. In practice much major trauma is already diverted to Dundee. I understand, however, that Tayside health board estimates that it could save around £98,000 from proposed service changes.

  Timeshare properties
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the proposed classification of non-commercial timeshare properties as non-domestic for the purposes of calculating council tax.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: Before making the Council Tax (Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which define timeshare units as non-domestic property, we received representations from the Timeshare Council, the Scandinavian Village Association, the Melfort Club and three others. In the period since the regulations were made, on 8 March, up to 26 March, we received representations concerning the regulations from 98 Members of Parliament and four other individuals.

  Women Prisoners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland of those women in prison in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992 respectively, how many were imprisoned for (i) violence against the person, (ii) sexual offences, (iii) burglary, (iv) robbery, (v) theft, resettling, embezzlement, fraud and forgery, (vi) drug offences and (vii) other offences.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: The information is not available in the form requested. The table sets out the number of female receptions to penal establishments using the best available approximations in The Scottish Office classification of crimes and offences to the categories listed. Information is not available for 1992.

  The number of female receptions to Scottish penal establishments by type of offence, 1990–91

  1990

  1991

  Violence against the person

  52

  45

  Sexual offences

  1

  1

  Burglary

  11

  16

  Robbery

  4

  4

  Theft, resetting, embezzlement, fraud and forgery

  340

  390

  Drugs

  16

  14

  Other crimes and offences

  95

  108

  Total receptions

  519

  578

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland of those women in prison in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992, how many were serving sentences of (i) up to 18
  152
  months, (ii) between 18 months and three years, (iii) between three years and five years and (iv) five years or more.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: The available information is set out in the table:

  Average daily female prison population in Scottish penal establishments by length of sentence, 1990–1992

  Length of sentence

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Less than 18 months

  71

  84

  90

  18 months or more but less than three years

  4

  4

  9

  Three years or more but less than five years

  10

  6

  5

  Five years or more

  16

  17

  16

  Others2

  37

  32

  37

  Total3

  137

  143

  158

  1 Provisional.

  2 Includes females held on remand, recalled, etc.

  3 Components may not add up to the total due to rounding.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women were in prison in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992; and of that total how many were (i) juveniles, (ii) young adults under 25 years and (iii) adults.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: The available information is set out in the table:

  Average daily female prison population in Scottish penal establishments by type of prisoner, 1990–1992

  Year

  Adult

  Young offenders1

  Total2

  1990

  112

  26

  137

  1991

  122

  22

  143

  31992

  139

  19

  158

  1 Young offenders are aged between 16 and 21 but a small number are held in a young offenders institution up to the age of 23.

  2 Components may not add up to the total due to rounding.

  3 Provisional.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits for 1992–93 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 February 1993, column 307]: The revised cash limit for the non-voted cash limit SO/LA1, which covers non-housing capital expen-diture by local authorities is £652,087,000 and not £653,587,000.

  Natural Heritage
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met non-governmental environmental organisations to discuss matters relating to Scotland's natural heritage.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: Scottish Office Ministers meet representatives of non-government environmental organisations including Rural Forum and the Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link at

  153
  formal meetings, visits and other occasions. Most recently I met representatives concerned with conservation in agriculture on Friday 19 March; and with the Scottish Conservation Projects Trust on Monday 22 March. In addition my officials also have regular contact with these and other non-government environmental organisations.

  Edinburgh Dental School and Hospital
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all decisions taken by his Department since 1979 concerning the future of the Edinburgh dental school and hospital.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: In 1989 a working party established under the chairmanship of Sir Donald McCallum recommended the closure of the Edinburgh dental school and the establishment of a new dental hospital and postgraduate dental institute for Edinburgh. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State endorsed this proposal and gave a commitment to provide such capital investment as is necessary to establish both the new dental hospital and the postgraduate institute. That commitment stands.

EDUCATION

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the increase in average teacher salaries since 1979 after allowing for inflation.

  Mr. Patten
  Since this Government came into office in 1979, the average teacher's pay has increased by some 46 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his Department is doing to ensure that schools are complying with the guidelines for religious education.

  Mr. Patten
  To ensure that all local agreed syllabuses are brought into line with the Education Reform Act 1988, the current Education Bill proposes that all local authorities review their syllabus within one year of Royal Assent, unless they have done so since 1988, and every five years subsequently.

  New inspection arrangements will highlight publicly instances where schools are failing to provide religious education and governing bodies will be required to prepare action plans to address difficulties raised by inspection reports.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what assessment he has made of the National Curriculum Council's report, "Analysis of Agreed Syllabuses for Religious Education"; and what immediate steps he will take to ensure that agreed syallabuses comply with the provision of the Education Reform Act 1988 requiring religious education to be in the main Christian;

  (2) if he will issue further guidelines as to the operation of the provision of the Education Reform Act 1988 requiring religious education to be in the main Christian.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend strongly supports the National Curriculum Council's work in assisting local 154
  conferences to decide how best to bring their agreed syllabuses into line with the requirements of the 1988 Education Reform Act. We are proposing, in the current Education Bill, to require local authorities to review all local agreed syllabuses not reviewed since the passage of that Act, and to review them every five years subsequently.

  My right hon. Friend plans to issue a revised circular of guidance after the passage of the Bill through Parliament.

  Corporal Punishment
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he is taking to end corporal punishment in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Corporal punishment is already prohibited in maintained schools and for those pupils in independent schools whose fees are met from public funds. We will of course reflect carefully on the recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools in Essex have now opted out of local authority control; and if he will make a statement on Government policies to encourage further schools to seek grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  Thirty-three schools in Essex are today operating as self-governing grant-maintained schools. From Thursday that number will be 53, with three more approved for a later start. These figures, and the 34 further Essex schools with applications in the pipeline, demonstrate the appeal of self-government to parents. Provisions in the Education Bill will ease the path to GM status.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have acquired grant-maintained status to date.

  Mr. Forth
  Four hundred and ninety one schools in England will be operating as self-governing grant-maintained schools on 1 April and a further 15 are approved for a later start.

  Politics and Government
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the current proportion of pupils taking GCSEs in politics, government and related subjects.

  Mr. Boswell
  In the summer of 1992, some 5 per cent. of pupils who reached the age of 16 during the academic year attempted GCSEs in politics and related subjects in the social sciences. The flexibility within the national curriculum at key stage 4 will enable schools to continue to offer courses in such subjects.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what expenditure on the maintenance of school buildings was incurred in each of the last three years for which records are available.

  Mr. Forth
  For the three years to 1990–91 revenue expenditure by English local education authorities on
  155
  school repairs, building and grounds maintenance was £553 million, £621 million and £657 million respectively. In addition authorities spent £565 million, £688 million and £648 million on school capital work, some of which will have contributed to the maintenance of buildings involved.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent guidance he has given to education authorities about class sizes in rural schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Our policy is to provide greater autonomy for schools so that they can make their own decisions on the deployment of resources. It would run counter to that policy to seek to impose a view on what class sizes would be most appropriate for rural schools.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will issue advice to schools on best practice in relation to class size in primary and secondary schools.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will issue guidance on the size of classes in schools.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 9 March (Official Report, column 522).

  Youth Service
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy on the appropriate level of youth service provision.

  Mr. Boswell
  The youth service is committed to the principle that the planning, monitoring and evaluation of the curriculum should be determined locally, and not nationally. The appropriate level of provision to deliver local youth service objectives is primarily a matter for individual local education authorities in accordance with their duty under sections 41 and 53 of the Education Act 1944.

  Japanese
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will make a statement on the teaching of Japanese in schools.

  Mr. Boswell
  The national curriculum requires all secondary school pupils to study at least one of 19 eligible foreign languages up to the age of 16. Japanese is one of these. It is for schools to decide whether to offer Japanese in the light of demand and of the resources available to them.

  School Activities (Charges)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about charges made to pupils in secondary schools for educational activities.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Reform Act 1988 provides that, with the exception of fees for individual music tuition, no charges may be made for activities taking place during the school day. In no circumstances may schools charge for activities which are required for a prescribed public examination or are part of the national curriculum.

  School Governors
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education now many school governors have been sacked by education authorities in the last six years; and if he will list the authorities concerned.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally by the Department.

  Universities (Industrial and Commercial Development)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will next meet the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the contribution universities can make to successful industrial and commercial development.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend currently has no plans to meet the Director General of the CBI. However, Ministers are encouraged to note from their day to day contacts with representatives of industry and the universities that they are very conscious of the need to promote links for their mutual benefit.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what studies he has commissioned as to the value of nursery education; and what initiatives he proposes.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 2 March,Official Report, col. 123.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assistance he can give to schools who have children with special needs.

  Mr. Forth
  Local education authorities maintained schools are resourced for the vast majority of such children through the general funding allocated to them by the local education authority. In the case of grant-maintained schools, such provision is made through annual maintenance grant. For the smaller number of pupils who have statements of special educational needs (SEN), responsibility for arranging any necessary additional provision lies with the LEA. The Education Bill now before Parliament ensures that LEAs will continue to be able to offer SEN support services to all LEA and grant-maintained schools for all of their pupils with special needs.

  The Department provides for capital work for special needs pupils in county, controlled and maintained special schools through annual capital guidelines (ACGs). Some £5·5 million of ACGs were distributed for 1993–94, with a further £3·6 million of resources earmarked for issue as supplementary credit approvals, pending decisions on related statutory proposals. A further sum will be available to non-maintained special schools in 1993–94 through a separate capital grant programme.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children have special educational needs.
  157
  Mr. Forth
  In January 1992 there were nearly 165,000 children for whom statements of special educational needs were being maintained by local education authorities in England.

  Single-sex Schools
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many boys and how many girls respectively, receive single-sex education in state schools in England.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1992, 148,000 boys attended maintained primary and secondary boys' schools and 180,000 girls attended maintained primary or secondary girls' schools in England. Some single-sex schools accept a few pupils of the opposite sex. In January 1992 there were about 1,000 such pupils.

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to monitor standard assessment tests in relation to teacher contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he looks to teachers to carry out their contractual commitments to assess, record and report on the development, progress and attainment of pupils. He will be keeping the position under review.

  Racial Incidents
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance his Department gives to local authorities and to grant-maintained schools regarding adopting guidelines in respect of racial incidents in and around schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Reports of the Inter-departmental Racial Attacks Group in 1989 and 1991 recommended that local education authorities and schools which had not already adopted policy statements on race relations and developed guidelines for responding to racial incidents should reconsider their positions. They also recommended that guidelines should reflect local consultation and policy statements should be widely distributed. Copies of both the group's reports—"The response to racial attacks and harassment: guidance for the statutory agencies" and "The response to racial attacks: sustaining the momentum"—are in the Library.

  Primary Education
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give an estimate figure for the proportion of primary schools in(a) Cornwall and (b) England under the separate classification of local education authority and grant-maintained schools, which cannot deliver the requirements of the national curriculum because of a lack of appropriate buildings, equipment or facilities for physical education.

  Mr. Forth
  No such figures are available.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what monitoring has been carried out on progress on improving primary education since the publication of the National Curriculum Council's and Office for Standards in Education's report in January.
  158
  Mr. Forth
  The National Curriculum Council and Ofsted continue to monitor the progress of the national curriculum with particular regard to primary education in the light of their recent reports. Ofsted will provide my right hon. Friend with a further report in the new year.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provision he will make in respect of grants from the European regional development fund in 1993–94.

  Mr. Patten
  The Minister for Industry's written answer of 30 June 1992 (Official Report, columns 525–26) announced details of the new arrangements for providing public expenditure cover for forecast ERDF receipts. I will make provision available during the year to offset wholly payments in respect of grants from the European regional development fund to be made in 1993–94 towards approved capital expenditure projects based at grant-aided educational institutions, and recurrent expenditure projects of an educational nature. This provision is currently estimated to be a maximum of £13 million.

  School Attendance
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will seek advice on the legal status of a swipe card as a means of recording school attendance with regard to its possible use as an alibi by a juvenile criminal and the legitimacy of shifting the onus of registration from teachers to pupils.

  Mr. Forth
  We look to individual schools to ensure that, where electronic aids to pupil registration are employed, adequate safeguards are instituted to maintain the integrity of the systems. Such safeguards might include teacher supervision at swiping points and random checks of cards held by pupils. The Department will be working with the National Council for Educational Technology to evaluate the potential of information technology as a means of monitoring pupil attendance. The scope for abuse will, of course, be one of the issues that we shall be examining.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people, respectively, in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  Recruits to the senior grades in the Department (as to any grade in the civil service) are selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the Civil Service Order in Council 1991 applies. Various steps have been taken by the civil service commissioners to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community, including the extension of links with institutions of higher education, equal opportunities training for those involved in selection and the use of validated selection procedures.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department last conducted surveys of(a) ethnic

  159
  origins and (b) the number of women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Voluntary surveys of ethnic origin were last conducted in 1988 (DTI) and 1990 (Department of Energy). The resulting database has been continuously updated with information on new staff and leavers and special exercises have been conducted to improve the positive response rate; 90 per cent. of staff currently employed by the Department have declared their ethnic origin.

  (a) Women

  (b)1 Ethnic Minorities

  (c)1 Registered Disabled

  Grade level

  Number

  Percentage staff

  Number respondents

  Percentage staff

  Number

  Percentage staff

  Grade 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  6

  11·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 4

  2

  12·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  39

  14·0

  2

  0·7

  —

  —

  Grade 6

  26

  11·0

  7

  3·0

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  176

  13·0

  26

  1·9

  3

  0·2

  All staff excluding industrials and casuals

  5,715

  44·0

  1,228

  9·5

  121

  0·9

  1 (b) Ethnic minority figures are based on 90 per cent, positive response rate to ethnic origin survey.

  (c) The Department also employs a number of disabled staff who are not registered.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that the United Kingdom fulfils its obligations under the chemical weapons convention with regard to chemicals that fall within the scope of the treaty but are not routinely monitored by the Organsiation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

  Mr. Needham
  The scope of the monitoring regime provided for in the chemical weapons convention is very broad. Known chemical weapons agents and their precursors, and toxic chemicals of particular concern and their precursors, are listed in the convention and will be monitored routinely. In addition, all plant sites producing by synthesis more than 200 tonnes of discrete organic chemicals per year will be subject to on-site verification four years after the convention enters into force, unless the conference of states parties decides otherwise.

  It is intended to introduce legislation when parliamentary time permits to prohibit the production of chemicals for purposes prohibited by the convention.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many chemicals and families of chemicals will be subject to monitoring for routine verification by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons under the terms of the chemical weapons convention;

  (2) how many chemicals and families of chemicals fall within the overall scope of the chemical weapons convention through its definition of chemical weapons.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: The chemical weapons convention lists 43 chemicals or families of chemicals which will be subject to monitoring for routine verification by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In addition, all plant sites (except those producing exclusively explosives or hydrocarbons) producing more than 200 tonnes per year
  160
  Gender information is automatically held on the Department's personnel database and specific surveys to establish the number of women employed are not necessary.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures for the Department, including its Executive Agencies, as at 1 January 1993 are:

  of unscheduled discrete organic chemicals, or more than 30 tonnes of such chemicals containing phosphorous, sulphur or fluorine, will be required to make an annual declaration and, in the case of plants producing more than 200 tonnes per year, may be subject to on-site verification.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his Department's policy that article VII of the chemical weapons convention requires the United Kingdom national authority to conduct any verification to ensure United Kingdom compliance with the chemical weapons convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: Under the chemical weapons convention, the role of conducting verification to ensure compliance is assigned to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time permits to provide the necessary powers to ensure that the United Kingdom fulfils its obligations under the convention.

  Nuclear Installations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is his estimate of the volume of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere by(a) the construction of Britain's Magnox AGR and PWR reactors and (b) the operation of Britain's nuclear reactors;

  (2) what is his estimate of the carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere in the manufacture, quarrying and engineering of all building materials used in the building of Sizewell B PWR.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 29 March 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  It is very difficult to estimate the volumes of carbon dioxide released in the construction and operation of nuclear power plant, although the available estimates suggest that life cycle emissions are unlikely to exceed one twentieth of those from an equivalent coal fired plant; and

  161
  only about ten percent of this is likely to be incurred during the construction phase of a PWR station. Estimate specific to the construction of Size well B are not available.

  United Arab Emirates
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of trade between Great Britain and the United Arab Emirates during 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: Information on United Kingdom visible trade is published in the Business Monitor MA20, Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, which is available in the Library of the House

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of arms sales to the United Arab Emirates for each of the last two years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it has been the consistent policy of successive Governments not to disclose particulars of defence trade with other countries.

  Wood Trade
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will show, in cash terms, the level of import and export of(a) hard wood and (b) soft wood into and out of Britain in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: The information is given in the table.

  £ million

  (a) Trade in hard wood1

  (b) Trade in soft wood2

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports

  Imports

  1988

  11·7

  292·3

  13·3

  1,054·3

  1989

  14·5

  321·1

  12·1

  1,092·6

  1990

  16·3

  298·5

  8·8

  1,096·5

  1991

  16·1

  237·5

  9·3

  794·0

  1992

  17·8

  237·0

  10·0

  774·9

  1 Hard wood is defined as headings 246.15, 247.5, 248.1, 248.4 and 248.5 of the Standard International Trade Classification (revision 3).

  2 Soft wood is defined as headings 246.11, 247.;3, 247.4, 248.2 and 248.3 of the Standard International Trade Classification (revision 3).

  Source: Business Monitor M.A20.

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of trade in(a) cars, (b) electronic goods, (c) IT equipment, (d) telecommunica-tions and (e) white goods in 1979 and 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: The available information is given in the table.

  United Kingdom crude balances1 (£ million)

  1979

  1992

  Cars (a)

  -1,764

  -2,360

  Information technology and electronics (b)

  -435

  -2,697

  Of which:

  Office machinery and computers

  -238

  -1,564

  Telegraph and telephone equipment

  50

  -187

  162

  1979

  1992

  Radio and electronic capital goods

  119

  241

  Domestic electrical appliances (b)

  -125

  -482

  Note:

  1 Crude balance equals exports (fob) minus imports (cif).

  Sources:

  (a) Business Monitor MA20—Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  (b) Business Monitor MQ10—Overseas Trade analysed in terms of industries.

TRANSPORT

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he first announced the Government's commitment to the Jubilee line extension into docklands; and when he now expects the final agreement to be signed.

  Mr. Norris
  16 November 1989; negotiations on the private sector contribution continue, and it would not be sensible for me to speculate about when they might finish.

  British Rail (Appointments)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many potential candidates were considered for designation to become each of(a) the rail regulator, (b) the director of passenger rail franchising and (c) chairman of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  A number of candidates were considered for each of the posts.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the exchanges of correspondence which took place between himself and those he has designated to become(a) the rail regulator, (b) the director of passenger rail franchising and (c) the chairman of Railtrack, referring to the roles to which they are nominated.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The Government have already made clear publicly the roles which the regulator, the franchising director, and Railtrack will have after the Railways Bill is enacted.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what costs were incurred in the advertisement and selection of those designated to become(a) the rail regulator, (b) the director of passenger rail franchising and (c) the chairman of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Transport paid to Norman Broadbent International, who assisted in the recruitment, £132,098, including value added tax. This payment covered fees, advertisements, and general expenses. Work done by officials in the course of their duties in relation to the appointments cannot accurately be costed.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether present or former employees of the British Railways Board were specifically excluded from consideration for designation to become each of(a) the rail regulator, (b) the director of passenger rail franchising and (c) the chairman of Railtrack.
  163
  Mr. Freeman
  No.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of Railtrack's senior appointments come from(a) BR, (b) his Department, and (c) elsewhere; and how pay levels for people in (a) and (b) have altered.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 24 March, BR announced the appointments of 11 senior members-designate of Railtrack. Of these, ten came from within BR and the other was on secondment from the Department of Transport. Selection and appointment of staff of the "shadow" Railtrack are generally matters for the BR board. There are two exceptions: first, Mr. Robert Horton, whose appointment as Railtrack's chairman-designate was made by the Secretary of State, and who will continue to be a member of the BR board until Railtrack is established as a separate Government-owned company next year. Secondly, Mr. David Moss, Railtrack's commercial director-designate, who is a grade 3 official seconded to the BR board from the Department of Transport. In neither case did the salary alter with the appointment to shadow Railtrack.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria and procedures were used in identifying and selecting those designated to become(a) the rail regulator, (b) the director of passenger rail franchising and (c) chairman of Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend appointed the candidates who in his judgment were the best fitted to carry out these roles. The Department engaged Norman Broadbent International to assist in the identification of suitable candidates.

  British Rail (Objectives)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whhether he will set new objectives for British Rail to apply from 1 April.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Following is the text of a letter which I have today sent to the Chairman of British Rail, setting new objectives to apply from 1 April 1993:The Government sets objectives for BR which supplement the statutory and financial duties of the Board. The current objectives, which applied for a 3-year period, expire on 31 March 1993. We are now moving into a period of major change for BR, in preparation for privatisation. I am therefore writing to set out one year interim objectives for the operation of the present railway business, appropriate to this period of transition. These objectives will apply from 1 April 1993. The aim is to maintain a safe, efficient railway supplying high standards of service to its customers.
  I shall also be setting the Board some specific privatisation objectives updating those set in July 1992. These will be set out in a separate letter.
  Safety
  The Board has a statutory duty to have regard to safety of operation. I welcome the considerable progress on safety improvements which has been made over the last 3 years. Maintaining and further improving standards of safety on the railways will continue to be an objective of major importance for the Board. This should be accompanied by continuing development of increasingly effective means of appraisal of safety investment. The BR Safety Plans produced in 1991 and 1992 have proved valuable; a further annual Safety plan should be submitted during 1993.
  Quality of Service
  Quality of Service remains a very high priority for BR, as reflected in your Passenger's Charter. I do not propose, for
  164
  this transitional period, to make significant changes to the previously agreed quality of service objectives, as developed by the Passenger's Charter. For the future, the Franchising Director will wish to review with BR the current means of measuring quality of service, and consider whether any alternative measures should be developed which better reflect customer requirements and priorities.
  BR's objectives for 1993–94 are therefore:
  (i) Reliability and punctuality
  Seek to achieve the agreed Passenger's Charter targets for 1993; these apply performance indicators for both reliability and punctuality on each of the service groups within Network SouthEast, InterCity and Regional Railways.
  (ii) Train enquiry bureaux/ticket offices/carriage cleaning Maintain the current agreed objectives as follows:
  Train Enquiry Bureaux
  95 per cent. of calls to be answered within 30 seconds. Ticket Offices
  Maximum queuing time of 3 minutes off-peak and 5 minutes peak.

  Carriage Cleaning

  InterCity Per cent.

  NSE Per cent.

  Regional Per cent.

  Interior daily clean

  100

  100

  100

  Exterior wash

  195

  1100

  2100

  1 Daily.

  2 Every two days.

  (iii) Customer Satisfaction
  Measures of customer satisfaction can be more valuable and relevant for businesses in assessing the service they provide than the measures at (ii) above and (iv) below. I welcome the fact that the passenger businesses regularly carry out customer surveys and I would expect British Rail to place increasing emphasis on such measures of satisfaction. The Passenger's Charter commits British Rail to publishing the results of customer surveys and I look forward to such publication during 1993–94. In particular, I look to British Rail to measure and publish customers' satisfaction with the provision of customer information.
  (iv) Overcrowding
  For Network SouthEast and Regional Railways urban and shorter rural routes you should continue to work towards the objective that the ratio of passengers to seats on individual trains should not be more than 135 per cent. on sliding-door trains and 110 per cent. on slam-door trains, with no standing for longer than 20 minutes except by choice. I recognise however that the appropriateness of this measure has been questioned and am sure that the Franchising Director will wish to consider alternatives which might reflect more fully the conditions experienced by passengers and the value they place on avoiding overcrowding.
  Productivity and cost control
  Improving productivity and making the most efficient use of resources continues to be of major importance across the whole of the railway business. The Board should continue to monitor unit cost trends and publish them in its annual report. I welcome the steps the Board is taking to reduce working expenses. This is particularly necessary bearing in mind the recent reductions in the Board's revenues, notably income from passengers. I look to the Board to reduce underlying working expenses for the passenger businesses by at least 5 per cent. in real terms compared to 1992–93.
  Passenger Businesses—Operating Profit/Loss
  In addition to the cost reductions set out above, I am sure that Network SouthEast, InterCity and Regional Railways will be exploring all possible means of increasing passenger numbers and income during 1993–94, thus improving their operating profits/losses.
  I look to the businesses to achieve at least the following targets for total profit/(loss) on ordinary activities, before PSO grant:

  165

  £ million

  Network SouthEast

  (128)

  InterCity

  12

  Regional

  (411)

  Freight Businesses
  I will be setting specific restructuring objectives for freight in the light of our joint consideration of the results of the study carried out by Mercer.
  In addition, during this transitional period I expect both businesses to make every effort to improve their operating result. This means that management should persist in taking necessary action in respect of loss making services, and continue to reduce costs. It will also enable the Board to continue to retain traffic which can at least cover its avoidable costs.
  In focussing on operating result, it will be important for the businesses not to lose sight of the need to earn a commercial return on new investment. The basis for decisions on new investment will therefore continue to be an 8 per cent. rate of return.
  Red Star and Rail Express Systems
  Red Star should be privatised during 1993, in accordance with agreed objectives.
  Rail Express Services should be prepared for privatisation as soon as possible.
  Channel Tunnel Services
  Preparation of all the necessary infrastructure should be completed in time for the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Freight services should start operating from the opening of the Tunnel and scheduled commercial intercapitals services as soon as practicable in 1994. BR should make maximum use of the commercial opportunities, for freight and passenger services, resulting from the opening of the Channel Tunnel, and start to prepare Channel Tunnel services for privatisation.
  Transmark
  Transmark should be privatised during 1993, in line with agreed objectives.
  Public Accountability
  Progress in achieving these objectives should be published in BR's Annual Report and Accounts for 1993–94."

  EC Cohesion Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made to and received from the Government of the Republic of Ireland on co-ordination of that country's future applications for assistance from the European Community cohesion fund on transport infrastructure projects affecting ports on the east coast of Ireland with potential United Kingdom transport infrastructure provision at appropriate landfalls on the west coast of Great Britain and onward from such ports to major European markets.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Paddington-Heathrow Rail Line
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his Budget statement on public-private infrastructure investment, when he expects the design team will be set up for the electrification of the Paddington-Heathrow railway line.

  Mr. Freeman
  Preliminary design studies have already been carried out sufficient for cost estimates to be completed. I understand that it is intended to form a design team by September 1993 to finalise details.

  Road Safety Departments
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many local authority road safety departments have been closed in the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list local authorities that have a road safety department and those that have closed such departments in the last year.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As far as the Department is aware, all local authorities employ staff engaged in road safety, but no central record is kept of whether these are located in a separate road safety department.

  Cycle Helmets
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many local authorities have run reduced price schemes for cycle helmets in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Neither the Department nor local authorities keep a central record of these. We do, however, have information that, by the end of 1990, there were 76 local authorities and other organisations running low-cost cycle helmet schemes.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiative his Department is undertaking to promote the wearing of cycle helmets.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am pleased to announce that on March 25 I launched a new television campaign to promote the wearing of cycle helmets, particularly by children.

  Car Phones
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring in regulations to make it an offence to use a hand-held car phone while driving a moving vehicle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is an offence for a driver to fail to control a vehicle or drive in a dangerous or careless manner. These powers are sufficient.In addition, the highway code says:
  "you must exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Do not use a hand held telephone or microphone while you are driving. Find a safe place to stop first".

  Roads Expenditure
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of cars on the roads; and how much was spent on roads, per car, by(a) national and (b) local Government in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In December 1991, there were 17·7 million vehicles of body type cars which were licensed and for which the address of the registered keeper was in England.

  In 1991–92, the Department of Transport spent £1,926 million on national roads and local authorities spent £2,578 million on local roads.

  It would not be appropriate to present expenditure figures on a per car basis as spending also reflects the provision made for heavy and light goods vehicles, buses and coaches, other classes of vehicles, and pedestrians.

  Roads, Croydon
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask, the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on road improve-ments in the London borough of Croydon in the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is highway authority for the A23 trunk road in Croydon: other roads in the areaa are the responsibility of the London Borough. Expenditure on improvement works, excluding fees, on the A23 in the borough in each financial year was as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  814,055

  1989–90

  2,119,069

  1990–91

  2,199,430

  1991–92

  203,094

  1992–93

  1156,240

  1 provisional

  Expenditure in the first three years, in particular, is not typical because it includes the cost of a major national trunk road improvement.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be in a position to announce the go-ahead for the Newbury bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The decision following the 1992 public inquiry into supplementary proposals for the A34 Newbury bypass and the compulsory purchase of the land needed for the scheme was issued on 25 March. In accordance with the inspector's recommendations my right hon. Frends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment are minded to make the remaining statutory orders for the scheme, subject to consultations on a number of modifications to the published proposals. Subject to the satisfactory conclusion of these consultations and availability of funds, I hope that work will start on this much-needed bypass early next year.

  Overbridge (Clints Brow)
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the full cost of the overbridge to accommodate cattle at Clints brow, Egremont, Cumbria.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: The full cost of the Longhorn farm overbridge at Clints brow is currently estimated at £236,000.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the date of the first approach to his Department to request an overbridge at Clints brow, Egremont, Cumbria.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: The Department was first made aware of the road safety implications of dairy cattle crossing the trunk road at Clints brow in November 1991.

  Bypass (Egremont)
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects the full opening of the A595 bypass at Egremont, Cumbria.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: Completion of the bypass works is expected to be 7 May 1993. Sections of the bypass are already open to traffic.

  West Cumbria
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to visit west Cumbria.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: The Secretary of State has no current plans to visit West Cumbria.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for road improvements in west Cumbria.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: The Department's plans for road improvements in West Cumbria are contained in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" and set out in the programme "Trunk Roads England, into the 1990s".

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish estimates for 1993–94 showing the number of self-employed men and women who pay(a) class four national insurance contributions, (b) class two contributions, (c) class three contributions, (d) no national insurance contributions, (e) the number who have profits above the upper profits limit for class four contributions and (f) the total number of self-employed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table:

  million

  Men

  Women

  (a)

  1·8

  0·2

  (b)

  2·2

  0·3

  (c)

  Reliable estimates are not available

  (d)

  nil

  0·5

  (e)

  The total number with profits above the upper profits limit is estimated to be 0·5 million, of which some 5 per cent. are women

  (f)

  2·25

  0·75

  1 Figures in the table (a-e) have been rounded to nearest 0·1 million.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish estimates for 1992–93 and 1993–94 of the numbers of male and female employees who are on earnings below the national insurance lower earnings limit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that in both 1992–93 and 1993–94 there will be some 0·75 million male employees and 2·25 million females employees who earn less than the lower earnings limit.
  169
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on Treasury revenues in 1993–94 of(a) raising the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions to the level of the personal tax allowance and (b) raising the upper earnings limit to £27,145.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The effect on the amount of contributions raised in respect of 1993–94 would be:

  (a) -£0–4 billion

  (b) +£0–6 billion

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount raised from(a) employers' and (b) employees' national insurance contributions in 1978–79; what is his estimate of the figure for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the table.

  National insurance contributions raised (£ billion)

  Year3

  Employees

  Employers

  1978–79

  3·7

  15·9

  21993–94

  14·6

  23·6

  1 Total excludes the national insurance surcharge.

  2 Source: Government Actuary's Report on the Social Security Bill 1992 (Cm. 2097).

  3 Figures include the National Health Service allocation.

  Refugees
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many refugees have applied for a community care grant after arriving in the United Kingdom; and how many have been refused in each of the last two years.

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

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which professional services within his Department have been subjected to market testing within the last 12 months and with what result; and which will be subjected to market testing within the next 12 months.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested has already been placed in the Library. No decisions have yet been made about which services will be market tested in future years.

  Pensions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to publish gender-disaggregated statistics on private and occupational pension provision.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Where available, information relating to occupational and personal pensions is provided on a gender-disaggregated basis on request. We have no plans to alter that arrangement.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the report by Watson Europe on pensions in Britain and Europe.
  170
  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to her reply, 29 March 1993]: I am arranging for a copy of the research data provided by Watson Europe to be placed in the Library today. The net benefit totals given for each of the family models covered by this study are expressed in sterling equivalents. A summary table showing figures which reflect purchasing power parity, derived from OECD data, is included. None of the figures includes the value of health benefits.

  Income Support (Unemployed People)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the benefit of an unemployed person who is in receipt of income support is retained or is suspended where a doubt arises about their availability for work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  While a doubt about an unemployed person's availability for work is being considered, income support may be paid at a reduced rate if the adjudication officer is satisfied that the claimant or a member of his family would otherwise suffer hardship.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) of 9 February,Official Report, columns 601–2, if he will instruct the chief executives of agencies within his responsibility to discontinue the practice of delaying letters to hon. Members in response to parliamentary questions until the day after copies have been sent to Ministers.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Chief executives of the Department's next steps agencies are expected to abide by the guidance to all Departments when the present publication arrangements were introduced in October 1992; that hon. Members should receive a letter in reply within twenty four hours of him or her receiving the responsible Minister's own reply. I understand that so far they have done so in almost every case.

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his Department and its agencies paid in postage in the last year for which records are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The cost to the Department and its executive agencies in 1991–92, the latest year for which information is available, was about £64 million.

  Pension Law Review Committee
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made by the pension law review committee.

  Mr. Lilley
  The review has attracted a great deal of interest and the committee is currently analysing evidence from some 1,700 written submissions, seven days of oral hearings, during which a number of organisations and individuals gave evidence to support their submissions, and three public meetings.

  Under the weight and detail of all this evidence, Professor Goode has asked for a short extension to his reporting timetable. I am concerned to have this report as

  171
  quickly as possible, but given the complexity of the task, the importance of the outcome and the need for a very careful analysis of the issues, I have agreed to extend the deadline for the report to 30 September 1993.

  Copies of Professor Goode's letter, requesting the extension, and my reply have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Transport, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 497, whether the contract for providing a bus service for staff travelling between Quarry House, Leeds, and Leeds city station was (a) advertised, (b) subject to competitive tendering and (c) awarded on the basis of the lowest tender; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The contract for the bus service between Quarry House, Leeds and Leeds city British Rail station was not advertised. In view of the need at the time to provide a bus service at short notice and the fact that limited hours of service were involved, five local omnibus operators were contacted and invited to tender for the contract. The tenders were carefully considered in accordance with departmental guidelines and the contract awarded to the company offering best value for money.

  Reciprocal Pension Agreements
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Her Majesty's Government last took steps to negotiate a reciprocal pension agreement with a foreign country; what criteria have been used in selecting the countries in respect of which agreements have thus far been concluded; and if he will now take steps to conclude agreements with all those countries with which no agreement exists, to which significant numbers of United Kingdom pensioners have retired.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The United Kingdom most recently concluded a social security agreement with Barbados which came into force in April 1992. It fulfils a commitment given to the Government of Barbados in 1974.

  In order to enter into an agreement with the United Kingdom the other country's social security scheme had to be sufficiently similar to provide for reciprocity. Increasingly, there had to be sufficient movement of workers between the two countries to justify the outlay of resources to negotiate, operate and maintain the agreement. Above all, any additional costs had to be affordable.

  The majority of United Kingdom pensioners overseas live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. The United Kingdom already has social security agreements with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which, in general, allow residence or insurance in one country to be used by the country where the pensioner normally resides to satisfy its qualifying conditions for a pension. They do not allow for United Kingdom pension increases to be paid in those countries. There is no agreement with South Africa. We have no plans to revise the agreements with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, or to negotiate an agreement with South Africa.

  Social Fund
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the balance outstanding for(a) grants and (b) loans from the social fund at the most recent available date in the district covering the Stoke on Trent, North parliamentary constituency; if he will give a breakdown by reason of the number of grant and loan applications refused since 1 April 1992 for that district; how many review applications were received by that district; and how many of them resulted in a changed decision.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from David Riggs to Ms Joan Walley, dated 29 March 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is the responsibility of Michael Bichard to answer questions about relevant operational matters. However, as Mr. Bichard is away at the moment I am replying on his behalf to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what was the balance outstanding for (a) grants and (b) loans from the Social Fund at the most recent available date in the District covering the Stoke on Trent North parliamentary constituency; if he will give a breakdown by reason of the number of grant and loan applications refused since 1st April 1992 for that district; how many review applications were received by that district; and how many of them resulted in a changed decision.

  The following details are provided for the Benefits Agency's North Staffordshire District which deals with your constituency.

  The outstanding balance of the District Social Fund allocation at 28 February 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, was £66,912 for grants and £113,528 for loans.

  Details of the numbers of grant and loan applications refused and of reasons for refusal are given at Appendix A.

  During the period 1 April 1992 to 28 February 1993, 2,658 review applications were received by North Staffordshire District. Of these, 852 resulted in a changed decision.

  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.

  Appendix A

  Details of Grant and Loan Refusals for North Staffordshire District 1 April 1992–28 February 1993 (Latest available data)

  Reason for Refusal

  Grants

  Loans

  Not in receipt of Income Support (IS)

  465

  377

  In receipt of IS for less than 26 weeks

  —

  1,326

  Direction 4 not satisfied

  4,256

  —

  Applicant excluded by Direction

  9

  11

  No serious risk to health or safety

  —

  132

  Requested amount below minimum allowable

  28

  114

  Previous decision for same item(s) within 26 weeks

  249

  292

  Item excluded by Direction

  167

  203

  Alternative item available

  4

  12

  Help available from another source

  25

  25

  Grant awarded on loan request

  —

  271

  Savings over £500 meet cost

  14

  5

  Savings over £1,000 meet cost (customer or partner over 60)

  9

  3

  Enough money available to meet crisis

  —

  5

  Total debt exceeds £1,000

  —

  17

  Inability to repay

  —

  229

  Insufficient priority

  969

  1,575

  Other reasons

  25

  75

  Note: Secretary of State's Directions are listed in the Social Fund Guide, a copy of which is in the Library.

DEFENCE

  RAF (Radios)
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision on the contract for the supply of management radios for the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am pleased to announce that a contract to supply and maintain 6,000 management radios for the Royal Air Force has today been awarded to Phillips Communications Systems Ltd in Cambridge. Contractual details are commercially confidential but the approximate value of the contract is £13 million. The contract was won by Phillips in competition. The radios will be used for secure local communications on RAF bases.

  Iraq
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent information he has relating to the prosecution of Iraqi personnel for alleged breaches of international conventions or treaties relating to the conduct of hostilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. The United Nations continues to gather evidence and the United Kingdom is contributing in full to this process. No decisions have been taken on the way forward.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responsibilities his Department had for the provision of information about Iraqi military capabilities and intentions prior to 2 August 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Within my Department, the defence intelligence staff are responsible for the pro vision of assessments for the Government on defence policies, intentions and capabilities of any potential enemies.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether compensation payments have now been made to those Ministry of Defence personnel who were held captive by the Iraqi Government after the invasion of Kuwait; and if he will make a statement:

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Compensation payments have been made to those personnel who were forced to abandon personal effects in Kuwait.. Personnel held captive by the Iraqi Government after the invasion are submitting claims via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the United Nations Compensation Commission in accordance with UN resolution 687 and the rules developed by the governing council of the UNCC.

  Convention Breaches
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the prosecution of British service personnel for possible breaches of international conventions or treaties relating to the conduct of hostilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British service personnel are subject to both domestic arid international law at all times. Any allegation that members of our armed forces had 174
  contravened the laws of armed conflict would be investigated, and if necessary the evidence would he referred to the appropriate authority for consideration of proceedings against the individuals concerned.

  Gulf Trust
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current amount of money in the Gulf Trust; how much money has been paid out by the Gulf Trust in the last 18 months; and how many people have been provided with assistance by the Gulf Trust.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current amount of money in the Gulf Trust, including accrued interest, is £2,854,570. The amount of money paid out by the Gulf Trust in the last 18 months to reimburse the benevolent funds for payments in respect of Gulf related cases is £193,661. Some payments made over the period have yet to be reimbursed from the Gulf Trust. 159 individuals have so far been provided with assistance from the trust together with four charitable bodies and three charitable funds.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning the criteria for payments to be made by the Gulf Trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The criteria for payments made by the Gulf Trust are set out in the trust deed. The objectives of the trust are the relief of financial need of the beneficiaries and to relieve sickness, distress or any other physical or mental disability of the beneficiaries insofar as they have arisen or may arise by virtue of the military and other operations relating to or in connection with the Gulf conflict. Provision may also be made for such other charitable purposes for the benefit of the beneficiaries as the united services trustee as trustee of the fund in its absolute discretion, thinks fit.

  To be a beneficiary a person must be a member of Her Majesty's armed forces involved in military and other operations relating to or in connection with the Gulf conflict; the civilian personnel attached to or accompanying such members of the armed forces; and their respective dependants. Individual applications for assistance from the Gulf Trust are handled by the service benevolent funds working within the terms of the Gulf trust deed, their own trust deeds and charity law and they apply their normal, established policies in making payments.

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts relating to the deployment of armed forces to(a) Kosovo and (b) the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent consideration he has given to the deployment of British armed forces to (a) Kosovo and (b) the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No consideration has been given to the deployment of British forces into Serbia, of which Kosovo is a province. There is a CSCE civilian observer mission in Kosovo but the United Nations has made no proposals for a deployment there. In the case of
  175
  Macedonia, United Nations Security Council resolution 795 of 11 December 1992 authorised the deployment there of an infantry battalion and a number of United Nations military observers (UNMOs) and United Nations civil police to provide a monitoring presence on Macedonia's borders with Albania and the former Republic of Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom agreed to a United Nations request to redeploy one United Kingdom UNMO to Macedonia; and to redeploy temporarily nine personnel and three vehicles from the United Kingdom field ambulance unit in Croatia to assist with the provision of medical care for United Nations forces in Macedonia pending the arrival of the Nordic battalion with its own capability. In the event, however, the deployment of the United Kingdom field ambulance personnel was not required.

  Belize
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent incursions there have been across the border from Guatemala to Belize which United Kingdom armed forces personnel have attempted to prevent; what discussions Her Majesty's Government held with the Governments of Guatemala and Belize on these incidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been no such recent incidents.

  Housing
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions he has made to publicise the Housing Corporation's do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme to service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The do-it-yourself shared ownership (DIYSO) scheme is widely publicised in the

  1992–931

  1991–92

  1990–91

  Arthur Andersen

  nil

  nil

  2 contracts

  £370,000

  Andersen Consulting

  7 contracts

  4 contracts

  4 contracts

  £6,450,613

  £496,147

  £2,788,922

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  4 contracts

  9 contracts

  11 contracts

  £203,361

  £565,850

  £2,802,179

  KPMG Management Consulting

  1 contract2

  nil

  nil

  Touche Ross & Co.

  6 contracts

  6 contracts

  6 contracts

  £1,749,875

  £1,129,552

  £1,110,437

  Touche Ross Management Consultants

  9 contracts

  13 contracts

  nil

  £1,172,351

  £802,305

  Ernst & Young

  nil

  1 contract1

  3 contracts

  £297,890

  Ernst & Young Management Consultants

  4 contracts

  5 contracts

  6 contracts

  £335,300

  £559,653

  £1,234,624

  Price Waterhouse

  10 contracts

  8 contracts

  4 contracts

  £1,145,419

  £471,122

  £582,409

  1 All contracts recorded centrally up to end February, but may not include contracts placed in late February.

  2 As it is our practice to treat values of individual contracts as commercially confidential, I am not able to reveal the value of this contract.

  It is not possible to identify the duration and nature of each and everyone of these contracts without dispropor-tionate cost.
  176
  three services. The joint service housing advice office distribute a DIYSO information leaflet, on a monthly basis, to every service unit world-wide via the joint services married quarters sales office bulletins. The Army families advice bureau also circulates the leaflet to all housing commandants, families officers, Army welfare assistants and through resettlement channels. The three service magazines advertise the scheme and there are briefings and presentations to service personnel worldwide.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what means he is taking to encourage the sale of surplus housing to service personnel at a 30 per cent. discount; and what plans he has for raising the discount to serving personnel to a maximum of 60 per cent.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All surplus married quarters which are suitable for individual sale are normally offered to service personnel through the services discount scheme in the first instance. There are no plans to raise the discount to 60 per cent.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, for each of the last five years, the duration, value and nature of contracts awarded by his Department to Arthur Andersen, Andersen Consulting, KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock, Touche Ross, Ernst and Young and Price Waterhouse.

  Mr. Aitken
  The number and value of contracts recorded as placed in the last three years with these firms, and with other businesses which are clearly linked to them, are detailed in the table. Data for 1989–90 and earlier years are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Homing Pigeons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Defence what operational establishments of homing pigeons currently exist in Her Majesty's armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Brilliant Pebbles
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent communications he has had with the United States Department of Defense in regard to the Brilliant Pebbles space-based interceptor system.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States continues to keep the United Kingdom advised of the progress on all elements of the strategic defence initiative programme. The new administration however has yet to give precise details of its proposed SDI architecture.

  Theatre Defence Interceptor
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what orders or research contracts have been placed in the United Kingdom under the Pentagon's strategic defence initiative office for the responsive theatre defence interceptor.

  Mr. Aitken
  No United States-funded research contracts specifically related to candidate theatre defence interceptors have been awarded to my Department. It is not our practice to give details of individual contracts won directly by United Kingdom firms or universities, although we believe that there are none at present in this category.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent in each of the last three years on manpower recruitment; and how much of this was accounted for by media advertising.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The information in respect of centrally controlled expenditure is as follows:

  Financial years

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  Recruitment

  n/a

  84·88

  72·86

  Media advertising

  12·01

  10·51

  7·04

  Details of recruitment expenditure other than media advertising, prior to April 1991, are not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Until 1 April 1991 recruitment of centrally funded civilian staff was carried out by the Civil Service Commission and details of expenditure for the Ministry of Defence are therefore unobtainable.

HEALTH

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for each of the last five years, the duration, value and nature of contracts awarded by her Department to Arthur Andersen, Andersen Consulting, KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock, Touche Ross, Ernst and Young and Price Waterhouse.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information has been placed in the Library. Information is not readily available before the year 1991–92 nor for the duration of individual contracts.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend the list of medical conditions which confer exemption from prescription charges to include cystic fibrosis.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 25 March at column 696.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to replace free prescriptions entirely with the pre-payment certificate scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people, respectively, in top grades of employment at her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  Recruits to senior grades in the Department are selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition with certain limited and legally permitted exceptions. Various steps have been taken throughout the civil service to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community including equal opportunities training for those involved in selection and the use of validated selection procedures.

  The Department supports these initiatives and monitors carefully the results of all recruitment exercises.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when her Department last conducted surveys of(a) ethnic origins and (b) the number of women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether she will make a statement;

  (2) how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from I to 7 and overall in her Department are (a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  Mr. Sackville
  The last survey of ethnic origin conducted in the Department was in December 1992. A further survey is planned later in this year. No special surveys are conducted to determine the number of women employed by the Department as this information is readily available.

  The information requested on the number of women, ethnic minority staff and disabled people is shown in the table:
  179

  Grade

  Total staff (numbers)

  Women number

  Per cent.

  Ethnic minorities number

  Per cent.

  Disabled people number

  Per cent.

  1

  2

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  2

  5

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  3

  26

  6

  23·1

  0

  —

  0

  —

  4

  28

  7

  25·0

  0

  —

  2

  7·1

  5

  193

  63

  32·6

  11

  5·7

  1

  0·5

  6

  142

  49

  34·5

  4

  2·8

  0

  —

  7

  557

  172

  30·8

  22

  3·9

  3

  0·5

  All Grades (including 1·7)

  5,112

  2,819

  55·1

  651

  12·7

  68

  1·3

  Notes:

  1. Number of staff, based on figures obtained from the Department's personnel computer system as at 24 March 1993.

  2. The figures exclude special hospitals, youth treatment service, staff on loan, secondees in to the Department and casual staff of all grades.

  3. The figures for disabled people are for Registered Disabled People only.

  4. Numbers of ethnic minority staff relate to those responding to the ethnic origin questionnaire.

  First Aid
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken in support of the St. John Ambulance Breath of Life campaign launch day; and if she will make a statement as to the importance of first aid education to the public.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At the invitation of St. John Ambulance my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the campaign on 23 March.

  Basic resuscitation treatment in the first minute or two after an accident or heart attack can be vital in sustaining life until skilled professional help arrives. The more people who are willing to train in these skills the greater the benefit to the public.

  Azapropazone
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the known side-effects of the drug azapropazone; and what steps are taken to draw the attention of patients for whom this drug is prescribed to these side-effects;

  (2) whether she will direct that the known side-effects of the drug azapropazone are drawn to the personal attention of the patients for whom this drug is prescribed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the side effects of azapropazone is given in the British National Formulary, which the Department issues free of charge to all prescribers, and in the data sheet for the product, which is produced by the manufacturer and authorised by the licensing authority. The side effects include photosensitive skin rashes, gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation of peptic ulcers. Blood disorders and kidney damage have been reported rarely. It is for doctors to use their clinical judgment in discussing with the patient the likely benefits and possible side effects associated with their treatment.

  New legislation will make it mandatory to provide information to patients on the likely side effects of a medicine either by means of the label or package leaflet. This is intended to supplement the information given to the patient by their doctor.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on how the Medicines Control Agency's opening balance will be financed when it becomes a trading fund on 1 April.
  180
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In order that the Medicines Control Agency can begin trading on 1 April 1993 two separate sums need be paid into the fund's opening balance via a Contingencies Fund advance:i. £9 million to cover money paid in advance by the pharmaceutical industry up to 31 March 1993, primarily in respect of licence application fees;
  ii. £5·1 million to cover the surplus of income over expenditure at 31 March 1993.

  Parliamentary approval of this new expenditure will be sought in the 1993–94 estimates for the Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England vote (class XII, vote 3). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £14·1 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingency Fund.

  Obsessive Disorders
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines her Department has issued to health care professionals for dealing with people who suffer from obsessive and compulsive disorders.

  Mr. Yeo
  The care and management of people suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorders is a matter for the health professionals involved, taking into account the views of the sufferers and their families.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what counselling is available to people who suffer from phobias, obsessive and compulsive disorders and anxiety attacks.

  Mr. Yeo
  Counselling may be available through primary care services including counsellors attached to general practitioner practices. Voluntary organisations specialising in such disorders may also provide counselling. Hospital psychiatric departments offer a range of treatments for such disorders, on referral. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has published a patient fact sheet on anxiety and phobias, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is available for self-help groups which support(a) sufferers of obsessive and compulsive disorders and (b) sufferers who are dependent on benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local self-help groups are expected to undertake their own fund raising. Groups constituted as voluntary organisations may apply for funding from social
  181
  services departments, district health authorities or other local grant-giving agencies such as charitable trusts. In 1993–94 the Department of Health will be grant aiding several national voluntary bodies active in this field, including the National Association for Mental Health (MIND) and Phobia Action.

  Ambulance Service
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements have been made for ambulance staff who have been transferred into trust employment to retain their rights of appeal against disciplinary action or dismissal, formerly involving regional health authorities;

  (2) how many appeals relating to disciplinary action or dismissal of ambulance staff have been heard by trust boards in the last available year; and how many applications for hearing appeals have been rejected;

  (3) how many appeals relating to disciplinary action or dismissal of ambulance staff have been upheld by trust boards and how many have been dismissed in the last available year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Staff who transfer to national health service trusts with their Whitley terms and conditions of service retain the right to disciplinary appeals procedures outlined in section 40 of the General Whitley Council handbook. Copies are available in the Library. Information on appeals is not available centrally.

  Cardiomyoplasty
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study her Department has made of the use, including that at Manchester's Wythenshawe hospital, of cardiomyoplasty in the treatment of serious heart conditions where previously a heart transplant was seen as the only life-saving option; how many people in the United Kingdom who die prematurely of heart disease each year could be helped by cardiomyoplasty; what action she will be taking in regard to its use; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The place of cardiomyoplasty in the surgical management of cardiac disease is not yet established. It is not possible to estimate the number of people who might benefit. The development of this procedure is being monitored by the Department.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health. what conclusions she has reached from the cumulative data acquired during investigations into food poisoning outbreaks.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cumulative data acquired is not in itself sufficient to draw firm conclusions. These data provide valuable indicators which prompt further analytical and laboratory investigations.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to require local authorities to publish the results of food poisoning investigations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 15 March at column 6.
  182
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what performance standards apply to public sector agencies undertaking the investigation of food poisoning outbreaks; and if these standards are published;

  (2) whether she will review the quality of food poisoning outbreak investigations by local authorities to ensure uniformity of standards of inquiry.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no uniform performance standards which apply to public sector agencies. The Government have set up an informal working party to produce guidance to all investigating officers on the management of and reporting of foodborne illness.

  The Department of Health and the Department of the Environment also issued joint guidance, in October 1991, to health authorities and local authorities reminding them of the collaborative arrangements that should have been made for communicable disease control. A copy is available in the Library.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports of salmonella food poisoning her Department has received from local authorities either directly or via the public health laboratory for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  Reports of cases of salmonellosis are received via the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). The table shows total of laboratory reports of all salmonellas made to the public health laboratory service:

  Salmonella in humans England and Wales Annual totals 1987 to 1992

  Year

  All salmonellas

  1987

  20,532

  1988

  27,478

  1989

  29,998

  1990

  30,112

  1991

  27,693

  11992

  31,352

  Source: PHLS/SVS Update on Salmonella Infection.

  1 1992 data is not directly comparable with previous years because of the introduction from I January 1992 of a new Public Health Laboratory Service reporting system for human salmonellosis.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what private bodies are employed by her Department to undertake investigations into food poisoning outbreaks.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of prosecutions made in each EC country for breaches in each country's food hygiene legislation and the total fines realised in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Member states are required to make an annual return to the Commission which includes the number of infringements of food hygiene legislation, but not specifically details of the number of prosecutions nor of the money collected from fines. The first returns were made in 1992 but have not yet been published by the Commission.

  Racial Harassment
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department has given to local authority social service departments in respect of racial harassment; and what steps she has taken to ensure that staff are sufficiently trained to fulfil it.

  Mr. Yeo
  In 1989 the report of an inter-Departmental group was issued which offered guidance to statutory agencies on the response to racial attacks and harassment. Copies of the report were sent to all directors of social services departments. A progress report was issued in December 1991. Copies of both reports are available in the Library.

  Date

  Title and subject

  Report prepared by

  14 November 19841

  Report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of the Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1984 —No issues raised

  Department of Health statutory auditors

  30 October 19851

  Report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of the Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1985—Sundry creditors—Computer installation: Programmer access to 'live' files—Wessex Kuwait collaboration project—Managerial and financial control—Performance of works consultants

  Department of Health statutory auditors

  26 September 19861

  Report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of the Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1986 —Computer installation (reiteration of 1984–85 report) —Performance of works consultants (reiteration of 1984–85 report)

  Department of Health statutory auditors

  9 February 19871

  Interim report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of the Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1987—The development and procurement of a regional information systems plan (RISP)

  Department of Health statutory auditors

  9 February 1987

  Report In Confidence to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of the Wessex regional health authority for the year ending 31 March 1987—The development and procurement of a regional information systems plan (RISP)

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  25 August 19871

  Interim report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1987—Financial control over regional information systems plan (RISP) expenditure—The recruitment of staff and the use of contract staff in connection with RISP development and existing computing services—The engagement and control of management consultants—Purchase of computers

  Department of Health statutory auditors

  26 October 19871

  Report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1987 —No other issues raised

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  29 October 1987

  Report In Confidence to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1987—Consultants' travelling expenses

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  November 1987

  Report In Confidence to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1988—Regional information systems plan (RISP)

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  2 November 19881

  Report to the Secretary of State on the audit of accounts of the Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1988 —Reiteration of interim audit report dated 25 August 1987

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  Wessex Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports were submitted to her Department by Department of Health auditors, by auditors appointed by the Department, by the district auditor or by auditors appointed by the Audit Commission, regarding Wessex regional health authority, in each year since 1984; and, in each case, what was the subject of the report, the date received, and whether it was a public or confidential report.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on audit reports submitted to the Department of Health regarding Wessex regional health authority since 1984 is shown in the table. The date given for each is the date on which the report was signed and sent to the Department.
  185

  Date

  Title and subject

  Report prepared by

  10 April 19891

  Interim report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of the Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1989—Regional computer centre—Inadequate level of security caused by certain staff having access to 'live' files

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  12 September 19891

  Interim report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of the Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1989—Control of capital expenditure—Inadequate control of capital projects

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  31 October 19891

  Report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1989 —No other issues raised

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  28 August 19901

  Interim report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of the Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1990—Regional information systems plan (RISP)—Contract and procurement procedures, project management and accounting—Regional computing services as supplied by CIPFA FinancialManagement (formerly Wessex Information Systems Ltd., WISL)— Contracting arrangements, management control and user requirements

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  31 October 19901

  Report to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1990 —No other issues raised

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  31 October 1990

  Report In Confidence to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1990—Capital programme and cash management

  Department of Health statutory auditor

  15 July 1992

  Report In Confidence to the Secretary of State on the audit of the accounts of Wessex regional health authority for the year ended 31 March 1991 —A review of the regional information systems plan —A review of Wessex integrated systems contracts 1988–91

  District auditor

  15 July 19921

  Report In The Public Interest: Wessex regional health authoritystatutory report of the district auditor, Local Government Finance Act 1982, National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990

  District auditor

  1 Those reports carried out by the statutory auditor (or district audit service) and submitted to Wessex regional health authority. All other reports were submitted to the Secretary of State "in confidence".

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what stage and for what reasons, her Department sought external legal advice about the possible publication of the Health Trac and Qa reports by West Midlands regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No external legal advice was sought by the Department.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the health implications of the Government's pit closure programme; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is published evidence of the health hazards of working in the mining industry, and of the consequences for employed people generally and their families of changes in employment status. Health authorities monitor, assess and where appropriate respond to the needs of their local populations.

  Care Homes
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to monitor the effects of community care implementation on registered care homes affording generalist provision for single homeless people.

  Mr. Yeo
  We shall be monitoring the implementation of the new community care arrangements in a variety of ways. As part of this we will be studying how authorities meet the care needs of homeless people.

  HIV-AIDS Grant
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 351, if she will describe the process involved which caused the change from the previous answer of 14 January, Official Report, column 800, with regard to HIV/AIDS grant to the London borough of Bromley; how many other local authorities benefited by the same process; and if she will list the comparable figures for each local authority for changes at the same point in the financial year since the introduction of HIV/AIDS grant support to local authorities.
  187
  Mr. Sackville
  A sum of money was identified from this year's programmed spending which enabled the Department to meet Bromley's late bid. No other authorities received money in this way.

  Five Communities Health Authority
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will announce the chairman and members of the Five Communities health authority that will commission planned health provision replacing the former Scunthorpe health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Mrs. Veronica Pettifer has been appointed as chairman of the new merged Grimsby and Scunthorpe health authority.

  The appointment of the members of the new health authority is a matter for Yorkshire regional health authority.

  Domestic Fuel
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the health implications of the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and heating; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Practice Target Achievement April 1992

  Vacc and Imm Main Target

  Vac and Imm Booster

  FHSA

  Higher

  Lower

  Higher

  Lower

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Northern

  Cleveland

  71

  80

  17

  19

  54

  61

  26

  29

  Cumbria

  95

  94

  3

  3

  93

  92

  5

  5

  Durham

  67

  83

  11

  14

  65

  80

  13

  16

  Northumberland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Gateshead

  26

  76

  6

  18

  23

  68

  9

  26

  Newcastle

  32

  65

  11

  22

  27

  55

  13

  27

  North Tyneside

  31

  86

  3

  8

  25

  69

  10

  28

  South Tyneside

  24

  80

  6

  20

  23

  77

  4

  13

  Sunderland

  45

  85

  5

  9

  30

  57

  18

  34

  Yorkshire

  Humberside

  136

  82

  26

  16

  93

  56

  60

  36

  North Yorkshire

  108

  94

  5

  4

  109

  95

  4

  3

  Bradford

  66

  67

  19

  19

  42

  43

  35

  36

  Calderdale

  25

  69

  0

  0

  18

  50

  7

  19

  Kirklees

  62

  77

  16

  20

  52

  64

  22

  27

  Leeds

  89

  67

  19

  14

  76

  58

  27

  20

  Wakefield

  35

  73

  7

  15

  24

  50

  11

  23

  Trent

  Derbyshire

  151

  94

  3

  2

  146

  91

  6

  4

  Leicester

  122

  82

  16

  11

  93

  62

  35

  23

  Lincolnshire

  101

  92

  7

  6

  96

  87

  11

  10

  Nottingham

  158

  85

  15

  8

  141

  76

  25

  13

  Barnsley

  30

  75

  9

  23

  23

  58

  14

  35

  Doncaster

  37

  76

  11

  22

  29

  59

  16

  33

  Rotherham

  27

  69

  9

  23

  21

  54

  13

  33

  Sheffield

  109

  93

  6

  5

  79

  68

  33

  28

  East Anglia

  Cambridge

  91

  92

  6

  6

  88

  89

  7

  7

  Norfolk

  103

  90

  6

  5

  103

  90

  7

  6

  Suffolk

  85

  98

  2

  2

  83

  95

  4

  5

  North West Thames

  Bedfordshire

  82

  80

  7

  7

  69

  67

  19

  18

  Hertfordshire

  132

  87

  6

  4

  126

  83

  12

  8

  Barnet

  51

  65

  8

  10

  45

  57

  9

  11

  Vaccination and Immunisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number and percentage of(a) general practices and (b) community medical officers in each family health services authority area in England who have reached the vaccination and immunisation higher and lower targets and booster targets as at the latest available date; and if she will make a statement on the combined impact of general practitioner and community medical officer efforts in this area on (i) percentage of all babies being immunised and vaccinated and (ii) incidence of the diseases being immunised and vaccinated against.

  Mr. Sackville
  The target payments scheme applies only to general practitioners. Details are set out by family health service authority (FHSA) as at 1 April 1992 in the table.

  All those in the national health service responsible for immunisation deserve great credit for their efforts during the past four years. The latest national immunisation coverage estimates show acceptance of 95 per cent., for diphtheria, tetanus and polio, 93 per cent. for measles, mumps and rubella, and 91 per cent. for whooping cough; well on the way towards our target of at least 95 per cent. coverage for all these diseases by 1995. Indigenous diphtheria and neonatal tetanus no longer occur, and even measles and whooping cough cases are becoming rare in general practice. No child in England and Wales has died from acute measles-related illness since 1989.
  189

  Vacc and Imm Main Target

  Vac and Imm Booster

  FHSA

  Higher

  Lower

  Higher

  Lower

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Brent and Harrow

  82

  60

  19

  14

  79

  58

  15

  11

  Ealing, Hammersmith, Hounslow

  109

  60

  31

  17

  97

  53

  37

  20

  Hillingdon

  39

  70

  13

  23

  35

  63

  13

  23

  Kensington, Chelsea, Westminster

  39

  32

  13

  11

  34

  28

  11

  9

  North East Thames

  Essex

  265

  93

  16

  6

  255

  89

  25

  9

  Barking and Havering

  78

  77

  21

  21

  64

  63

  30

  30

  Camden and Islington

  28

  26

  11

  10

  21

  20

  11

  10

  City and East London

  49

  28

  19

  11

  40

  23

  21

  12

  Enfield and Haringey

  71

  56

  17

  14

  54

  43

  21

  17

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  60

  47

  26

  20

  54

  43

  26

  20

  South East Thames

  East Sussex

  123

  84

  9

  6

  114

  78

  15

  10

  Kent

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Greenwich and Bexley

  53

  61

  26

  30

  51

  59

  25

  29

  Bromley

  40

  71

  12

  21

  41

  73

  9

  16

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South West Thames

  Surrey

  138

  88

  10

  6

  127

  81

  20

  13

  West Sussex

  95

  85

  2

  2

  91

  81

  6

  5

  Croydon

  52

  74

  8

  11

  41

  59

  16

  23

  Kingston and Richmond

  55

  83

  2

  3

  48

  73

  11

  17

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  81

  58

  21

  15

  62

  44

  30

  21

  Wessex

  Dorset

  103

  95

  4

  4

  106

  98

  1

  1

  Hampshire

  211

  93

  8

  4

  203

  90

  16

  7

  Wiltshire

  84

  94

  1

  1

  85

  96

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  20

  100

  0

  0

  19

  95

  1

  5

  Oxford

  Berkshire

  111

  85

  7

  5

  108

  83

  9

  7

  Buckinghamshire

  86

  92

  3

  3

  81

  87

  8

  9

  Northamptonshire

  81

  94

  4

  5

  74

  86

  10

  12

  Oxfordshire

  85

  97

  0

  0

  85

  97

  0

  0

  South Western

  Avon

  135

  87

  7

  5

  128

  83

  10

  6

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  77

  96

  2

  3

  79

  99

  0

  0

  Devon

  178

  96

  4

  2

  173

  94

  9

  5

  Gloucestershire

  83

  95

  2

  2

  82

  94

  3

  3

  Somerset

  76

  97

  1

  1

  75

  96

  2

  3

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  96

  90

  0

  0

  91

  85

  5

  5

  Shropshire

  53

  83

  10

  16

  50

  78

  12

  19

  Staffordshire

  156

  80

  25

  13

  133

  68

  45

  23

  Warwickshire

  62

  78

  11

  14

  60

  76

  12

  15

  Birmingham

  178

  68

  33

  13

  168

  64

  35

  13

  Coventry

  51

  74

  14

  20

  54

  78

  10

  14

  Dudley

  53

  90

  4

  7

  50

  85

  7

  12

  Sandwell

  51

  75

  12

  18

  40

  59

  18

  26

  Solihull

  31

  97

  1

  3

  30

  94

  2

  6

  Walsall

  58

  77

  15

  20

  50

  67

  18

  24

  Wolverhampton

  51

  75

  10

  15

  26

  38

  25

  37

  Mersey

  Cheshire

  135

  93

  4

  3

  128

  88

  11

  8

  Liverpool

  52

  48

  22

  20

  38

  35

  19

  18

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  43

  57

  26

  34

  24

  32

  30

  39

  Sefton

  38

  69

  11

  20

  34

  62

  9

  16

  Wirral

  49

  70

  18

  26

  46

  66

  16

  23

  North Western

  Lancashire

  228

  80

  34

  12

  176

  62

  53

  19

  Bolton

  45

  64

  9

  13

  41

  59

  10

  14

  Bury

  45

  96

  1

  2

  37

  79

  9

  19

  Manchester

  59

  52

  28

  25

  35

  31

  24

  21

  Oldham

  35

  78

  9

  20

  25

  56

  17

  38

  Rochdale

  32

  78

  6

  15

  28

  68

  6

  15

  Salford

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Stockport

  48

  81

  10

  17

  44

  75

  10

  17

  Tameside

  31

  74

  8

  19

  29

  69

  9

  21

  190 191

  Vacc and Imm Main Target

  Vac and Imm Booster

  FHSA

  Higher

  Lower

  Higher

  Lower

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Trafford

  46

  87

  6

  11

  46

  87

  6

  11

  Wigan

  42

  61

  11

  16

  29

  42

  13

  19

  Data are not yet available for four FHSAs: Northumberland; Kent; Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham; and Salford.

  Community Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to apply citizens charter principles to the defining and recording of unmet need in the health and social services area for those segments of the population benefiting from care in the community.
  192
  Mr. Yeo
  Our new community care arrangements represent an application of the principles of the citizens charter. Assessment puts the individual at the centre of the process so that services can be tailored to need rather than need to services. We have made clear that the results of assessments and the subsequent care plan should be discussed with users and carers and that authorities should collect and record the information they need to plan to improve their services.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Easter Act 1928
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusion they have arrived at after studying the present advantages and disadvantages of implementing the Easter Act 1928 whereby Easter would always be celebrated during the first half of April.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Answer is essentially the same as was given by my noble friend Lord Bathurst 32 years ago on 21st June 1961 when the first of these annual Questions was asked. The conclusion is that the status quo should obtain.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, as always; but as regards the great Christian celebration, does not history show that it matters not when Easter is celebrated so long as it is celebrated? Regarding the secular public holiday, with people looking forward to the first open air holiday after the Winter, although Easter should not be allowed to run too close to the May Day holiday, is there not every chance of better weather out-of-doors in April than in March?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, confuses the two issues. One is religious and the other is secular. The important point on the religious side is that Good Friday and Easter Day are the most solemn dates in the Christian calendar, and it is therefore desirable that any agreement to move those dates should be agreed by all the Churches. The secular side follows from the religious.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there may be a group of eccentrics, including myself, who like Easter to fall on different days in different years so that we can enjoy different phases of our glorious Spring in peace and quiet?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that also is a secular observation. I agree with my noble and learned friend that he may well be eccentric. He is not alone in that. If Easter is to be moved as it is a religious festival, that should be done with the agreement of the Churches.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, why is it all right to separate the secular and religious aspects at Whitsun but not at Easter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a good question. I have often wondered about that.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl should consult the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, as regards what the Answer to the Question should be. I
716
congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, in his absence, on the perception which he displayed 32 years ago in giving a sensible Answer to the Question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his comments. However, I should have preferred it if he had congratulated me on the Answer that I gave to the Question.

War Crimes Act: Cost
2.40 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the cost to date of the attempted implementation of the War Crimes Act 1991; what is the estimated cost for the financial year 1993–94; and how many prosecutions under the Act have been started.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the costs of the implementation of the War Crimes Act are so far estimated at £3.39 million. A provision of £10.6 million has been made for the financial year 1993–94 but costs are dependent on the outcome of the investigations and proceedings. No prosecutions have as yet been started under the Act.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not my noble friend's Answer indicate that this matter has been an appalling waste of public money?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Parliament decided that this course should be adopted and Parliament is responsible for it. Whether or not it is a waste of public money is a matter for individual interpretation.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, during the debates on the legislation the Government relied heavily on the view of the authors of the report that in spite of the passage of time prosecutions should go ahead. As further passage of time has elapsed, is that still the view of the authors of the report? Do not Ministers have some obligation to make inquiries and let us know?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot possibly tell the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, what the view of the authors of the report is. All I can do is to remind the noble Lord what Parliament suggested. This matter was debated fully in both Houses on a number of occasions and Parliament in its wisdom decided that this was the course to be adopted. That is the reason why it has been adopted.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend care to hazard a guess as to who will win the race: the Great Reaper, who will eventually kill off all possible defendants, or the Government in starting prosecutions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for a Government Minister to enter into a lottery of that character.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm his Written Answer to me on 8th December that the Government have set aside £36.6 million for these prosecutions? Will he also confirm

717
that two of the people being pursued would have been under 16 when these alleged crimes were committed and that a good many—23 of them—are over the age of 75? Is this money well spent unless we are to obtain some prosecutions soon?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is impossible to say how much money will be spent until it is known whether or not there will be any prosecutions. Clearly, if there are prosecutions the amount involved will be larger. Provision has been made on a three-year basis. As regards people who the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says were under 16 at the time, one of the matters being investigated in each case is whether the person concerned was under that age.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is it possible to detail where all that money is spent?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, are the sums mentioned by the noble Earl—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked a question. I am not sure that I heard it all: I think that he asked where the money was being spent. The answer is that in 1992–93 £1.36 million was spent on the police and £230,000 on the Crown Prosecution Service. In the estimates for 1993–94 £1.5 million is allocated for the police, £2.5 million for the Crown Prosecution Service, £0.9 million for the Lord Chancellor's Department and the courts, and £5.7 million for legal aid should that be required.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how many cases are being investigated under the Act at the moment compared with the original group of suspects identified in the Hetherington-Chalmers Report?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, 300 cases were identified by the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry. A further 43 cases have been brought to the attention of the Metropolitan Police war crimes unit. All cases have been reviewed and currently 91 cases are under investigation.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, having regard to the gravity of the crimes in question, justice delayed is justice denied?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the issues about which people feel very strongly. Parliament has decided that this is the course to be adopted and that is why this action is being taken.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, can the noble Earl state how many police officers are presently involved in these inquiries? What are the ranks of those officers? Further, can he say in what countries their investigations are currently being carried out?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are 11 police officers and five civilians in the Metropolitan Police war crimes unit. I cannot tell the noble Lord the ranks of each of those police officers. Police officers and Crown Prosecution Service staff have travelled abroad to Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia and Germany to
718
see witnesses and visit archives. Police officers have also travelled to Poland, Israel, the United States, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Lord Monson: My Lords, further to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, does the noble Earl not agree that there is something inherently obscene in the idea of prosecuting people aged 65 for something they may or may not have done when only 15 years old?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have no statute of limitations in this country for crimes of murder and we cannot ignore evidence which has been or may be uncovered.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not the case that despite the passage of time and the expense, some justice is due to the victims of the holocaust?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a perfectly respectable view.

Satellite Broadcasting: Competition
2.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What inquiries they are making into the ownership of encryption technology for satellite broadcasting to ensure that there are full and fair competitive conditions for new entrants.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the Government have not initiated inquiries into the ownership of encryption technology for satellite broadcasting. It would be for the Office of Fair Trading to investigate complaints that the ownership of such technology is being abused to suppress open competition in the satellite television market.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that new entrants in the growing business of satellite broadcasting by subscription now face a potentially monopolistic situation in a practical sense because BSkyB controls the plastic smart-card technology? Should it not be a matter of concern to a government who believe in competition that the Murdoch media interests, which currently control 35 per cent. of the national newspaper market and which dominate control of BSkyB, should now have a fully-owned subsidiary—News Datacom—which stands at the tollgate for new entrants? Is there not a clear case for investigating that potentially monopolistic situation before it goes too far?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we believe that the OFT provides effective recourse against anti-competitive practices. I understand that the director general has not received any representations on this matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten some of us by defining encryption technology? Can she also let us know who owns it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, encryption technology is a system which allows people to charge for broadcasts from satellites. It is a conditional access system which works in two distinct ways. The television signal is scrambled to make it unwatchable and the information which will allow the viewer to unscramble the signal is encrypted.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in order to protect their entry into satellite broadcasting it is necessary for companies to subscribe to this technology? However, if such technology is in the hands of one private operator, which operates Sky television, it becomes extremely difficult for newcomers to enter the field since the technology and the licence are in the hands of one operator who is already in that business. Is this not a case where the Government should refer the situation to the OFT rather than simply waiting for the OFT to take it up?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that we are not dealing with unsophisticated players. Other people such as UK Gold are using the system. Should they feel a necessity to complain to the OFT, I am sure that they will.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are a number of encryption services? News International BSkyB estimates that it has already spent £200 million on perfecting its service. Is the Minister aware that commercial broadcasters have successfully made a deal with Japanese TV and with TV Asia? Negotiations are under way in the partnership which exists between the BBC and Thames to try to form an agreement. Surely, it is better that those negotiations should continue between competitors rather than a solution being imposed on them by someone else.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We believe that open competitive practice is the best means.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are no open competitive practices at present? The monopoly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord. Thomson of Monifieth, is held by Rupert Murdoch. He has a great slice of the press in this country and the satellite stations too. Much as we sought to obtain a change in that situation under the Broadcasting Act, it was not possible. Since there are no competitors against him, is it not now time for the Government to give a nudge to the Office of Fair Trading so that something at last is done about the outrageous monopoly in the ownership of Rupert Murdoch?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the noble Baroness states, the ownership restrictions were extensively debated when the ownership order was before the House. The Government are not convinced that they need to be changed. Negotiations with companies such as UK Gold and Japanese companies to use the same system, as my noble friend suggested, are taking place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if only a few of the dangers outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, arise, ought not the Government to take an interest at the earliest possible stage in order to avoid them?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I point out to my noble friend that there are alternative news services, in particular the BBC and ITN.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful for having been made familiar with encryption technology. Is not the heart of the technology that it controls the gateway to the Astra satellite broadcasting? Is it not indefensible that one person who is a major media baron elsewhere should control that gateway? Do the Government really believe in competition, or is it competition for the miners with a cosy monopoly for newspaper barons? Surely it is a case for Sir Bryan Carsberg, who has just taken over at the OFT, urgently to investigate.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that CNN is also broadcast by a satellite outside the system. However, perhaps I may state firmly that no evidence has been presented to the OFT to suggest that the current situation is anti-competitive or monopolistic within the terms of existing legislation.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is no need for any greatly advanced technology to make most television programmes unwatchable?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord will attract much sympathy from your Lordships' House on that matter.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to UK Gold in which the BBC is involved. The BBC is financed by our licensing fees. It tried to establish an independent arrangement for its encryption but finally felt obliged to surrender to BSkyB. Does the Minister believe, having regard to the expression of views from both sides of the House today, that sufficient representations have been made from your Lordships' House to encourage the Government, in the public interest, to urge the OFT to investigate the matter?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I am sure the BBC made the decision on commercial grounds. As I said in reply to most questions, it is for complainants to go to the Office of Fair Trading.

Community Care: Implementation
2.55 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that there is enough money available to implement community care after 1st April.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, yes.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I hope that it may prove correct.
The noble Baroness is doubtless aware of the letter of 1st March from Mr. David Lambert in her own department, directing directors of social services to record unmet choice and not unmet need. Does she agree that that has cast some doubt on what the Select Committee in another place called the transparency of the Government's funding arrangements? Does she agree that it makes it more urgent to ask whether the Government accept Recommendation 5 of the report of the Health Committee in another place? The report recommends that the Government should make sure:
"that there are no inhibitions on the ability of social services departments and health authorities to make a full assessment of unmet needs. It will be difficult to judge in future whether resources are adequate unless we have a clear indication of the level of need, both met and unmet".
Do the Government accept that recommendation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is quite right and proper that assessments are made of individuals and that those assessments are shared with the individual concerned. That is laid down quite clearly in our guidance. However, asking social workers to produce a list of services that might be helpful without any thought for resources or priorities would be to ignore reality. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the Health Committee also stated that the new funding arrangements provided the potential for a better and more efficient use of public money.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister, first, whether money from central Government to local government for community care has been ring-fenced? Secondly, will those projects which are now the responsibility of the local social services department but which are run by charities continue to receive the grant that they previously received from central Government now that those projects are non-statutory and the money is not stretching to them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is correct in her assumption that the money is ring-fenced—£565 million to local authorities. That includes an additional £140 million above the amount which the Department of Social Security would have spent had current arrangements continued.
With regard to charities, it is up to local authorities to decide which local charities they wish to support, but of course the Government support national charities under Section 64 funding.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the six main points of the Government's proposals appear to be most laudable, and are well overdue? They involve elderly people, the disabled and those suffering from drugs and AIDS. However, will the Government make sure that local authority assessment is fair and just? Will help also be given to
722
aged people who are in private nursing homes whose relatives are sometimes hard-pressed to afford the payment? Will some help be given in that area too?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his initial comments. Local authorities will take particular care with people who are in private and residential care. I forgot the noble Lord's second question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I referred to people in private homes and those unfortunate people who suffer from drug-taking and matters of that description. Some of those who contribute to payment for people in private nursing homes can no longer afford to do so. Perhaps the Government will take note of that situation.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think that I answered that point.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the considerable anxiety among the medical profession that the vulnerable, elderly, sick and disabled are at the mercy of the whim of a lottery, virtually, because some local authorities have more money available than others? Is it not now the time and place to publish a charter in which the basic needs which can be assumed for all local authorities are published? If that is so then those who have extra money or who are prepared to contribute extra money can provide the frills.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the money is ring-fenced. It is a considerable sum of money; it is new money to social services—£565 million. The calculations were based on the social security moneys which would have been spent in the next year, taking into account the anticipated increase in elderly people needing residential or nursing home care.
A further 30,000 additional cases were added, twice the number needed to keep pace with demography and people discharged from long stay hospitals. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in her negotiations with the Treasury, secured another £140 million.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, while accepting that these are serious and important questions, does my noble friend agree that the scope for meeting needs for care is endless? Therefore, by definition, there will never be enough money for community care.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is correct in saying that the money will, of course, be tight. We brought in the new assessment procedure because we believe that local people will have a better idea of what is needed in their local areas. That assessment will be sensitive. Whereas before there was an incentive for people to go into residential care, the new scheme is intended to help people to stay at home, where the vast majority want to be.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, in view of the uncertainty over the true costs of implementing community care on 1st April, are the Government

723
prepared to set up a contingency reserve as recommended in the House of Commons Select Committee report, paragraphs 88–91?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think, as I have explained, that the amounts of money are enormous—they are huge. We anticipate them being enough. If we were to keep contingency sums, it would mean that perhaps some people would be denied care in the coming year. I think it is preferable that social services departments should have that money in order to make their assessments and in order to help people who are very much in need.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the rosy picture which she paints is not shared by the vast majority of organisations for disabled people? Is she aware that the Select Committee for Health in another place said that there would be a 20 per cent. underfunding, mainly in London and inner city areas? Is she also aware that the survey by the Association of Directors of Social Services said that no less than 87 per cent. of local authorities plan cuts in their provision? If that is true, it means that many disabled and elderly people will suffer very great hardship unless the Government think again.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this money, this special transitional grant, is not going to be cut. It is ring-fenced. And it is not capped.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, irrespective of the detailed supplementary questions and answers that we have had on this Starred Question, may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether Starred Questions are still intended to elicit information from the Government and whether he considers that this question falls into that category?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, apart from the underfunding to which my noble friend Lord Ashley referred, is the noble Baroness aware that her department is already slashing grants to excellent voluntary organisations, particularly the organisation Extend? It does wonderful work for elderly and disabled people and I have been its president for 15 years. The organisation was not just told that its grant would be reduced; it was told that for the first time in 15 years the grant would be cut altogether. Is that not totally irresponsible and unfair to noble voluntary organisations?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the total amount of money that the Government are giving in their grants to national organisations is not being cut. I think it is quite right, though, that the Government should sometimes re-order their priorities and make an assessment of the individual organisations to which they are giving. Very often, it is important to re-order that money in order to pump-prime new organisations that are trying to get off the ground.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is still considerable confusion regarding the rights of the individual to receive community care and the duty of the local authority to provide that care? If,
724
after an appeal, an individual is assessed for community care and the local authority says that it lacks the resources to provide that care, what will happen?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is absolutely right that social services departments, in doing those assessments, have to take into account the resources that are available. I am very optimistic on the subject. In my experience a little money goes a very long way in terms of supporting people in their own homes. I have spoken to a number of carers who have very small requirements. Sometimes I think that those working in the field—social workers—try to produce a list of services which is more of a wish list than the actuality of what is required.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that too often this is an issue not of funding but of control? Whereas local authorities will always spend up to their budget, regardless of what it is, many voluntary sector organisations spend with a great deal more care and skill, which up until the changes the Government had recognised. By giving all the money back to the local authorities, the Government are condoning a greater level of inefficient spending.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is quite right that the responsibility for this should be with the social services departments. I agree, though, with my noble friend that voluntary organisations on the whole spend their money very well and very wisely. That is why the Government give them so much support.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept Recommendation 11 of the Select Committee? If I may paraphrase it, the recommendation states: if it turns out that there is not enough money, will the Government please notice and do something about it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I note the noble Earl's comments.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Video Recordings Bill and the Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 will be taken.

Disabled Persons (Services) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to empower local authorities to make certain severely disabled persons accountable for expenditure on their care plans.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

725
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord McColl of Dulwich.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate, 31st March
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Richard set down for Wednesday 31st March shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.9 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that the fourth report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the fourth report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 72).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Parliamentary Works Programme
The Committee endorsed the use of a ten year rolling programme as the basis of the annual works programmes and PES bids. It agreed that the substantial backlog of conservation and maintenance work should be made good as quickly as practical and that the necessary funds should be provided. It also agreed that funds should be made available for new works in the South East Return in the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95.
2. New Civil Service pay schemes
The Committee approved in principle proposals, currently under discussion with unions and staff, for the adaptation of new Civil Service pay schemes to the circumstances of the House of Lords, subject to the satisfactory outcome of the consultations.
3. New secretarial grading structures
The Committee approved the introduction of a new secretarial grading structure, based on that already in place in the House of Commons, and the upgrading of certain posts in order to create a better career structure.
4. Refreshment Department profit-sharing scheme
The Committee approved the introduction, with effect from the 1993–94 financial year, of a
726
profit-sharing scheme for staff in the Refreshment Department. The scheme will be financed from the Department's Trading Fund.
5. Security manning review
The Committee approved a series of measures to improve security by more efficient and cost effective use of manpower and technical resources.
6. Taxation of official residences
The Committee agreed arrangements to meet the tax liability, under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, of occupants in respect of official residences on the parliamentary estate.
7. Works of Art Collection Fund
The Committee approved the setting up of a Works of Art Collection Fund and a memorandum describing the arrangements which will govern it.
8. Nominations to the Board of POST
The Committee agreed that the Lords members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) should be selected by the Committee of Selection under the provisions of Standing Order 61(5A).
9. Car Parking
The Committee took note of the provision of additional car parking space in the vicinity of the House.
10. Appointments and promotions
The Committee was informed of—

(a) the appointment of Mrs P.J. Woolgar as Shorthand Writer to the House with effect from 1 April 1993 in the place of Mrs E.M.C. Holland who retires on 31 March 1993;

(b) the appointment of Miss Margaret Douglas, Chief Political Adviser to the BBC, as Supervisor of Parliamentary Broadcasting with effect from June 1993 in the place of Mr John Grist;

(c) the promotion of Dr. F.P. Tudor to Chief Clerk with effect from 15 February 1993.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have a short technical point to raise with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees concerning paragraph 6 of the fourth report which states:
"The Committee agreed arrangements to meet the tax liability, under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, of occupants in respect of official residences on the parliamentary estate".
I am unaware of the identity of the occupants and have no wish in any way to criticise them or to worsen their financial situation.
I ask whether the previous occupants received exactly the same benefits under agreed arrangements, or whether this is something entirely new. If it is entirely new, I first of all draw the attention of the House to the fact that in suitable cases where the condition applies, it is always open to the occupant to dispute any Inland Revenue assessment as to benefit on the grounds that it is necessarily, compulsorily, as a condition of his job that he occupies the official residence; and that under the normal Schedule E expense rules any benefit he receives must be wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of his duties. If those considerations apply to any of the occupants, there is no necessity for any

727
arrangements for the House or its funds to reimburse the occupants concerned, since they will be entitled to relief.
If on the other hand those conditions do not apply, I may draw the attention of the House to the fact that the many high officers of state, including many prominent politicians and Cabinet Ministers, already pay tax for the benefits that they receive by reason of occupying official residences. I name, for example, Admiralty House, where I understand certain Ministers have pied-a-terre facilities and various benefits of that kind. I also believe, though I am not quite certain, that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are accountable for any benefits they receive.
Therefore, I wonder whether there are any special reasons why that tax liability should be met. I sincerely hope that none of the occupants is known to me personally and will not strike me down in lightning for raising the point. But it is a matter upon which the House should be informed and, I hope, reassured.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it is entirely understandable that the noble Lord raises the matter. The situation that has arisen is a new one. The Inland Revenue has changed its practice. On account of that, and in the Eight of the fact that the other place decided that as this came as a surprise, it was felt to be fair for the time being—it is not necessarily for the indefinite future—that the House should reimburse those people who were "caught by surprise". I think that is a reasonable way to describe it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may question the noble Lord a little further. From what he has said—and I am most grateful for his reply—I gather that the Inland Revenue has had a change of practice. Has it had repealed some statutory obligations which it already had? By whose consent was that change of mind accomplished? And is there any particular reason why the other place (which is ultimately the supreme arbiter of all such matters) should so willingly concur in a change of practice? Did the Inland Revenue give any particular reason, supported by any case law or commissioner decisions, in favour of changing its practice?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord is so much better informed than I am about matters to do with accountancy. It is a question of the interpretation of the law as it stands. As he is aware, the Inland Revenue is wont to take a different view once in a while about its past practices. This is something it has decided to do. It is in accordance with the law. It may indeed eventually be tested by the courts if it is thought that in any way the Inland Revenue is outside its rights. It is thought to be within its rights to interpret the matter in this way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees whether that applies only in the case of existing employees, or whether it will extend to new employees when the existing holders of the posts leave them.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I have already said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that this is not an open-ended commitment for the indefinite future. It will be reviewed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that does not answer my question. "Open-ended" can mean 50 years or 100 years. I want to know whether it will be extended beyond the period of employment of the existing staff who will enjoy the benefit.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, no decision has yet been made on that point. I believe it must be left for further consideration. It came as a surprise to the Finance and Staff Committee. Therefore, I believe that further consideration should be given to the matter, if the noble Lord will be so kind as to leave it like that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
3.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 29 [Amendments of transfer of undertakings regulations]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 46, line 46, at end insert:
("() For the purpose of implementing Council Directive 77/187/EEC, 14 February 1977, there shall be inserted as Regulation IA in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 the following provision—
Recognition of Trade Union for purposes of negotiation.
"1A.—(a) Where an independent trade union notifies ACAS that an employer does not recognise it for negotiation of terms and conditions of his employees ACAS may, if it sees fit, make inquiry of and consult the employer with a view to ascertaining whether to recommend that he should grant the union recognition as bargaining agent for some or all of his employees in respect of such matters as it recommends for the purpose of implementing these Regulations.
(b) Where at a date set by ACAS not later than six months after the date of such a recommendation the employer refuses or fails to recognise the trade union which was recommended by ACAS, the authorised representatives of the trade union so recommended shall be presumed to be representatives of a recognised trade union for the purposes of Regulations 10 and 11.
(c) ACAS shall conduct its enquiries under this Regulation of such persons it sees fit to consult, and in accordance with a Code of Practice made by the Secretary of State under section 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and where in its discretion it deems it to be necessary ACAS may

729
hold a ballot of some or all of the employees concerned under conditions approved by the Certification Officer.
(d) ACAS shall publish its recommendations or other decisions made under this Regulation.
(e) Disputes under this Regulation shall be referred to the Central Arbitration Committee ("CAC") for determination under regulations to be made in consultation with the CAC by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument." ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 204 and speak also to Amendment No. 218, both of which have some relevance to Amendment No. 207 in the name of my noble friend Lady Turner and Amendments Nos. 212 and 220 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
The amendments largely concern two Community directives, Directives Nos. 187 of 1977 and 129 of 1975 as amended last year. I say at once that the problem which they raise is every bit as important to the interests of working people as are the issues on the Marshalled List, such as that of low pay, for the Committee to debate later.
Community law requires employers to consult with the representatives of employees in two situations; first, very broadly, on the transfer of the employer's undertaking, which is the subject of this amendment and of the 1977 directive; and secondly, when the employer contemplates collective dismissal—or, in a special sense here, redundancy—which is the parallel concern of Amendment No. 218 and of the 1975 directive as amended.
The amendments propose, first, that there should be proper fulfilment of our Community commitments under those directives; and secondly, even more forcefully, that they are right in themselves. On a transfer of the undertaking in all its many forms or when facing mass dismissals, it is not asking very much that workers should at least have the right to consultation with their independent representative. In a recession, amid mounting unemployment, it is scarcely extreme, and is certainly not seen as extreme by our competitive partners in the Community, that the law should provide for some consultation—a spirit that demands the support, I believe, of the country as a whole, as the Government learned last October. But there can be no consultation unless independent representatives of workers have a place at the table. There cannot be what the Community's directives set out to enforce if those workers' representatives are not there. The existing provisions purporting to implement those Community directives in this country are the so-called TUPE regulations of 1981, now Section 188 of the consolidation Act of 1992.
Both measures provide that in British law the employer is to consult with authorised representatives of a trade union recognised by him. But we know from the Government's insistence on the point in another place that since the Act of this Government which was passed in 1980, there has been no legal obligation to recognise at the table independent representatives or indeed any representatives of workers. Again and
730
again in another place Ministers have stated their policy. Let me take the most crisp formulation of that government policy. Mr. Forsyth said:
"The terms of the directive allow for existing custom and practice to be taken into account in implementing the directive. There will be no requirement to consult, if an employer has not recognised trade unions. That is our interpretation of the directive".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 26/1/93; col. 545.]
That is the doctrine of subsidiarity turned into the doctrine of inactivity. I am well aware—the Government have repeated it again and again—that it is the stance which the Government have taken before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. They made some play of the fact that, with due attention to subsidiarity, both directives define the representatives (to take the precise formulation of 1977) as representatives of the employees provided for by the laws and practices of member states. From that the Government draw the conclusion that the directives should not be implemented in a way that might be thought to give some substance to consultation, because in Britain there is no law that requires employers to recognise, except for very marginal issues, any consultation at all, save for health and safety.
It seems to me that the Government never address themselves to a further point. If the directive meant that it allowed for a practice or law in a member state to the effect that it does not have representatives of employees—I do not believe that any other member state takes that position; nor does the Commission, which is why it is pursuing infraction proceedings before the court—then it would not get off the ground. It would have been a very odd directive to pass. But that is not the position. After 1975, when the consultation on redundancy directive was implemented in the Act of that year, and until 1980, there was a procedure whereby ACAS could require an employer to recognise a trade union for certain purposes. There was that procedure. It was not a perfect procedure by any means but it was a fallback situation. The law said that after ACAS had gone through all the steps it had to take (sometimes failing in doing so) and had followed all the right procedures, the employer was obliged in law, with the very ordinary sanction which was not very severe, to act accordingly. Once it had got to that point, the directive bit.
The reason why the directive does not bite is because the Government repealed the one measure which caused it to bite in English law. The Government therefore have to say to the court and the Commission, "The directive does not say that nobody need consult if there is a law or practice that does not enjoin it. Furthermore, the representatives of the employees who once had a right to consult and therefore fell under the Commission's directive now have no place because we, the Government, have repealed that law."
If one took that approach to the directive, one would be able to escape from any directive that one wished to avoid. Indeed, the Government have said that they wish to escape from the transfer of undertakings directives. So far as Community law is concerned—I appreciate that we stand on the edge of

731
a battle in the Luxembourg court—surely the Government owe it to the people of this country who were deprived of their Community rights in 1980 at least to put them back on the statute book.
To cure any misunderstanding, that is precisely the effect of this amendment and its fellow amendment for the redundancy consultation section. The amendments say that where there has been no consultation or negotiation after a long time, ACAS can inquire into the matter and, according to a code of practice which it is for the Minister to lay down, ACAS can say that employers must sit at the table with those people as recognised representatives for the purposes of consultation over redundancies. That is no extreme proposition. It is common sense. I believe it to be our obligation within the Community. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I believe that Clause 29 is an improvement and generally to be welcomed. But the Government have finally had to come to terms with the fact that their 1981 regulations do not provide proper protection for those affected by business transfers and do not meet EC requirements.
It seems to me that there is a problem, to which my noble friend has drawn attention. An employer could simply ignore the obligation to consult with representatives of the workforce simply by derecognising the trade union. Similarly, there is no right to consultation under the regulations if the employees are in a union which the employer stubbornly refuses to recognise. Perhaps he has done so in order to comply with what he perceives to be the philosophy of the Government. That frequently happens now. Indeed, as we know, there has been active encouragement to employers by the Government not to recognise unions. However, it is not an easy philosophy where unions are regarded as social partners rather than potential adversaries.
The amendment provides a mechanism whereby the workforce can secure recognition and thus the right to be consulted in the event of a transfer and the problems that may follow, including the problem of possible redundancies. Under my noble friend's amendment, ACAS is involved in the process. That seems entirely right, bearing in mind its functions and expertise in the areas concerned. My noble friend has thought through the whole process, including making a provision for the Central Arbitration Committee to deal with any dispute. The amendment seems entirely admirable. I hope that the Minister will support it in principle even if he cannot support the wording.
The Minister may well say that the amendment imports trade union recognition by the back door, so to speak, and that trade union recognition is a matter only for the employer on an entirely voluntary basis. We have heard him say that in discussions on this Bill on previous occasions. But the fact remains that that is not in accord with EC philosophy and not in accord with the spirit of the regulations. In the EC unions are not marginalised as they have been in the UK by over a decade of Conservative legislation. Involvement of the workforce means in the EC directive involvement via the unions. My noble friend's amendment tries to
732
ensure that the mechanism exists in the UK for carrying out the intentions of the regulations. I support it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendment. It is a very ingenious attempt to use the European Community legislation to effect a substantial and, in the view of some Members of the Committee, very harmful change in our existing law. It is perhaps a matter for some amusement that the amendment refers to a Community directive formulated as long ago as 1977. One would have thought it might perhaps have lost a certain amount of validity with the passage of time and non-implementation.
But the substance of the matter is serious and important. There are situations in which an employer does not wish to recognise a union. Fortunately, there are not very many of them. Most employers are well disposed toward recognising most unions. But there are some unions whose reputation and attitude are such that a sensible employer does not wish to have anything to do with them. As I understand it, the amendment would have the effect of depriving those employers of that discretion.
That would be a very serious change for the worse in our law. Although the amendment has been ingeniously engineered by its reference to the attitude of the European Community, it is not acceptable to those who are concerned with the smooth and efficient working of the British industrial system. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: On this occasion I could not agree less with everything that has been said by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is far better that I say that and be totally frank. It will come as no surprise to my noble friend the Minister that I say that from these Benches; I have been saying as much to him over a period of some two years. He is courteous and gracious enough to accept that.
There are two views. There is the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—which I shall take a little time to consider—and another view which is not exactly the form of the amendment. That view is that it is assuredly not harmful to our domestic law to import a recognition machinery into our industrial relations system. Indeed, it is a wholly requisite provision for any ongoing highly industrialised society today. The cleavage between my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and myself is great—he says that it is harmful and I say that it is requisite.
As yet the Government adhere to the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but they did not always do so. The day will come when assuredly they will not do so again. I hope that it will be within a short time and that both my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and I will be present to discuss the matter once again.
The recognition machinery which existed was originally devised by Barbara Castle in In Place of Strife. The Labour Cabinet was divided upon the matter, as appears from the Crossman Diaries. As I

733
suppose was inevitable, in the end Barbara Castle won and produced In Place of Strife and the industrial relations Bill which contained a recognition machinery. It was madly complex and I was concerned with it professionally on behalf of employers and trade unions in the wake of the 1971 Act.
The curious thing is that although the Act was under savage and sustained attack throughout the whole of its life, the one aspect of it that worked to the entire satisfaction of both employers and trade unions was the recognition machinery. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, who was President of the National Industrial Relations Court, would confirm that if he were in his place. It was at a time when strikes were far more prevalent than they are today. That is why I say from my professional experience, my belief and my view as to the status of trade unions and employers in an industrial society such as our own, that there ought to be a recognition machinery.
Many Secretaries of State, including my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley—with whom I worked closely in those days —took the view, and other responsible Conservatives have taken the view, that it is essential to have some form of recognition machinery as an aid to predictability—for forward pricing and forward contracts, the essence of a successful industrialised society.
I am not concerned with breaches of convention. I do not much like the form of the amendment or, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, the way that he argued in support of it. But I support the fundamental principle for the reasons that I have given. Breaches of convention are justiciable both before the European Commission and at the European Court of Justice. Even in our courts credence is given to the legal efficacy of those directives. I am not so concerned about that. However, I am concerned that we have no form of recognition machinery either for negotiation or for consultation.
I apologise for detaining the Committee but the issue is something in which I believe. It is time we had a recognition machinery. That does not mean that I shall vote against the Government. I shall probably abstain because I know that the Government do not agree with me.
Baroness Seear: Although the names of my noble friend Lord Rochester and myself are not attached to the amendment, we wish to support it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, we believe that it is essential to have well organised industrial relations machinery, and that involves properly recognised trade unions. For that purpose we believe that the Act, either intentionally or unintentionally, is fatally undermining the trade union tradition. That will be extremely bad for industrial relations in this country.
The use of ACAS for recognition machinery and the need for recognition machinery is obvious. On that line of argument I wish to support the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 204 is concerned with identifying employee representatives
734
for the purpose of the transfer of undertakings regulations, while Amendment No. 218 is concerned with the statutory consultation requirements in relation to collective redundancies contained in the 1992 consolidation Act.
The amendments apparently accept that consultation rights should continue to be restricted to recognise trade unions but seek to put in place mechanisms whereby trade unions can be deemed to have been recognised. I hope that it will be helpful to the Chamber if I first set out the existing position.
As the transfer of undertakings regulations currently stand, an employer in a transfer is required to inform and consult with representatives of an independent trade union which he has chosen to recognise for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect of any employees who are affected by the transfer. That is the case whether or not the employees actually work in the undertaking which is to be transferred. Similarly, Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides that an employer who proposes to dismiss one or more employees as redundant must consult representatives of any relevant trade union which he recognises for collective bargaining purposes. He must do that within prescribed time limits which depend upon the number of employees to be dismissed.
Where an employer has chosen to recognise a trade union for collective bargaining purposes, he is required to inform and consult the union's representatives when its members are affected by a transfer or proposed redundancies. The key words however are, "where an employer has chosen to recognise a trade union".
In company with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter I commend the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in finding another opportunity to press the case for statutory recognition arrangements. But he can be in no doubt about the Government's views on the subject. It is a fundamental principle of government policy that employers should be free to decide for themselves in the light of the circumstances and the needs of their business whether or not to recognise a trade union. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and I will have to continue to differ. I know that he holds his views very sincerely, but I do not share them.
I understand that the deemed recognition contained in the amendments would not be recognition for any purpose other than the information and consultation provisions of the transfer regulations or the statutory redundancy consultation provisions. Nevertheless, what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is seeking is irreconcilable with a fundamental principle of the present law on transfers and redundancy consultation. That principle is that the requirement to inform and consult a trade union arises only as a consequence of an employer's choice to recognise that union for collective bargaining.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, have suggested that the United Kingdom may be technically in breach of the acquired rights and collective redundancies directive because there is no statutory right to employee

735
representation for the purposes of the transfer regulations and the law on redundancy consultation. The Government do not accept that argument. Both directives define the employee representatives who must be informed and consulted as those provided for by the laws or practices of the member states—the words that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, read out. In the United Kingdom it means representatives of recognised trades unions; that is, unions that an employer has chosen to recognise for collective bargaining, not ones that he has been deemed to have recognised for the purpose of the directive. Therefore, these amendments are unacceptable in principle.
Even if that is not the case it is very hard to see how the proposed mechanisms can possibly work in practice. Any employer planning a transfer or the making of redundancies who does not recognise a trade union for collective bargaining purposes will presumably have to call in ACAS to adjudicate on whether or not one or more unions shall be deemed to have been recognised. I very much doubt that ACAS would relish having to decide whether a union's representatives were suitable for such purpose. Noble Lords may be forgiven for wondering just what the criteria of suitability may be.
The amendment envisages that ACAS may for some unspecified reason recommend that a ballot be held. Such ballot will have to take place under rules approved by the certification officer, but the amendment offers no answer to a range of questions that will arise. Whose ballot will it be? Who will supervise and pay for it? Who will be the constituency? Thai and a great many other questions will arise. The overriding problem is that the involvement of ACAS and any necessary ballot will need to be arranged and to take place long enough before a transfer to allow the provision of information and adequate time for consultation. Does the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, really believe that it will make sense for the law to require a full-scale ACAS investigation, and possibly a ballot of the entire workforce, in a case where an employer proposes to make a single employee redundant? Does he believe that ACAS, having found the statutory recognition procedures unworkable —ACAS's own words in the late 1970s—will welcome having to determine, in the absence of any given criteria, whether or not a union shall be deemed to be recognised at a particular workplace?
It is quite clear to the Government that the result of these amendments can only be to make transfers of undertakings more difficult, with obvious implications for business efficiency and employment prospects, and to make it virtually impossible for employers to make employees redundant in accordance with the statutory consultation requirements. I suggest that the amendments cannot possibly be accepted, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw them.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thank my noble friend Lady Turner for her support and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his support in
736
principle. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her support from the Liberal Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, compliments me for ingenuity. I think it is a compliment and I will take it as such. It does not need much ingenuity to look back at the 1975 machinery and devise something that makes it workable. Sometimes I am amazed by the narrow horizons in the Government's mind. When they see something that is imperfect they say that they cannot do anything better. I believe that my amendments are the beginnings of something better than the 1975 arrangements. It may not work perfectly, but it could be there. The central point, as made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is that we must not deprive the employer of his discretion whether or not to recognise a trade union so that he can retain his ability to dismiss his employees. The Minister says that this is something that really cannot be done. Without going through them, there are other jurisdictions where legal support for recognition and negotiation has been fitted into the system.
I pass over the Minister's complaint that we will never know which union it is. That is fine for a government that is just passing a Bill to dispose of the Bridlington machinery. The Minister also asked who would pay for the ballot. That is rich since the Government have just withdrawn their promise to fund trade union ballots. I pass over those matters that need not stop us addressing the serious question. The directive says that the representatives of work people are those who are provided for by the laws or practices of the member states. What the Government have set out to do—and I put money on their not doing it—is to convince the court that if it is said that there is no practice and no law it means that they do not have to do anything and can simply dispose of the directive.
However, today the Minister has gone even further. Not only do the Government fail to address themselves to the repeal of the 1975 recognition measures in 1980—which was a unilateral government act disposing of a member state's obligations (they say) under the 1975 directive—but they also rely on the practice of there not being any practice. It is quite clear what the directive means. If one goes to Denmark and finds that 95 per cent. of the workforce is covered by the practice of negotiation, though the Commission may complain a little about the 5 per cent. one is obviously implementing the arrangement. Ours is not an industrial relations jurisdiction of that kind; it needs a legal prod, and it needs to get it right.
This amendment is the basis on which one can get it right. After discussions with my noble friends on the Front Bench, I will not withdraw the amendment.
3.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.204) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents,143.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Annan, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Attlee, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McNair, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mulley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Eatwell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Peston, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkender, B.

Richard, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Soper, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Healey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Varley, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Howell, L.

Wigoder, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alport, L.

Carnock, L.

Annaly, L.

Cayzer, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Arran, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Auckland, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Bessborough, E.

Croham, L.

Blatch, B.

Cross, V.

Blyth, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Boardman, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Borthwick, L.

Davidson, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Derwent, L.

Butterworth, L.

Dundonald, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Effingham, E.

Caldecote, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Elles, B.

738

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Moyne, L.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Faithfull, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson, E.

Flather, B.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northbourne, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Goold, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Goschen, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Palmer, L.

Gridley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Peel, E.

Pender, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Prentice, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reading, M.

Harvington, L.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hertford, M.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Seccombe, B.

Hives, L.

Shannon, E.

Holderness, L.

Sharples, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hood, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Howe, E.

Strafford, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Killearn, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Kimberley, E.

Knollys, V.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Swinfen, L.

Lindsay, E.

Tebbit, L.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trefgarne, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ullswater, V.

Margadale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marlesford, L.

Vivian, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mersey, V.

Morris, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mountevans, L.

Wise, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.56 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 205 to 209 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 47, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert:
("(a) for paragraph (7) there shall be substituted—
"(7) any compensation awarded to an employee under this Regulation shall go towards discharging any liability of the employer under, or in respect of a breach of, the contract of employment insofar as both that liability and the compensation awarded are attributable to a period during which the employer did not perform his duty to consult.
Conversely, any payment made in discharging such liability to the employee by the employer shall go to reduce the amount of any compensation awarded under this Regulation insofar as that payment and award are similarly attributable to such a period." and").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 219. These amendments essentially deal with the same point—

739
that is, the preservation of the existing rules whereby industrial tribunals, when determining compensation for breach of the employer's obligation to provide information and to consult with employee representatives prior to a transfer of undertakings or a redundancy situation, may take account of payments already made to the employee under his contract of employment. At present, the law allows for payment made by the employer under the employment contract or for breach of that contract to be credited to the employer in his discharge of obligations to pay compensation for failing to consult on a transfer or to pay remuneration under a protective award. The converse also applies whereby payments under an award may be credited towards the discharge of contractual obligations. The Bill as it stands would remove this position, no longer allowing the set-off. The amendments seek to maintain the current position.
To take one example, under the existing law, if an employer dismisses employees as redundant without giving them due notice, he will, in addition to any statutory redundancy entitlement, be liable to pay damages for breach of their contracts arising from his failure to give the proper notice period on termination. That will usually reflect the loss of pay which each employee would have accrued during the notice period. Consequently, it is normal practice for employers to pay money in lieu of notice on termination as immediate compensation for the breach. In the event that a tribunal should subsequently rule that the employer failed to consult on the redundancies and award compensation for the protected period—that is, the notional period during which the employees' employment would have continued had there been proper consultation—it will take account of the fact that such payment in the form of pay in lieu of notice has already been received. Similar rules permit the offset of other contractual remuneration which relates to the period corresponding to the protected period.
If, as the Government propose, the tribunal will no longer be able to offset those sums, in our example the employer would be better off not making a payment in lieu of notice until such time as the tribunal has assessed compensation for failure to consult. That is because in any subsequent proceedings in the civil court to recover the payment in lieu of notice or contractual remuneration, the court will apply the general rule that damages reflect the loss which the individual has suffered and will take account of any payments awarded by the tribunal which are referable to the same period.
If by the time the court comes to do that, the tribunal has already awarded payment for the relevant period by way of the protected award, in many cases there will be no further loss to the individual and thus no liability for money in lieu. The net result of that scenario is that the only way in which employers will be able to ensure—if the Government's present proposal goes through—that the individual does not recover twice for the same loss, is not to make immediate payments on termination.
That is patently absurd both from the employers' and employees' perspective. The employers are quite prepared to pay their contractual liabilities, but there is no sense in making them liable for two sets of compensation for the same loss. The clauses in the Bill on redundancies and transfers do just that. My amendments seek to restore the original position.
This example has more direct application to the proposed Amendment No. 219 on redundancies since on the transfer of an undertaking there will be no need to pay money in lieu of notice. However, the principle remains the same since the compensation for breach of the consultation rules on a transfer is by implication referable to a period during which consultation would ordinarily have taken place and for which employees may already have received other contractual payments. It therefore follows that similar offsetting provisions should apply to avoid double recovery.
This is a complicated situation, as I am sure the Committee is aware. It is difficult to explain it clearly enough. But it is difficult to see why the Government are now attempting to remove an established part of the law as it applies both to transfer and redundancy. It is understood that the changes may have arisen consequent on a call from the European Commission requiring change to the UK law. If that is the case, I am not convinced that the Commission has made a case for such an amendment. But I will not at this stage pursue that particular argument. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I note from the groupings that Amendments Nos. 210 and 219 have also been grouped with Amendments Nos. 211, 213, 216 and 217. Therefore I shall address one or two of my remarks to those amendments as well. Each amendment in this group is concerned with the situation where an employer fails to consult with an appropriate recognised trade union, either about a proposed transfer or an undertaking or about proposed redundancies.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone has given an explanation of the law as it currently stands. Perhaps I may begin with the two amendments which he dealt with; namely, Amendments Nos. 210 and 219. Those amendments seek to prevent the Government removing the provisions to offset penalties for failure to consult unions. As I shall explain, the European Commission has informed the Government of its view that those provisions are not compatible with the acquired rights' and collective redundancies' directive and has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice.
The Government agree that the purpose of the penalty is not just to provide compensation for actual damage suffered by employees, but to create a sanction against employers who fail to consult. An employer dismissing employees as redundant or transferring them must do two things. He must pay any wages or pay in lieu of notice to which they are entitled and he must consult the recognised trade union. As the law stands it may well be that there is no penalty for failing to consult if the employer has paid the wages due to the employees.
There is thus no real sanction and the Government are obliged to ensure that such a sanction is provided

741
under Community law. That being the case, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Mottistone will appreciate why the Government cannot accept his amendments. I believe that he will understand that we have accepted that the directive is not adequately implemented and that it is appropriate that we should put matters right by removing the offset of the protective award against wages. I also remind him that any employer who meets the requirements on consultation set by the directive will not risk incurring any costs at all. Therefore, having heard my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will agree that it would not be appropriate to press his amendments.
Perhaps I may now briefly turn to Amendment No. 211 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. I do not know whether he wishes to speak to it or even move it. However, as it is on the Marshalled List, it is worth mentioning. The Committee may not be altogether surprised to see that that amendment attempts to go in the opposite direction to those of my noble friend about which I have just spoken. The amendment clearly does not dissent from the view that two weeks' pay is an insufficient maximum for compensation where an employer has failed to consult properly within the requirements of the transfer regulations. However, it seeks to increase it not to four weeks, which is the change which the Government recommend, but to 10 weeks. The Government have taken careful note of the Commission's argument and have doubled the size of the maximum possible compensation. We believe that it is right to do so. However, we do not accept that it is necessary or appropriate to go as far as Amendment No. 211. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps we may dispose of the matter by way of a question. The noble Viscount was kind enough to refer to the amendment standing in my name. Does he not agree that the principle is a little different from the way he put it? The Community principle is that for the breach of an obligation flowing from a Community instrument there must be, according to the European Court of Justice, something adequate in relation to the damage sustained and it must be effective and have a deterrent effect. Have the Government applied their mind to something which is effective and has a deterrent effect as a sanction against an employer who has so failed as regards the payment of two weeks' or four weeks' wages? To double something depends on where one starts. Twice nothing is nothing and twice two is four even in this Chamber and even when the Government advance it. The reason for 10 weeks is that it will be something more of a deterrent. Will the Government think again before Report as to whether they have really applied their mind to the European Court of Justice formulation of something effective and an adequate deterrent?
Viscount Ullswater: The Government believe that there is no reason to think that the European Court of Justice will find a maximum of four weeks' pay to be insufficient. An increase to 10 weeks' pay would clearly increase the potential burden on employers.
Lord Mottistone: The argument between my noble friend and myself is the degree to which we think that the European Commission is on good ground in requiring a change in our law. As I see it, we are not convinced that the Commission has made a case for such an amendment for the following reasons. In the case of Von Colson v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1986]2CMLR/430, the European Court of Justice examined Article 6 of the equal treatment directive. The court held that the wording of the article, which states,
"Member States shall introduce into their national legal systems such measures as are necessary to enable all persons who consider themselves wronged … to pursue their claims by judicial process"
does not prescribe a specific sanction; rather, it leaves member states free to choose between different solutions for achieving the objective although the sanction must guarantee effective judicial protection. Where a member state chooses to penalise by award of compensation, that compensation must be adequate in relation to the damage sustained.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he now read out the line that he left out between the last two sentences?
Lord Mottistone: The noble Lord did not leave any lines out.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Oh.
Lord Mottistone: The collective redundancies directive, amended by Directive No. 92/56/EEC, now provides in the new Article 5a that member states must ensure that judicial and/or administrative procedures for the enforcement of the directive are available. This, in terms, is similar to the article which was under consideration in the Von Colson case. To that extent, therefore, it would seem that the words of the European Court would apply equally to the collective redundancies directive; that is, put simply, so far as Von Colson is any authority at all on the issue, where the UK has chosen to penalise the employer by a compensatory protective award, that compensation must be adequate in relation to the damage sustained.
Clearly, that is exactly what the protective award is designed to do. Moreover, the very reason for allowing wages paid to be offset against the award is to ensure that the employee is adequately compensated for the damage sustained and to avoid double compensation. In my view the Commission has no grounds therefore for proceedings against the UK.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider what I have put forward with a view to accepting that, although the wording of the amendment may have lots of room for improvement, the principle which I aim for—to guard against unreasonable double payments—is one that should be retained as far as practicable.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I feel that there is some misunderstanding between us, and I apologise to him if there is. My version of the judgment states that the member state must ensure that compensation,
"is effective and that it has a deterrent effect, that compensation must in any event be adequate".

743
Those words come from the judgment that I have. They are different from the noble Lord's. We can compare texts afterwards.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, but the noble Lord is better provided with legal quotations than I am. He is therefore able to quote more fully. However, the argument still stands up. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister will wish to pursue the matter further at this stage: it would be helpful if he could.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall have to read carefully what my noble friend said. I must repeat that the Government agree that the purpose of the penalties is not just to provide compensation for actual damage suffered by employees but to create a sanction against employers who fail to consult. My noble friend and I may have some disagreement. I want to read what he said and consider it further. I cannot, however, give any undertaking that I shall be able to support a further amendment on the matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I must point out that the offset principle works well in practice. It is fair to both parties. If we find I hat people are not given their pay in lieu of notice, for the reasons quoted by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, that might adversely affect a number of people for a long period of time while waiting for a case to come to a hearing. I hope that my noble friend will take these comments into consideration also when he considers the text.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for her contribution, which strikes at the root of the problem. I differ from my noble friend the Minister on the degree to which the Commission or the European Court of Justice require the UK Government to do things and the degree to which, as my advisers tell me, they do not. I shall read with great care what my noble friend said. I am grateful to him for saying that he will do the same as regards my remarks. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 47, line 27, at end insert:
("() This section shall not be brought into force by the Secretary of State under section 44 of this Act unless, prior to such day as the Secretary of State may appoint for such purpose, the Secretary of State shall have laid before both Houses of Parliament, and both Houses of Parliament shall have approved, further amendments to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 which shall have the effect of extending the application of paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of such Regulations to representatives of "affected employees" (as therein defined) of a description other than one in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by the employer concerned.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 212, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 220. I should first assure the Committee and the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, that I have no intention of
744
pressing either of these amendments to a vote. To do so successfully would mean delay in enacting Clauses 29 and 30, which is certainly not what I seek.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill states that these clauses bring,
"detailed provisions of UK legislation … fully in to line with the EC Acquired Rights Directive",
and with the EC directive on collective redundancies, in the one case, on employees' rights on transfer of undertakings and related consultations arid, in the other, on consultations on collective redundancies.
I do not believe that that claim is justified. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations require employers to consult recognised trade unions about prospective transfers, but the acquired rights directive requires consultation with "representatives of employees". The European Commission has long argued that restricting the right to consultation and information to recognised unions is insufficient. I agree. The Government, however, have made no concessions on that point. The purpose of Amendment No. 212 is to persuade the Government to extend the right to employee representatives generally.
My difficulty is that it would be incredibly complex and indeed wrong to proceed by way of substantive drafting. As the noble Viscount said, the directive refers to employee representation provided for by the laws or practice of the member state—and there is no such law or practice in this country except in so far as there is a recognised trade union. In any case, I do not think that such drafting should be undertaken without consultation at least with employers' representatives. And that is a task, not for a party in opposition, but for the Government.
In other words, I have concluded that it is really up to the Government to be proactive in this matter rather than merely reactive, as they have been in framing Clause 29, and positively to promote "employee representation" outside the trade union structure—not in order to "do down" trade unions, but simply for the benefit of employees who do riot choose to be represented by a union.
Amendment No. 212 therefore invites the Government to lay before Parliament an order which would further amend the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and have the effect of extending application of the duty to inform and consult trade union representatives so that the regulations apply to employee representatives generally.
In the case of the proposed amendment to Clause 30—Amendment No. 220—the argument is the same as with the amendment to Clause 29. In this instance, however, the relevant EC directive, on collective redundancies, was transposed into UK law by the Employment Protection Act 1975, which is now consolidated in Sections 188 to 198 of the 1992 Act. Both the directive and the UK legislation require employers contemplating large-scale redundancies to inform and consult workers' representatives well in advance. That is of course what British Coal should have done recently under its own agreement with the

745
NUM before announcing that it intended to close 31 pits without giving, in that case, 90 days' notice of the collective redundancies involved.
The European Commission considers that conducting negotiations only with representatives of independent trades unions recognised by the employer, as provided for in Section 188 of the 1992 Act, makes it possible for the consultation procedure to be completely inapplicable where no trade union is recognised by the employer. In other words, in that respect Clause 30 does not respond to the Commission's criticism that restricting the right to consultation and information to recognised trade unions is inadequate. Amendment No. 220 therefore asks the Government to lay before Parliament an order that would further amend Sections 188 to 192 of the 1992 Act, which would have the effect of extending the application of those sections to employee representatives generally.
Since the thinking behind the amendments is very much in line with the Government's often expressed support for the extension of employee involvement, I trust that the Minister will respond to them positively. If the Government acknowledge the need, as they do in bringing forward Clauses 29 and 30, for recognised trade unions to be consulted about prospective transfers and collective redundancies, they cannot very well fail to treat in the same way employees who do not choose to be represented by a trade union. Nor can it reasonably be claimed that commercial confidentiality might here be an inhibiting factor. There is no reason to suppose that employee representatives are any less capable than trade unions of respecting confidential information where that is involved. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord has said that he does not proposed to divide on this amendment, and so I hope that he will not think it discourteous if I say that I do not see why we need to take very much time over it. I should like to put in a protest against the form of Amendments Nos. 212 and 220. What he does is ingenious. He says that the provisions of the Bill shall not come into force until some subsequent legislation, including amendments to other legislation, has operated. That is an ingenious way of sparing himself the problem of drafting amendments to other legislation, but it does seem to be a difficult way of proceeding. Apart from anything else, I hope that the noble Lord will not think that it is a good practice which should be followed by subsequent amendments to the Bill.
We must consider the Bill as it stands. It is wrong that we should seek to defer the operation of some of its clauses merely until some other totally separate legislation has been undertaken or regulations submitted. I hope therefore that we shall not spend much time on this practice.
Viscount Ullswater: I note of course what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said about not wishing to delay the passage of the Bill and therefore that he will not be pressing the amendments which would have that effect with regard to the two clauses.
746
The amendments, like Amendments Nos. 204 and 218, which were discussed earlier, are about employee representation. Amendment No. 212 is concerned with identifying employee representatives for the purposes of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations, while Amendment No. 220 is concerned with the statutory consultation requirements in relation to collective redundancies contained in the 1992 Consolidation Act.
I have already set out at some length the Government's views on that subject, and I shall not repeat the arguments that I have already advanced. I shall merely concentrate on the different approach adopted in the amendments. The amendments seek to provide that Clauses 29 and 30 should not come into force until Parliament has approved changes to the transfer regulations and the statutory redundancy handling provisions which would have the effect of extending information and consultation rights to any or all employee representatives.
There is some doubt as to whether the amendments as drafted are satisfactory for technical reasons. I note that my noble friend put forward his views, which I share, as to the right way to proceed, but I do not believe that this is the right moment to pursue that question. The main problem with the amendments is that they provide no clue as to how an employer would be able to judge who should, or should not, be considered to be an employee representative. That would surely cause considerable confusion. I appreciate that noble Lords who support the amendments wish Parliament to give further consideration to this question. I have to say, however, that the Government's view is entirely clear. Employee representatives for the purposes of these provisions should be trade unions which an employer has freely chosen to recognise for collective bargaining. I must therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Is the Minister really saying that an organisation, of which there are many, which has a works council to which people other than trade unionists are elected, as is the case, for example, in the German Republic, does not provide adequate machinery for the kind of consultation to which my noble friend referred?
Viscount Ullswater: What may suit Germany, may suit Germany. In my original reply I said the laws that pertain in this country are for the recognition of trade unions. That should be entirely at the option of the employer.
Baroness Seear: In many cases in this country there are works councils elected by employees. That being so, surely it is appropriate that they be used for this purpose.
Viscount Ullswater: There is no reason why an employer should not consult anyone he feels entitled to. What we are talking about is a statutory provision.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, replies, I wonder whether I may mention two problems that I have with the

747
amendments. The thrust of the amendments is in the same direction as mine. They require us to think of representatives of a description other than one in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised. That can mean two things: first, it is something other than a trade union. I apprehend that most of the bodies about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke would come within the definition contained in Section I of the new Consolidation Act as trade unions. Sc what are these bodies which are not trade unions? Secondly, the body can be something other than a trade union which is independent. Does the amendment envisage bodies which are not trade unions? That is technically difficult in view of the definition. And does it envisage bodies which are not independent?
Lord Rochester: r should first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I find myself in a little difficulty here, but perhaps I should accept the compliment he paid me in terms of the ingenuity brought to bear in framing the amendments. I endeavoured to be open in what I said; that there was some difficulty in drafting. I said that it would be incredibly complex to draft a suitable amendment. I hope that I made it plain that my object in bringing forward the amendments was to persuade the Government to be pro-active in the matter rather than reactive, as it seemed to me that they had been in framing the clauses.
I was disappointed, to say the least, in the Minister's response, especially when he said that there would be some difficulty in defining the term "employee representatives". It seemed to me that my noble friend Lady Seear dealt with that matter adequately, in referring the Minister to those cases, many of them throughout industry, where works councils or similar bodies have been constituted. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I had in mind bodies such as works councils.
There may be technical faults in the amendments; indeed, the noble Viscount suggested that there were. Furthermore, it may be open to question whether Clauses 29 and 30 bring UK legislation fully into line with the relevant directive. Unfortunately, what is all too plain from the response of the noble Viscount is that the Government are not prepared to meet my basic argument that if there is a need for trade unions to be consulted about prospective transfers and redundancies that need should in principle be extended to employee representatives generally. In that way the Government could give effect to their professed support for employee involvement. I am sorry that they are unwilling to do so but, as I said at the beginning, I do not propose to press the issue and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, deals with his next amendment I wish to ask whether I am the only person who considers that the temperature in the Chamber is intolerable and that the air is suffocating. If we are going to be here until eleven o'clock we shall all be baked. Can steps be taken to see what is happening because I am quite sure
748
that it is not right? We talk about health and safety at work but and it would be a pity if we were to boil ourselves.
Lord McCarthy: I agree with the noble Baroness.
Viscount Ullswater: I see that steps are already being taken. I hope that they will be successful.
[Amendment No. 213 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 214:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
("Transfers
. In Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (computation of period of employment), after paragraph 12 there shall he inserted—

"13.—(1) Where—

(a) a trade, business or undertaking is transferred from one person to another;

(b) at the time of the transfer, a payment calculated in respect of the period of service with the transferor is paid to the employee on the basis that he is redundant (this payment not being a payment referred to under sub-paragraphs (2) (a) (i) and (2) (b) (i) of paragraph 12 but being at least equivalent to such a payment); and

(c) the contract of employment under which the employee was employed is transferred from the transferor to the transferee in accordance with Regulation 5 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (the 1981 Regulations),

then in determining, for the purposes of Section 81(1) or Schedule 4, the period for which he has been continuously employed, the continuity of the period of employment shall be treated as having been broken as at the date on which the transfer took effect.

(2) in this paragraph, references to "transferor" and "transferee" shall be construed in accordance with the 1981 Regulations." ").

The noble Lord said: I too was finding that my waistcoat was too much of a garment. The amendment is designed to remove uncertainty in the existing legislation governing employment rights in the transfer of an undertaking. It arises from the difficulty in interpreting whether a particular transaction amounts to a relevant transfer for the purpose of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
Before I make my case perhaps I may give the Committee an example of what I am talking about. Let us say that an employer wishes to put out to contract a particular service such as cleaning, which is currently carried out by in-house staff. The employer and the contractor both take the view that the arrangement does not amount to a transfer of an undertaking. The employees are not dismissed as such but are merely advised that a contractor is taking over the service and that they should consider applying for positions with the contractor who is anxious to take on existing personnel. The employees do that and all are offered jobs with the contractor, which they accept. The contract duly takes effect and the employer, believing there to be no transfer, subsequently makes redundancy payments to the employees concerned.
Let us further say that some two or three years into the contract the contractor finds the need to reduce staff and dismisses as redundant one employee who

749
brings proceedings in the industrial tribunal claiming a redundancy payment. He argues successfully that, despite the views of the employer and the contractor, the award of the contract constituted a transfer of an undertaking and that under the TUPE regulations and paragraph 17 of Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 his contract has in effect transferred to the contractor with full continuity of service.
That means that because there was no dismissal as such by the original employer the payments made on transfer did not in law constitute statutory redundancy payments. Consequently the usual rule whereby previous statutory redundancy pay can be taken into account when assessing subsequent entitlement—and I refer to paragraph 12 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act—does not apply. The employee can therefore recover a payment based on his entire period of service with both employers even though he has in effect already received a proportion of that, which relates to his first employment.
My noble friend will be aware of the major anxieties held my many organisations about the question of whether the regulations will apply in certain circumstances; for instance, those which I have outlined. That has particular relevance where a service has been contracted out by the main employer and thus has important implications for those involved in compulsory competitive tendering in the public sector. In essence, contractors will in many cases now be required to observe terms and conditions applicable in the public sector which will inhibit the contractors' competitiveness and freedom to tender for particular work. There is no doubt that the issues raised in this area are complex and the source of the uncertainty rests with the Acquired Rights Directive and the interpretation given to it by the European Court, where the failure to spell out the distinction between contracting out in both public and private sectors and the genuine transfer of an undertaking, whether commercial or otherwise, leaves employers in a state of confusion.
My right honourable friend the Attorney-General has confirmed that the interpretation of the law in this area depends to a large extent on case law in domestic tribunals and courts and in the European Court of Justice. He has confirmed further that the contracting out of a service is not a transfer unless it involves enough of the elements of the original operation—such as premises, staff, goodwill and customer base—to constitute the transfer of a going concern. No single one of those elements is essential for there to be a transfer of an undertaking. The overall picture needs to be examined. In practical terms, it is difficult to see at the pre-tender stage whether a tribunal, a domestic court and ultimately the European Court of Justice would decide that any particular contract award would constitute a transfer of an undertaking. Therefore, contractors tendering for public and private sector work will be uncertain about whether they must assume the obligations of a full transfer.
Ultimately the answer lies in revising the European Community Acquired Rights Directive so as to avert
750
a grave threat to contracting out. However, in the interim an amendment to existing legislation may be necessary to address the situation where, because of the uncertainty, the transferor, the employer, mistakenly believes that a transaction is not a relevant transfer but rather treats it as a redundancy situation and makes redundancy and/or other severance payments to employees who are subsequently engaged by the transferee.
Under the existing rules on continuity of employment, should the transferee subsequently make the transferred employees redundant it is unclear whether he will be liable for redundancy payment based on the entire period of service with both employers. My example gave point to that. It is possible that where prior redundancy payments have been made paragraph 12 of Schedule 13 will not be interpreted as breaking the continuity in those circumstances. If that is so the effect could be that in addition to the dual costs to employers, which could be substantial and unbudgeted, the employee is doubly compensated for the same period of service. Clearly, that would be inequitable. This amendment is aimed at clarifying the point that where payments at least equivalent to statutory redundancy compensation have been made those will be taken into account when calculating future redundancy entitlement payable by the transferee. There is clearly some uncertainty as to whether payments made in those circumstances are covered by paragraph 12. I believe that for the avoidance of doubt the Government should take the opportunity to clarify the matter and approve my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: There are two points that I wish to make in answer to the noble Lord. I make them only because the iron discipline portrayed by my noble friends and myself meant that we passed over certain amendments which would have placed my remarks on the record. Therefore, in view of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I shall make those points now.
Both points relate to the noble Lord's complaint about the interpretation concerning the European Court of Justice not serving the interests of employers for which he wishes to alter British law. In both respects, the amendment flows against the tide of both recent and earlier interpretation. First, in a quite recent decision in the case of Katsikas v. Konstantinidis from the German courts, the European Court of Justice held what many had argued—although I did not —that the directive allows the employee an option on a transfer of undertaking; that it does not necessarily amount, as in paragraph (c) of the amendment, to a transfer of the contract of employment without the employee being allowed a view unless national law is quite clear on the matter. It is dangerous to make an amendment to the national law which would, by a side wind, as it were, decide that issue which should be decided in the face of all the Community and national considerations. Therefore, it would be quite improper for the Committee to consider paragraph (c) at this point.
Secondly, in terms of what is a transfer of undertaking, decisions such as that in the Rask case in

751
the European Court of Justice have made it quite clear that some contracting out may well be a transfer of an undertaking if there is retained that unity of the economic entity which was found to exist in many such cases. We should have preferred the unit of economic entity to have been removed by our amendments. However, in view of those considerations I submit that the Government cannot consider the amendment in its present form at this time.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 214 takes us into a rather complicated area of the law. It is intended to address a situation which my noble friend believes might arise as a result of uncertainty about whether the transfer regulations apply in a particular case.
What concerns my noble friend is the possibility that redundancy payments may be made in error. The situation which I believe he has in mind, as I understand it, is one in which the transfer of an undertaking covered by the transfer regulations takes place but the old employer mistakenly believes that the regulations do not apply and consequently makes redundancy payments to employees who are subsequently employed by the new employer.
My noble friend is concerned that paragraph 12 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act would not operate to break continuity in such circumstances because the payment made by the old employer was not a statutory redundancy payment as the employee was not actually dismissed as redundant but had his contract of employment automatically transferred to the new employer. My noble friend fears that that would mean that the employee's continuity of employment for redundancy payment purposes would be unbroken. If the new employer had to make him redundant in due course, that might result in both employers making payments for the same period of service. That would result in the employee being doubly compensated.
I can understand why my noble friend takes the view that this would be inequitable. Nevertheless, the legal advice that I have received is that the situation which he envisages would not happen in practice. I am advised that a statutory redundancy payment, as defined in the 1978 Act, does not cease to be such because it emerges subsequently that the regulations applied and that a statutory redundancy payment breaks continuity so that no double payment would be made even if the regulations apply.
Where an employee is dismissed on the grounds of redundancy, he is entitled to a redundancy payment. I am advised that if there is later found to be a transfer, that transfer does not nullify the dismissal. It has the effect that the employment of contract was continued but it does not have the effect of removing the entitlement to any payment which may have been made. That payment would therefore count as removing entitlement to any later payment for the same period.
I have listened carefully to the representations made by my noble friend. The Government do not share his view of the legal position. Nevertheless, in view of his obvious anxiety, I shall give further consideration to whether it would be advantageous to make the position absolutely clear. If that seems to be
752
advisable, the Government will introduce an amendment along the lines proposed by my noble friend on Report. I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw the amendment on that understanding.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to the Minister for his closing remarks. As I understand it, the advice given to the CBI—and the Committee knows that the CBI advises me—is at variance with that supplied to the Government. The CBI has taken counsel's opinion on this matter. Therefore, there is room for further discussion within that kind of field. I am most grateful to my noble friend for his undertaking to look closely at the matter and to bring back an amendment on Report if he believes that to be appropriate in all the circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Redundancy consultation procedures]:
[Amendments Nos. 215 to 220 not moved]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Repeal of Part II of Wages Act 1986]:
Lord Eatwell Lord Eatwell moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 48, line 41, at end insert ("in those trades in which two-thirds of the workers receive remuneration, over the period of a year, substantially in excess of the statutory minimum established by the wages order made by the wages council for that trade.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first in a series of amendments which we are to discuss on Clause 31, the clause in the Bill which would abolish wages councils. There have been a number of extraordinary aspects of the passage of this clause. In another place two former Conservative Ministers from the Department of Employment voted against the Second Reading of the Bill on the grounds that it contained this clause.
Another extraordinary aspect of the passage of the legislation is that neither in another place nor in your Lordships' House have the Government managed to produce any substantial evidence whatever in favour of the measure which they propose. We have heard from the Secretary of State and from the noble Viscount a range of assertions and a raft of prejudices but hardly a shred of evidence.
On Second Reading four weeks ago, I asked the noble Viscount for some evidence to back up his assertions. He merely rebuked me for asking too many questions. In those four weeks since the Second Reading debate, I have not received a single item of correspondence from the Department of Employment addressing my questions. I look forward to hearing some answers today.
Despite the unwillingness or perhaps the inability of the Government to make a case for the abolition of wages councils—and that inability probably explains the absence of this measure from the Conservative election manifesto—I have put forward an amendment in the spirit of compromise. It is an amendment which meets the Government half way by adapting their own criterion for the abolition of wages councils.
On Second Reading in another place the Secretary of State for Employment asserted that:

753
"Two thirds of employees covered by wages councils are paid well above the statutory minimum rates laid down by the councils".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/92; col. 177.]
On Second Reading in this Chamber the Minister likewise asserted that:
"Some two-thirds of wages council workers are paid significantly above minimum rates".—[Official Report, 1/3/93; col. 427.]
It is clear that the Government believe that those propositions are sufficient to establish that wages councils are no longer needed. I do not agree but I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
My amendment would require that instead of the Government's criterion of two-thirds of workers being paid well above the minimum being applied to all wages councils taken en masse, it should be applied to each trade individually. Hence if in one trade—let us say the famous ostrich and fancy feathers trade—over two-thirds of the workers are paid substantially above the minimum, then the wages council could be abolished. However, in the case of the retail non-food wages council my researches suggest that fewer than half the workers are paid substantially above the minimum, and the wages council would, on these grounds, be retained. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a constructive application of his and the Government's own criterion. I hope that he accepts the amendment or at the very least the spirit of the amendment. Of course this amendment would have the effect of preserving some wages councils in industries in which wages are particularly low. The Minister may feel that he should resist the amendment on other grounds. Those grounds have been well rehearsed.
First, the Government have claimed that abolishing wages councils will, by allowing wages to be cut, create jobs. On this point, my earlier criticism of the Government for presenting no evidence to back up their assertions is, I must confess, a little unfair. On 4th November last the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, having faced repealed demands for evidence from his honourable friend Mr. Peter Bottomley to back up his assertion that wages councils destroy jobs, presented Parliament with a list of 26 studies. He must have thought that no one would read them because the remarkable fact is that of the 26 studies, only six supported the Government's case, and of those six, four were actually prepared by government departments. The remaining 20 studies were either inconclusive or found that wages councils had no adverse effect on employment at all. By the production of this list, the Government not only managed to shoot themselves in both feet but they deposited the smoking gun in the House of Commons Library.
I should add that the finding that wages councils do not reduce employment is not surprising to any serious student of economic theory. In general, economic analysis suggests that we would not necessarily expect there to be any impact on employment. I will not detain the Committee by giving the details of the argument; but I can assure the Committee that it suggests the results would be
754
inconclusive, as indeed empirical research shows they are. I conclude therefore, with the aid of the Department of Employment—I thank that department for preparing its list—that my amendment will not threaten jobs.
The Government have also argued that wages councils are not a means of alleviating poverty. This is the famous "pin money" argument. As the Secretary of State argued in another place, 80 per cent. of the employees the wages councils cover live in households with two or more incomes. As the noble Viscount elaborated, the plain fact is that wages council workers are spread right across the income distribution. Both points are correct but both are completely irrelevant.
As regards the 80 per cent. point, roughly the same proportion of workers, whether in wages council industries or not, work in households where there is more than one income. That applies to everyone, not just those in industries covered by wages councils. That fact does not distinguish them. The noble Viscount also made the point that wages council workers are spread throughout the income scale. While it is true that some wages council workers live in the wealthiest households in the land and they are spread right across the income distribution, it will not surprise the Committee to hear that they are predominantly concentrated in the lowest income groups.
To tackle the question of poverty seriously, I have used the empirical analysis of income distribution of the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge. That work not only studies the distribution of gross incomes but also the impact of taxes and benefits on net incomes. The relevant results are as follows. First, 27 per cent. of all workers earning wages in the wages council range are in the bottom 10 per cent. of families. Secondly, a fall in wages of just 30p an hour would reduce those families' incomes by 7 per cent., having taken account of all the changes in taxes and benefits. I remind the Committee that this 10 per cent. is exactly the bottom 10 per cent. that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in this Chamber on 24th February have seen no increase in their real income at all since 1979. Now the Government propose to reduce the income of a quarter of the families in this group.
I conclude that my amendment, by preventing wages falling in those industries in which wages councils are retained, will help alleviate poverty. My amendment will also mean that the Exchequer will be relieved of the cost of subsidising inefficient employers via family credit. I have calculated that the total abolition of wages councils would have a net Exchequer cost of up to £400 million. My amendment would save the Government roughly £300 million. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the noble Viscount is proposing to spend £400 million? Will he tell us why he is prepared to throw this money away?
This amendment, by preserving wages councils in those industries—and those industries only—in which wages are clustered around the minimum level will preserve jobs, alleviate poverty, save the Exchequer £300 million and allow the Government to use their

755
own criterion for the abolition of the councils. I hope the Government will accept the amendment in the constructive spirit in which it is offered. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend this afternoon. The Committee will be aware that we on this side of the Chamber are opposed to the abolition of wages councils. We have said so on many occasions in the past and of course on Second Reading. We know that wages councils are not perfect. We have never said that they were. We know also—the Minister will no doubt remind us of this again this afternoon—that Labour administrations have abolished wages councils in the past and that not all unions have always been in favour of them. But that is because they have been seen as an interim measure until proper collective bargaining arrangements could be established. It was never the intention that the interim period should be followed by abolition and absolutely nothing, else. However, that is more than likely to be the situation if the Government proceed with their objective as set out in the Bill and do not accept the amendment moved by my noble friend.
The Government have actively discouraged collective bargaining and made it much more difficult for unions to organise than it was prior to the extensive programme of industrial relations the Government embarked upon in 1979. Wages councils now cover 2.5 million workers—one-eighth of the workforce. Large numbers of those workers are women and many are from ethnic minority groups. In other words, they are among the most vulnerable workers and that is why they need some form of state protection. These women are not in the main working for pin money, either. Even so, wages council rates are not very high. They range from £2.63 an hour in the clothing trade to £3.08 per hour in food shops. The Government have claimed, first, that the existence of wages councils is inimical to job creation; and, secondly, that their abolition would not lead to pay cuts. I should have thought that was an inconsistent argument because it seems to me that the only economic, as distinct from moral, argument for doing away with them would appear to be that it would free employers to pay less than they would otherwise have to do. I believe that is the real reason for abolition.
Further, it has been frequently claimed by the noble Viscount that wages councils have outlived their usefulness. It is said—my noble friend has said this this afternoon —that two-thirds of the workers covered by wages councils already receive wages in excess of the wages council minimum. It seems to me that here is the justification for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Eatwell. He is suggesting that if this is really so, then wages councils could be abolished in those trades in which it is demonstrated over a period of a year that two-thirds of the workers are receiving remuneration in excess of that established by the wages councils.
I would suggest to the noble Viscount that this provision gets the Government off the hook. They would have the opportunity, given this amendment, of proving their case far abolition. The threat to abolish wages councils has raised enormous ire and the
756
anxiety of numerous organisations. The Government must be well aware that a substantial amount of lobbying has been carried out while the Bill has proceeded through both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, I hope that if the Government cannot be persuaded to depart from their ultimate objective, they will at least give sympathetic consideration to the proposition advanced by my noble friend this afternoon.
5 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I should also like to support the amendment. I do not believe that wages councils are ideal instruments for setting wages. In many ways they were never intended to be. As has been said so often, they were an interim measure. However, it seems an extraordinary moment to choose to get rid of them when we have 3 million people unemployed and a great many people need to earn these very small sums.
I should like also to take the greatest exception to the argument that was put forward by the Secretary of State that it did not matter much because so many of the people involved were not in poverty and there were other wage earners in the household. When did we ever consider that pay should depend on family income or on need? If one once follows that argument one's whole wages policy is in tatters. Pay has to be for the job done. It does not have to bear a relationship to whether there is someone else in the household bringing in some money. That is an argument which gets one nowhere.
I should like also to emphasise the point that a great many single women and single parents—because people working in the wage council industries are largely, though not entirely, women—are dependent on that money. As everybody knows, they are some of the people in the greatest poverty at present. This is no moment to remove that safeguard.
In some ways I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made his concession. However, I am sorry that he has done so because protective legislation of this kind is always meant for those who are falling through the net. It is meant for the one third of the employees who are not in the higher paid group to which the noble Lord referred. I accept the amendment and I know why he has done that, but it leaves unprotected some people who are at the very bottom of the pile. This is no moment to bring forward this change.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is known that Members of the Committee opposite are against the proposal in the Bill for the abolition of wages councils. However, the Committee is also aware of the fact that many of us on this side of the Chamber have, over the years, seen the reduction in the scope of wages councils and have urged on the Government the importance of abolishing them. There is, therefore, a clear-cut line of division between us. The amendment, although no doubt it is an ingenious attempt to suggest that it is something of a compromise, is apparently a last minute attempt to salve wages councils.

757
I should like to say a word on the merits of the issue. Wages councils are a form of statutory wage fixing. It is well known, and I believe generally agreed, that statutory wage fixing creates unemployment.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Wages councils seem to some of us to have the effect of creating unemployment. Let me put this argument to Members of the Committee who said "No".
In this country there are many people who are partially disabled, with physical limitations, who cannot work a full week and therefore cannot expect a full week's pay. However, they are capable of doing a limited amount of work. They are anxious to do so. It enables them to earn a certain amount which they would not otherwise earn at all. Does the noble Baroness desire to intervene?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I do. Does not the noble Lord recall the disability working allowance, which was introduced by this Administration with the support of this side of the Chamber, which is intended to deal precisely with that point?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It does not deal with the question at all. The position is that there are people who cannot earn a full statutory minimum wage for reasons of physical limitation but who can nonetheless earn a certain amount through a partial week's work. Perhaps the noble Lord will contain himself for a moment. Those people would be denied the opportunity to work if their area of work were covered by a wages council. Does the noble Lord wish to speak?
Lord McCarthy: The noble Lord is making assertions again. He says that there are such people but he never produces any evidence. It seems to me that he is actually talking about people who work part time and who are paid so much an hour. There is no earthly reason why they should not be paid wages council rates. A large number of the people he is talking about are paid wage council rates.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Exactly. If one lays down that they must receive wages council rates one is denying them employment. That such people exist is within our own knowledge. I myself know several such people in my own part of the country. I shall just finish what I have to say. I am responding to a challenge by the noble Lord opposite, so perhaps the noble Baroness will contain herself. The position is that there are plenty of such people. I know many of them personally. They are incapable of doing a full week's work yet they can do a limited amount of work. That would be denied them in a wages council industry. That is the problem which the noble Lord opposite does not seem prepared to face. Does the noble Baroness now wish to come in?
Baroness Seear: I may be being very stupid, but I fail to follow what the noble Lord is saying. If in hairdressing, which is a wages council industry, a slightly disabled young woman works two days a
758
week, she receives two-fifths of the wages council weekly rate. She is paid by the hour for the time she works. Despite the fact that she cannot work for a full week she still receives wages council rates, but for the time that she works. There may be many arguments against wages councils but for the life of me I cannot see the point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as one of them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Baroness has not understood the position. It is quite clear that if, owing to a disability, one is unable to work for continuous periods and can work only intermittently, one does not receive the daily wages council allowance because that would be in breach of the legal provision for wages councils. That is what the noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite must face. For that reason, as for several others, wages councils generate unemployment because there are a number of people who can and would like usefully to work but are unable so to do because of deficiencies of one kind or another—physical or perhaps in some cases mental. Therefore it is the greatest mistake to keep the wages councils in existence.
Wages councils are a means of creating unemployment by imposing an artificial rate of pay, which is not related to the value of the work but simply arbitrarily laid down by the wages councils themselves. Therefore, I very much welcome the fact that the Government have now decided finally to abolish those councils. They do not serve a useful purpose. They have many of the disadvantages of statutory minimum wages which we have seen in other countries.
Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be firmly rejected, that we shall proceed with the clause as it stands and that wages councils will therefore be properly abolished when the Bill becomes law. That will be a great improvement, help the working of our economy and help a great many people in this country.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to say that I am genuinely puzzled by his argument. I am sure that he knows people with disabilities in his locality who would very much like to work full time. I believe that all of us know such people. Will the noble Lord identify the employers to which the people to whom he referred applied and the trades in which they have failed to find part-time employment because a wages council order prohibits the employer from employing them? Is that what he said?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord nearly has it right. I was saying that where one has a statutory minimum wage—in other words, a wages council ruling—there are categories of people who are denied employment because, quite frankly, to an employer they are not worth the statutory minimum wage, but who could do a useful job of work in return for quite reasonable remuneration if one had freedom of negotiation and of bargaining.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Will the noble Lord tell us what trades these people belong to? He has talked to people who have complained that they could

759
not obtain a certain kind of employment because of the wages councils. What are the trades that they have tried to get into but have been prohibited from entering? I do not know them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There are many. For example, there is gardening. That is a very useful part-time occupation. It is no use the noble Lord shaking his head, he simply does not know. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will contain himself.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will wait a moment. Noble Lords are so excited by their love of the wages councils that they seem to be losing control of themselves. I was responding to the noble Lord seated behind him. In my own experience I have encountered these people. Gardening is one type of employment; that of attendant at public houses and restaurants is another. The inflexibility which wages councils impose, with the inflexible fixing of an amount of remuneration laid down not as the result of bargaining or of the study of the worth of people's work but quite arbitrarily by wages councils, denies those people employment. If the Committee were to decide to throw out the clause —I hope that it will not—the Committee would be responsible for creating quite a bit of unemployment.
Lord Skidelsky: I hope that the Government will resist the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. The purpose of the amendment is this. Clearly, the noble Lord would like to use wages councils to protect the incomes of the lowest paid workers. I agree with him that some groups need to have their income protected. The sole disagreement is about the mechanism by means of which that protection is afforded. I do not believe that wages councils are an efficient method of doing that. The standard minimum rates are not an efficient way of dealing with poverty because of the lack of fit between individual wage rates and the incomes of households. As a general proposition that is quite true. There are some groups to which the proposition does not apply. Individual wage rates are not proxies for household incomes. That point has not been grasped by the noble Lord. Household income depends on the number of income earners; that has been referred to. It depends on the number of dependants; that has not been referred to. It depends, too, on the housing circumstances of the families, including their location.
It is perfectly true that the income of some groups needs to be protected. I am aware of single parents, for example, who rely on wages councils incomes. But there are better ways of dealing with those groups. In that particular case, there is no reason why income support should not be targeted through family allowances. In each particular case one will find ways of dealing with the problems of poverty that are better than interfering in the bargaining between employees and employers. Those interferences inevitably distort the working of the labour market. I hope that we shall have an opportunity later to discuss the more general claim made by the noble Lord that wages councils do not tend to reduce the amount of employment.
760
If the general argument for abolishing wages councils holds, it should apply to all employees covered by the wages councils. The attempt to separate them out by level of income in any particular wage council industry is not an efficient or correct way to proceed.
I wish to take up one other point made by the noble Lord. I ask it in the form of a question. Do his estimates of increased cost to the Exchequer—he referred to a figure of £300 million as a result of the abolition of wages councils—take into account the possibility of increased employment resulting from the abolition of those councils, which would represent a saving of dole money to the Exchequer, or do they assume that employment will remain entirely unaffected? That is an important question. What is at issue is the net cost to the Exchequer and that depends on assumptions made about employment. I hope that the Government will resist the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: On this occasion, apparently it being an enforced privilege on these Back Benches to be able to follow my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I enter into the conflict of controversy. I greatly admire the courage and tenacity of my noble friend in defence of his opinions. By and large, I share some of them. But, broadly speaking, my approach is much nearer to that of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. In essence he stated that there are better ways of dealing with the problem of low wages. All noble Lords care about that problem. It is a problem that has to be recognised and met. That, I accept. However, there are better ways of dealing with it than keeping the wages councils. That is where I take my stand, which I believe is not the stand taken in argument by my noble friend.
When the wages councils were set up to deal with the problem of sweated labour—the) did a magnificent job—there was no social security. We now have a welfare state. The element of the adverse effect on employment to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter rightly refers is surely better met under extant social conditions, by the welfare state provisions, than under the wage council provisions which now, with respect to noble Lorcls on the other side (I always entertain respect for noble Lords on the other side) have become an anachronism. They have produced anomalous results. They are becoming out of date.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to the abolition of wages councils—I believe that it was at Second Reading—as perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Bill. As a prophetess of renowned repute, her reputation has not flagged on this occasion. I am not sure whether, in speaking to the amendment, in effect one should speak to the Question whether the clause as a whole should stand part. But as all Members of the Committee have apparently done so, I suppose it is right to continue. In any event, I believe that the aspects of the controversy which have arisen are subsumed in what I was going to say—if the time came to say it—on whether Clause 31 should stand part. For the reasons that I shall then give—and I shall

761
not weary the Committee with any formal repetition —I am satisfied that it is now time to abolish the wages councils.
The reasons for opposing the amendment are subsumed in the reasons that I support Clause 31. It goes without saying that I accept the constructive and wholly sincere spirit in which the amendment is proposed. But it is proposed on the basis that the wages councils are not abolished. For the reasons which I shall give, if they become relevant or appropriate, in my opinion the councils should be abolished. There is nothing further useful for me to say.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: The division is not so clear-cut as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. When the subject was discussed in another place, the only two Back-Benchers who spoke on the Government's side were against the abolition of wages councils. Both had been in the Department of Employment, occupying the place which the Minister now occupies. Both knew a great deal about the matter. I do not have that advantage or experience, so I am still not clear about a number of matters. I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlighten me.
I am still not clear what happened between the election in 1992 and today which has produced the proposal to abolish wages councils. It was not mentioned in the Conservative manifesto, and the Secretary of State at the time said that he had no immediate plans to abolish them. That phrase has become over-familiar during the past week or two. Nevertheless, I wish to know what has happened since the election that has brought this change of heart by the Government.
I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, because it seems to me that the only conceivable point of the clause is to lower the wages of those who are already very low paid. There can be no other point in it. That is what happened when the equally retrograde measure of 1986 took away all protection from the young. Since then their pay has declined sharply with no noticeable benefit to the economy.
I wish to know why the Government think that people who are already low paid should be paid less. It does not seem to me to be at all in the spirit of Tory philosophy, as I understand it, which is that the Government should take steps to look after the people who are least able to look after themselves. The clause takes away the remaining protection that they have.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, it will particularly hit women because they form over 75 per cent. of those affected by the wages councils and they will be badly damaged. Some of my noble friends seem to believe that the matter can be dealt with by the low paid being subsidised by social security. That seems to me a very odd doctrine, I am not sure why taxpayers should subsidise bad employers. It does not seem to me to be either economically or politically a good idea.
Furthermore, I should like my noble friend to tell me how reducing the pay of the low paid will achieve the Government's ambition of a classless society. I am not quite sure exactly what a classless society is or
762
would be, or how it can be achieved. However, assuming that it can be achieved, I should not have thought that the most promising means of achieving it was to lower the pay of the low paid. Therefore, it seems to me that there is considerable incoherence or inconsistency in the Government's policy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, there is no evidence at all that wages councils reduce employment. It is merely stated as a matter of free market dogma that people should have freedom of contract. Of course there is no freedom of contract between a reasonably powerful employer and a totally powerless employee who may be very badly educated. There is no evidence at all that I can see—and I look forward to my noble friend producing some—that it has affected employment. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee whether it is true that in the past three years employment in those industries which are controlled or affected by wages councils has increased by 90,000, whereas employment in industries which are not affected by wages councils has decreased by nearly 1–5 million. If so, that seems to be a case for extending wages councils rather than abolishing them. Altogether, I believe that economically, politically, morally and socially the abolition of wages councils is a thoroughly retrograde proposal. I hope that it will be defeated.
Viscount Ullswater: Members of the Committee opposite have made their points strongly; but they have not been able to put forward any convincing case for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I believe that the amendment would do nothing to improve the Bill and I shall come to that in a moment, if I may.
Of course, there have been extensive consultations and debates on the future of wages councils. We issued consultation documents in 1985 and 1988. Following the 1988 consultation, we made it clear that the councils could have no permanent place in our system of wage setting. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Gilmour that that has been said on many occasions since that date, including before and after the last election.
In the 1988 consultation, on the five largest councils a clear majority of employers' bodies wanted the system abolished. Since then, there have been many requests for the abolition of the councils. They have not been confined to those who favoured abolition in the last round of consultation. The views of employers, the working of the legislation since 1986 and the needs of the 1990s all now point to abolition.
It is now clear beyond doubt that the wages councils are a barrier to employment. The system drags in the criminal law to prevent ordinary agreements between workers and employers which are mutually acceptable to both. Small businesses have to bear the brunt. If a small firm takes on a new, unskilled worker at a wage that it can afford and one which the employee finds acceptable, it can be a crime. There can be only one result—fewer extra staff for the business, lower expansion for the employer and fewer jobs for those seeking work.
The plain fact is that wages councils are no longer seen as providing a wage floor. They set going rates for

763
large groups of employees, regardless of individual circumstances and setting a norm for percentage increases.
Research shows a clear link between higher pay and lower employment. Independent estimates of the job losses which would have resulted from only the first stage of Labour's minimum wage proposal ranged up to 500,000. Several wages council trades, particularly in the service industries—the hotel and catering and retail—are sectors with a high potential for employment growth. That I think is the answer to my noble friend Lord Gilmour who says that, indeed, employment has grown in those instances, not the fact that they have wages council set rates.
There is a large body of evidence, both in this country and abroad, that statutory wage fixing damages employment. This is, for example, a conclusion that has been reached by the OECD. In a recent report on France, it said:
"France's unemployment record compares unfavourably with that elsewhere … the problem is substantially more severe for youths, older workers and the unskilled … the national minimum wage seems in part to be responsible for this outcome".
Lord McCarthy: We have had that quotation several times in previous debates. The noble Viscount has in the past admitted that it is an unfair summary and not a direct quote.
Viscount Ullswater: No, in fact it is a direct quote from the OECD report.
Lord Eatwell: Does the noble Viscount agree that in the report the OECD said that the effect of the minimum wage in France on adult employment was nil? It was argued that there was an effect on youth employment. But we are not discussing youth employment. The report said the effect on adult employment was nil.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that we are discussing youth employment.
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Ullswater: Mention has been made of what happened in the Wages Act 1986 and the removal of youths from wages council provision. The noble Lord himself alluded to that point in his Second Reading speech.
It is wrong to believe that statutory minimum wages protect vulnerable groups such as women, ethnic minorities or young people. The opposite is true. Minimum wage fixing has an adverse effect on such people. In countries with comprehensive minimum wages such as France and Spain, there are high levels of youth, female and long-term unemployment. Those who are most vulnerable are those most likely to be excluded from employment if wage levels are set too high. In the UK the proportion of the unemployed who are women or young people is lower than in EC countries such as France and Spain.
What followed the reforms of the Wages Act 1986 can be seen in statistics for the period 1986–91. Full-time earnings for the under 21 year-olds grew in real terms in all the main council industries and occupations for both males and females. Also among
764
the 16 to 20 year-olds, employment grew faster in wages council industries (9.6 per cent.) than in all industries. I do not believe what my noble friend Lord Gilmour said. He pointed to the opposite conclusion. I believe that those statistics prove the positive effect.
The freedom of employers to offer jobs at rates which would previously have been outlawed has enabled some to provide employment which would not otherwise have been available to people. Removing wages councils altogether will improve employment prospects for women and part-time workers and build job opportunities.
I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I must congratulate him on the ingenuity of his arguments. I must tell the Committee that the likely result of the amendment that he has put down would be unacceptable to the Government. Some of the wages council industries would be placed in a position of protracted uncertainty. Industry would not know whether particular councils were to be abolished or continued; or, if they had not been abolished, for how long they would continue to operate. Enforcement would become difficult or impossible. The amendment would mean that individual wages councils would remain in existence where one-third or more of the workers covered were paid below some figure above the statutory minima over a period of a year. The most likely result would be to hold up the abolition of all the councils by a year or more to determine that they met the criterion.
The only point of the amendment is to water down abolition of the councils. I do not believe that arrangements which the amendment purports to introduce are remotely practicable if the amendment were accepted, the resulting uncertainty would be damaging to industry.
The amendment is also illogical. If there is any point to the wages council system, it is to provide a wages floor. The system is ineffective and self-. defeating. Even if a wages floor were desirable, the amendments make little sense. Why does the desirability of a minimum rate depend on whether an arbitrary proportion of workers in a sector earn more than an arbitrary minimum? How does the proportion of workers earning more than an arbitrary amount make one council more or less necessary than another? The concept of the amendrnent is deeply flawed.
The amendment would give rise to anomalies. Different councils set different minima. An unwelcome effect of its adoption could be that some councils covering industries with relatively low wages could be abolished, while councils covering higher paid industries were maintained because they set higher minimum rates. There would be significant practical difficulties in determining whether or not individual councils fulfilled the criteria for abolition.
We estimate that two-thirds of wages council workers earn significantly more than the minimum rates. That is a conservative assessment originally based on surveys carried out by the wages inspectorate in 1983 and 1987. The surveys were designed to supplement the information provided by the

765
inspectorate's routine monthly and annual statistics. The employers who contributed were those visited in the course of normal inspection checks.
The results make it possible to say with confidence that at least two-thirds of all wages councils workers earn more than the minima. But it would require a much larger and more sophisticated survey to determine whether that was the case for any individual council. Furthermore, such surveys reveal the position only at a spot date. The amendment calls for the criterion to be satisfied over a period of a year.
The purpose of Clause 31 is to abolish statutory wage fixing in wages councils industries. The amendment would serve only to delay abolition, and perhaps in a few industries perpetuate it for an extended period. The amendment does not improve the clause and I ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord Eatwell: I shall not take the time of the Committee to reply to those points in detail. I cannot believe that the partial and ineffectual reply given by the Minister would convince anybody. There was, however, one substantial point in his discussion; namely, his reference to the amount of information which was available on wages council rates of pay. His case against my amendment was that the Government did not have the information. Yet they have continuously asserted that wages councils should be abolished on the basis of information which he now admits he does not have. I think it appropriate to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 221) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 150.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Geraint, L.

Alport, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Glenamara, L.

Aylestone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Birk, B.

Grey, E.

Blackstone, B.

Hampton, L.

Blease, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bottomley, L.

Healey, L.

Brimelow, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hollick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hooson, L.

David, B.

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jay, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Eatwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ezra, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Falkender, B.

Judd, L.

Falkland, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Gallacher, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Galpern, L.

Listowel, E.

766

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Lockwood, B.

Rochester, L.

Longford, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Russell, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Seear, B.

McCarthy, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Serota, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shackleton, L.

McNair, L.

Soper, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Molloy, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mulley, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Varley, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Peston, L.

Whaddon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rea, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Richard, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Aldington, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Faithfull, B.

Annan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Flather, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Arran, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Astor, V.

Gisborough, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Auckland, L.

Goold, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Beloff, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Biddulph, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Blatch, B.

Halsbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Boardman, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Bolton, L.

Harvington, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hemphill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hives, L.

Butterworth, L.

Holderness, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Cadman, L.

Hooper, B.

Caldecote, V.

Howe, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Kitchener, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Layton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Colwyn, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lyell, L.

Cranborne, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Crathorne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Margadale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Marlesford, L.

Davidson, V.

Marsh, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Derwent, L.

Morris, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Moyne, L.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

767

Norrie, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Strafford, E.

Orkney, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Peel, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Sudeley, L.

Prentice, L.

Swansea, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Teviot, L.

Renton, L.

Teynham, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thurlow, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

Seccombe, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Vivian, L.

Shannon, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Sharples, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Stockton, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.45 p.m.
[Amendment NOS. 222 and 223 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Lockwood: I wish to oppose the Question whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill. I listened with great interest to the previous debate. Much that was said bears closely on my opposition to Clause 31. I endorse much of what was said by my noble friend Lord Eatwell in his analysis, but my judgment of the situation is that the Bill would be far better without this clause. I reject what the Minister and other speakers said about wages councils being detrimental to women. I shall refer to that in due course.
First, I shall oppose this clause from an entirely different angle; namely, that of equal pay. Many Members of the Committee who are present, but not the two Ministers, will recall the protracted debates that we had in 1984 when we considered orders to amend the Equal Pay Act to provide for equal pay for work of equal value. The Committee may recall that that amendment was brought about because of infringement proceedings initiated by the EOC alleging that the Equal Pay Act did not comply with European legislation. The result was a judgment of the European Court of Justice.
As a consequence, the Government brought in what might be described as a byzantine set of processes and regulations which were largely criticised at the time in this Chamber as being unworkable and which have subsequently proved to be unworkable. That was why in 1990 the Equal Opportunities Commission put forward to the Government further proposals to tackle the problems of equal pay and to introduce a Bill providing for equal opportunities which combined the provisions of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. So far the Government have not acted on those recommendations from the Equal Opportunities Commission.
At the time when we amended the Equal Pay Act it was argued —indeed, it has been argued since 1970,
768
when the Equal Pay Act was first introduced—that wages councils were an integral part of the statutory means by which the principle of equal pay could be promoted in the United Kingdom. Indeed, wages councils are the only means of collective protection for women in sex segregated low paid work. I am sure that many Members of the Committee will be aware that one of the major problems in establishing equal pay is sex segregated work.
The alternative to the wages council is the expensive and protracted legal proceedings of cases being taken by individuals through the industrial tribunals, possibly right through the legal process to the European Court in Luxembourg. One example of that is the recently published judgment of the EAT appeal against an award by an industrial tribunal. 'That involved the Coal Board. It is a case which had been running for over seven years and is probably not yet settled. Although the EAT made a judgment, the case may go further.
Is it the Government's wish and intention that that kind of situation should continue through individual cases being taken to tribunals? Or are they looking at the possibility of some overall means of dealing with the problem of unequal pay? Also, have they consulted the European Commission on the moves being taken to abolish the wages councils? Could the abolition of the wages councils lead to further proceedings against the UK on the grounds of infringement of the European Community's equal pay legislation? Those are extremely important questions which are related to the whole of Clause 31. I should like the Government to answer them specifically.
Further, perhaps I may say that, despite what the Minister said, the evidence that I have seen suggests that throughout the 1980s the wages councils have been a factor in reducing the wages gap between men and women. New research by PEP shows that the wages councils have performed a positive and unrecognised role in eliminating discrimination in pay between the sexes, particularly over the past 10 years.
In its report, Narrowing the Gender Pay-Gap—how wages councils work for women—PEP reveals that among manual workers women in the wages council sectors earned 81.3 per cent. of male manual workers' hourly earnings as compared with 71.5 per cent. across all industries. I do not suggest that the wages paid under the wages councils are by any means adequate. I do not believe that low wages are the answer to the UK's economic problems. In fact, I believe that the contrary is true; that is, that we need a highly-waged, highly-skilled technical workforce if we are to overcome our problems. But at the moment the position is as it is. I ask the Government to look carefully at the implications for them if they abolish the wages councils on grounds of equal pay. Furthermore, in doing that, I ask them to look, as an alternative to the wages councils, to the implementation of the recommendations by the Equal Opportunities Commission.
Lord Shackleton: I am surprised that we should be debating this subject at all. If ever there was an item that was well understood in industry it is the system of wages councils. I was a director of two companies in

769
charge of personnel. Those companies employed thousands of people. We never had any problem with wages councils except that, if we found ourselves having to pay more to meet the requirements, it was an indication that we were not paying enough.
I should be sorry if the provision were removed from the statute book. It is a satisfactory system. I spoke to colleagues today—one was from a large department store group and the other from the biggest mining group in the world. In neither case have they had trouble. I hope that we shall take a little time and not throw out the provision.
Lord Rochester: For my part I do not believe that there is conclusive evidence one way or the other as to whether removal of young people from the scope of wages councils in 1986 had the effect of increasing or decreasing employment in the trades affected. The fact that it has been possible to compile so much evidence on both sides of the argument is indicative of its inconclusive outcome.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in replying to an earlier debate, said that it was clear beyond doubt that wages councils acted as a barrier to employment. He quoted some evidence from the OECD to that effect. But equally, other evidence to the contrary has been adduced. For what it is worth, my view is supported by the Institute of Personnel Management, which, in a survey, found that the 1986 legislation led to no significant changes in employment levels.
However, some facts stand out clearly. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, said, the Committee is right to be highly sceptical about a decision to abolish wages councils which is based on consultation of five years ago when last year there was a general election at which the proposal could well have been included in the Conservative manifesto but was not.
Secondly, in that abolition has the effect of reducing pay or, just as bad, acting as a disincentive for people to take jobs in sectors now covered by the councils, that is bound to increase the number of claims for family credit from those with children, who are most affected by poverty. I agree with those who feel that the social security system should not be used to subsidise low wages paid by unscrupulous employers. It is regrettable that the Government do not seem to have made any assessment of the cost to taxpayers of the resulting increase in eligibility for benefit.
In contrast to a national minimum wage, to which I and my party are opposed and which would be determined from the centre by statute, the minimum wages set by wages councils are negotiated between employers, employees and independent people in the relevant trades. The system also allows for a targeted industry-by-industry approach rather than the inflexible across-the-board approach that a national minimum wage would involve.
Of course it would be better if wages councils allowed for regional as well as sectoral flexibility. But that and other imperfections in the system are arguments not for abolition but for reform. As I said at Second Reading, most desirable would be an integration of a tax and benefit system under which
770
benefits could be directed not to those on low pay, but to ensure that people—especially those with families —enjoy a decent minimum income.
It is claimed that minimum wages council rates have the effect of pushing up the pay of people who earn more. In my view, that is a legitimate criticism of a national minimum wage, which, because of its effect on differentials, would have damaging consequences for productivity and competition. But it is ridiculous to suppose that a small increase in the rate set by a wages council has the effect of pushing up pay throughout the whole salary range in the affected sector. In the end I believe that our economic and social problems will have to be solved by establishing common ground on which political parties can stand together. Otherwise they may not be solved at all.
Judged by that yardstick, the abolition of wages councils is a retrograde step from which even now the Government would be wise to hold back.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having listened to the arguments, on balance I nonetheless adhere to the view that I would not wish to abolish wages councils. Whatever way it is put, it is not right to have a minimum wage. But it is right that there should be flexible pay structures which give incentives to individual performers.
I have already given my broad reasons. Other reasons are contained in a document that appears to have reached the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I refer to a Department of Employment note of February 1993. I shall not weary your Lordships with any further reasons. But I wish to deal with the interesting problem of unequal pay and the suggestion that in some way it is related to the retention of the wages councils. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness I do not believe that it is so related (though I may be wrong), because it seems to me to be a wholly disparate problem. If something needs to be done it ought to be resolved on its merits, not in a Bill such as this relating to the retention or abolition of wages councils but in some other enactment. If there is a problem with industrial tribunal decisions, the European Court of Justice and so on, whether one retains or abolishes the wages councils there will be some aspects of the problem that are bound to override the situation.
I suggest that that should be treated as a separate item and does not afford an argument for the retention of the wages councils. For those and other reasons that I will not mention I support the Motion, That Clause 31 stand part of the Bill.
6 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: Having tried on this side of the Chamber to persuade the Committee to go along with our ingenious arguments, we have failed. It is right that we should have this debate on the clause as it stands. Many arguments can be made for and against it. What is remarkable is that the arguments that have been made for the clause have been so slight and narrow. It can be argued in favour of wages councils —indeed, it has been argued most recently by the noble Baroness who moved that the clause stand part

771
—that they have done a considerable amount for the cause of equal pay and the elimination and mitigation of sex discrimination in pay. No answer was forthcoming from the Government on that ground, though one hopes one may hear one in due course.
Another point that can be made, and has been made on this side of the Chamber—I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, does not understand it —is that the argument for wages councils is sometimes said to be put on the basis of low pay. That is a negative way of putting it. It is put on the basis of a living wage, which is not the same as poverty, that is to say, that there shall be a level of pay below which people shall not sink. If the Government got their way and their plans came to fruition, and it was the case that the wages councils were holding up rates to the full extent of the difference between wages council rates and non-wages council rates (because wages councils, stretching across the whole economy, are far from comprehensive), there would be a cut from about £3 per hour, which would be the average wages council rate, to about £2 per hour, which would be the rate for similar unskilled work outside the wages council area. We would say that a cut of that size was too much and it was wrong for a civilised country to allow such wages, which were not living wages, to be paid. That argument has not been met or even debated by the Government but it is an argument about living wages and low pay, not about poverty.
The Government have based their argument—in so far as they have argued—on the effects on unemployment. That is one small part of the economic case. They have said that if we abolish wages councils we shall arrest the rise in unemployment. That is the worst argument because it is the most inconclusive of all the arguments. One can look at this matter in two ways. Either one has simulations or one does field work. If one does simulations, whatever equations are put in the desired answer falls out at the bottom. One can set it up to show that there is or is not an employment effect. Simulation will produce the answer. If one goes out and asks people or looks at what has happened, for example where wages councils have been abolished—and quite a few have been abolished—or one looks at what has happened in those cases where wages council coverage has been abolished for certain groups, such as young people, one finds that the factors that affect the level of employment (which are very complicated), overwhelmingly dominate any effect that may arise from mucking about with wages councils or minimum rates. That is what field work shows. The whole thing is totally inconclusive. If the Government want to stand upon that in the middle of a recession they have a very weak argument.
One has to ask oneself what is the real argument. I put it to the Minister—and he can disallow it or set it aside if he does not like it—that I believe the Government have been led down this route by its ideology. For a very long time the Government have believed that the labour market ought to work and would work if only trade unions could be got out of the way. In effect they have had trade unions out of the way for 10 years. The labour market ought to be
772
working but it is as bad as ever. The relationship between productivity and wages and unit labour costs is as bad as ever, certainly if one looks at international comparisons. That should not happen if the Government's theory of economics was correct. Now that one has got trade unions out of the way one ought to have much more flexibility in wage rates and falls in money wages at the level of unemployment that one has.
The Government have to advance some other explanation. The only explanation they can find is the statutory regulation of the labour market. This is the thinnest of all the arguments. The main reason why wages continue to rise is not that they are being pushed up by trade unions but that they are being pulled up by management. The first principle of management in the 1990s seems to be that the first charge on the firm must be the maintenance and improvement of the real wages of managers. That is why we have tremendous differences in differentials. The lowest decile goes up by 4 per cent. and the highest decile goes up by 47 per cent. in real terms, because the first principle is that managers have to look after their own real incomes and they are not mean enough to stop some of it dropping down to workers further down. To have more regulation of trade unions and to abolish wages councils will do nothing whatever to tackle that problem. But the Government are in the grip of ideology and one cannot talk sense to ideology.
Lord Skidelsky: I should like to open up a more general issue about the relationship between wages councils and employment. First, however, I should like to take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. He said that a level of pay below which no one should sink should be the goal of any civilised society. Had he said "a level of income below which no one should sink", I would have endorsed that proposition completely. The noble Lord has not completely understood the distinction between a living wage and a living income. That was the whole point of the argument that one should deal with poverty through the tax system and not the wages system.
The noble Lord was good enough to say at Second Reading that I was deviating from the teachings of my biographical subject, John Maynard Keynes. I should like to quote what Keynes said on this matter in his evidence before the Macmillan Committee in 1930:
"If on the ground of humanity or justice you want to give the poorer part of the community £100 million more income you would be wiser to do that out of taxation than by fixing the wages of individuals at a higher figure than it pays their employers to give them".
That is the proposition on which I take my stand in this debate.
Let us come to the evidence. First, I do riot pay very much attention to the empirical results because, as has been said, they are inconclusive. One has to start with an intuition. It is one of the most powerful intuitions in economics. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, may say that it is lesson one and that I have never got on to lesson two but it is a very powerful intuition and one that instinctively strikes laymen as being acceptable. It is that if the costs of doing business are lowered, more business will be done, other things being equal. Of

773
course, that applies to all costs. It applies to the hassle costs of doing business, which is of great importance to small firms, particularly when they are faced with bureaucratic costs which are an enormous tax on labour. That is one very good argument in itself for getting rid of the wages council machinery for small firms. But wage costs are a key element in costs. Again, the intuition is that if wage costs are lowered, more labour, other things being equal, will be demanded. There are circumstances in which that is not true—one can think of circumstances in which it is not true—but as an intuition, that seems to take us a very long way.
My second intuition is that the market covered by wages councils is a competitive market, or it is a more competitive market than many other markets in the economy. So one would expect what follows from there being a large number of buyers of labour. If one accepts that as a basic institutional datum, one would intuitively expect wages to be set by competitive conditions and not fixed below the value of the marginal product of the workers concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, talked about unscrupulous employers. There seems to be a general feeling that employers who pay low wages are unscrupulous. I do not accept that. Suppose we agree, for the sake of argument, that all employers are unscrupulous, the conditions under which they can exercise their lack of scruple—their lack of scruple can affect wages—is fixed by the institutions of the market. My contention is that this market is more of a competitive market than otherwise.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I do not think people would generally say that employers who pay very low wages are unscrupulous. What we are saying is that they are inefficient. We are saying that those who find that they cannot pay more than £2 an hour are the most inefficient of all the people in the labour market. If they go out of business, more efficient people take their place.
Lord Skidelsky: That is an assertion.
Lord McCarthy: That is intuition.
Lord Skidelsky: It may be that the labour is not very efficient. In many cases we are talking about the lower end of the skills range. It may be that labour in this market is not very efficient and that workers are paid low wages which represent the value of their product to the employer. That may be true irrespective of the motives of employers. If one is in a competitive market one cannot consistently undercut the going wage for that market.
There has been no real attempt in any of the evidence that has been produced to quantify the degree of imperfection in the labour market. I refer to the study by Machin and Manning, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, during the previous debate. They claim that this is a monopsonic market and that it approximates more to a case where there is a single buyer of labour.
774
However, they have not attempted to quantify the degree of imperfection in that market. They have given a test. They say that the increase in wage dispersal that the authors found to be a consequence of the softening of minimum wage requirements in the 1980s suggests that this is an imperfect market. It is not, I suggest, a good test of competitiveness in that market but may simply reflect variability in local conditions exposed by the declining bite of the wage council rates over this period. We are in the realm of assertions and intuitions here.
If we come to the empirical evidence, studies of the link between pay and employment at national levels tend to show that increases in pay caused by statutory wages are likely to decrease employment. Many studies show this. One can refer to the study by Gregg and to a study by Kaufmann in the Economic Journal of 1989 which showed a weak negative relation between pay and employment. There are studies from the United States. There are also the remarks of the OECD which have already been quoted. The study by Machin and Manning, which is the key study of the effect of wages councils in this country, states that this negative correlation between wages and employment is not present or cannot be found in wage council industries. But there are weaknesses in that study. In particular, they do not estimate the effect of changes in the statutory minimum rates on part-time workers.
Lord Eatwell: The noble Lord should be aware that because the new earnings survey does not adequately cover part-time workers no serious studies of the effects of minimum wages cover part-time workers. The data simply are not available.
Lord Skidelsky: That simply confirms the point I have just made. The data do not cover the effects on part-time workers. The effects on part-time workers are extremely relevant in this context because at least half of wages council workers are part-time workers, largely female.
My main criticism of surveys of this kind—this is why surveys of this kind will never give you the answers that you want—is that the study is a very good—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Skidelsky: Surveys of this kind will not give you the answers that you want and they will not give me the answers that I want either. The study is a very good example of econometric bamboozling. One does not get in that study any of the raw data on which the correlation coefficients are based and one does not get in that study any clear statement of ceteris paribus conditions—other things that need to be the same for these results to hold. This is an important matter when one is covering the effects of changes on a small number of industries. The economic evidence is inconclusive. I accept that. The effects of minimum wages may be different in different places at different times. Therefore, it is very good to rely on one's basic intuitions in this matter. That seems to be the only rational way of proceeding. One's basic intuition—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Skidelsky: If Members of the Committee opposite have some different concept of rationality in this case I should be very happy to hear it. But all they have cited as evidence is studies which do not back up their position.
Baroness Seear: I am going to be extremely rude. In all humility, we have to reach Amendment No. 279. I implore my colleagues that we do not descend into the senior common room which many of us have suffered for far too many years. Perhaps we can just avoid the senior common room. That would be a very great help.
Lord Skidelsky: I am responding to the very senior common room remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. They deserve a reply. That is how the argument should be conducted on this issue which has many technical features. I have gone through that part of the argument.
I want to return to the basic statement on which I rest my case for supporting the Government. That is that the alleviation of poverty and the achievement of a basic income should be the task of the taxation and political systems and not that of wage fixing. That has no place in the task of alleviating poverty. We hope for a situation in which wages will increase steadily with the rise in the efficiency of industry. But actually to intervene in bargains between employers and employees is to distort the market; to get the market to send out wrong signals; to allocate labour inefficiently; to slow down the aggregate growth of employment; and in the end not to have the desired effect of alleviating poverty anyway. For those reasons I support Clause 31.
Earl Russell: I hope that my noble friend Lady Seear will allow me 30 seconds in the senior common room. We have here the undistorted market existing somewhere outside Plato's cave. There is only one undistorted market which I have ever heard of in the whole world. That was the foreign currency market in Kiev which opened shortly after Black Wednesday and where in a whole day not a single transaction took place. That is the undistorted market.
I intended to reply rationally and not intuitively to the Minister. He had one single argument in answering the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. He said that the abolition of wages councils would create jobs. He gave us very little reason to believe that. But for the sake of argument I concede that. If it creates jobs, can the Minister say at what cost?
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said about the difference between a living wage and a living income. But the lower wages go the higher the proportion of the living income which has to come from the state. In fact, if wages go below what is regarded by the social security benefits system as subsistence level—which God knows is low enough —the proportion of the cost which falls on the state must go up. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour of Craigniillar, whose speech I listened to with great pleasure. But I do not see why the taxpayer should subsidise the bad employer.
776
But the cost to the state is not only a matter of increased benefits; it is also a matter of lost revenue. This Government are a very long way from realising how much of their present difficulties in the public sector borrowing requirement are the result of falling tax revenues because of diminishing economic activity.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in a Written Answer of 25th March, gave me a Treasury estimate of the effect on income tax and national insurance yields if average earnings should fall by 1 per cent. It involves the loss of £1.14 billion. That figure leaves out VAT. I did not ask the Treasury about that because I thought it might cause them some interpretative difficulty.
The effect on benefit is perhaps even greater. If one considers a man with four children paying a rent of £50 a week, earning £135, and one assumes that his income decreases to £110—which would be the likely effect of this clause—that would cost the state £851 extra benefits in a year and £388 in lost tax. That is over £1,000 lost to the Exchequer from one person.
Right-wing governments around the world have had very considerable trouble with public sector deficits. That does not only apply in this country, but in the United States and Australia. We constantly hear noble Lords opposite talking, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has done, about the need to keep down wages. I do not believe that they understand what a rod they are pickling for their own backs in terms of the public sector borrowing requirement that they are building up. Before doing that, they should stop and think about the drag created by the public sector borrowing requirement which grows too high on employment throughout the rest of the economy. They are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
They should wonder about their own concept of the bogus job. If I want to spend money, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, repairing holes in a school roof, that is not a bogus job. I am paying for a service that I want rendered. But if a job is incapable of being sustained at a living wage, that is not an economic job. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, most unexpectedly, is casting himself in the part of the heir of Louis Blanc. There is an even wider question here which is whether, in the long term, Marx or Keynes was right about the development of the capitalist system. My gorge rises at the thought of conceding that Marx might have been right about anything.
Marx thought—and this Government have been arguing with him for so long that they are getting like a crusty married couple who are becoming like each other because they have quarrelled so long—that continual competition would continue to force down wages until it led to the collapse of capitalism. In 1929 many people found that picture convincing; in 1949 there were many fewer. That lesson has been forgotten.
I know that we live in a global economy, but I do not believe that we shall do very well setting out to compete with Taiwan. It is a competition which we are likely to lose. If, globally, wages continue to be forced down by competition, there is not going to be anyone left to buy anything. If we try to sustain our jobs by a

777
Speenhamland system of subsidising uneconomic wages, the bill left to be picked up will be very big indeed.
Lord Blease: The question of wages councils occurs in the penultimate clause of the Bill and it deals specifically with Northern Ireland. I do not want to touch on that at this stage but with the principle. Can the Minister say why we have the summary way in which the Government have decided to abolish en bloc the wages council system? Is it not the denial of the right of workers in low-paid industries, which has existed since 1909, to rely on fairness to be brought to bear on working conditions and wages? Can the Minister say why the machinery within the wages council legislation for constructive procedures and the establishment of recognised collective bargaining arrangements is not pursued? What studies have been undertaken by the Government to assess the consequences of social deprivation which will result from the sudden en bloc abolition of the wages councils?
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to speak in favour of retaining the wages councils because the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, are very valid. It is women who will be the most adversely affected if the wages councils are abolished. As I understand it, the wages councils now do a much smaller job than they used to—and I think that that change is for the better. However, at their current level it is important that they should be retained.
In both this clause stand part debate and in our discussion on the previous amendment, I heard statements that there are better ways of dealing with low-income families. That is a fallacy. As has been said, giving people state benefits so that they might subsist is something that we do, but it is not the ideal. People like to have the dignity of earning their own way through life. That applies particularly to women who work long hours, often part-time, in very low paid employment. Women do that because they want to make a contribution to their family's income and I think that we should encourage them to continue doing that.
It should always be worth working. Too many people today would like to work but do not have that opportunity. We should ensure that those who are willing and able to find work continue to have the opportunity of taking up work. I consider myself to be a strong Conservative and I believe that there should never be an incentive for people simply to sit back and to claim from the state.
I have heard many comments about wages and a "Taiwan economy"; but, as is the case with rents, I do not think that the movement of wages should always be upwards only. We could go seriously wrong if we believed that everything should always go up. However, when we lose our currency value, we lose again because we suddenly find that all imported goods are costing a lot more, and that means people's wages do not buy what they once did.
778
We live in a competitive world and the real answer is productivity. We are more likely to get high productivity from people who feel that they are receiving a fair wage for the job and not a pittance without any protection at all. I have been surprised in industrial tribunals at the number of employees who have lost their jobs who would happily have taken another job with lower pay rather than be unemployed. No one wants to be unemployed.
Wages councils protect the people who are right at the very bottom of the income scale. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky mentioned a powerful intuition. I believe that there is no intuition as powerful as women's intuition. My intuition is that we should not become too involved with the theory on this, and with discussions on studies and yet more studies. By the time that I had listened to a convoluted argument about Machin and Manning being the definitive study and then to the noble Lord saying that there were faults in that study (because he did not agree with it), and then to him saying that it was all bamboozling, I was getting more and more bamboozled myself. I hate to vote against the Government; but with my woman's intuition, I feel that this is one issue on which I must do so because I must support the retention of the wages councils.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to make a couple of short points. First, it must not be thought that employers en bloc are in favour of this legislation. Many good employers deplore what the Government are doing. Indeed, many good employers are fearful about the results of this legislation because they say that many bad employers will cut their wages and that if they are to be competitive they will then have to follow suit although they want to retain wages at at least wages council levels. So, let it not be thought that all employers are in favour of this legislation.
The other strange phenomenon that we have heard in this debate is that the Conservative Party—not the Labour Party, not the Liberal Party and not the Communist Party—is saying that wages should be subsidised. There is something for us. There is a turn-up for the book. The Conservative Party is saying that we should subsidise wages. Yesterday in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that we should not subsidise wages, yet today we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, from his common room and from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, from his Chambers that that is the way to settle wages—that we should subsidise them. In other words, we should subsidise bad or inefficient employers. Frankly, it is nonsense. Have not they heard of Mr. Peter Lilley, the Secretary of State for Social Security, who is embarking upon an exercise to reduce his department's £80 billion budget? He is not looking for any increases through wages subsidies or income support; he is looking for cuts, and he is looking for cuts because the Government are heading for a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement deficit. How is it, then, that here today we have the Conservative Party—I must emphasise again that we are talking about the Conservative Party—advocating subsidising wages at the same time as the other part of the Conservative Government are saying

779
that we must cut the PSBR and limit or even cut the social security budget? Perhaps the Minister will please explain it to me because I have no intuition about this. I need to have this paradox explained to me as I am sure do all other noble Lords. I say again to the Minister, "Please let us have the explanation".
Lord Eatwell: I promise to obey the stricture of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and not become involved in common room arguments other than to say that I think it is the intuition of many that the earth is flat, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, displayed flat-earth economics with considerable skill in his speech.
I support the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The issue which the noble Viscount has not faced, which he has continuously refused to answer, is: what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of this measure? Why should we be using the family credit system, as suggested in the 1988 consultation document, to subsidise employment? The Minister must answer those questions because this is the economic argument as opposed to the social argument; it is the core argument of economic efficiency against the clause.
Viscount Ullswater: We have had another long debate, and I should like to answer as many of the points that have been raised as possible. Perhaps I may start with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. It is important to say that the abolition of the wages councils has nothing whatever to do with sex discrimination. None of the fundamental planks of the United Kingdom's comprehensive framework of sex discrimination legislation is at all altered by the councils' demise. Any woman working for an employer in a wages council trade who believes that a man in the same employment doing like work or work of equal value is being paid more can bring an equal pay complaint to an industrial tribunal. That is the position now and it will still be the position when the councils are abolished.
I must advise the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that the abolition of the wages councils will have no effect whatever on women's existing rights to bring claims for equal pay.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry for interrupting the Minister, but if the overwhelming number of workers in wages council industries are women, as is undoubtedly the case, is there not at least an argument that there will be indirect discrimination if we abolish wages council rates?
Viscount Ullswater: No, I do not agree with that argument. The fundamental fact that noble Lords opposite are peddling is that wages will go down immediately. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is keen to demonstrate that wages will go down.
Lord McCarthy: Is the Minister telling us now, at 20 minutes to seven, that the Government will have all these positive employment effects without wages going down?
Viscount Ullswater: No. It is important that wages should find their own level. It is the Equal Pay Act not wages councils which will assist women. Wages councils are much more about minimum pay, not equal pay. The Equal Opportunities Commission has taken legal advice which suggests that the Government are in continuing breach of the principles of equal pay for men and women, and that the abolition of wages councils will result in further breaches of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and the equal pay directive. We shall study the opinion forwarded by the EOC. However, we have previously examined the proposals for any possible effects they may have on equal pay and came to the clear conclusion that abolition of the wages councils will not breach the equal treatment directive or the equal pay directive.
The Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 mean that the UK complies fully with its obligations under European Community law. Our legislation will remain entirely consistent with Community laws after the councils have been abolished.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Is it not a fact that the gap between male and female rates is much narrower in wages council industries than in industry generally?
Viscount Ullswater: What is important is work of equal value. If there is a difference between the two, a woman can take the case to the industrial tribunal. I shall reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Blease. Consultation took place in Northern Ireland at the same time as it took place in this country. I do not believe that further consultation is necessary'. Interested parties in Northern Ireland, just as in Great Britain, have had the opportunity to express their views before the councils are abolished, as the wages order provides.
Perhaps the most obvious point is that employees in wages council industries are not all, or mainly, low paid. Each council covers almost the entire labour force of a particular industry, not just employees at the bottom of the pay scale. Large retail shops are not staffed entirely by shelf fillers. They also have check-out operators, supervisors, office staff, departmental managers and store managers. Workers in wages council industries are spread across the whole pay distribution. We know that more than two-thirds of them are paid significantly above the statutory minimum rates.
The term "poverty pay" represents an even greater distortion. Low pay and poverty are not synonymous. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that those on relatively low rates of pay will be poor. Nothing is further from the truth. The majority of lower paid workers, and indeed about half of all workers in wages council industries, work part-time. Young and part-time workers are usually not the sole source of income for their families. Frequently, they are second or even third earners in their households.
The plain fact is that lower paid workers live in households which are spread over the whole income distribution; about half of them in the top half of the distribution. That is a figure with which the noble

781
Lord, Lord Eatwell, will agree. Almost as many low-paid workers are in the richest fifth of households as in the poorest fifth.
Opposition attacks are based on the assumption that the abolition of the councils will be the prelude to significant and widespread reductions in wages.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am trying to follow what the Minister is saying. Is he suggesting that because people in wages council industries, who may be low paid, may be part of a two-income family, they should not expect a reasonable wage? Is he now saying that as well as the state subsidising bad employers, husbands and wives should subsidise bad employers because they happen to be making a larger contribution to the household? It is nonsense.
Viscount Ullswater: No, I was saying that the lower-paid workers live in households which are spread over the whole income distribution. That is what the evidence indicates.
Baroness Nicol: What evidence?
Viscount Ullswater: Over time a somewhat different pattern of pay might well emerge. Most employees will probably detect no immediate change in their pay though some new entrants may receive lower starting rates.
The best indication of the implications of the abolition for overall pay rates is from previous abolition of wages councils and removals from wages councils control. The previous Labour government abolished 11 councils covering some 600,000 workers. There is no evidence of a reduction in average earnings as a result. The 1986 Wages Act took young people aged under 21 out of wages council regulation entirely, since which time their gross wages have continued to grow.
I know that noble Lords opposite have persuaded themselves that the price of labour can be increased artificially without reducing demand, but the plain fact is that basic economic laws apply. I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. I enjoyed the lesson in economics that he gave the Committee. I agree with his interpretation of economic law rather than that of noble Lords opposite, including that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who demonstrated with his own figures that it is better and cheaper for the Treasury for someone to remain in work rather than to become unemployed. If the price of labour is raised by statute, the number of jobs goes down. But that does not mean that it is possible to make reliable numerical estimates. A great many factors influence the level of employment and wages in the labour market. It is idle to pretend that there is a magic formula which will isolate one single factor.
Noble Lords opposite and the Labour Party in another place have had every opportunity to say that they would reintroduce wages councils, and they have failed to do so. Labour Party policy is to introduce a national legal minimum wage starting at half men's median earnings and rising to two-thirds of the male median hourly rate. The national minimum would thus be somewhat higher than the minimum rates set
782
by the wages councils. Various bodies have estimated the likely effects on employment and estimates have ranged from 25,000 jobs lost to well over a million, with up to 2 million jobs which could be lost if the pay differentials of higher paid workers were restored fully. However, for wages councils, which set lower minimum, which cover only a limited number of industries, and which will therefore have a smaller impact on employment, the plain fact is that there is no reliable way of estimating the extent of the employment effect.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, misled the Committee. He said that productivity has not increased, whereas in fact it has increased considerably this year. He said that unit wage costs are not comparable with those of our major competitors. In fact, they are rising much more slowly now than those of our major competitors.
Lord McCarthy: What I said, as Hansard will show, is that if one takes the decade as a whole, unit labour costs in this country are not competitive with unit labour costs in Europe.
Viscount Ullswater: The councils were introduced to counteract poor conditions and wages in the Edwardian era. They attempted to tackle poverty in an age before the safety net of social security benefits and before comprehensive health and safety measures. The councils have now been in decline for many years. From a peak of 66 councils in 1953 their number has fallen so that now there are only 24 which are still active. Their coverage and operation is shot through with difficulties and anomalies. The wages council system has been perpetuated for too long. It is time to end it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the Minister sits down, he mentioned 1953. Does he agree that there was a high level of employment at that time, and that the high number of wages councils seemed to have no effect on that?
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that trying to draw the conclusion that the retention of wages councils means high employment is taking things a little far.
Lord Eatwell: Before the Minister sits down, will he address the question which should be associated with any measure which a responsible government advances; that is, of the Exchequer cost of the measure, which he has persistently refused to give? Members of the Committee will know that the Exchequer cost of the wages councils system as presented in the consultation document was £2.5 million—just £2.5 million. It is my estimate that the Exchequer cost of the abolition of wages councils in a full year will be £400 million. Does the Minister agree with my estimate?
Viscount Ullswater: If the noble Lord reads my words carefully in Hansard he will see that I have addressed that problem.
Baroness Lockwood: Before the Minister sits down I wish to point out that I asked two specific questions which he has not addressed. First, I asked whether he

783
was satisfied that there should be a procession of individual cases, such as the 700 involved in the British Coal case before the EAT to which I referred, rather than a collective mechanism such as wages councils. The Minister did not reply specifically but he did say that the Equal Pay Act was the remedy that women had. I do not know what deductions I must draw from that. Secondly, I asked whether the Government have consulted the European Commission. The Minister's response was to say that he had had a legal opinion from the Equal Opportunities Commission. If that is so, and if that opinion indicates that the wages councils could be an infringement of Article 119 and the directives, how can he be so sure that the abolition of the wages councils does not affect equal pay?
Viscount Ullswater: I am sorry that I did not address myself to two of the questions which the noble Baroness put. She mentioned a case concerning employees of British Coal, which involves complex points of law. Inevitably, there would be a great number of appeals and, indeed, counter appeals. It may be that the numbers are 700, as she suggested, but I am not aware of that. However, complex points of law are involved. I tried to demonstrate that the Government are convinced that the action which they are now taking does not breach any European statute.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Flather, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Gisborough, L.

Goold, L.

Arran, E.

Goschen, V.

Astor, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Greenway, L.

Beloff, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Blatch, B.

Halsbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harvington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hemphill, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Henley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Cadman, L.

Hives, L.

Caldecote, V.

Holderness, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hooper, B.

Carnock, L.

Howe, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Colwyn, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cranborne, V.

Kitchener, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Leigh, L.

Davidson, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Long, V.

Dundonald, E.

Lyell, L.

Elks, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Elton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Marsh, L.

784

Merrivale, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mersey, V.

Seccombe, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Selborne, E.

Morris, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stewartby, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Newall, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Norfolk, D.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Orkney, E.

Sudeley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ullswater, V.

Prentice, L.

Vivian, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Rennell, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynford, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Alport, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Auckland, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brimelow, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Redesdale, L.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Russell, E.

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shackleton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strafford, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Varley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L,

Judd, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 31 agreed to accordingly.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 224:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Report by the Secretary of State following abolition of wages councils
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall present annually to both Houses of Parliament a report on the pay and working conditions of employees in industries formerly covered by

785
wages councils and in the security and private residential care industries, having consulted the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the representatives of employers and employees in the industries concerned and such bodies concerned with low pay and equal opportunities as he thinks fit.
(2) The first such report shall be presented within 12 months of the day on which the wages councils are abolished.").
The noble Baroness said: Again we return to some of the arguments made on the previous amendments. We have just voted on wages councils and the Committee has agreed that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. But we have said repeatedly that wages councils cover the poorest and most vulnerable in the workforce. It has not been disputed that large numbers of women and those from ethnic minorities are involved. Most are not unionised. Indeed, the industries covered by wages councils have been notoriously difficult to organise. There are many reasons for that, not least that many of the unskilled and vulnerable people are too scared of losing what employment they have to put it at risk by joining a union.
We have had a long and interesting debate on the whole issue and there is little point in covering it again. However, the amendment tries to continue the commitment which was to some extent undertaken by wages councils. The amendment seeks to transfer it to the Secretary of State. If there are no wages councils, the people formerly covered by them should not be abandoned altogether nor, as Members of the Committee have already said, should we rely on the social security system to subsidise bad employers. The market will not look after those people; quite the contrary. Without wages councils, they will be entirely vulnerable to exploitation.
That is less likely to be the case if the employers involved realise that they are to be the subject of some form of monitoring and that Parliament will be watching via a report to see precisely how they are behaving towards their employees. As we said in the earlier debates, we are not talking about people who can command very high wage rates. Even the wages councils' figures are not high. They range from £2.63 to £3.308 per hour, which is not much by way of remuneration. Now we have passed the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill, I hope that this amendment, which seeks to give some form of cover and some kind of monitoring to those industries where there were once wages councils, will have the support of the Committee. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendment would require the production of an annual report on the pay and working conditions of employees affected by the repeal of Part II of the Wages Act 1986 of workers in the security and private residential care industries and, as drafted, also those affected by earlier wages councils abolitions.
The purpose can only be to establish a platform for further debate on wages councils after they have been abolished. The new clause stipulates that the TUC, the CBI, employer and employee bodies for the relevant industries—I presume that that includes trade unions
786
and bodies concerned with low pay and equal opportunities such as the Equal Opportunities Commission—would have to be consulted prior to the production of the annual report. The composition of the consulting bodies means that any subsequent report would be against the background of opinion partly critical of the effects of abolition.
The new clause would not prevent the abolition of wages councils. It would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual report on the levels of wages of employees now covered by the councils, those in the security and private residential care industries and those covered by wages councils at any time in the past. I find it difficult to believe that the proposed reports are intended to cover workers in industries some of whose councils were abolished up to 73 years ago. It would reopen to no useful purpose questions already long settled.
The Government already compile and publish detailed annual earnings statistics which derive from the new earnings survey. Copies are available in the Library. Those figures mean that Members of both Houses already have available to them a wider range of high quality data than is available for almost any other country in the European Community.
The security and private residential care industries have never been covered by wages councils and it would be pointless to combine them in a report with industries previously covered by the councils. An association exists within the security industry which has developed guidelines on pay and other working conditions. The security and private residential care industries have been held up as example of low paying industries. In those industries, where free collective bargaining exists, the average gross hourly pay, excluding overtime, for a full-time male worker in the occupation "security guard and related industries" in April 1992 was £5.13. The gross hourly rate for a full-time female worker in the occupational category "hospital and nursing homes" was £3.99 per hour. Those hourly rates are not much different from average rates of pay for manual workers. In any event, it is for employers and workers to agree terms and conditions of employment.
The amendment is not an attempt to improve the clause. It is either irrelevant or seeks to delay abolition. I urge the Committee to reject it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not surprised by the noble Viscount's response to the amendment, which was intended to be constructive, and it is based on the decision taken by the Committee to accept the clause which abolishes wages councils.
I am surprised by some of the rates given by the noble Viscount. I have information about security pay. For example, for a security guard, the rate is £2.30 per hour. It is not unusual for a guard to receive less than £2 per hour for that kind of work. For nursing auxiliaries I have a figure of £2.42 per hour. Those are not high rates of pay. One reason that those industries were added to the clause is because employers in those industries are notoriously bad payers. It was felt in drafting the amendment that it

787
might be an idea to have an annual report on those industries where pay is generally rather less good than it alight be.
I do not intend to press the amendment. However, we may wish to return to the issue on Report because I am unwilling to relinquish it without taking further steps to try to protect people who I believe will be grossly exploited if there are no wages councils. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Constitution of industrial tribunals]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 49, leave out lines 19 to 22.
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to remove the clause, which would open up the possibility of equal pay cases being heard alone by the tribunal chairman. It would have the effect also of removing the possibility of a chairman sitting alone by virtue of the fact that the parties have given their written consent.
I wish to make four points on the amendment. The first relates to the industrial tribunal system. It was designed as a cheap and accessible system to enable unrepresented parties to bring and defend cases. It has not worked out quite as was anticipated because it seemed that it is becoming more and more legal. But to allow industrial tribunal chairman to hear cases alone—and I understand in certain cases in private —would represent a further move towards an increasingly legalistic and inaccessible forum for the administration of justice in equal opportunity and pay cases. That is a matter of concern.
Secondly, the clause presents a further problem for equal opportunities. If we look at the composition of industrial tribunals, we can see that women, black people and members of ethnic minorities are very much under-represented within the entire industrial tribunal system, and particularly so at chairman level. I know the Government have been making efforts to increase the number of women on industrial tribunals but if we were to move in the direction proposed in the Bill it would undermine the role of women on industrial tribunals and it would be counter to what the Government have been doing.
Thirdly, there is concern about the length of time that elapses before the commencement of tribunal proceedings. It is feared that women could increasingly face pressure to allow their equal pay cases to be heard by a tribunal chairman alone. That will not help the position of women because, again, it has been found that it is tribunal chairmen, more than the representatives of the two sides of industry, who seem to suffer from a lack of expertise and training in equal pay matters. I believe that that could be detrimental to women who are putting their cases before a tribunal.
Finally, the Government might like to comment on my next point. It is believed that the Government are trying to shift the burden of delay in the county court system over to the industrial tribunal system by allowing industrial tribunals to hear breach of contract claims. There is already pressure on the county courts. If that pressure is to be shifted to
788
industrial tribunals, that again would disadvantage people making claims. If they were to take such a claim to an industrial tribunal rather than to the county court, no legal aid would be available. Furthermore, I understand there is a requirement on the statute book for a deposit of £150. If that were enacted, it could pose yet another deterrent to women making well-founded cases. I would very much appreciate hearing the Government's comments on this situation. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. As she has said, the clause in the Bill enables chairmen sitting alone to hear cases. I can understand that the Government are anxious to speed up hearings as there are many delays in industrial tribunal cases and also in EAT hearings. However, I wonder whether this is the correct way to do it.
Industrial tribunals were, of course, originally conceived as a quick and easy way of securing justice in employment matters. It was originally hoped that the proceedings would be simple enough for ordinary employees with no legal training to make their own cases. It has, however, not worked out like that. Things have become more legalistic over the years with the result that the individual applicant is ill-advised, in my opinion, to appear before an industrial tribunal unrepresented.
One of the aspects of industrial tribunals which made them acceptable to all sides was their tripartite nature. There is, of course, the legally qualified chairman assisted by two sidespersons intended to be broadly representative of both employees and employers in industry and commerce. I believe that that was a useful innovation. When making a case for an applicant—I have made a number of cases in my years as a union official—it was helpful to know that the two sidespersons were not professional lawyers but had some knowledge of working conditions and industrial relations practice. The provision that it is all right for a chairman to sit on his or her own undermines the confidence that applicants may have that those adjudicating will have some idea of the kind of conditions at work with which they may have had to contend.
As I said earlier, if the Government wish to speed up the processes, this is not the way to do it. Nor do I believe that it is a shortage of suitable sidespersons that is responsible for delays. I rather suspect that there is an ideological reason for the proposition, as with so many others in this Bill. The Government do not like tripartitism. They are not against quangos in general. After all, it is always possible to appoint to quangos those with the right outlook—the "one of us" syndrome. However, in industrial relations, tripartitism is bound to involve ensuring that employees are somehow represented, mainly as a result of union nominations. I suspect that the Government do not like that very much.
However, it is not just unions and ordinary employees who are less than happy about this prospect. I was recently visited in this Chamber by two representatives of an employers' federation which had in membership a number of small firms. They viewed

789
the provision allowing a legally qualified chairman to sit alone as importing yet more legalism into the system. They think that if firms are going to have to make a case before a lawyer with no assistance from sidespersons, they will have to spend money on being legally represented whereas under the present system they send along their managers or personnel people. Therefore I support my noble friend's amendment which I believe is useful in the circumstances.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I also wish strongly to support this amendment. I have nothing against lawyers as such. They can be pure as the driven snow and I daresay they nearly all are, but the fact remains that one needs an input of people who have real practical experience of industrial relations at the level at which the case is being operated. That was the whole principle of the initial idea of industrial tribunals. It is a great pity that that is to be abandoned because the more things can be settled by agreement between the two sides in industry with the chairman acting to hold the ring, as it were, and to deal with legal matters, the better. However, matters should be considered by people who have real understanding of what goes on at the industrial level. Again, one is bound to suspect that this matter concerns the vendetta that the Government are waging against trade unions. I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not support this amendment as I consider the industrial tribunal system works well as it is. I do not consider that people need to be represented officially or formally. In fact I believe that they often do far better by presenting their own case because the people hearing the case then go to great trouble to make them feel at ease and to help them in presenting their case. There is nothing worse than being badly represented at an industrial tribunal. That does one's case harm. There are all kinds of people who set themselves up to represent others in these cases although they are not legally qualified and they do not represent a trade union. They are just people who have created an industry for themselves to present cases before industrial tribunals. Often the applicant bringing the case places great confidence in the person presenting the case and that confidence is far from justified. The applicant fares worse in that situation than if he were presenting his own case.
As regards this amendment, I believe that it would be quite in order in certain circumstances. Often the parties to a case decide not to appear and they ask for a case to be heard in their absence. In that instance it would be practical for the case to be heard in their absence. There are all kinds of reasons why people do not appear in person. They may have taken up new jobs and are not prepared to take time off or they may have moved to another part of the country and decide that the tribunal is being held too far away for them to attend it.
As I understand the position, one can refuse to have one's case heard by the chairman alone or one can give
790
reasons why it is inappropriate to have one's case heard by the chairman alone. The amendment concerns the provision where people have given written consent for the case to be heard by the chairman alone. The Government may wish to consider the provision where a person signs an agreement and has 14 days to reconsider it. They may wish to consider introducing a provision whereby one can withdraw one's written consent within so many days of giving it. This amendment concerns written consent. Indeed, breaches of contract have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
I speak as someone who sits on an industrial tribunal. Very often the contract is so interlinked with the employment issue that we would be pleased to resolve what appears to be a comparatively simple matter for the applicant. The applicant then goes away very dissatisfied. His or her only hope of taking the matter further is by going to court afterwards, which involves a great deal of time and trouble. Yet the matter was fairly straightforward and could have been settled in the tribunal. Therefore, I believe that it would be beneficial for tribunals to have the power to look into contract issues. I do not support the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Lockwood, although I do not believe that the problems of tripartism are as easy to resolve as has sometimes been represented. The amendment addresses a particular point in the clause. I note that parties who have given their written consent are not able to withdraw it. That appears a curious doctrine. Perhaps it stems from the Government's conviction concerning the sanctity of contract: it can never be varied. However, I foresee people giving consent conditionally, for a practical reason.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, it is sometimes difficult to tell how a tribunal will proceed. It does not have the set course of a High Court action. Workers often go from one adviser to another. They may find better advisers during the course of proceedings. Having gone to the tribunal unrepresented they may have given their written consent but, if they are then advised that that is not in their interest, it surely cannot be right that under no circumstances whatever can they subsequently withdraw it. At the least, those words should be deleted or some other condition included in the Bill.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord that the Bill largely maintains the current tripartite nature of the tribunal system. Lay members' practical knowledge of employee relations in the workplace can be especially valuable in cases of alleged unfair dismissal and alleged discrimination where the role of women and ethnic minority members is particularly relevant. I note the comment of the noble Baroness concerning low numbers of lay members in those categories.
We do not believe that the great majority of cases will be affected by this provision; for example, unfair dismissal claims and complaints of discrimination on

791
grounds of sex and race where the practical knowledge and experience of lay members may be particularly valuable. We would expect that a three-person tribunal would continue to hear such cases.
We believe that those cases generally involving less need for practical experience of employee relations where the lay members play their role, such as Wages Act claims which tend to turn on legal issues and cases which are uncontested by the employer, do not necessarily need to be heard by lay members. Even in those cases the chairman will have discretion—and I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—to order a hearing by a three-person tribunal if that seems more appropriate in exercising the discretion under subsection (2F) at any stage in the proceedings. Therefore, even in cases where chairmen have been given discretion to sit alone they may well choose not to do so. As the case evolves they can turn to a three-person tribunal. The sit-alone provisions will apply only where appropriate. There is no threat to the quality of decisions.
We intend to monitor carefully the effect of the new provisions to sit alone. We shall consider the results after a reasonable period of experience before coming to any conclusion about the adequacy of the provisions. We hope that by removing some cases it will speed up the hearing of cases for which tripartite sittings are appropriate. We recognise that parties should he fully informed and we shall be taking that into account in the explanatory literature and the forms which people will receive to make certain that they understand where that might be appropriate.
I hope that in view of those assurances the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may ask her a question. If the parties were subsequently to decide that they did not want the tribunal chairman to sit alone, as we understand it at the moment they can do nothing about it because they have given their agreement. If the chairman decides, as he or she may well decide after listening to the case, that the matter is rather more complicated than originally thought and he or she would like side members, would it be possible for the chairman to stop the show and have side members? If it is possible for the chairman to change his or her mind, why can the applicant not do so?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We believe that in that instance, as the case proceeds, the expertise and knowledge of the chairman will make it possible for everyone to work towards the best conclusion.
Baroness Lockwood: I thank the noble Baroness for the information which she has provided and in particular for the statement that the Government will monitor the situation before coming to a final conclusion about the effectiveness of the provision. That is very helpful.
I shall consider carefully what the Minister said. I may come back with a further amendment at Report stage depending on how satisfactory I find her statement when I read it in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
792
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris: Normally, in moving an amendment, I would be brief, pithy and concise. However, as we have arranged to rise at 7.30 p.m., I do not believe that two and a half minutes is sufficient to allow time for any support which my remarks will undoubtedly generate. Perhaps I may be so bold as to suggest that we rise at this stage. I should be most grateful for any help which my noble friend sitting as Deputy Chairman of Committees and Her Majesty's Government Front Bench can offer in that regard.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Video Recordings Bill [H.L.]
7.28 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause I [Titles to be assigned to video works for identification purposes]:
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved the first Amendment:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("submitted") and insert ("determined to be suitable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very small and technical amendment. As I mentioned to the House at Report stage, it is concerned only with the list of titles. Noble Lords will recall that the Bill streamlines the procedures for providing evidence in the case of prosecutions by providing that there shall be a list which includes for every video a unique title. It must be unique so that there can be no confusion with others.
The title of a video work, in the form which it is approved by the board for certification, is an integral part of the work. The board requires that that title appears on the screen, usually in the opening shots. That title will also appear on the video itself, and on the box. Originally the title was supposed to be the title under which it was submitted to the board for classification. Although it is possible that that might have been interpreted as the final title—it is obviously important that the title of the work shall be the real title under which the video goes out and under which it has received its certificate—it would he clearer to state that the moment of its registration as the title should be when it was determined to be suitable by the board. In other words when it received its certificate. Instead of the word "submitted" I suggest that we insert the words "determined to be suitable" in that clause. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, raises is a technical one relating to the drafting of the Bill and not to the policy underlying it. During the debate on the Report stage of the Bill, I said that I would look carefully at the implications of the amendment. We have done so and although we were happy with the original wording, we accept that if your Lordships feel that the noble Lord's

793
amendment puts the issue beyond doubt we would advise your Lordships to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved the second amendment:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Offences due to fault of other person
. After section 14A of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following new section—
"Offences due to fault of other person.
14B. Where the commission by any person of an offence under section 9, 10, 13 or 14 of this Act is due to the act or default of some other person that other person shall be guilty of the offence, and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this section whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment concerns the famous bypass provision which has been before your Lordships in various forms throughout the Bill. I put the amendment in my name rather than in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, not in order to deprive her of any credit for having been so persuasive and clear throughout the debate, but simply because if it were not accepted I would prefer that it stood in my name and no one else's.
The point of the proposed bypass provision was simply to get to grips with one of the evils of the video world. There are distributors who distribute videos, usually of an extremely questionable character, often without certificates, sometimes with false certificates. Many of those videos are the very types which the Video Recordings Act 1984 was brought in to remove —the video nasties. Not all of them fall into that category; a great many do. The problem is that although trading standards officers have the right to prosecute people within their own area, if they discover that the fault lies not with the retailer in their own area but with the distributor in another area, at present they must go to that other area and ask for a prosecution to be brought. Often prosecutions are not brought by local authorities which are too busy or have a different policy and simply fail to mount the necessary prosecution.
The bypass power enables the trading standards officer who first discovers the fault to proceed right the way down the line. It would have a salutary effect on the extremely ugly end of the video trade.
The amendment proposed today is similar to the one proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, except that it would be in a new position in the 1984 Act. By inserting the proposed new clause after Section 14A of the Act, and providing that,
"Where the commission by any person of an offence under section 9, 10, 13 or 14 of this Act",
(instead of a general provision under the Act), we would remove some anomalies which might have occurred had the provision been in the old position. For example, let us consider under-age supply. That is to say, a 10 year-old hires or buys a video with an "18" classification. That occurs not infrequently. That offence obviously does not need a bypass power. Quite
794
plainly, that can be an offence only in one place. There cannot be someone in another part of the country involved in that offence. The offence takes place where the video is passed over the counter. It was pointed out that a bypass provision would be unnecessary for that, as indeed is the case. The amendment means that the provision applies only where it is effective and necessary. It is therefore an improvement upon the previous amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. I beg to move.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I support wholeheartedly the amendment moved by the noble Lord. I thank him for the tribute that he paid me. I hope that the Minister will look kindly at the amendment. The Home Office will have to consider seriously video recordings of all types. A television programme last week on citizen's rights showed quite clearly how video pirates (or whatever we wish to call them) are in the market, whether marketing films, games or whatever.
The issue began with this Bill, but it needs serious consideration because of the way in which the market now operates with the modern technology of video recordings. Referring to the place of first instance, I have defined those persons as the real offenders. However, the person speaking on television last week was far more unkind. He was nearly as unkind as the Minister when referring to such people in a letter to me. On television that representative of recording companies described them not as real offenders but as counterfeiters, bootleggers, parasites and parasites of legitimate trading recording organisations.
If the Government really wish to protect such people, heaven help us in the future. That representative referred to the issue that we are debating: such people have to be traced through from source. Therefore one agrees with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. It simplifies the whole procedure and sounds a little more legal than the amendment which I moved.
For that reason I hope that the noble Viscount will accept the amendment and that it will go to another place with the blessing of this House. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, since we have discussed the amendment in various forms, I made my own inquiries. It is quite clear that there is a problem and that fact is not in dispute. The problem is that a person in a central place may generate counterfeit videos, and videos of a wholly unpleasant nature, and send them under innocent labels as though they were originals produced under licence, or fit for general view, to a number of different destinations. The place where that offence is discovered may be many miles away.
Noble Lords are familiar with this matter, but I quickly remind them that the problem is this. Under existing legislation, when discovery is made the only recourse of the trading standards officer of the local authority in which it is discovered is to pass the information for a prosecution to the place where the material is generated. That is self-evidently an inefficient method of procedure whatever the circumstances. The circumstances now are such that

795
even that procedure does not take place. The place where the central offence is dealt with is too overburdened with work to put its own trading standards officers on to it. The police are too overburdened to take on the work and I have to tell my noble friend that during my inquiries I discovered that agencies representing every single local authority in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland want the amendment. The police want it; the regulatory body itself, ably represented by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, wants it; the public want it. It therefore falls to the Government to explain why we should not have it, if that is the Government's position.
I know that there were legal objections to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher; I know that there were legal objections to that of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. He considered them and it will be for him to endorse this, but I understand that he took legal advice and adjusted his amendment to meet the objections. He has spared us all the intricate arguments and it is possible—since it is difficult to think of any other defence that the Minister could advance for rejecting the amendment—that the Minister will advance intricate arguments in another sense which persuade him.
In that case we are debating the wrong issue. The issue is not: should we pass the amendment? It is: should the wrong be addressed and righted by such an amendment? I cannot conceive of any argument whatever which would persuade noble Lords to the contrary. It seems to me that my noble friend is in a position of some embarrassment, from which he could extricate himself were he free to say that the wrong was acknowledged, that the present proposals to right it were deficient, but that the deficiencies would be remedied by Her Majesty's Government in time for the proposals to be accepted in another place.
No doubt behind those arguments stand arguments about the management of time in another place. However, noble Lords would he reassured by the volume of support which such an amendment might have in another place and the complicity in which all parties would indulge to see that it did not take up unreasonable time.
I hope that I have not spoken with too much heat. I admire the work which the Home Office has done to improve legislation by taking the Bill on board. I admire my noble friend's tenacity and perspicacity in improving the Bill since it came to the House. I hope that he will add to the glitter on his laurels by making this simple, sensible, inexpensive and welcome undertaking.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I too wish to speak briefly. I am concerned about the issue that underlies the amendment, which we have discussed on a number of previous occasions. As I explained, I am chairman of the Video Standards Council. We are worried about standards in videos and about violence on TV and in videos, and so, at the moment, temporarily, when famous cases arise, is everyone else in the media. However, the problem will go on. That is why I support, for example, the classification procedure of the BBFC, whose members, if not appointed by the
796
Home Office, receive its approval. The amendment comes from a noble Lord whose position in the BBFC receives the approval of the Home Office.
I am concerned about the under-the-counter videos that have not been to the BBFC. So, in preparation for the Minister's reply, I wish to raise two issues which will enable us to focus on tightening up the procedures, so that something can be done about the problem.
Incidentally, I have now seen the correspondence sent to my noble friend Lady Fisher from the Home Office as well as that from the noble Viscount opposite and the Minister of State at the Home Office. At its worst, if I play nasty, narrow politics, I read the correspondence as saying, "Don't press your luck, lads, or we'll withdraw the Bill". In the best interpretation, what it really means is, "We wouldn't like to lose the Bill".
I have no desire to lose the Bill, but I wish to pursue the legal side and then give an explanation of what we might be able to do in the existing situation. I know that the amendment will not be pressed, so this intervention is in order to find out what goes on.
On the legal side—and I do not say this just because the Home Office staff are here—I always, in my periods both as a junior Minister and as Home Secretary, had regard for the legal department of the Home Office. I have not understood what the Government are up to. What the new clause proposes is to insert into the Video Recordings Act a new Clause 14B. Thus, where A's commission of an offence under Section 9 is due to the act or default of another person, B, the latter may be charged. In its letters to my noble friend, the Home Office said that such a bypass provision, though found in other legislation, simply would not work and could not operate. Then it explains.
There is no point in reading out what has been said and written, the Government do not believe that the Video Recordings Act defences can simply be said to mitigate the offence in relation to a particular defendant, leaving an offence to be passed back to someone else. In the view of the Home Office, if one of those defences can be established, there will be no offence at all and a bypass could not operate.
Thus there is no point in us pressing the amendment. Of course that is the view of the Home Office, but, if it is the true and right explanation of the law, there is no point in our pursuing it. However, pointing to the contrast between the wording of Section 24 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the wording of Section 24(3) of that Act, the Home Office argues that where an offence is established, an offence can still be treated as having been committed for the purposes of the bypass.
There is no point in my going right through the legal explanation, but in the letter to my noble friend Lady Fisher, the noble Viscount said that he saw the attraction of the amendment, but he did not think a bypass would work. The letter states:
"Instead I think we must expect a degree of co-ordination and co-operation between different departments, if necessary, including the financial transfers between authorities which are permitted under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970".

797
The precise question I wish to put is this. All right, despite the legal advice given to the BBFC, the strong feelings of the noble Lord who introduced the amendment and of my noble friend Lady Fisher, myself and others, despite all that, we are wrong. But the letter from the noble Viscount says, "Don't worry, we can deal with the situation under the existing law, under the provisions of the local authorities Act".
How does that work? What do we say to the trading standards officers? What do we say—and this is the next point—in explanation to the magistrates' courts in different parts of the country? The Government say that the amendment will not work, therefore how can we carry out the paragraph in the letter sent to my noble friend Lady Fisher? It stated that under the existing law, by transfer financially and otherwise, something can be done about it.
If there is a proper answer to that, I shall sleep better in my bed tonight than I should otherwise have done. In other words, all that we are doing is a waste of time, but something can be done about it. What can be done about it under existing law? Through the Video Standards Council, I shall make sure that we get in touch with the trading standards officers and say, "This is what the Government say you can do, we don't need the amendment which has been sponsored". What can we do under the existing law?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, those of your Lordships who attended the earlier stages in the progress of the Bill will be familiar with the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said, it was originally proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. I have listened with great care to the arguments put forward today by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, as I have listened to those put forward on previous occasions by the noble Baroness. I have also had the benefit of considering a detailed legal opinion which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, kindly sent to me, about which I replied to him earlier this week. Today, the noble Lord sent me a further opinion based on the letter that I had sent to him. That too has been carefully considered today by the Government.
As I explained during the debate at Report stage of the Bill, the Government fully accept that the proponents of this change aim to achieve a more effective enforcement of the Video Recordings Act by the trading standards authorities. We all share that aim and all the provisions in the Bill have it as their objective.
Without wishing to get into a complicated legal debate, I am afraid that I must inform noble Lords that, having carefully considered the arguments put to us last week and again today, the Government have taken advice and have not been persuaded that a bypass provision would operate successfully in the context of the Video Recordings Act. We therefore believe that it would not produce the savings in local authority resources which supporters of the amendment had hoped for. In short, our view is still that the amendment would not only fail to achieve its desired results, but, because of the doubts which it could well
798
cast on existing aspects of the Act, that its effect could be positively harmful—a result which I am sure noble Lords would wish to avoid.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked me about local authorities. Perhaps I may start by reminding him that at Report stage I said that it was our view that, where there is an extended network of supply, the appropriate way of investigating is by means of close co-operation between differing trading standards authorities. Those local authorities have the power now to make any transfer of funds that they wish from one local authority to another. So if, for example, a trading standards officer in Birmingham discovers that there is a chain which leads back to some other city, but the trading standards officer in that city may for various reasons be swamped with work or is unable to deal with the problem, he can say: "This is important; we want to follow it up. It is important for our city. We will ask the local authority to give you the resources to follow it up. Those are the resources we would have spent in doing it ourselves".
I fully accept that that is not exactly what the noble Lord wants. He wants those trading standards authorities to be able, as it were, to follow that chain themselves. But we think it is important that the trading standards officers work and co-operate with each other. The trading standards officers know their own areas best—indeed they know them very well. Therefore they should be involved. So there is a way forward.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I do not suggest that the trading standards authorities do not know. They have a very good electronic network, and offices all round the country know if scares of any description take place. Very often one authority takes a lead on the matter, with the support of all the others—but with the support of evidence, not money. I am not sure that in the dire circumstances in which local authorities find themselves, with cut-backs in funding, that they will pass any money over to another local authority. I am not sure that I would accept that as an argument so far as local authorities are concerned.
I was worried by the Minister's phrase, "positively harmful". I shall be glad if he can define the phrase when he returns to the Dispatch Box.
Viscount Astor: I was addressing the argument put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, about resources. I accept that there could be some reluctance on the part of a local authority to do that. But, if the trading standards officer in that local authority chose to follow it up, there would be an implication for resources. We say that it need not necessarily cost that local authority any more money to achieving the route with the co-operation of the trading standards officer in another authority.
With regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, I made a point about a specific amendment and how that amendment was cast. I did not make a point in terms of the principle of what she wants to do. I think I explained quite fully, not only in the letter but at Report stage. I am sorry that the noble Baroness regards my letter as unkind. I fully accept that it was

799
complicated. I felt it was important that the noble Baroness had a full reply setting out exactly why we felt that the amendment did not work.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, again I am trying to be helpful in practice. Perhaps I may give an example. In Leeds, in my old constituency, Morley, there is the trading standards office. It has a lot of work to do in many fields. I know (as well as one can) the staff there. Let us suppose, to take a practical example, that they found that the distributor or the illicit manufacturer was in Birmingham. It would be possible, in terms of resources—they would be extra resources, it is true, but the resources would be there anyway, even under the amendment—for trading standards officers to go down to Birmingham and meet the authorities there, present the evidence they had and make sure that the evidence was there for the Birmingham TSO to present the case in the Birmingham court. It is possible, administratively, under the existing legislation for that to be done. That is correct.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is the point. Trading standards officers can co-operate with each other and pass any information on.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me if I ask him a question—since he seeks to persuade us with that argument—which I would otherwise ask before he sat down. Can he tell us whether he is saying that it is possible to go beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, described, and for the trading standards officer in the distant place to authorise money—which my noble friend seems to think that he would have—to be sent to the area in which the offence is taking place to pay for the work that would follow the prosecution to be done there. It seems to me that the shoe that pinches in Birmingham, if that is where the offence is committed, is the time of the trading standards officers. Not only is there unlikely to be money for the man in Cornwall to send a postal order to Birmingham, but the man in Birmingham has his diary full for the next 18 months and will not be able to do the work. How, under those circumstances, does what my noble friend says do anything to address the problem we are trying to solve?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I address the problem of resources as opposed to time. I tried to explain that if, in the noble Lord's example, a trading standards officer in Leeds did not feel that he had the resources with which to follow up the complaint that had come from a trading standards officer in Birmingham, and if that trading standards officer in Birmingham felt it was an extremely important issue for Birmingham and for his particular area, the local authority could transfer funds so that it could go to the local authority in the other area and say: "We accept that you have a lot of work. Perhaps it is your area where these tapes are being made and then being distributed round the country. You have a lot of complaints coming in and it is a big issue. You are flooded with complaints and therefore we are happy to help you with the resources to deal with that problem". I am not entirely sure
800
whether the trading standards officer could do that. If I understood him correctly, I agree with what the noble Lord said.
8 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords., before the noble Viscount moves on from that point, perhaps I may repeat that it is not a matter of just going and making the seizures. It is a case of pursuing the case through the courts. That is a very expensive business. Counsel have to be employed and long procedures have to take place. It is not a matter of saying, "It's £20 or £25. Here you are. Here's the money for your officers." It is a matter of all the court cases, and one may lose the court case as well. I feel sure that Leeds would not then want to send the money down to Birmingham because it would be said, "You lost it, Tommy, and that's a bit of bad luck."
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness appears to imply that there is additional money involved. We are only talking about money that the trading standards department would have spent in its own area following the matter up. If the case is in another area, that other local authority will follow it up. It is not an extra burden. If it were in the area of the original trading standards officer, he would have the burden of expense in following it up. So the money is not additional from that point of view if it results in a satisfactory conclusion from a conviction.
I understand your Lordships' anxiety. I hope that I have been able to explain the Government's view and point out that there are possibilities. The trading standards officers are very concerned about the issue. We know that they co-operate very well with each other. As I said, we listened carefully and gave particularly careful consideration to this matter. We knew that your Lordships were worried about it. But the Government have to advise the House that after such careful consideration we cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I am deeply disappointed that the Government will not accept the amendment. As the noble Viscount said, we took very distinguished legal opinion on this matter. I accept that legal opinion. It says quite categorically that there will he no harm whatever in a bypass provision to the remainder of the Video Recordings Bill. It also states quite categorically—and I accept that opinion—that there is no reason why a standard bypass provision will not sit perfectly well with the Act. I have an immense weight of legal opinion which says that it will be perfectly possible.
But at the bottom of the amendment lies the fact that there is an evil, as the noble Viscount himself acknowledged. This would have been a simple way to cure it, but the Government will not take it.
One cannot describe the absence of a bypass power as a piece of deregulation, but I fear that it will have exactly that effect. We all know that deregulation is intended to help small traders, and so it has proved. I fear that it will prove so in this case. It will indeed

801
immeasurably help the small traders. It is just a pity that the trade of which we are speaking is in pornography and sadism.
This was an opportunity missed. I am well aware that the timetable in another place will not make it sensible should we pass from this House to another place a Bill with controversy hanging from it and with opposition attaching to it. I am well aware of that. I believe that the rest of the Bill is important enough for the provisions to go through. However, in view of this sad, missed opportunity, I very much hope that the noble Viscount will say both to his noble friends and his right honourable friends that, if they care to utter opinions about violence on video and violence on television, they will have a very hollow ring. I shall expect no more words on the subject. More in sorrow than in anger, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
It is only fair for me to tell your Lordships that, despite the rather uncomfortable things that I have had to say to the Government, I owe a debt to the Home Office and its officials for very courteous and full treatment throughout the passage of the Bill. They have been immensely helpful to me. Although I disagree profoundly with the noble Viscount on the last amendment, he has conducted the Bill with his usual impeccable courtesy. I am obliged to him as I am to all noble Lords who have striven so hard for this measure. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Birkett.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, on successfully taking this short but important Bill through your Lordships' House. Other noble Lords have made valuable contributions at each stage of the Bill's progress and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher.
The Government recognise that all the amendments that have been suggested have been put forward with one overriding aim in mind, which they share with all the provisions of the Bill; namely, the objective of improving the enforcement of the controls which Parliament rightly saw fit to establish in the Video Recordings Act 1984 and which have contributed much to the success that the video industry now enjoys. We appreciate the value of all those suggestions, even when we found ourselves unable to support them. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, with great respect that our advice was different from that given to him. He will understand that even on his Benches the noble and learned Lords do not always agree with each other.
We accepted the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, to include in the Bill a "due diligence" defence. I am sorry that we were unable to accommodate the amendment of the noble Baroness,
802
Lady Fisher, however much we sympathised with her laudable intentions. I hope that I explained the very good reasons why that was not possible.
The Bill has been welcomed on all sides of your Lordships' House. I commend it to your Lordships and I am glad that noble Lords have given it the Third Reading requested by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. We wish it well in another place.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I speak in the absence of my noble friend Lord McIntosh who, in essence, would want me to echo the words of the Minister. Noble Lords who participated in the Bill are well experienced in the parliamentary realities. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, were very profound; namely, that it is better to have a Bill that makes progress than to insist in this House on spatchcocking into it a provision which would virtually sound the death knell of the Bill in another place. He was exceedingly wise.
The whole tenor of the debate has been to recognise that good legislation has on occasion appeared to have been brought into disrepute by the activities of an unsavoury sector of a fraternity. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, with the assistance of my noble friends Lady Fisher and Lord Merlyn-Rees, sought to make some progress toward trying to obliterate some evils. We very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, can be assured that the words of the Minister indicate that his Front Benches would not seek to impede the Bill as it stands at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, cannot expect more than that. It may not remedy all the ills that have been brought to the house but it certainly goes some way toward doing so.
The Government have been very fair in their treatment of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and my noble friends. From this Front Bench I appreciate what the Minister said and incidentally what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has done.
Lord Birkett: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount and to your Lordships. I hope that the House will now see fit to let the Bill pass.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (the Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (the Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the draft order is to increase the limit on candidates' expenses at local elections in Northern Ireland from £184 plus 3.6p per elector to £192 plus 3.8p per elector, the limit which currently applies at local elections in Great Britain.
The local election limits in Great Britain and Northern Ireland are normally kept in line. However, an increase in Great Britain last year was not matched by a corresponding increase in Northern Ireland, mainly because 1992 was not a local election year in

803
the Province. This short and simple measure restores parity in time for the local government elections on 19th May.
It is essential that this draft order should come into force at the earliest opportunity so that prospective candidates for the forthcoming district council elections in Northern Ireland know the maximum that they will be able to spend.
I commend the order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved—[24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for introducing the order and for explaining its provisions. For the reasons given by the Minister we are happy to support the order from this side of the House. Bearing in mind that the noble Earl is struggling with a heavy throat or chest infection, I do not propose to trouble him with a series of questions. I merely say that we approve the draft order.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it may be that in the future we will have a full-scale debate on local government in Northern Ireland. It may be incumbent upon us to do that as soon as possible.
Although the present order brings us into line with other parts of the United Kingdom, it brings an increase of 0.2p on each of the electors in the local government area. However, the Minister must be aware from his experience in Northern Ireland that the order will have little effect. I first fought an election in Northern Ireland in 1955—almost 40 years ago. Although legislation such as this existed, which was supposed to determine how much one could spend, nobody paid it the slightest attention. That is the way it has been at every subsequent election.
The Minister said that it brings the expenses of Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. But local government in Northern Ireland is totally different from local government in other parts of the United Kingdom. Elections are coming up in May in Northern Ireland. The candidates will not be talking about the powers or responsibilities of local government. Local government in Northern Ireland does not have anything to do with power or responsibility. Those elections will be a minireferendum on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. The various candidates on either side of the political and religious divide will be urging their supporters to either reject or support the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The Minister must be aware that in recent weeks some responsible members of the local authorities of Belfast and Portadown have decided to quit local government because they realise that it is going nowhere in Northern Ireland; it has no responsibility. The calibre of the men in some of the councils leaves much to be desired.
Anyone who has any experience of Northern Ireland local government elections will know that at the beginning of the election the candidates tot up how much they are allowed to spend legally. They then set about trying to doctor the figures to suit the legalities.
804
The Minister will be aware that at a recent parliamentary election in Northern Ireland the expenses of one of the candidates were seriously called into question by a High Court action. Not everyone in Northern Ireland would agree with the verdict of that court.
In response to bringing the order forward one would hope that in the local government elections which are about to take place, a sufficient number of candidates will be found —given that there is nothing at stake in the local government field—who will stand in the election to express their abhorrence at the terrible series of atrocities which have taken place over the past weeks. If that were to be the outcome of the local government elections, then it may be worthwhile.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his understanding and agreement with the draft order. Indeed, I thank him for his commiseration in regard to my regrettable cold. It is nothing that a good glass of Bushmills will not quickly put right when I return to Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made a general point regarding the limited powers of district councils in Northern Ireland. I can say to him that for a long time it has been the Government's aim to transfer responsibility of a wide range of subjects to local political institutions in Northern Ireland on a basis which must command widespread acceptance throughout the community.
The Government are open to any proposals regarding future arrangements for regional or local government in Northern Ireland which seem likely to prove widely acceptable. But the noble Lord may agree that those issues are best considered on a comprehensive and inclusive basis and not divorced from the context of further political talks.
The recent violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere is a very real cause for concern. In the Government's view it makes it all the more important that political talks should resume as soon as practicable. Such talks offer the prospect of securing long-term political stability in Northern Ireland and demonstrate the futility of violence. They show that democratically-elected representatives from different parts of the community can work together in the interests of all. Having said that, I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.17 to 8.30 p.m.]

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 32.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 49, leave out lines 28 to 32.
The noble Lord said: As a fully paid-up member of the fifth form remove common room it is an enormous relief to be away from the rigours of the senior common room of the economists. However, that does not mean that I move this amendment lightly. I have always believed it to be correct that one of the primary purposes of law reform is to effect or inject certainty into the law. I believe that Clause 32, which attempts to amend the constitution and jurisdiction of industrial tribunals, does not effect certainty. I am also concerned that the clause was against constitutional reality; namely, the division of power between the executive and legislature. For those reasons I ask my noble friends on the Front Bench to consider the amendment very carefully.
I do not suggest that it is outwith the competence of the Government for the clause to affect the constitution and jurisdiction of industrial tribunals, but in so doing they hand over power to the Secretary of State by order to amend the provisions of subsection (2C). That provision clearly defines the jurisdiction of tribunals and those cases that can be heard by a chairman sitting alone. That purport is absolutely sound and I entirely accept it.
However, I find it rather bizarre that the Secretary of State should be given power, without reference to Parliament on something so fundamental as the constitution and jurisdiction of tribunals, to legislate as he goes along, so to speak. This is one area of the law where the livelihood and interests of the individual are affected by a tribunal sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. There should be a considerable degree of certainty. I cannot believe that it is outwith the competence of government to be more certain. I suspect that the clause has been drafted or considered in a hurry. All I ask my noble friends on the Front Bench is that they take back this matter and consider how to inject into the clause the parameters of the jurisdiction with more precision. It is totally wrong to effect by Order in Council something so fundamental to the constitution at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The words "amend the provision" mean that he can extend or restrict the parameters and powers of industrial tribunals.
I am certain that my noble friend on the Front Bench will raise some extremely cogent arguments about the fact that we live in times of extreme flux and that Her Majesty's Government need the flexibility which this procedure will afford them. I believe very strongly that what is proposed is an erosion of the power of Parliament and an increment of the power of the executive that needs to be considered with great care. It is for that reason that I tabled the amendment. I am grateful that someone with such knowledge, erudition and eloquence on these subjects as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has appended his name in support of the amendment.
Lord Rochester: I deny absolutely the reference to my erudition and the rest of it, but I have put my name to the amendment and I gladly support what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said. It seems wholly wrong that the Secretary of State should be empowered merely by order and without primary legislation to add to the
806
number and type of cases on which industrial tribunal chairmen may sit alone without lay members to hear proceedings of this kind.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said earlier that the effects of implementing Clause 32 would be monitored by the Government. I do not believe that that is good enough. Subsection (2D) represents yet another instance of the executive seeking to limit the extent to which Parliament is able to control the way that legislation is implemented. Under this Government the number of such cases grows alarmingly with almost every major Bill that comes before Parliament. It is high time to set a limit on the process, and the Committee can do that by accepting the amendment. I hope very much that the Minister will give very careful consideration to what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I support the noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. The more one thinks about it the more serious the matter becomes. I pose two questions for the Minister. Has this any precedent in the juridical sphere of the competence of our courts? Will it or will it not need an order by way of affirmative procedure?
Lastly, and much more importantly, since we know that the Government take a long view on these matters, what is it all about? Members of the Committee have begun to see in this Bill the long term purpose of the past eight or nine years of legislation. I wholly approve of their wisdom in seeing it. We know what it is about. But with this provision we do not know what it is about. The Minister is not advised short term on these measures. What are the possible or likely candidates for territory into the area of which the one-man tribunals might be extended, quite apart from the monitoring which, as the noble Lord said, is another question altogether. We should be given some idea of why these two lines are in the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I believe that a three-person tribunal—I declare an interest here—is extremely valuable. In the 18 years that I have sat, on only one occasion did we not have a unanimous decision. On that occasion, I said to my colleague who did not agree, "Do you often have this problem?". He said, "I regularly have it", so I gather that he was a person who could not agree with anyone.
Without doubt a three-person tribunal gives the applicant and the respondent in each case a feeling of confidence that there is someone there who cares about their case. Although I am not opposed to the idea of a chairman sitting alone on certain occasions, we have to watch anything that might destroy the existing system, which works so well. We must also realise that in certain instances where the chairman will sit on his own—they are quoted in the Bill—instead of there being a saving of time, our chairman has pointed out that there might actually be a loss of time. If a chairman had three members there, he would be able to determine the preliminary point and then go on to a full hearing, if necessary. However, because he would be doing it on his own, he would have to bring people back on another day in order to have the three people there. So there are occasions when such a

807
change would certainly not speed things up. That is my comment on the amendment. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to join the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on putting down this amendment. When I read this clause—I can say honestly that it is one of the clauses that I have read from beginning to end—it occurred to me that this was an extraordinary power and as such was one on which I would have expected our recently appointed Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to have reported to the House. It is only a couple of weeks since we had the committee's first report. It is already in being and we have approved its terms of reference. I do not wish in the least to say anything against the committee because it has only just started its work, and I have every wish for its success. However, as it is already up and going, this is just the kind of point about which we would have expected to have a signal from it. We have not. That may be because the Bill was introduced before the committee's terms of reference and its first report were approved. Nevertheless, we have time between now and Report. I very much hope that between now and Report stage the committee will take this provision on board and give us its opinion.
Earl Russell: I do not think that any member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee is in the Chamber. I understand from discussing it with members of the committee that the first Bill on which they are able to exercise their powers in full is the Education Bill. This Bill was too early for them. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that this is exactly the kind of provision on which in future we will wish to hear from the committee. Perhaps I may now ask the Minister the basic question. Is this Henry VIII clause necessary, and why?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I understand the anxiety that Members of the Committee have expressed, but I sometimes wonder whether it is possible to please everyone. I had felt in the reply to the earlier amendment that the flexibility of saying that we did not believe that there might not be a need to look again at this question was something which Members of the Committee would appreciate. The power is new and experience may show either that other types of case could also successfully be heard by a chairman sitting alone or indeed perhaps that some types of case listed in subsection (2C) are totally unsuitable for this procedure.
Subsection (2D) allows the Secretary of State to make an order to amend the provisions of subsection (2C) should it become apparent that such adjustment would be useful. However, perhaps I may point out to those who have expressed anxiety about the power that subsection (2E) provides that such an order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Any changes could be introduced only after a debate in both Houses. I hope that will reassure
808
Members of the Committee that that is the opportunity for Parliament to examine any suggestions and to comment on them.
I would again reiterate that the Bill largely maintains the current tripartite nature of the tribunal system. We believe, and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes believes, that there could be occasions when what is proposed might be appropriate. Noble Lords would have the opportunity to debate any proposed changes before they are made and to reject any they consider unacceptable. I therefore cannot accept that there would be any advantage—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Baroness has just given the impression that the House could amend an order or refuse part of the order. That is not so. Orders are not amendable. The House either agrees with them or does not.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am sorry if I caused concern to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, by being casual. I should have said that the House could reject, not amend, any order that it considers unacceptable. I therefore feel that there would not be any advantage in deleting subsections (2D) and (2E) so that changes could be made only by primary legislation. It would delay the process unnecessarily once the need for change was identified, and possibly not to the benefit of people using tribunals, and would perhaps be an inappropriate use of Parliament's time. I would suggest that subsection (2E) provides adequate safeguards to allay any anxieties that Members of the Committee may have. I therefore hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Baroness sits down, does she not agree that what she is being asked, which she has not answered, is what the Government have in mind? Under subsection (2C) we have employer insolvency, Wages Act claims, breach of contract claims, applicant withdrawal, and uncontested claims where the parties agree to sitting alone. All those matters are covered. This is something new. What can it be if the Secretary of State wants to take additional powers except going into the heart of unfair dismissal claims, sex, race, trade union dismissal claims, and so on. These are at the heart of what industrial tribunals do. What do the Government have in mind? Do they want to go into the heart of what industrial tribunals do?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I said that this gave the opportunity to add to the powers or subtract. We are saying that we shall learn from experience and we shall wait for experience and make our judgments.
Lord Morris: I did not realise that I would so swiftly be agreeing with such enthusiasm with the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord McCarthy; but they both hit, with the precision and ability which they so often demonstrate in this Chamber, the absolute central points. I gained no comfort from my noble friend—I am sorry to say that—about the affirmative procedure with regard to orders in council.

809
The only time I have managed to effect not a change in an order in council but to ensure that it was withdrawn was by the most complicated and the most difficult shenanigans outside Parliament and unbelievable wheeling and dealing. I knew full well that in Parliament to throw out an Order in Council is virtually impossible. It was withdrawn. It is an experience which I shall never forget. I have no comfort whatever in the affirmative procedure. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was correct. It is quite clear from this clause that at the time of the drafting of the Bill the Government did not, with any precision, have any idea of the parameters of the jurisdiction which should be covered by a chairman sitting alone. That is fair enough.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Before my noble friend sits down, I draw attention to the fact that Members of the Committee may be aware that the clause was originally drafted to allow orders to be made using the negative resolution procedure. But when that was discussed in another place, it became clear that the opportunity to give any proposed changes greater scrutiny offered by the affirmative procedure would be welcomed. At that point subsection (2E) was inserted as a result. I hope that that increases my noble friend's background knowledge.
Lord Morris: The negative procedure is even worse than the affirmative procedure. It is as simple as that and it is not any comfort at all. I am suggesting that my noble friend considers this matter with care. There is plenty of time to take this matter away and to expand (2C) as much as they like. The Government can take out the power given to the Secretary of State which is quite wrong on an issue as important as this. We are talking about a court of law. If the government of the day cannot define within primary legislation the constitution and jurisdiction of what is in effect a court of law affecting the life and livelihood of individuals, there is something very seriously wrong. It is for that reason that I tabled the amendment.
There is a measure of considerable concern about this. Will my noble friend take this matter away and her department consider it with care? I have a very strong feeling that this provision has been dealt with in something of a hurry. At the same time I support the fundamental principle of industrial tribunals to give to those who feel that they have been wronged a cheap and effective way of "coming to law". I entirely accept that and that is right and proper.
This method has always been a sloppy way of drafting primary legislation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for his support as regards this matter. He is right in principle. The importance of this point is demonstrated by the mere fact that this Committee has been created. I beseech my noble friend between this stage and Report to take this matter away and reconsider it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Before the noble Lord sits down, the important question was put by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; namely, whether or not this
810
matter should be in the Bill at all rather than whether or not it should have the affirmative or negative resolution procedure.
Lord Moms: The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is right. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made the critically important point that if subsection (2C) had been properly drafted, the necessity for (2D) and (2E) would go straight out of the window. It is as simple as that. I beseech my noble friend to take this matter back with her officials and consider it.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am sorry that I have been unable to give comfort to my noble friend. We obviously read Hansard closely after a Committee stage. I stress that the intention is very much for the Government to learn from the operation and to leave flexibility which will be to the benefit of the industrial tribunals and their users.
Earl Russell: I do not know whether the noble Baroness has read the report to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. In future departments will have to get used to offering a full justification for the need for these Henry VIII clauses. The committee said very specifically that something more was going to be required than a general invocation of flexibility. I do not believe that anyone is arguing that these clauses are never going to be admitted.
We want to know precisely why the Government feel the need for them on any particular occasion. The noble Baroness also conflated two different parliamentary powers: one is scrutiny and the other is control. As regards scrutiny, I believe that we all agree that the affirmative procedure has value. The question is how far it has value and control. The noble Baroness said that this House had the power to reject an order. I heard that with interest and I welcome it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Constitution of employment appeal tribunal]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 50, line 27, after ("employers") insert ("or employers in a relevant sector or area of industry or society").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 228. This amendment concerns what I find to be the difficult question of bipartisanship in a tribunal. This amendment addresses a clause which relates mainly to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but it seems foolish to follow through with an amendment which is really to raise a question of principle with the Committee to which it might be possible to return on Report. It is stated that we might consider another step towards specialisation in the membership of the tribunals. It is expressed in the form of the wing persons being not just employers, but possibly employers in a relevant sector of industry and workers similarly defined. That leaves a discretion as to how that is done which no doubt will be monitored in the Government's activities.
I do not move this amendment in the sense that it is an answer to legalism which is a very difficult

811
problem. Although I have an interest in the matter, research shows that legalism is not the same as lawyers. Some of the most legalistic people I know are definitely not lawyers albeit that they may work by intuition in senior common rooms.
It is common knowledge that we have begun specialisation in our tribunals, but have not thought whether we want to go through with it or retract it. Perhaps I may make that plain in a practical sense. In sex equality and equal pay cases, and so forth, it is officially accepted that the practice is to seek at least one woman wing person. In racial discrimination cases, the official practice is not the logical equivalent, which is one person from the ethnic minorities, but to make sure that one wing person is experienced in race relations.
As far as the chairmen are concerned—and this provision affects chairmen as well—after his period as president of the employment appeal tribunal, Mr. Justice Waite wrote that an experienced person should be selected for specialist training so as to make a
"selected core of chairmen and members"
on race and sex discrimination cases. He has argued that in a number of places. I know that that view is widely held by those with experience of tribunals. Some say, "No, the industrial tribunal and to some extent the employment appeal tribunal is a kind of industrial jury—more so for the lower tribunals—and they would resist specialisation." One understands why they do, although the evidence, especially that from the Warwick University studies, suggests that specialisation can operate so as to take the edge off legalism.
Perhaps I may look abroad briefly. Although one cannot look there for an answer, it is perhaps worth examining what other people do to suspend the disbelief that ours is the only way of doing things. In France, the well-established tribunals, the Conseils de Proud'hommes, like our industrial tribunals, contain two employers and two workers. For the most part, they do not have legal chairmen and the members are elected. More importantly, they are divided into five industrial and sectoral groups so that the lay judges can understand the industry with which they are dealing. That seems one of their stronger points although the conseils are much criticised on other matters. The Swedish labour courts suggest a kind of "fortified" tripartism. The courts comprise two employers, two employees and two judges, the seventh member being an expert specialising in labour market conditions. There are many other examples, but from those that I have given it can be seen that there are many ways of modifying and improving tripartism.
In Britain we seem to have gone down a curious cul-de-sac in that we can have either a single chairman or three people. That has been the form since 1964 when the tribunals were created, not to serve most of the purposes that they now serve, but by the Ministry of Labour to deal with selective employment tax cases. I know that the Minister is unlikely to accept these probing amendments which ask whether, in his review of the operation of the tribunals and the EAT, he will make it possible for certain areas of jurisdiction to be
812
made less legalistic, with luck, by the advance of a certain degree of carefully constructed specialisation. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I support my noble friend Lord Wedderburn in his amendment. As he says, it is well known that an element of specialisation has been introduced into this matter, especially in relation to sex and race discrimination cases. It is also well known that the effectiveness and the influence of the side members at all levels—even at the somewhat rarefied level of the EAT—is dependent to some extent upon their practical experience, if not on the fact that they can say to a legal chairman, "This is my industry. It is my area and I know this from practical experience."
As we know, the financial sector is very different from manufacturing industry and, of course, the construction industry is a law unto itself. If anybody who knows what goes on in the construction industry or who has worked in the industry gets on to a tribunal, he is able to silence the most overbearing chairman because he can say, "You do not know anything about a building site but I have actually worked on one." People's experience is the main justification and reason for their serving on the tribunals. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government are thinking in terms of more specialisation.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: First, perhaps I should say how delighted I was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, saying that he was looking for something slightly less legalistic. I am sure that he was not suggesting that the employment appeal tribunal members fail to fulfil their role adequately because of lack of specialisation. Perhaps I can help him by giving the Government's thinking. The position of the industrial tribunals is not easily comparable with that of the employment appeal tribunal. Appeals in this area are made only on a point of law. There is no question of lay members needing to supply detailed knowledge of the conditions in a particular industry because the industrial tribunal will already have decided on the facts or the case will be sent back for it to do so. Employment appeal tribunal members are chosen for their broad knowledge of the industry. They may well be prominent in their field and there could even be a danger of accusations of bias if they served on cases in which they might be thought to have a professional interest. However unfounded such accusations might be, they could certainly complicate the issues.
It would be difficult to implement provisions governing how the specialised categories could be divided and how the specialisation would be split between the relevant industries. It would mean maintaining a large number of panels. The opportunity for members of the panels to gain experience in a variety of different types of complaint would create some difficulties. Of course, I recognise that there are times when knowledge of a particular sector could be a valuable help, but those occasions must be far outweighed by the number of cases in

813
which general industrial experience is the most useful factor. I hope that that has given the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, some guidance on the Government's thinking and that, as he said, he will not press the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I thank the noble Baroness for what she said. She will know, I am sure, that since the days of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and so on, we have become less and less confident of being satisfied by answers from the Government Bench. I am aware that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is different from industrial tribunals. I thought that it would tire the Committee if I drafted amendments relating to them all.
So far as concerns bias, I am sure that the Government know, or, at any rate, have it within their ability to know, because they refer in the Green Paper to numerous foreign systems, that the allegation of bias, or the possibility of bias, is the one factor that does not seem to have arisen in most of the other systems that tried out a little more specialisation.
The noble Baroness has dug a hole in the practice of appointing specialised wing persons to discrimination cases. On what she said, everyone would have sufficient industrial or other social experience to serve as a wing person in those cases, so what on earth are the tribunals doing? Of course I do not take that view. I say that before she puts it to me. I believe it is a good adventure into experience. We need more knowledge of it, and we could do with a little more knowledge of specialisation; but I see we shall not get it under this Government, and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Extension of power to confer on industrial tribunals jurisdiction in respect of contracts of employment etc.]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 50, line 47, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Government will agree to accept the amendment, but perhaps in their own form rather than this. It is totally devoid of any party political consideration. I believe that the Government have already gone half way towards agreeing to this amendment in another place. The amendment seeks to correct a state of affairs which exists now, whereby the Secretary of State may make an order to transfer jurisdiction for adjudicating pay-in-lieu-of-notice claims from the county court to an industrial tribunal. The amendment is designed to make it compulsory for industrial tribunals to adjudicate such claims, and not to leave it to any discretion for them to go to the county court.
I know that there is a certain amount of feeling as between the county court and the industrial tribunals; but I should have thought that pay-in-lieu-of-notice claims are admirably suited to the industrial tribunal. I should have thought also that would have been very much in line with the general philosophy of the noble
814
and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of providing for more jurisdictional claims to be made settleable in lower courts rather than the higher courts. As the matter is being pushed down to the second tier of the higher court, it seems reasonable also to relieve the second tier of the higher court by pushing the matter further down to the tribunals. In this case, especially in view of the discussions that have taken place up until now, I should have thought that industrial tribunals were eminently suitable for adjudication in such cases.
Section 131 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 allows the Secretary of State to make an order for transfer of jurisdiction for such breach of contract actions from the county court to an industrial tribunal. Although that power has been given to the Secretary of State, I believe that it has not been exercised. I wonder why. I wonder why we cannot take the opportunity to transfer that jurisdiction to the lower tribunal.
In a letter to the NACAB dated 10th February this year, Mr. Michael Forsyth, the Minister of State for Employment, said:
"I can assure you, however, that it is the Government's firm intention to bring forward an order to extend the industrial tribunal's jurisdiction to complaints about breaches of employment contract. The details are yet to be decided, and are indeed a matter for the Lord Chancellor".
I hope that by now the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have decided that that transfer should take place. Interestingly enough, that was not merely the view of Mr. Michael Forsyth, it was the view of the Law Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, as reported in a law report, said in the case of Delaney v. Staples:
"This … produces an untidy and unsatisfactory result. On any dismissal, the summary procedure of the Industrial Tribunal under the Act will be exercisable in relation to unpaid wages (in the ordinary sense), holiday pay, commission, maternity leave, but claims relating to the failure to give proper notice will continue to have to be brought in the county court. The employee is therefore forced either to bring two sets of proceedings or to proceed wholly in the county court on a claim for damages".
That, says the noble and learned Lord, is a waste of time. He continues:
"the courts have been suggesting that this power be exercised for nearly 20 years, so far without success. I believe that all your Lordships are of the view that the present unsatisfactory position calls for fresh consideration by the Minister".
I hope that Members of the Committee in this Chamber and noble and learned Lords in the Judicial Committee upstairs will agree to the proposal and save a great deal of time and trouble. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Wise: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. It seems entirely unnecessary for an employer who believes that he has been unfairly dismissed without notice or payment in lieu to have to bring two sets of proceedings or proceed directly to the county court. The amendment will eliminate that and it appears to be a much fairer procedure. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: I wish to add one single point in favour of the amendment. It is common knowledge that the Government are anxious to reduce the legal

815
aid bill. Avoiding the necessity to have two different sets of proceedings about the same matter in two different places might be one of the more innocuous ways of achieving that aim.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friend Lord Wise in their desire to see an order made under Section 131 of the 1978 Act. The Government are equally keen that such an order should be made, and that is why we have brought forward the measures in Clause 34, which will enable us to do so. Members of the Committee will not be surprised to learn that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands.
Before deciding to make an order under Section 131, we undertook extensive consultation. It was only following that, when the legal advisers of the relevant departments came to draft an order, that defects in the order-making power were discovered. Primary legislation was required to remedy the defects, and the Bill represents a first suitable opportunity to bring forward the necessary provisions.
Naturally, I cannot give a precise date as to when an order will be made. However, the Government are committed to doing so at the earliest possible opportunity. It is our firm intention to bring forward an appropriate order shortly after the Bill gains Royal Assent and Clause 34 comes into force. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am delighted to receive the noble Baroness's assurance. I am always suspicious about the use of the word "shortly", but I shall have to live with that. Having received her categorical assurance that the matter will be dealt with by order "shortly", I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 51, line 5, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to a claim brought under section 22A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992,").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment in order to obtain a government answer to a problem which is bothering many people. I appreciate the limit which the Government intend to impose in regard to jurisdiction relating to personal injuries, and it is one which is normally included in such proposals. However, a problem arises if a breach of the employment contract—let us say, an unlawful order —results in a worker breaking his or her leg. Is there any choice as to the forum? During the years we have had problems with whistle blowers, but this is the problem of the leg breaker. That may happen in consequence of the worker being told to go to an unsafe place of work or some other problem may arise. Exactly what is the extent of the phrase:
"a claim for damages … in respect of personal injuries"?
Does that cut out everything and leave it to the breach of contract proceedings elsewhere? Where is the limit of the jurisdiction? I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is referring to Section 22(1) (a) of the 1992 Act rather than Section 22A. In that case, I am happy to assure the noble Lord that his amendment is quite unnecessary. The industrial tribunals have no jurisdiction to hear any personal injury claims, whether against trade unions or against anyone else. Such claims must instead be pursued through the civil courts. The Government have no intention of departing from this position, as such cases are clearly quite outside the industrial tribunals' normal area of expertise and experience.
The purpose of new Section 131(3) is to preclude even the theoretical possibility of an order being made under Section 131 to give the tribunals jurisdiction to hear such cases. The civil courts will continue to determine personal injury cases. I hope that, in the light of the assurance I have given, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If that is right, if a wrong which is actionable under the new Section 22A or Section 22C in Schedule 5 had a loss attached to it which was partly personal injury and partly not—which may well be the case especially if we enter the field injury to feelings and so on—then two actions will have to be brought instead of one. It may be that that is inevitable but the Government should spell that out more clearly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 51, leave out lines 7 to 14.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is concerned with the introduction into the Bill of a maximum level for claims made for pay in lieu of notice. Hitherto there has been no maximum level. I wonder why that has been done and whether it is necessary or fair to introduce a maximum level.
I cannot understand how this has crept in. Apart from the fact that it seems to me eminently fair that claims of this kind should be met, if justified, by the actual value instead of a maximum value, experience of maximum values, which have obtained until now on unfair dismissal or sex discrimination claims, show that that value has eroded over the years. Despite the fact that there is supposed to be an annual review of limits to take into account the general level of earnings and the national economic situation the figures have nevertheless been eroded.
I am told that in sex discrimination cases in 1980 the limit was £120. In that year the average weekly wage for men and women over the age of 18 was £108.70. In other words, the limit represented 110 per cent. of the average wage. However, by 1991, 11 years later, the financial limit was £198 at a time when the comparable rate of average earnings was £287.70, which represented only 70 per cent. of the average wage. If that kind of erosion is to take place across the board, not only for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination cases, but also for pay in lieu of notice,

817
that is discriminating badly against claimants. I should have thought that there was no justification for introducing it into the Bill.
I have further arguments but I should first like to hear what the Minister has to say to justify the introduction of this provision into the Bill. I hope that the Minister may reconsider this matter and perhaps delete it on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Wise: I wish briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on this amendment. It seems to me perfectly possible to determine the amount of loss sustained by an employee who has been unfairly dismissed without notice or without payment in lieu. Employees' or workers' earnings are all reflected in the amount that they can spend weekly. Their outgoings are determined by the amount they earn. If a sudden loss of earnings is experienced, problems must inevitably arise. It seems to me that it is only fair that they should receive a full payment and not just a maxim um payment, whatever that may be. Therefore I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on this amendment.
Earl Russell: One of the difficulties with putting maximum limits on things is that they need uprating. The number of things that need uprating in the course of a year is considerably greater than the number that actually receive uprating. I only need invoke the old dog licence. I appreciate that in any statute which is allowing for uprating there has to be a procedure for revision. But I think that the drafting of the clause, as the Government have it here, is a good deal too vague to be capable of giving satisfaction to the Committee. The Bill states that an order may not exceed,
"such sum as may be specified in the order".
That is definitely a pig in a poke. It is not even a particularly figure hugging poke. One has no idea what is inside this. It would be perfectly possible, as far as I can see, to make an order under this clause that the sum shall not exceed £1. I do not for a moment suggest the Government intend to do that, but this Government is not the only government that will ever exist in the history of the world. I hope that if the clause stays in, it may end up a little more tightly drafted than it is now.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friend Lord Wise have explained, this amendment would delete the words at Clause 34(c), which make clear that the order-making power in Section 131 of the 1978 Act allows for the placing of an upper limit on the awards which a tribunal can make under this new jurisdiction. I cannot accept the change they have proposed. There are already upper limits on the awards which tribunals can make in most other cases falling within their jurisdiction, and it is entirely reasonable that the order-making power in Section 131 should allow for the setting of such a limit in contractual cases.
It has always been the Government's intention that an upper limit should apply, at least initially until we have had an opportunity to see how the new jurisdiction works out in practice. The words at
818
Clause 34(c) are intended to put beyond doubt that the order-making power allows for this, whereas under the existing Section 131 this is unclear.
In answer to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I should say that the precise details of the order to be made under Section 131, as amended by Clause 34, are still under consideration. The order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so Members of the Committee will have ample opportunity to debate its contents, if they wish do to so. I am sure that the noble Earl would not expect me to pre-empt decisions by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—the Ministers who will be responsible for making orders under the amended power. However, an appropriate precedent may be the limit which applies to compensation in ordinary unfair dismissal cases. Applicants who wish to claim damages above the limit set will still be able to pursue their case through the civil courts, as at present. I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Can the noble Baroness tell me whether, if claimants wish to pursue in the civil courts their claims against a maximum which has been set, they will be eligible for legal aid?
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, must know, that will be a question of whether or not they are entitled to legal aid.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I was not at all sure whether they would be entitled to legal aid before the industrial tribunal. My question was whether they would be entitled to legal aid, if eligible, before the civil courts?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Going into the civil courts takes them into the legal aid area.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I cannot profess to be entirely satisfied with the answer of the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, and I wished to know why this measure has been introduced at all, to the detriment of the claimant. The only answer which the noble Baroness gave was that industrial tribunals have maximum limits in respect of other claims. That does not seem to me to be an answer at all.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, a man or woman is at a great disadvantage when he or she is suddenly out of a job and has no pay in lieu. It is a matter of great significance whether he or she receives an arbitrary maximum or his or her appointed due through the industrial tribunal. It is a matter of some significance when seen from the point of view of the person who has been dismissed and is suddenly out of employment.
I wonder whether it would not be possible for the noble Baroness to consider the matter on that ground rather than from the point of view of tidiness and equating it with other forms of jurisdiction before the industrial tribunal.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We have not considered the matter simply from the point of view of tidiness. The industrial tribunal offers people a means of taking their cases forward. As I said, the answer to the above-the-limit situation must be to go to the civil courts.
Lord Rochester: Is it not the case that industrial tribunal cases do not lend themselves to legal aid, so that legal aid is not available to claimants in industrial tribunal cases?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Legal aid is not available in industrial tribunals. It is available if the claimant goes through the civil courts.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Will the noble Baroness consider this point for the future? If the Government are considering this matter, which has been opened up considerably in this debate, will they also consider a phrase which has been causing great perplexity in some circles, namely what is meant by:
"a number of claims relating to the same contract"?
I do not ask the noble Baroness to explain that now but perhaps the Government will consider that phrase for when we return to the matter at Report stage.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have taken part in this brief debate. We have demonstrated that there are matters to he considered, and not only in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has just said. The noble Baroness and her colleagues might weigh in the balance tidiness and convenience as against humanity. They might consider the plight of a man who is out of a job and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, needs consideration. He should receive his just due and not merely an arbitrary maximum.
I have a feeling that the noble Baroness will consider the matter between now and Report stage. I am very grateful to her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No 233 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 233A:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Restriction of publicity in cases involving sexual misconduct: industrial tribunals
(".—(1) Schedule 9 to the 1978 Act (regulations for industrial tribunals) shall be amended by the insertion in paragraph 1 of the following.
(2) After sub-paragraph (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) The regulations may include provision—

(a) for cases involving allegations of the commission of sexual offences, for securing that the registration or other making available of documents or decisions shall be so effected as to prevent the identification of any person affected by the allegation;

(b) for cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, enabling an industrial tribunal, on the application of any party to proceedings before it or of its own motion, to make a restricted reporting order having effect (if not revoked earlier) until the promulgation of the decision of the tribunal.

In this sub-paragraph—
820

"identifying matter", in relation to a person, means any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify him as a person affected by the allegation;

"restricted reporting order" means an order prohibiting the publication in Great Britain of identifying matter in a written publication available to the public or its inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in Great Britain;

"sexual misconduct" means the commission of a sexual offence, sexual harassment or other adverse conduct (of whatever nature) related to sex, and conduct is related to sex whether the relationship with sex lies in the character of the conduct or in its having reference to the sex of the person at whom the conduct is directed;

"sexual offence" means any offence to which section 141A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 or the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies (offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the Sexual offences (Scotland) Act 1976 and certain other enactments);

and "written publication" and "relevant programme" have the same meaning as in that Act of 1992."
(3) In sub-paragraph (6), after the word "send" there shall be inserted the words "(subject to any regulations under sub-paragraph (4A) (a))".
(4) After sub-paragraph (7) there shall be inserted—

"(8) If any identifying matter is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of a restricted reporting order the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—

(a) in the case of publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;

(b) in the case of publication in any other form, the person publishing the matter; and

(c) in the case of matter included in a relevant programme—

(i) any body corporate engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included; and

(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper.

Expressions used in this sub-paragraph and in sub-paragraph (4A) above have the same meaning in this sub-paragraph as in that sub-paragraph.

(9) Where a person is charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (8) it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication or programme in question was of, or (as the case may be) included, the matter in question.

(10) Where an offence under sub-paragraph (8) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

(b) a person purporting to act in any such capacity,

he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(11) In relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members "director", in sub-paragraph (10), means a member of the body corporate."").

The noble Viscount said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 233B.
It gives me great pleasure to bring forward these two new clauses, which I am sure Members on both

821
sides of the Committee will welcome. The new clauses will give industrial tribunals discretionary powers to protect from identification in reports of the proceedings the parties or witnesses in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment. I am sure that noble Lords will be aware of the offensive and sensational coverage some recent cases have attracted.
Harassment at work can make people's lives a misery and some are unwilling to bring their case before a tribunal because they fear that evidence given at the hearing will attract sensational or intrusive media coverage which might identify them. The evidence given at such hearings may include allegations about either party's private life and character as well as detailed descriptions of the alleged harassment. Bringing such a complaint can be a very distressing experience, and it is in the public interest that reporting restrictions should be available in such cases.
The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 already makes it an offence to publish reports which identify the alleged victims of indecent assault or other more serious sexual offences unless they give their consent to being identified. The clauses will allow industrial tribunals to bring their own procedures in line with the requirements of that Act by removing from documents available to the public any information which might identify the alleged victim of such an offence or other parties or witnesses.
In addition, when the regulations are made, the clauses will give tribunals a discretion to make a restricted reporting order in cases where that is judged appropriate. That will prevent press reports from including information which leads to the parties or witnesses being identified. Such an order may be made in cases which involve allegations of sexual offences, sexual harassment or other adverse conduct linked to sex or sexuality. Reporting restrictions will therefore be possible in any appropriate case where evidence is likely to be given which includes intimate personal details relating to the sex or sexuality of one or more of the parties or witnesses.
A restricted reporting order will not be made automatically. An application for one may be made by any of the parties to the proceedings or the tribunal may make one on its own initiative. The industrial tribunal will have discretion in deciding whether to make an order. We do not expect large numbers of cases to arise where the circumstances will lead a tribunal to make the order but it is important that the power should be available to protect individuals where that is appropriate. The order may be made at any point during a case and will expire automatically once the tribunal's decision has been promulgated. Transgression of an order is to be a criminal offence punishable by a fine.
The second new clause gives the Employment Appeal Tribunal powers similar to those in respect of appeals against an industrial tribunal's decision or refusal to make an order of the type described above or against any interlocutory decision of a tribunal in a case where such an order had been made.
Calls for discretionary power to protect those involved in sexual harassment cases have come from tribunals themselves. A number of interested organisations have since been consulted for their views on whether the fear of publicity deters individuals from bringing cases involving allegations of sexual harassment or whether there should be support for giving industrial tribunals discretionary powers to protect the witnesses or parties in those cases. The responses suggested that hostile and intrusive publicity is indeed a serious problem in some cases and that as a result some potential applicants are deterred from bringing complaints. Seventy per cent. of those who replied were in favour of the type of discretionary powers laid out in the new clauses being introduced and only 4 per cent.—that is, only one respondent —against.
In conclusion, I hope that all noble Lords will agree with me that the new clauses offer valuable protection to the victims of and witnesses to sexual harassment and indeed to anyone who is falsely accused of such harassment. The Government strongly condemn sexual harassment and hope that these new powers will make the process of bringing an industrial tribunal complaint involving such allegations less distressing, thereby encouraging those who would previously have been deterred from bringing such cases to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 233A, manuscript Amendment No. 233AA:
Line 10, after ("any person affected by") insert ("or making")
The noble Baroness said: I commend the Government on bringing forward this amendment. Of course, it is absolutely right that privacy should he protected in sex cases. We all know that the newspapers, particularly the tabloids, can be appallingly intrusive in such matters. Unfortunately, salacious gossip is often more likely to attract a headline than serious news.
The reason for my amendment, however, is that it appeared to me that the new clause in Amendment No. 233A, as currently worded, would give protection for the identification of any person affected by the allegation, but would not specifically protect the person making the allegation. Very often, it is the person making the allegation who most needs the protection of such a clause.
I well remember some of the sexual harassment cases in which I was involved as a union official. We won the very first case that we brought before an industrial tribunal on behalf of a member. Nevertheless, it resulted in such intrusive and unpleasant publicity that the young woman concerned was so distressed that she said that had she known what would happen, she would not have brought the case in the first place.
Clearly, from the way in which the noble Viscount moved it, the amendment is intended to deter people from feeling that way and to give them the assurance that they will not be identified in such a manner. My amendment would make it quite clear that not only is the identification protected of any person affected by

823
the allegation, but also the person making the allegation. I believe that that is a sensible proposition in the circumstances and hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I believe that the noble Baroness's amendment is splendid, but why did she not put a similar one down to Amendment No. 233B?
Lord Blease: I feel that these are useful new clauses and I wish to support the manuscript amendment put forward by my noble friend Lady Turner. In Northern Ireland this has been an item of considerable discussion among interested groups, particularly the Northern Ireland Equal Opportunities Commission.
I understand that there is no evidence that fear of publicity is deterring applicants from bringing claims of sexual harassment to industrial tribunals. Indeed, it could be argued that the publication of the offence and its consequences could be a deterrent to its practice. Together with many people and public organisations in Northern Ireland, I firmly support the principle in the European Convention on Human Rights that justice should be seen to be done in open court and that an accused should be able to identify his or her accuser. I fully appreciate the stress and embarrassment that may be caused by such hearings, but that is also a feature of other hearings, such as those involving religious discrimination.
The proposals regarding private hearings and the screening of witnesses have a heavy political overtone in the context of Northern Ireland and are already a matter of public disquiet. Along with the Northern Ireland Equal Opportunities Commission I consider it important to be mindful that the industrial tribunal is a civil law court, and that an action for sexual harassment before the industrial court is a civil law action. Proceedings before the industrial tribunals should therefore be quite distinct from those before the criminal courts. There are fundamental differences between the two—not least that a complainant is required to prove a case on the balance of probabilities in civil proceedings, while the complainant in criminal proceedings is required to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.
The introduction of screening the parties giving evidence may unconsciously lead to the criminalisation of sexual harassment proceedings in the industrial tribunal, which would clearly be inappropriate in view of the role of the tribunals generally. Furthermore, given that industrial tribunals are required to seek to avoid formality in the proceedings, the suggestion that parties and/or witnesses should be permitted to give evidence from behind a screen does not appear to be appropriate. I understand that the screening question formed part of a consultation document that went out to Northern Ireland.
In short, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland trade unions, the labour relations agencies and other public bodies, while endorsing the principle of openness in the administration of justice, would all welcome an explicit statement that industrial tribunals have the
824
discretion to order private hearings. That is the case, I believe, in the amendment put forward by the Minister.
An explicit power in the order for the non-disclosure of the identity of the complainant and the respondent should be firmly identified with any proposals put forward for change. Those measures could be of value in ensuring that sexual harassment cases are properly dealt with. There is anxiety, however, that changes should not be introduced which might undermine the general informality of the industrial tribunal proceedings, perhaps making the procedure more daunting for the complainants. In general, with the proviso of the comments put forward, I feel that would be helpful, certainly in the Northern Ireland context. There is a general welcome for the provision that has been put forward.
Lord Renton: It would seem to follow from what the noble Lord said, that even though the offence is committed in Great Britain, publication should be restricted in the United Kingdom, which includes Northern Ireland. But both in the definition subsection of the new clause, Amendment No. 233A, and when we come to the same definition subsection in Amendment No. 233B, we find that there is restriction of publication in Great Britain. I would have thought that whether the offence is committed in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland, it should be made abundantly plain that publication in Northern Ireland is equally offensive.
Lord Rochester: I support the manuscript amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and following what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said. I hope, first, that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, will accept the amendment; and, secondly, that he will either bring forward or accept an amendment in similar terms in the case of Amendment No. 233B at Report stage.
Viscount Ullswater: Before I turn to the amendment itself, perhaps I may deal with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. I note what the noble Lord said of the position in Northern Ireland and the concerns that the Equal Opportunities Commission has aired. We need to strike a balance between the proper protection of the individual and the need for open justice. I believe that the Bill has got that right.
The new clause does not apply in Northern Ireland. An order will be required to extend it to Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is the answer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton.
The Government do not propose that hearings should be in private or that parties or witnesses should be screened, as the Northern Ireland Equal Opportunities Commission feared. Views were sought on these proposals and the Government decided not to take them forward. Similar provisions are used in other legislation designed to enforce reporting restrictions: the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended. I understand that they have worked very satisfactorily.

825
I turn to the manuscript amendment. It was our intention that the protection from identification should extend to the individual making the complaint as well as potentially to the alleged harasser and witnesses. The amendment helpfully puts that beyond doubt. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing that to our attention and I am happy to accept her amendment. The Government will bring forward on Report minor consequential amendments to ensure that the position is clear throughout both new clauses.
On Question, manuscript Amendment No. 233AA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 233A, agreed to.
Amendment No. 233A, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 233B:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Restriction of publicity in cases involving sexual misconduct: Employment Appeal Tribunal
(".—(1) Schedule 11 to the 1978 Act (Employment Appeal Tribunal) shall be amended by the insertion after paragraph 18 (rules) of the following—

"18A.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 17 the rules may, as respects proceedings to which this paragraph applies, include provision—

(a) for cases involving allegations of the commission of sexual offences, for securing that the registration or other making available of documents or decisions shall be so effected as to prevent the identification of any person affected by the allegation; and

(b) for cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, enabling the Appeal Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings before it or of its own motion, to make a restricted reporting order having effect (if not revoked earlier) until the promulgation of the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.

(2) This paragraph applies to—

(a) proceedings on an appeal against a decision of an industrial tribunal to make, or not to make, a restricted reporting order; and

(b) proceedings on an appeal against any interlocutory decision of an industrial tribunal in proceedings in which the industrial tribunal has made a restricted reporting order which it has not revoked.

(3) If any identifying matter is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of a restricted reporting order the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—

(a) in the case of publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;

(b) in the case of publication in any other form, the person publishing the matter; and

(c) in the case of matter included in a relevant programme—

(i) any body corporate engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included; and

(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper.

(4) Where a person is charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (3) it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication or programme in question was of, or (as the case may be) included, the matter in question.

826

(5) Where an offence under sub-paragraph (3) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

(b) a person purporting to act in any such capacity,

he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(6) In relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members "director", in sub-paragraph (5) means a member of the body corporate.

(7) In this paragraph—

"identifying matter", in relation to a person, means any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify him as a person affected by the allegation;

"restricted reporting order" means an order prohibiting the publication in Great Britain of identifying matter in a written publication available to the public or its inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in Great Britain;

"sexual misconduct" means the commission of a sexual offence, sexual harassment or other adverse conduct (of whatever nature) related to sex, and conduct is related to sex whether the relationship with sex lies in the character of the conduct or in its having reference to the sex of the person at whom the conduct is directed;

"sexual offence" means any offence to which section 141A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 or the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies (offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 and certain other enactments);

and "written publication" and "relevant programme" have the same meaning as in that Act of 1992."").

The noble Viscount said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 233B, manuscript Amendment No. 233BA:
Line 10, after ("any person affected by") insert ("or making")
The noble Baroness said: I am happy to accept Amendment No. 233B in much the same terms as the previous amendment. The manuscript amendment is intended to be inserted in the same place—in paragraph 18A—as in the previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, manuscript Amendment No. 233BA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 233B, agreed to. Amendment No. 233B, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 234:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
("Restriction of vexatious proceedings
.—(1) If, on an application made by the Attorney General under this section, the Employment Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground—

(a) instituted vexatious proceedings, whether in an Industrial Tribunal or before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and whether against the same person or against different persons; or

(b) made vexatious applications in any such industrial proceedings whether instituted by him or another;

the Employment Appeal Tribunal may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, make an Industrial Proceedings Order.
(2) In this section, "Industrial Proceedings Order" means an order that—

(a) no industrial proceedings shall without leave of the Employment Appeal Tribunal be instituted in any Industrial Tribunal or in the Employment Appeal Tribunal by the person against whom the order is made;

(b) any industrial proceedings instituted by him in any Industrial Tribunal or in the Employment Appeal Tribunal before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the Employment Appeal Tribunal; and

(c) no application (other than for leave under this section) shall be made by him in any industrial proceedings instituted in any Industrial Tribunal or in the Employment Appeal Tribunal by any person without the leave of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

(3) An order under subsection (1) may provide that it is to cease to have effect at the end of a specified period, but shall otherwise remain in force indefinitely.
(4) Leave for the institution or continuance of or for the making of an application in any industrial proceedings by a person who is the subject of an order for the time being in force under subsection (I) shall not be given unless the Employment Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that the proceedings or application are not an abuse of the process of the Tribunal in question and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceedings or application.
(5) No appeals shall lie from a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal refusing leave for the institution or continuance of, or for the making of an application in, industrial proceedings by a person who is the subject of an order for the time being in force under subsection (1).
(6) A copy of any order made under subsection (1) shall be published in The London Gazette.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 234 seeks to deal with the issue of the vexatious litigant. Many people are not aware that the problem exists in industrial tribunals. However, a number of individuals persistently bring cases without any real justification and involve the tribunals in an enormous amount of time and expense.
I sat on a hearing where one of the most infamous of vexatious litigants brought a case. He was a highly qualified physicist. He was a European and brought the case on grounds of racial discrimination. He said that the discrimination was that he was not English. In the first case he had applied for a job but was not short-listed by the hospital. He applied for a more senior job and again was not short-listed. The hospital had to send to the hearing two expert witnesses who sat listening to the case for two whole days.
In the first instance the hospital said that the applicant was far too experienced to just run around handing out photographic plates. In the second instance they said that, although he was well qualified, he had never dealt with human beings. They wanted someone with experience of human X-rays rather than concrete slabs. After two days the case was thrown out. During that time I put to him, "I see from the record that you have brought about 30 cases against the health service in different parts of the country". He said, "No, I have brought over 70". I understand that as time went by that number went up to 100. I understand also that he was not alone and that there were a number of other similar cases.
When the system is abused in that way it brings the tribunals into disrepute. I therefore tabled the amendment. In the legal process there is a means
828
whereby someone can be declared a vexatious litigant, but there are no means whereby that can be done in a n industrial tribunal process. I am open to an alteration in the wording or the process by which it can be done. It is the principle with which I am concerned.
I should like to explain, briefly, why the amendment is worded as it is. First, the application should go through the Attorney-General's office. I consulted with various noble and learned Lords in this Chamber and they made it clear that it would be more official in that way. That is where vexatious litigants are dealt with so a system is already in place that may be used.
Secondly, I believe that the application should be made to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and a decision reached there. The various types of order are listed in the clause. One of the most important points is that the application to bring proceedings thereafter should be made to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and not to the High Court. The reason for that is that in the past there was a situation when indeed the litigant to whom I referred went through a different process whereby he served a writ on the tribunal. In this case therefore it came to court, but the divisional court of the Queen's Bench Division wholly failed to appreciate the problems experienced by the industrial tribunal. The matter was therefore adjourned. Of course, when it was adjourned many more originating applications from the same person immediately appeared.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal would have to introduce special rules for the procedure, but I am sure that that could be managed. Also there should be no appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in connection with vexatious litigants.
I was a little surprised about the procedure in the legal system of publishing or gazetting the names of the litigants. However, I understand from consultations I have had that that is an important part of the procedure. It means that any application to any tribunal anywhere would immediately enable people to check that a person was not on what would be a small list of people classified as vexatious litigants.
I believe it is important, therefore, that the power should be given to the employment tribunals and to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, about vexatious litigants. What bothers me is that there can always be the odd individual whom everyone regards as a terrible nuisance but ultimately may have a good case. There are such cases on record. As I understand the situation, I believe it is now obligatory for a litigant to make a payment of £150 before the case is heard. I should have thought that that would be sufficient disincentive for someone mad enough to pursue a case with no basis at all. I feel a little unhappy about the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, although I understand that if such cases as she mentions come before the tribunal it can be extremely annoying. No doubt she and others feel

829
that it is a terrible waste of public money and time. However, I believe that we have to be rather careful about an amendment of this kind.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I hope that the Committee will allow me to reply. The noble Baroness kindly mentioned to me the point about the payment of £150. This afternoon I phoned the office that registered all tribunal applications for the whole of England and Wales and discovered that at no time up to the present had anyone been charged £150.
Viscount Ullswater: I have listened with very great interest to my noble friend's remarks in moving this amendment. I have every sympathy with what she is aiming to achieve. Fortunately, nuisance claimants are not a common problem in the industrial tribunal system, but they can occur, as my noble friend has so clearly demonstrated. Cases such as she has mentioned create entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable burdens on employers who have to defend themselves against unwarranted accusations. They are also a considerable drain on the tribunal resources and cause immense amounts of futile work for the staff and judiciary, especially since it is one or two particular regions which generally bear the brunt of these claims. This is particularly undesirable at a time when the tribunals are under considerable pressure. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this matter to our attention.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that the deposit procedure is not yet in operation. Even if it were it would he doubtful that it would be sufficient to deter such a determined litigant as we would aim to cover who might be prepared to bring as many as 100 hopeless cases before a tribunal. A vexatious litigant would already be accustomed to paying costs for bringing frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable cases. Industrial tribunals already have a pre-hearing assessment procedure under which a party may be warned that costs can be awarded if they continue with their cases and lose. That procedure has been unsuccessful in the cases we have been discussing and costs have been awarded without deterring further applications.
I welcome the proposal to give the Employment Appeal Tribunal (as a court well versed in industrial tribunal procedures) additional powers to deal with vexatious litigants before itself and industrial tribunals. Nevertheless, I must ask for a little more time to consider the best way to tackle the problem. I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment on the understanding that the Government will bring forward at Report stage their own amendment extending the power of the EAT to make orders which will restrict the ability of vexatious litigants to take proceedings in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and industrial tribunals. I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may say it is amazing that the ability to introduce the deposit procedure has been in existence since the introduction of the 1990 Act and
830
we are told that it is not yet operative. Is that possibly due to the fact that those who operate the tribunal do not find any requirement for it? May it not be that there are no vexatious litigants and therefore we are running before we walk?
Viscount Ullswater: I find it difficult to go along with what the noble Lord has said when we have just heard in Committee the remarks of my noble friend Lady Gardner. I understand that there are such litigants and I shall need to consider very carefully whether further steps should be taken.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank my noble friend for that answer. We discussed the matter of vexatious litigants and I remember that it was a factor in deciding on £150 when it was debated last time. As my noble friend said, even the costs that have been awarded have not deterred people. Local authorities and health services in particular would be very grateful to feel that tribunals had these powers. I accept that my noble friend will need to look at the exact way of wording this and how it should be done. I would be happy for him to bring forward a government amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Functions of ACAS]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 51, line 25, after ("substituted") insert ("to encourage, in accordance with article 118B of the Treaty of Rome as amended, the promotion of consultation and negotiation within the social dialogue between management and labour,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the functions of ACAS. There are many who would think that nothing is more important to the operation of our industrial relations and its institutions than the operation of ACAS. Therefore, when a Bill comes along to amend the central functions of ACAS for the first time since 1975, it should surely be taken very seriously.
Since 1975 ACAS has had the general duty to promote the improvement of industrial relations—and that stays—but it has also had a particular duty to encourage the extension of collective bargaining and development, where necessary, or reform of collective bargaining machinery. The Government's Bill in its first version cut out the references to encouraging and reforming collective bargaining and now, in the version that the Committee has before it, they have substituted,
"in particular, by exercising its functions in relation to the settlement of trade disputes",
maintaining the excision of all reference to collective bargaining. Indeed, it is a matter of great concern just what will be the general jurisdiction of ACAS if the provision goes through as it stands.
I have taken a reference point which is short, as it were, of extending and reforming collective bargaining. In a sense it offers the Government half of their point, but my amendment retains another half which I should have thought must be part of our obligations in regard to Article 118b of the European Treaty. I refer to the promotion of consultation and negotiation

831
within the social dialogue. I am using Euro-speak, for want of anything better, but it is now the official language of our law, so I use it. I do not advance this as necessarily believing that the social dialogue is an answer to many problems in itself. There are some of us who believe that the social dimension of the treaty has been, as M. Delors said himself the other day, notably lacking in development in the past year or so. It is a serious problem. But the Government adhere to the treaty—the treaty without Maastricht but it will not be any different after Maastricht because this is one of the articles which the Government maintain in its present form by not adhering to the so-called social chapter. This is what the Government believe they are obliged to honour—Article 118b.
The social dialogue is there referred to as being the job of the Commission to develop. The article states:
"The Commission shall endeavour to develop the dialogue between management and labour at European level which can lead to agreements"
If the Commission is to be able to do that job under the treaty it cannot possibly succeed if it is frustrated by governments who refuse to lend a hand at the national level, not least because agreements at European level—this is the real problem with them—can only take effect, not because of the doctrine of subsidiarity but because of the facts of life, in the different national diverse legal and industrial systems. Therefore the Government must owe some kind of duty here. What that duty is will surely be carried out in terms of inquiry, advice and encouragement—not necessarily by way of legal duty but by encouragement by a body such as ACAS. Indeed there is no other. It would seem to follow that with the Government now abandoning the job of ACAS to encourage and extend collective bargaining they cannot leave the functions of ACAS without some point of reference in regard especially to consultation and, indeed, on occasions under Article 118b, to negotiation.
To develop this machinery one could have put the matter much higher. It can be said that the Government are obliged to develop such machinery as that developed at European level through the machinery of the treaties. Why is it that ACAS is not brought into this field? If the Government think carefully about it they will do so. I shall not develop any more the points involved. I am hopeful that the Government will say that they will have another look at the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: Whatever the merits of collective bargaining, there is no doubt that over the past few years there has been a marked increase in the extent to which such bargaining in industrial and other organisations in the United Kingdom has been replaced by dealings with individual employees. I can understand therefore why the Government have introduced the first part of this clause.
Nevertheless, have some sympathy with the amendment and what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said about it. In its 1991 report ACAS stated that in response to the Citizen's Charter, it had prepared what it called the ACAS Commitment. That committed the service to the way it carries out its
832
statutory duty, among other things in improving industrial relations and fostering employee involvement.
Under the heading "Resolution of Disputes" it stated:
"Before providing assistance ACAS always first encourages parties to make full use of any agreed procedures they may have for negotiation and the settlement of disputes".
That sentence accords closely with the statutory duty set out in Section 210(3) of the 1992 Act. However, under a further heading, "Advice and Assistance on Industrial Relations and Employment Issues" ACAS says that, among other things, it is committed to,
"encouraging the involvement of employees in developing solutions to problems as a prime means of promoting constructive employment relationships".
That is a significant additional undertaking which does not yet feature among ACAS's statutory duties.
It may therefore be fairly said that the encouragement of negotiations by ACAS already has a place in statute, but the promotion of employee involvement does not. In those circumstances, I trust that the Government will agree that in removing from ACAS's statutory duties the encouragement of collective bargaining, they will replace that duty with one to encourage employee involvement in accordance with what ACAS is already doing.
Incidentally, ACAS also practises what it preaches for it has agreed with the trade union side of the ACAS Whitley Council a statement accepting that its staff has the right,

"(a) To be consulted directly or through their representatives so their views can be taken into account before management makes decisions which are likely to affect the circumstances in which they carry on their duties.

(b) To be informed on matters of concern to them as employees and to have the opportunity to respond to that information".

I understand that whereas in the past it was the practice of ACAS simply to offer its advice to organisations in need of assistance, now, wherever possible, the service involves employees as well as employers in seeking solutions to problems. That seems to be employee involvement in practice.
I hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the amendment. If, perhaps understandably, he or she does not feel able to accept it in its present wording, I hope that the Government will at least retain an open mind as to the merits of an amendment which I may bring forward at Report to give statutory backing to ACAS's existing commitment to encourage employee involvement.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would be kind enough to advise the Committee where the full name of ACAS appears in this Bill. I do not think that it is satisfactory to legislate using only initials. I know that this refers to the 1992 Act, but the organisation's full name should appear in this Bill as well.
Lord McCarthy: We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn for tabling this amendment which enables us to raise in general (and not merely in the terms in which he has tabled the amendment) the question of what the Government see as the functions

833
and role of ACAS in the light of the changes that they are making to the statutory provisions. As my noble friend made clear, the Government propose to take out the reference to,
"in particular, encourage the extension of collective bargaining and, where necessary, the reform of collective bargaining machinery",
which was the phrase on which in the past ACAS built the whole of its advisory functions. For a very short time, ACAS was called the Conciliation and Arbitration Service, but then as a result of reconsidering the situation it emerged as the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. It has based its extended functions in the area of advice on that fact—on the fact that that was part of the statutory machinery and its title.
However, the Government have now come along wanting to replace those provisions so that the statutory definition of the functions of ACAS is,
"to promote the improvement of industrial relations, in particular by exercising its functions in relation to the settlement of trade disputes under Sections 210 and 212",
which relate to the conciliation, mediation and arbitration functions of ACAS.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn wants to include a second alternative revision referring to the Treaty of Rome and to
"the promotion of consultation and negotiation".
I should, of course, be pleased if the Government agreed to that, but if they do not, what becomes of the other functions of ACAS? How far do the Government see this section, which stresses the central core of the role of ACAS as the settlement of trade disputes, as putting some kind of restriction on its activities?
When the Under-Secretary of State was asked on 2nd February in Committee in another place what he thought this was about he said:
"Amendment No. 231 modifies ACAS's statutory terms of reference to place greater emphasis on its core business of dispute resolution".
Justifying the concentration on the core business of dispute resolution, he went on to say:
"At the time of competing demands for ACAS's services and general resource constraints we believe that it is right that the terms of reference provided for in the legislation should give a better steer to ACAS on where its strategic priorities lie".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 2/2/93; col. 676.]
In other words, he was saying that its strategic priorities lie in dispute resolution.
It is well known that the ACAS council itself is concerned about the possible consequences of announcing that its core business is dispute resolution. Anybody who knows anything about industrial relations knows that one does not begin with dispute resolution—that is what comes at the end. Dispute resolution comes when one has failed. If one is trying to improve industrial relations, one is seeking to create a culture and approach in which problems are solved and progress is made. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, thinks, one focuses on involvement along the way, that is all very well, but one does not focus on dispute resolution because one hopes that there will not be any disputes or at least that any disputes will
834
not come to a point where a solution has to be adopted through conciliation, mediation, arbitration and possibly industrial action.
A large part of what ACAS does has nothing to do with dispute resolution. There are its excellent advisory booklets, its excellent papers, its research exercises and the extended advisory services that it puts into any part of the private or public sector which wants it to do so. My question therefore to the Minister—I hope that he will find time to answer me —is: what does it mean if we say that the core business of ACAS shall be dispute resolution? Does it mean that its budget will be slimmed at this difficult time? Its approach is in many ways superior to the approach of the best consultancy, because not only does it have no axe to grind, and is not selling a particular package of means: it wants to find solutions and withdraw. It is the only consultancy of which I am aware that wants to get out of the business. Every other consultancy wants to get one on the hook. It will be sad, wrong and bad for industrial relations generally, if ACAS's core business focus means that it does not carry out all its other important activities.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall perhaps get a minor matter out of the way first. If my noble friend Lord Swinfen will turn to Section 247 in Part VI of the 1992 Act, he will see that it indicates the nature of ACAS, the words themselves and the acronym which is further referred to in the Act.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend is kind to give me the reference in the 1992 Act, but my question referred to the Bill. It is pure idle draftsmanship not to have the full name in the Bill, which contains no definition of ACAS. It should be in the Bill. It is a matter of idleness on the part of the draftsman, not my noble friend, because it should be in the Bill that we are discussing.
Viscount Ullswater: I do not agree with my noble friend. Bills often make amendments to other Acts without one being able to read them like a book. One sometimes has to be clever to understand what effect amendments have on the main legislation. This is a proper way of going about things. I shall have to disagree with my noble friend.
Perhaps I may deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. He complains that there is a change to Section 213 of the 1992 Act. He asks whether that is the right way to go about matters. Clause 35 deals with one function of ACAS only—the advice side. Rather than go into a whole list of things that it should do, it neatly puts into new Section 213(1):
"such advice as it thinks appropriate on matters concerned with or affecting or likely to affect industrial relations".
I should have thought that that would have given ACAS a broader remit than the existing Section 213(2) gives it. It gives it a broader remit to offer appropriate advice in the right circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that we are trying to slim down what ACAS is available to do.
I am speaking also to Amendment No. 236, which is grouped with Amendment No. 235. The main purpose of the amendments is to retain the redundant reference to "collective bargaining" in ACAS's

835
statutory terms of reference. Amendment No. 236 makes this intention explicit. Amendment No. 235 disguises its aim a little by referring to the promotion of negotiation between management and labour.
For years ACAS has not actively promoted the extension of collective bargaining. ACAS will be the first to admit as much. Its activities have moved on with the times. These amendments take us back to the past, however much they try to conceal the fact by being dressed up in rather modish language about the EC's social dialogue.
The reference to consultation in the amendments is quite unnecessary. Clause 35 gives ACAS a general duty:
"to promote the improvement of industrial relations".
If better consultative arrangements between employers and their employees can contribute to improved industrial relations the promotion of such consultative arrangements is clearly within ACAS's new terms of reference. Of course, if consultative arrangements are not calculated to contribute to an improvement in industrial relations, they are not the proper business of ACAS. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that ACAS has the powers to consult where necessary and I do not believe that it needs any further powers.
Perhaps I may now turn to the social dialogue. Again, this reference is unnecessary. In lifting this idea from its proper EC context the use of the term is misleading, confusing and perhaps harmful. As Members of the Committee will be aware, "social dialogue" is the term used in the Treaty of Rome to describe the process by which the Commission seeks an exchange of views between bodies representing employers and employees at the European level. The topics for this dialogue are typically connected with draft Community legislation. Article 118B of the EC Treaty, as inserted by the Single European Act, makes it clear that the "social dialogue", as so defined, is a matter for the Commission and the employer/employee bodies concerned. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and I differ on that. However, it is not the business of member states. There are social dialogue provisions in the Agreement of 11, but of course these will not apply to this country.
Apart from the in-company consultation that I have already discussed, the only other process that the term "social dialogue" could cover is one of elaborate national level consultations and bargaining. That smacks of a return to the stultifying and ineffectual corporatism of the 1970s. There certainly is no role for ACAS in all this.
Deleting mention of collective bargaining from ACAS's terms of reference will have desirable effects. It will confirm current practice and remove any uncertainty as to where ACAS's duty lies. It will help reinforce the message that collective bargaining should not be singled out for special status above any other form of employer-employee relations. And of course it will not prevent ACAS from conciliating in union recognition cases. The amendments seek to
836
wipe out these potential gains and should therefore be resisted. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I apologise; I was noting the Minister's points in such depth that I failed to spring to my feet. Let me do so now. I never believe that the draftsman is idle. He may be ingenious and he may be inward but he is rarely idle. ACAS is clear what it is talking about.
I never thought that my reference to one article of the treaty to which the Government are bound and will be bound after Maastricht would set off such a volley; for instance, corporatist, confusing and harmful. If such descriptions go with what the Minister understands to be the social dialogue, he had better persuade the Government to withdraw from Section 218B.
He believes that my proposal is modish—I do not like being modish—and says that we need not retain this redundant reference. I do not follow any of that argument, partly because I disagree with the Minister on one issue of fact. He said that the social dialogue is concerned only with oncoming European Community legislation. With great respect, it is not. As regards the Social Chapter I am aware that the Government do not adhere to the "Agreement of 11", as he called it. My amendment specifically does not make mention of the Social Chapter agreement. It retains a reference to the article by which the Government are bound. An implication of the treaty must be that they have given their word to do what they can, when asked by the Commission, to help in social dialogue, negotiations or consultations. 'They should not simply say no to that request.
ACAS has a central role in that and I do not agree with the Minister that ACAS would necessarily be able to play its role despite—and I accept that it is there—the new Section 213. I give the Minister an example where I think he is wrong in fact. The bodies which constitute the so-called social dialogue—the European trade unions in the ETUC, the private sector employers, the UNICE, to which the CBI is affiliated (and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone in his place), and the CEEP, the public sector employers—have made two or three agreements on the introduction of technology. Whether or not that could give rise to any kind of collective negotiation that could filter down through member states is actively under discussion. I am sceptical but there are those—and they are not all trade unionists or lawyers—who see that as an extremely important venture.
I hope that the noble Viscount will look again at this matter. I hope that he will take out all the nasty words. I hope that he will keep to Article 118B because that is as far as the Government will go and accept that the social dialogue is part of it. People are trying to see a way to a trans-national, European and wider, system of industrial relations which must be part of the new single market and the new trans-national economic market if working people are to have any chance at all of being protected across the frontiers.

837
I can see that the Government do not really believe in that and that it is why they have taken out collective bargaining from Section 209. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 237:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Claims
. At the end of subsection (3) of section 133 and subsection (3) of section 134 of the 1978 Act, there shall be inserted—
"(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), a person shall be deemed to claim where that claim is express or can be implied from the overt acts or attitudes of that person." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment reflects a view of the judicial committee of this House on the current position at common law. That is necessary as some commentators appear not to be interpreting Sections 133 and 134 of the 1978 Act in accordance with the common law.
CBI officials have made many representations to both ACAS and the Department of Employment concerning the way in which the service is interpreting its duty under this part of the law. In essence, in 1990 ACAS issued guidelines to its conciliation officers as a result of which officers were declining to help employers and employees reach settlements unless the employee, in the words of the statute, "claimed" action had been taken in respect of which he could complain to a tribunal. This has meant that a number of potential settlements have not been reached and, moreover, many employees have in effect been forced to initiate proceedings before an industrial tribunal in order to secure the services of a conciliation officer.
The CBI maintained that ACAS could infer a claim, rather than requiring an express statement to that effect from the employee. In support, one need look only to the case of Moore v. Duport Furniture Products Ltd (reported in 1982 at page 31 of the Industrial Relations Law Reports). In that case, the judicial committee of this House put beyond doubt the issue that claims could and indeed should be inferred.
As the Government have seen fit to amend provisions of the law which deal with ACAS's duties, it appears appropriate to consider clarifying at the same time an area which has been somewhat clouded. It is to be hoped that this will be achieved by putting in statute a clause which will reproduce the existing position as stated by this House exercising its judicial function.
I give an example of what I have been talking about. Let us suppose that W, a worker, is employed by E, the employer. After many years of employment on good terms, the relationship begins to run into difficulties due to W's conduct. E, without giving W any warning, dismisses him. W may well feel that this is unfair; but after much discussion he is persuaded to make an agreement settling the matter whereby he will receive a large sum from E and it will save everyone a lot of time and expense in going to a tribunal.
E and W then go along to an ACAS conciliation officer to have the agreement recorded, thus preventing any further claim to an industrial tribunal. The ACAS officer, however, following the guidelines issued by the service in 1990, refuses to act because, he says, W has not formally or expressly claimed that he was unfairly dismissed. In reality of course the fact that the employee himself believes the dismissal is
840
unfair, and has agreed to the involvement of a conciliation officer, should be enough for the officer to infer a "claim" from the circumstances.
This is the problem for business at the moment. ACAS will not infer a claim even though it could do so from the "overt acts or attitudes" of the worker. The net result is that as it is only an agreement reached through the involvement of an ACAS officer which will preclude a subsequent tribunal complaint, the employer, having settled the matter, is still exposed to further proceedings. My amendment will make the position clear by stating in statute what case law already provides—claims can be inferred. I hope that my noble friend will give this matter special consideration. It seems to me a small point but one that could be of considerable importance to many people in business. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My noble friend's aim is to allow employers and employees to reach binding agreements in settlement of disputes between them without reference to the industrial tribunal system. I have every sympathy with his aims in seeking to promote binding settlements between parties. However, I have doubts about the means he suggests for achieving this.
My noble friend has suggested that it should be within the remit of ACAS to endorse agreements in which it had played no conciliation role. However, in cases where agreement has already been reached, it is by definition impossible for conciliation officers to seek to promote an agreement. There is no dispute outstanding, and therefore no valid role for ACAS to play.
My noble friend referred to the Moore v. Duport case, and in that he is quite correct. However, that is not the issue here. Where a person claims that action has been taken in respect of which a relevant complaint could be presented to a tribunal, it is not necessary that the claim is expressly made. It would include an implied claim which could be inferred from the overt acts or attitudes of the employee. That was the case in Moore v. Duport.
However, it is quite clear that it would be impossible for an ACAS conciliation officer to promote a settlement if one had already been reached. There would be no role for a conciliation officer in such a case. That is what we are considering here. The 1975 legislation which established ACAS's statutory responsibilities never intended that. ACAS should have a retrospective role in rubber-stamping such agreements, and the Government believe that its involvement in such cases would be neither proper nor an appropriate use of its resources.
The Government are, however, aware of employers' anxieties in this area. It is extremely important that the parties in such cases should be able to reach a final settlement which will avoid unnecessary tribunal claims, provided of course that there are adequate safeguards so that individuals are not coerced or misled into signing away their rights unawares.
We have consulted interested organisations on a proposal that agreements which settle an employee's claim and preclude his right of reference to an

841
industrial tribunal should be binding if the employee has had legal representation. This proposal was supported by a substantial majority of the respondents, including employers and employers' organisations. Certain safeguards will need to be set, but I believe that this proposal offers an effective way forward which will very largely achieve the objective of my noble friend's amendment, albeit via a somewhat different route. I hope therefore that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment on this occasion after considering my comments this evening, and on the understanding that the Government will bring forward their own amendment on Report.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Is the Minister not aware that the present situation is a charade in many cases? Because employers and employees are aware that ACAS will not rubber stamp, as my noble friend has just said, they therefore pretend that no agreement has been reached and go along to ACAS for ACAS to act as if it has acted as conciliator, and then the agreement will be rubber stamped. That is a nonsensical situation.
I welcome the Minister's statement that people will be able to sign agreements. I understand that each party must have legal representation because, as he said, unwise people might sign away their rights. That is good. However, what is wrong with ACAS having the role of rubber stamping agreements which have been reached logically? At present, much ACAS time is being taken up by cases in which agreement has been reached but cannot be acknowledged to have been reached in order for ACAS to be used.
Viscount Ullswater: The practice of validating or rubber stamping agreements reached privately between employers and employees represented such a considerable drain on ACAS's resources until it ceased after ACAS was given legal advice in 1990 that it had no statutory role to do that. In 1989, the year before the service was withdrawn, ACAS dealt with well over 17,000 such cases, representing 36 per cent. of the total number of cases received.
I am glad that my noble friend supports the proposition that I have made, and I hope that both she and my noble friend Lord Mottistone will support me on the way forward that I have suggested.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his lengthy reply. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for her intervention, which brought out the further figures which show what the situation was before 1990. I must confess that I was puzzled as to why 1990 was a key date, having worked with ACAS in earlier years a great deal.
I fully understand what my noble friend said. I look forward to seeing his amendment at Report stage. I hope that it will provide the solution which we are all keen to see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Fees for exercise offunctions by ACAS]: [Amendments Nos. 238 and 239 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Careers services]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 53, line 2, after ("State") insert ("through local education authorities (in England or Wales) or education authorities (in Scotland), or from persons of any other description following the agreement of the relevant local education authority or education authority")
The noble Baroness said: We now come to Clauses 37 and 38 which deal with the careers service. I am sorry that these important clauses are being discussed at this time of night. I propose to move my amendments briefly so that we have the Minister's response, and I hope that we can return to the matter at a more civilised hour at Report stage to discuss it properly.
Amendment No. 240 is linked with Amendment No. 247. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the service is provided through LEAs, or education authorities in Scotland, or a body approved by them and to guarantee local authority involvement in careers service provision.
LEAs assumed responsibility for delivery of the careers service as a result of the provisions of the Employment and Training Act 1973. In 1990 the Employment Department reviewed the arrangements for the provision of careers advice to young people, resulting in the Bruce Report. The local authorities' response was that they should continue to provide the careers service, and it is widely believed that others who were involved in the exercise held the same view. However, the report of the review was not made public, and that is a pity. Leaks suggested that the report recommended retaining the status quo. The Government so far have not brought forward any evidence to suggest why there is a need to change the current arrangements.
We suggest that there are three main reasons why local education authorities should continue to be involved in the provision of the service: to maintain coherence with education service provisions; to provide a check on the impartiality of the advice provided; and to ensure local accountability of the arrangements provided.
There has been remarkably little clarity about what is meant to happen under the new arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will advise us. In the meantime I hope very much that my plea for local education authorities, or a body approved by them, to remain with that commitment to a service will be agreed. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I wish to support in principle what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. The careers service is far more important than has been recognised over the years. It has not recruited as high a standard of people as is clearly necessary in order to help young people to obtain jobs when they get out into the wider world.
I believe that most of the amendments to which the noble Baroness has put her name require careful thought by my noble friend. In principle they seek to strengthen the position of the careers service in the future that unfolds before us. I hope very much that the Government will be able to do something in that

843
respect. I do not propose to take part in debates on further amendments because that will add further speech, and we are running out of time.
Baroness Seear: I strongly support the amendment. The argument as to who should control the advice given to youngsters has continued for over 100 years. After a great deal of argument it was decided that the person giving the advice should consider primarily the career development of the young person and not the satisfaction of local labour market needs. That is what the argument has been about over the years.
It seems plainly right that the service should be regarded as part of the education service which local authorities should be offering to young people. Members of the careers service should be going into schools at an early stage to give youngsters advice on subjects that they ought to be studying in relation to the careers that they might follow. The provision knits those people into the education service. That surely is where they should be. Good advice about careers from a longer-term view than many youngsters are likely to take is absolutely vital if we are to have properly trained people. That is part of the advice that the careers service can give relating to the market opportunities that one hopes will come their way later.
Lord McCarthy: It is to the credit of the Government that they have never come before us with any criticism of the way in which the careers service operates at present. Not only have they not made a case, they have not made a case against the existing system.
There is now an opportunity for the Minister or the noble Baroness to state whether there are criticisms, or defects. Are there matters which were not published in the report but about which we ought to know? On the face of it, all the interested parties, whether they are the education profession, those who use the careers service, bodies such as MENCAP and so on which are concerned with the disabled, do not understand why the LEAs cannot continue to be involved in the service. If the Government are making such a sweeping change, they must criticise the existing situation and say why the biazarre tripartite method that they have invented will get rid of those criticisms and why we should support it. Now is their opportunity.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I too wish to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I simply cannot understand why the Government wish to centralise the service—because that is what they are doing. They seem to be centrist mad. They must take away everything that local authorities do and put it at the centre. Local authorities have run the service for donkey's years; they used to run the youth employment service. I was the chairman of the further education committee in the county borough of Reading: it ran the youth employment service extremely well. So far as I know, there have been no complaints about the way local authorities and their staff run the existing service in co-operation with other organisations.
844
As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, the Government should explain to the House and to the people, particularly those who work in the careers service, why it has been thought necessary to remove the service from the local authorities who have run it so well for so long.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may start by agreeing wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that it is unfortunate that this important matter should be dealt with at this hour. I appreciate the organisation she proposed with her amendments.
The Bill recommends a fundamental change which reflects the importance which the Government attach to careers guidance, both in helping individuals to achieve their potential—I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the potential for the individual is absolutely crucial —and also in relation to securing an efficient labour market which means work and opportunity.
We seek to secure the future of careers services through new management arrangements that enable them to reflect the changing needs and circumstances of the local community. I know that there is a strong feeling within careers services that they cannot stand still. But we certainly do not underestimate the valuable work which has been done.
In proposing the amendments, the noble Baroness seems to suggest that it is unacceptable to require each and every careers service provider to undertake a thorough review of its operation; to establish arrangements against new and demanding standards; and to demonstrate its accountability to its customers. Obviously, we cannot agree.
It is not just change for the sake of it. We need to recognise that arrangements can be better if options are widened beyond the current constraints of a local education authority. An important advantage of the new arrangements is that they will enable careers services to be provided as a joint venture between the education and employment sector. That will bring with it a better mutual understanding, respect and trust and a significant degree of consensus on aims and intent and open communication. Many training and enterprise councils already welcome these kinds of arrangements and I am confident that we will see them developing closer relationships with education and economic communities.
We want the high standards achieved by the best to be available everywhere and, indeed, improved upon. We believe that organisations which aspire to provide services need to demonstrate, through competitive bidding, that they can meet demanding quality standards and sustain them.
The amendments go to the heart of what we propose and would have a completely negative effect. Accepting them would place a stranglehold on change and continue to allow current providers a monopoly. They would restrict opportunities, not open them up, by allowing the current providers to decide who manages services. This might be more readily understood if the Bill prevented local education and education authorities from providing careers services, but it does not. It fosters genuine competition in which the authorities are absolutely free to play their part. If

845
the local education authorities are everywhere as good at providing careers services as supporters of the amendments claim, they have nothing to fear. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Seear: Before we make a final judgment, I ask the noble Baroness a question. She talks about competition between people, and says that they will be tested as to who provides the best service. Who is the judge of all that? If it is the Secretary of State, is that not once again a centralisation? I have to put it to the noble Baroness (it cannot be news to her) that we are increasingly conscious—I say "conscious", not "apprehensive"—that the Government have as great a vendetta against local authorities as they seem to have against trade unions and that one has only to say that an organisation is run by a local authority for the Government to believe they have to alter it. We cannot find any other reason why they want to alter it. Is that the reason? It is yet again an attempt to undermine local authorities.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I say to the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State will make arrangements with the providers through the guidance that she will issue. It is not a vendetta against the local authorities. As I said earlier, local education authorities are all in a position to compete for provision, and, if they are indeed good, presumably will be able to hold that provision. But great change is going on in the community, and this recognises some of the change.
Baroness Seear: What are the criteria of goodness in such circumstances? How are they to be judged and by whom? What are the qualifications for judging of the people who will make the judgments?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Those are some of the issues which the amendments will bring forth in our corning debate.
Baroness Lockwood: The Minister has not answered the questions which my noble friend Lady David asked. She has not in any way demonstrated how the Government, through this clause, will provide a better service than the one that is already provided by local education authorities, very often in co-operation with TECs and other organisations. The local authorities are by no means taking exception to co-operating with other bodies. Surely a competitive market determined by the Secretary of State will not be able to provide a local service meeting local needs or being accessible to local people. Accessibility is very important. I do not think that the Minister has justified the alteration to the present situation which the Bill now proposes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Baroness replies, she has not properly answered the questions put to her by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. What criterion will be used to judge the competitive tenders? The mind boggles at competitive tenders for this sort of work. Will they have performance standards; will there be quality
846
standards; or is it just to be a question of the lowest bidder? Or perhaps the Government will make a charge; perhaps they will make it the highest bidder. We need answers to those questions, and I hope that the noble Baroness will give them.
Lord McCarthy: In that context, is it not true to say that one will read the Bill in vain, and will look in vain for a schedule to find anything at all about standards and quality, or any guidance whatsoever. We all depend upon what the Secretary of State does.
11 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: At the heart of this strategy is the duty on the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament. The Secretary of State will have to be confident and able to demonstrate that the services she will have a duty to secure are meeting the obligations. In order to do that, she will have to set clear standards, monitor performance and audit and inspect overall arrangements.
I appreciate the concern of all sides about the need to uphold quality. The quality of services will be ensured through a comprehensive quality assurance strategy. Securing the provision of services through contracts requires considerable precision in specifying the purpose of services, the results to be achieved and the standards against which performance is to be measured. In turn it will require greater discipline in administration and management of services.
Work is already in hand to establish a new careers service standards, future funding and audit arrangements. They are not being developed in isolation. They are the subject of extensive consultation with providers and stakeholders and they will be extensively piloted and tested.
Baroness David: I thank my noble friends who have supported the amendment. It is quite clear from the answers, which I consider entirely unsatisfactory, that the Government do not have a clear plan to work on. The careers service is a relatively small service. There are under 4,000 careers officers in the country. Who will do the bidding for what? It is totally incomprehensible. What is going to happen?
I do not intend to divide the Committee at this time of night, though I feel very much inclined to do so. I shall read what has been said tonight, but I do not think that I shall make much sense out of it. We shall certainly come back to this issue at Report stage. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 241 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 53, line 14, at end insert:
("() In exercising his functions under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the requirements of disabled persons or persons having learning difficulties.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 243 and 256. The first two amendments are designed to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that people with disabilities or learning difficulties receive appropriate careers guidance. Amendment No. 256 aims to ensure

847
that the careers staff who give that guidance have the appropriate skills and training. This follows the precedent set in Section 4 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which places a similar duty on the new further education funding council.
This group of amendments will ensure that deaf and deaf-blind people get the communication support that they need, and that careers service officers understand the needs of blind and partially sighted people and the problems faced by those with physical disabilities or learning difficulties.
Of those leaving school each year only a few need specialist help. For example, I understand that in Surrey there are about 6,500 pupils in year 11 and of those only 200 to 300 will need the services of a specialist officer. Services winning contracts may be tempted on financial grounds to ignore the way in which specialist training and support might benefit those clients. People with disabilities or learning difficulties will lose out if inappropriate placements are made and the cost will then be borne not only by them but also by local education authorities, social services departments, further education colleges and, eventually, the taxpayer, who funds welfare benefits to those not given a chance to develop their full potential to live and work independently.
Perhaps I may give an illustration. Christopher and Jonathan took their GCSEs last year. Both have muscular dystrophy. They are in wheelchairs and need round the clock assistance. Christopher is very severely disabled. Both want to take B.Tec firsts, but no local college could cater for their needs. An out-county residential placement at a specialist college was estimated at £27,000 a year for each student and was not favoured by the parents. Because of their condition, the young men have a shortened life expectancy.
The specialist careers officer knew that students in higher education with care needs could use community service volunteers. Under the community service volunteers independent living scheme, he liaised with the community service volunteers, the local college and the director of education and social services to set up a scheme for each of his clients. Both are now living at home taking qualifications at a local college with the help of their community service volunteer. The cost of each student to the local authority is just £6,500 per year.
The specialist careers officer arranged a placement to meet the aspirations of his clients and their parents' wishes, and gained value for money. He had the specialist understanding of his clients' needs; the specialist knowledge of available provision, and the expertise in working with other specialised agencies. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I too would like to support the amendments, briefly but warmly, as does my noble friend Lord Rix, who has had to leave to honour a previous commitment.
The Government made welcome promises in the other place to issue guidance and to consult disability organisations over the preparation of guidance. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen said, we need specific mention on the face of the Bill. Not all school leavers
848
with disabilities and learning difficulties need specialist careers advice, but for some it is crucial if they are to succeed beyond school. It is precisely because we are dealing with a small group that it is important that they are not overlooked.
In the long run better careers advice means that more people with disabilities and learning difficulties will succeed in finding jobs, though it can be more expensive to provide a specialist service. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, some of those bidding for contracts may be tempted not to provide specialist careers advice and the amendments would ensure that they do.
There is a precedent for the first two amendments in the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, where specific duty to have regard has been acknowledged by disability organisations to have been both useful and effective. SKILL—which is the National Association for Students with Disabilities, of which I have the honour to be the president—believes that those transferring from education to employment are even more in need at this stage of specialist support.
The first two amendments should appeal to government. Whenever they oppose antidiscrimination legislation they have said very firmly that they prefer to tackle the problem piecemeal with carefully targeted legislation. So specific mention on the face of the Bill of people with disabilities and learning difficulties would help this piece of legislation to find its mark.
Lord McCarthy: We should perhaps emphasise the mildness of these three amendments. As has been said, the key amendment is Amendment No. 242, which states:
"In exercising his functions under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the requirements of disabled persons or persons having learning difficulties".
The noble Baroness or the noble Lord may say, "Well, they would do that, wouldn't they?" But as has been said by the previous speaker, there are precedents for having provisions of this kind on the face of the Bill. They have been found to be reassuring and it is a modest request.
Amendment No. 243 merely defines, for the purpose of the section, what a disabled person shall be. I do not see how the Government can possible lake exception to that. Amendment No. 256 merely asks to make arrangements to,
"secure the services of appropriately qualified specialist staff".
In each amendment the Government could say, "They are all unnecessary. Of course we will do all of them". But we know that there is considerable anxiety in the field that the officers at the moment are not sufficiently trained in specialist skills; there is anxiety also in regard to charges. There is considerable anxiety over a wide field and by accepting the three modest amendments, the Government could do something to mitigate that anxiety.
Lord Renton: I too support the amendments. I wish to make only one small point on Amendment No. 242. Instead of the words,
"disabled persons or persons having learning difficulties",
the provision should read,

849
"disabled persons and persons having learning difficulties".
That can easily be adjusted.
When one is trying to create a public obligation to be carried out by a Minister of the Crown it is generally understood that express words, not merely implied words, are needed in the statute. If one wants to ensure that disabled people and those with learning difficulties are to have the benefit of these provisions I suggest that they be expressly referred to and the matter cannot merely be governed by inference.
I should like to mention briefly Amendment No.256. It is quite clear that if that work for such people is to be properly done it will have to be carried out by properly qualified staff. That is another matter where one should aim for certainty. I hope that my noble friend will accept these amendments or something on these lines.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Renton. If the Committee accepts these amendments I undertake to bring forward an amendment at Report stage to change the word "or" to "and".
Baroness David: I strongly support these amendments. I believe that what we all fear is that when there is competitive tendering there will not be the same enthusiasm for having careers staff with specialist knowledge to look after the disabled and those with learning difficulties. It is very important that these amendments are in the Bill.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lord Renton, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Baroness and noble Lord on the opposite Benches rightly stressed the importance of this area. I believe it is essential that unanimity is achieved by handling these matters through the arrangements that the Secretary of State will make with providers and the guidance that she will issue. It is important that the youngsters to whom my noble friend Lord Swinfen refers have the same expectations wherever they are in the country.
There is already in new Section 8(1) a duty on the Secretary of State to secure provision of relevant services for helping people decide for what employments they are suitable, having regard to their capabilities. The focus and starting point from which services are provided is what people are capable of. That means it will be the Secretary of State's duty to ensure that the careers guidance and employment services offered by careers services will give proper regard to each individual's capabilities. The purpose of the legislation is to provide the overarching management framework within which careers services operate. The detailed prescription of services that is sought through these amendments is much more appropriate to the arrangements that the Secretary of State will make with providers, in particular to the guidance of a general character that she will issue which, since this is part of the arrangements, will be binding on them. That is how such matters are dealt with now and it is appropriate for them to be dealt with that way in future.
In making such arrangements the Secretary of State
850
will need to be clear that her duty to able-bodied, disabled and those with learning difficulties is met. She will need to know that those with whom she makes arrangements (or directs) can and will fulfil that duty. This means that she will need to be satisfied that future providers have staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet the requirements of all clients. In particular, staff will need to understand how an individual's capabilities relate to his or her disabilities or learning difficulties. It also means that the Secretary of State will have to ask for information so that she can be sure that the duty is being fulfilled. This requirement will be spelled out in the guidance of a general character and the contract or directions.
Careers services have a long tradition of providing particular help to those who are either disabled or have learning difficulties and we intend to ensure that the tradition continues. I am happy to reiterate my assurance that we intend to include details in the guidance of a general character on how careers services will meet the guidance and employment service needs of those with disabilities. We shall be consulting widely in drawing up the guidance, in particular with those groups which represent the interests of those with disabilities and learning difficulties.
I hope that that assurance, which I gladly give, to see to it that in making arrangements the Secretary of State will note all the extremely important points that have been made this evening, will allow the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: One gets more and more alarmed at the idea that all wisdom is in the heads of the Secretary of State and her civil servants. How many of them have ever dealt with problems of this kind? We shall be advised by bureaucrats with no experience of this kind of thing. They will consult but they will judge. Why does the noble Baroness think that one will get a better result in this way than from local education committees, many of which have people of considerable experience, in close touch with the problems and answerable locally if things go wrong? We are told again and again that we should leave it to the centre. If we do that, we leave it to civil servants with no direct experience whatever.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies, I wonder whether she will bear in mind that the Minister in another place pointed out in Committee on 2nd February at col. 708 of the Official Report that there is standard guidance at present in advising people in these circumstances. However, he had to confess that there are wide variations in performance. Merely to repeat the present guidance and hope for the best does not seem to be enough. Therefore, I would suggest that something on the lines of the amendments could do no harm and indeed might ensure that the purpose that we all have in mind is achieved.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend Lord Renton first. I mentioned in my earlier remarks that the advantage of the Secretary

851
of State being responsible is that there will be a uniformity and not the wide variations. The purpose of the legislation is to provide the overarching management framework within which the careers service operates. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it is not our intention to consult with the people who understand these matters and then ignore advice. There would be no point in consulting if that were the point. Perhaps I may also clarify that the Secretary of State sets the standards for the careers service. The standards are not set by local education authorities.
Lord Swinfen: I thank those who have taken part in the debate and also my noble friend the Minister. She has throughout her responses emphasised the fact that it is the Secretary of State who is responsible at the moment. If she re-reads the amendments she will see that the amendments make the Secretary of State responsible as well. It is a question of ensuring that it is the law that the Secretary of State should take these matters into account.
I do not really believe that the guidelines which my noble friend suggests will be made will be adequate, because without the law to back them up, they will not be carried out, as they are not carried out today. Will my noble friend give an undertaking either to look at this matter again between now and Report stage or possibly to meet me and representatives of some of the organisations for the disabled to discuss the matter? I am not satisfied with the answer that I have been given. If it were earlier in the day I should divide the Committee, but I shall not at this hour of the night because it will delay matters even further.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Before my noble friend sits down, shall be very happy to meet with him and some of the organisations concerned. I believe the fact that the matters will be in the contract or the directions for the organisation and the Secretary of State will have to ask for information to make sure that the requirements are being fulfilled, will give protection.
Lord Swinfen: I always wonder whether it is possible to enforce a contract. But I shall not go into that now. I am delighted that my noble friend has agreed to meet me between now and the next stage of the Bill. Under those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 53, line 49, at end insert:
("(5) Any educational institution of the type referred to in subsection (3) of this section which is a further education corporation, a school maintained by a local education authority or education authority, a grant maintained school, a city technology college or an independent school admitting pupils under the assisted places scheme shall afford such reasonable access to persons appointed to provide services of the soil described in subsections (1) and (2) of this section as is necessary for the effective delivery of those services, provided that due notice is given of the need for access and that there is consultation about the arrangements for access.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 264. The purpose of Amendment No. 244 is to ensure that the provider of the service has access to the relevant educational establishments. Amendment No. 264 is to highlight the potential weakening of links between careers education in schools and any future guidance service. The careers service has to work through schools and colleges to make contact with the young people it serves. Good practice requires an effective agreement between the service and the school about the arrangements for access, the passage of information about individuals and the links between careers guidance and careers education within the institution.
However, from time to time isolated problems can occur which threaten such co-operation. An example might be where a school competing with other institutions for students is anxious to retain as many as possible in its sixth form and is concerned that guidance might encourage some to consider transferring to an FE college or seeking employment-based training.
While the main thrust of this amendment is to ensure that young people in educational institutions are given access to the careers service and to put beyond doubt the duty of the institutions to co-operate with the careers service in facilitating this, it may also be worth mentioning that the amendment should help to underpin the necessary liaison and co-operation to ensure that careers education in schools and colleges is integrated with the guidance provided by the careers service. It is important to remember that effective careers guidance will depend on effective careers education having paved the way for it. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Baroness, Lady David, suggests in Amendment No. 244 that careers services should have a statutory right of access to schools and colleges, perhaps because LEAs will no, longer have the duty to provide services and will therefore not be in a position to secure access for careers service personnel. Possibly in future it may be that schools will attempt to bias the information which pupils receive and that they will attempt to encourage them to stay on at school rather than consider what might be more appropriate alternatives.
The record of the local education authorities in enabling careers services to have access to all schools has not been entirely satisfactory. There have been instances where LEAs have tried to prevent or discourage careers services from providing services to City Technology Colleges, grant-maintained and independent schools. Their pupils have a right to the advice of careers services.
There have been instances of less than perfect access being offered. There is no statutory right of access at present. In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, the careers service is welcome in the overwhelming majority of schools including a substantial proportion of schools in the independent sector. The amendment appears to suggest that headteachers, teachers and governors cannot be trusted to make the best careers education and

853
guidance arrangements for young people in their care. Anecdotal examples of that appear to be isolated incidents. A recent survey by the careers service inspectorate found no evidence that this was happening any more frequently now than in the past.
There is much stronger evidence to suggest that careers services are welcome in schools and that there is generally a good working relationship between schools and careers services. We want to ensure that that continues. Giving careers services a statutory right of access to schools—a power only given to HMI at present—could well be damaging to this relationship.
Turning to Amendment No. 264, we believe that the importance of a close working relationship will continue to be necessary to the effective provision of careers advice. Careers education is a cross-curricular theme within the national curriculum. At national level, it is therefore the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education with advice from the National Curriculum Council. Consultation and co-operation between the two departments responsible for careers education and the careers service on these matters is well established. There is no need to impose a duty on the Secretary of State for this to continue.
The authority responsible for the provision of careers education in each school is the school governing body. It would be impractical to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the provision of careers services was planned at local level in consultation with the governing bodies of each school.
I do not wish to reject the intention behind the amendment and therefore we will be providing both strong encouragement and formal guidance which will ensure that the close working together between schools and careers services which characterises best practice will continue and develop. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for her reply. As I have been surprised by some of her comments, I should like to take advice before deciding whether to bring these amendments back on Report. They have given me the opportunity to question the wisdom of splitting the careers service from the education service. The 1973 Act was universally welcomed because it recognised that the careers service was part of the wider education service. As I said, I shall take advice but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I understand that Amendments Nos. 244A to 255 have been mis-attributed on the Marshalled List. Therefore, I shall call the noble Baroness, Lady David, to move Amendment No. 244A.
Baroness David: No. I should perhaps explain that this is something to do with the printing. Amendment
854
No. 244A belongs to my noble friend Lord Stoddart, but Amendments Nos. 245 through to 255 belong to me.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to move Amendment No. 244A.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 244A:
Page 53, line 49, at end insert:
("() It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that those appointed to administer the arrangements made under this section hold the Diploma in Careers Guidance or a recognised equivalent.").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should say at this stage that I act as an adviser to the National Association of Local Government Officers. It is vital that properly trained people continue to deliver these services and it is by no means certain, under the Bill, that that will be so. There is a danger that the service will be fragmented in such a way as to ensure that it becomes unrecognisable as a careers guidance service, staffed by people who have no background or experience and who lack a properly recognised national qualification. Until now, the service has been staffed by experienced and motivated people, many of whom hold the Diploma in Careers Guidance, a qualification recognised by the Local Government Management Board as the appropriate qualification for careers guidance officers.
I trust that it is the Government's wish to retain and recruit properly qualified staff. Indeed, I believe that it is essential that they should do so. Will they give the assurance that this qualification and others continue to be relevant and recognised? I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness David: Amendment No. 258B in my name is supposed to be grouped with Amendment No. 244A. I hope that the Minister agrees with that. I believe that that was the grouping arranged. The amendment tries to achieve the same thing: to ensure that staff engaged to deliver services have the appropriate competences in accordance with agreed national standards that the Secretary of State shall approve. The amendment is designed to make it obligatory that all staff employed are competent to perform the duties necessary under the contract and that contractors employ skilled, trained and competent guidance practitioners.
The Government are committed to high quality public services. That is what the Citizen's Charter is all about. Quality requires standards, and those providing services must meet such standards. The Bill is about the change in control and management of the service. It should not water down, or diminish in any way, the entitlement of clients to careers guidance of quality.
The needs of clients vary according to their own circumstances, whether, for example, having high academic ability or special needs. There are important issues to address, such as gender and race, which

855
require a wide range of skills, training and competences in staff. All of that must be secured through specialist training.
Baroness Seear: If she looks back into the history of the battle—that is what it was—between the Department of Education, local education authorities and the Ministry of Labour, as it then was, the noble Baroness will find that the people employed by the Ministry of Labour to do the work did not aspire to qualifications. That is one of the reasons why many of us were extremely glad when the service went to the local education authorities. They put emphasis on qualifications, something which had been noticeably absent when it had been in the hands of the Department of Employment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I take note of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the history of the matter. I shall reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Under Amendment No. 244A anyone who did not hold the Diploma in Careers Guidance or a recognised equivalent would be prevented from administering services. That would be extremely restrictive. It would in fact prevent some people who are currently and successfully involved in the administration of services from being so in future. It would prevent the administration of services benefiting from the additional knowledge and expertise that people with professional qualifications in fields other than careers guidance might bring.
We want to widen, not narrow, the base of expertise and knowledge that is brought to bear on the operation of careers services. That is why we have provided a power for services to be run as joint ventures.
Let me reassure the noble Lord that when making the arrangements the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that whoever she contracts with has sufficient expertise to provide the service that she has a duty to secure. That includes sufficient professional competence in the field of careers guidance.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, appears to want the Secretary of State to set up a certification or licensing procedure for staff. That is unnecessary. Currently there is a lead body for advice, guidance and counselling, which is meeting under the auspices of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to establish NVQs for careers guidance staff. When this process is complete, the NVQ framework should provide the necessary statements of competency and standards that will be required for work in careers services. Current careers service practitioners are fully represented on this lead body.
Surely the noble Baroness would expect the department, which established the NCVQ and introduced the Investors in People initiative, to give a high priority to ensuring that staff are properly selected, trained and professionally developed for their demanding task. There seems to have been a sea change in the Department of Employment from the Ministry of Labour.
The national standards that providers will have to achieve will be set out in the Secretary of State's
856
guidance to future providers. In short, she will be expected to act reasonably and responsibly in determining who is competent whether or not such an amendment as is before us is contained in the Act.
The Secretary of State can only make arrangements with people who are competent to provide the services she has a duty to secure. These providers will have to demonstrate their competence through the proposals they will make, which will be judged against the criteria that the Secretary of State will establish. I suggest therefore that the amendments are not necessary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said. Of course, she was right in saying that many people employed in the careers advisory service are dedicated and hardworking and they do not have professional qualifications. Nevertheless, I am anxious, as are the people in the service, that standards do not drop. The service should be under the leadership of properly-qualified people; they should have the recognised and relevant qualifications.
The noble Baroness gave some comfort that her department and the Secretary of State will continue to ensure that the people employed in the careers service are not only dedicated but under properly qualified leadership. I shall read carefully what she said in Hansard; but with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 245 to 248 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment. No. 249:
Page 54, line 20, leave out ("or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 251. Amendment No. 249 is a probing amendment to ensure that the current arrangements where authorities provide a joint service can continue under the Act. The amendment attempts to clarify a position, which does not emerge unambiguously by the current wording of the proposed new Sections 10(1) (a) and 10(1) (c), by adding a further subsection, 10(1) (d).
New Section 10(1) (a) implies the Secretary of State making arrangements with education authorities singly. New Section 10(1) (c) implies that joint arrangements should involve "persons of any other description". The proposed new Section 10(1) (d) would allow the Secretary of State to make arrangements with two or more education authorities acting jointly. That seems a sensible further choice as there are currently arrangements where co-operative activities between education authorities are operating with the support of the Department of Employment. The best example of inter-authority co-operation has been the London Central Careers Unit, LCCU, which is provided and managed by the Corporation of London on behalf of a consortium of 34 London boroughs and contiguous county authorities. It has the active support of the Department of Employment and fulfils guidance given by a previous Secretary of State, Mr. Norman Fowler. It works with individual

857
TECs on specific projects but its advantage is that it can offer an objective approach across a metropolitan area which is wider than a single TEC boundary.
However, that is stated only by way of example. The need for a co-ordinated approach to central London has been continually re-emphasised and the arguments for it have not changed since its inception in 1980. Indeed, the need for that arrangement to remain stable while the adjustments to more parochial arrangements are carried through can be clearly seen to be of advantage both to employers in central London and all young people in London and the South-East.
That looks as though it can be covered by the existing proposed provision in Section 10(1) (a). A joint operation between LEAs and the careers service can offer a number of advantages: stronger relationships with employers achieved through the concentration of resources for employer contact and liaison; rationalisation of other specialist expertise; constantly up-dated data on current vacancies across a whole area; provide for a given area on a coherent, co-ordinated basis in advance of a relevant partnership emerging or, if other alternative arrangements do not emerge, can offer the opportunity of reduced unit costs. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Baroness said that this is a probing amendment. I hope to be able to reassure her. The Secretary of State is already able to make arrangements with local education authorities acting jointly under the proposed legislation which makes the amendment unnecessary. Section 10(1) (a) enables the Secretary of State to perform the duty imposed by Section 8 by making arrangements with local education authorities. Such arrangements would be voluntary on both sides. The Secretary of State would not be required to enter into arrangements with any particular authority in relation to any area. Also, a local education authority would be free to enter into arrangements or decline to do so. Consequently—and I hope that this will reassure the noble Baroness—the Secretary of State would be able to make arrangements with two or more authorities acting jointly. Therefore, the arrangements to which the noble Baroness referred would not be put at risk by this legislation.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply which gives me some reassurance. I shall read it with care and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 250 and 251 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 252 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 252A:
Page 54, line 26, at end insert:
("provided that the Secretary of State has satisfied himself as to the local acceptability of the proposed arrangements and the suitability of persons party to the arrangements.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure both local acceptability and accountability of the new careers services. This is an important amendment.
As regards acceptability, in order that the new careers services are able to operate effectively, they must be acceptable to the local stakeholders, which include TECs, LEAs, employers, schools, colleges and parents, as well as to their various individual clients —those in need of careers information or guidance and placing.
Careers guidance does not exist in a vacuum. Effective careers guidance is a process that depends upon the complementary roles of those whom I have just mentioned. In order to have accountability, it is important that the new owners or contractors are demonstrably accountable to the major stakeholders as well as to the individual consumers. Therefore, the new owners should involve representatives of the business, education and local communities through whom consumers will be able to hold careers services to account.
I have no doubt of the overriding considerations for acceptability and accountability. Those have been well argued by the nation's largest professional association for careers guidance practitioners—the Institute of Careers Guidance. It is widely supported across the education and business sectors. The institute argues that the new careers services must be impartial and client-centred; unbiased and without pressure from opportunity planners and providers; take full account of factors affecting labour markets; be equally accessible to all clients; promote equality of opportunity and be delivered by skilled careers guidance staff who follow a nationally agreed code of practice. This amendment will ensure local acceptability and accountability. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Minister. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: This is another extremely modest amendment. The Government say they want to break up the local authority monopoly and pass that monopoly over to the Secretary of State. What this amendment suggests is that the Secretary of State, in carrying out his monopoly, should be under an obligation on the face of the Bill to do something about the,
"acceptability of the proposed arrangements".
I do not see why the Government should object to this. I remind them that the provision on the face of the Bill —looking at it from the point of view of those who are involved in the service already—looks rather delphic, rather mysterious and rather worrying. The Secretary of State may make arrangements not only with local education authorities, or in Scotland with education authorities, but with,
"persons of any other description".
Who is a person of any other description? Any person could be a person of any other description, because any person could fit any other description. We are talking merely about a person. What we are saying is that, before these persons of any other description or no description come in, we should have something on

859
the face of the Bill saying that the Secretary of State who inherits a monopoly has to satisfy people locally on the acceptability of such a person.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am not aware that I said the aim was to break up the local authority monopoly. The aim is to ensure that the high standards achieved by the best are available everywhere, and indeed are improved upon. The Secretary of State will have a duty to secure a continuous national service to national standards. She cannot leave the fulfilment of her duty entirely to the people in each locality. She will nevertheless have to be absolutely satisfied that the proposed providers of careers services have sufficient standing with, and support from, key stakeholders in the local community to give her confidence that the services which she has a duty to secure will be provided.
As I suggested in my earlier remarks, an important advantage of the new arrangements is that they will enable careers services to be provided as joint ventures between education and employment sectors and therefore increase mutual understanding and a significant degree of consensus on aims and intents. It is absolutely crucial that this is obtained and it will therefore be one of the aspects of the services around which criteria will have to be established for judging the quality of bids. I hope that that will enable the noble Baroness to reconsider her amendment.
Baroness Seear: As regards the term,
"persons of any other description",
who is ruled out under that heading? Who is not a person "of any other description"? As the Bill stands, that term could refer to absolutely anyone. Who is excluded?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I would suggest that those people who are excluded are those who are not able to measure up to the standards required by the Secretary of State.
Lord McCarthy: Is a person "of any other description" a stakeholder? If we do not know who,
"persons of any other description",
are, who are stakeholders? In the world of industrial sociology, stakeholders are employers and trade unions, The Government do not intend to refer to them. The term provides for all kinds of people. Who are stakeholders? That is a new term at this stage.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Stakeholders are, I suggest, those members of the local community who will enable the service to be administered and to be effectively operated within the community.
Baroness Seear: Are they not also the receivers? In the world of industrial sociology, they are very much the people who are on the receiving end as well. They are the consumers. I thought we were awfully keen on consumers these days. Are they not among the people of "any other description"?
Lord Hacking: I intervene as a lawyer and not as a sociologist. Stakeholders are the holders of money.
Lord McCarthy: Does the noble Baroness mean the holders of money? Are they the stakeholders?
Baroness Lockwood: I turn to another point. The Minister said that part of the criteria the Secretary of State would apply is that she would have to be satisfied about the local acceptability of the scheme, whoever the stakeholders were and whoever was involved. Will the criteria be published and made available? If they are not, how will the users and providers of the service know what criteria are being employed? Would not the amendment ensure at least that part of the criteria were clearly established in the Bill?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: To reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, of course the consumer is a crucial part of any arrangement. The arrangement of the careers service is import ant for the future of young people.
Other stakeholders, not strictly by the lawyer's definition, could be training providers, schools, colleges and other people who are involved in ensuring that the careers service offers the best to children. The Secretary of State has to set clear standards and criteria. Work is already in hand to establish these. Of course they have to be known to the parties who 'will be measured by them, otherwise it would be impossible for them to achieve the necessary performance.
Baroness David: According to my brief, stakeholders include TECs, LEAs, employers, schools, colleges and parents as well as the various individual clients, those in need of careers information, guidance and placing, for what that is worth.
Lord Hacking: That goes well beyond my legal dictionary.
Baroness David: We should set up mechanisms with local flexibility, allowing local people to decide what is best for them, within which we are sure that each local community is able to influence the strategic policies and priorities of their new local careers service. I do not believe, from what the Minister said, that we have that. Yet again I shall have to read what the Minister said and decide whether it is sufficiently satisfactory for me not to have to return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 253 to 256 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 54, line 46, at end insert, ("and the Secretary of State shall publish annually details of any such payments which he has made or proposes to make during the year together with information on how the payments have been calculated.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to allow accountability and debate on the funding arrangements for the careers service. At present the careers service is funded by LEAs with some additional direct grant from the Employment Department calculated to take account of local labour market difficulties. Its budget will be publicly debated with the budget of the authority and open to public scrutiny. It would be regrettable if the change to direct central funding of the service was to lead to less openness about the funding. The basis on which

861
funding is calculated should be made clear publicly and should be known to local careers services in order to demonstrate equity in the arrangements and to make clear how the funding relates to the task expected of the service.
There are particular worries at the point of transfer when the legislation is implemented and direct responsibility for funding passes from the LEAs to the Secretary of State. LEAs fear that the Secretary of State may remove from their expenditure settlement more than is actually spent on the careers service in order to ease the task of setting up the new arrangements. That is based on the experience of the transfer of FE colleges and grant-maintained schools.
In short, the Bill simply gives the Secretary of State the power to fund the service. It is vital that there should be clarity about the funding arrangements, including the transfer of funds from the LEAs to the Secretary of State, if there is to be an orderly transition to the new arrangements and a realistic prospect of local planning for the future of the service. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. There must be an orderly transfer. There is already a procedure for publishing information on expenditure plans for careers services.
Each year the Secretary of State for Employment presents to Parliament jointly with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury a report which sets out objectives and expenditure plans for the next three years. This already covers the department's work with respect to the careers service and it can continue to do so. Similar arrangements exist in Wales and Scotland. I hope that that satisfies the purpose of the first part of the noble Baroness's amendment.
As for the second part, which would require the publication of information on how payments to careers services are calculated, it will not be possible for me to be as helpful. During the early stages of implementing the legislation the calculations for funding services will rely heavily on historical data: that is inevitable. We shall therefore be consulting with, and requesting information from, current providers and others involved in order to establish the initial funding arrangements.
Further down the road of implementation the funding of services will result from a process of bidding and negotiation. Under those circumstances it would be proper to treat information on how the payments have been calculated as confidential. It will, however, be possible to make known the criteria by which funding will be proposed and bids judged.
On the national level, there is no change to the current and planned expenditure for the careers service. That is as far as it is possible to go on those matters. Perhaps the noble Baroness will reconsider the position.
Baroness David: I wish to consult some of the local authority associations to find out how satisfied they are with that response. It does not seem an entirely
862
open affair. The issue will not be totally known. The Minister stated that some part of it will be a matter for confidentiality.
Perhaps I may ask a probing question. How far will the funding continue to be available for careers service functions which go beyond the minimum statutory requirements of the new Section 8 of the 1973 Act? For instance, how will adult guidance be funded? That has been part of LEA responsibility until now.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I cannot directly answer that question. I shall find the answer and let the noble Baroness have the information.
Baroness David: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 257A:
Page 55, leave out lines 1 to 5.
The noble Lord said: The intention of the amendment is to remove the power to make charges for services provided under new Section 9. We need an explanation of what the Government have in mind both in relation to services to be charged for, and the level of such charges.
As I understand it, the legislation ensures that the statutory client group will continue to receive free careers guidance. But it will limit such services to those who are still in education or who have just left it. However, statutory provision could be interpreted in a narrow minimalist way which might enable the new providers to charge for any additional services. That could hurt people with special needs. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, mentioned when moving an earlier amendment, there are people with disabilities and learning difficulties. There are also young offenders and other groups needing special treatment. Furthermore, many authorities have developed services for the adult unemployed; and at a time when we have 3 million people unemployed, and rising, it is essential that such services are maintained.
Will the noble Baroness state the exact scale of charges which she is considering? We need the assurance that charging will not reduce the quality or quantity of services available.
The Chairman of Committees: I remind the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 258.
Midnight
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: So as to avoid misunderstanding, let me make it clear at the outset that the core service, as defined in Section 8 regarding the new duty on the Secretary of State, will remain free of charge.
What we seek to do in the new Section 10(5) is to enable careers service providers to make charges under the powers that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have under Section 9. That means that, where it is specified in the arrangements or directions, providers may charge for services other than those provided to the statutory client group.

863
At present the local authority providers have only a very limited scope for charging of this kind. Many careers services are currently making use of these very limited powers with some success. We want to provide them with greater freedom so that they can develop and extend their services through charging, if there is the demand.
It will, for example, give them greater freedom to develop an all-age guidance service, or perhaps advisory services for employers. It will also ensure that careers services can continue to be fully involved in government proposals for developing guidance services for adults through the gateways to learning and assessment and guidance credits initiatives.
If this amendment were to be adopted, we would be taking away this added flexibility and freedom for providers. It is vital that a comprehensive guidance service is available to all young people at key decision points in their lives—for example, as they first enter the labour market. The Government also recognise that certain other groups—for example, young people leaving school—should have free access to guidance and employment services. The new legislation re-emphasises the delivery of a free service to the core group.
Why should not adults be expected to pay for a service that has the potential to enhance both their job satisfaction and earning potential? The power to charge does not mean that the extensive range of guidance and employment services available to unemployed adults will now be subject to charges. It does not mean that guidance services of the kind currently provided by the local education authorities will come to an end. They are allowed for in the legislation.
This section or the new legislation will enable greater freedom in the area of charging. However, the power to charge does not mean that the extensive range of guidance and employment services available now, in particular to unemployed adults, will be subject to charges.
On the issue of charging, as regards people with disabilities or learning difficulties, those who are in the core client group covered by the current legislation will continue to be there. The core client group will include young people who have ceased to undergo education and who, because of their disability, are experiencing an extended transition to settled employment. The Secretary of State's duty is determined in that instance by individual circumstances.
Baroness Seear: I am sure that the noble Baroness means every word that she says and I am prepared to believe that so long as this Government are in power they will not start charging for services which she says will continue to be free. But as the Bill stands, there is nothing to stop people later introducing charges for the whole range of services. Could not something be written into the Bill to safeguard against that? I am sure that the noble Baroness does not mean that charges should be introduced, but they could be. We would be much more comfortable if there were something in the Bill that made it impossible.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Baroness answers that, could she do so the other way round? I tried to write down what she said: not the unemployed, not the disabled, not young people and not a vague group—the "core" group, whatever that is, and other unnamed persons.
Perhaps it would be easier if the noble Baroness could say who will be charged. Who are the people who might be charged? Presumably it will be those who are not part of the core group?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I hope that the legislation will give freedom to those providers of the services, free to the groups I have mentioned, to develop marketable services under which people will wish to pay for advice outside those areas where the Government provide the service free of charge.
Baroness Seear: Will the noble Baroness consider between now and the next stage whether there is any way in which we can be reassured that those charges cannot be made? I know about the intention. But the legislation gives no assurance. Can the Government think of a form of words which will satisfy us on that matter?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I say to the noble Baroness that I will take away her words and bear them in mind.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am afraid that I am not satisfied with what I have heard. It is too late to put the matter to a vote tonight.
Noble Lords: Why?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I think perhaps we had better get on, so I shall not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. I am not satisfied with whal the noble Baroness said. She reassured the Committee about the statutory client group. That includes the core people who are disabled. But what about people outside the core group? What about the disabled outside the statutory group? I shall have to look very carefully at what the Minister said. I have the impression that disabled people not covered within the statutory arrangements could very well be charged. I hope that that is wrong. I shall have to look at what she said.
The Minister did not answer the question of my noble friend Lord McCarthy. Would it not be easier if the Government told us what groups are likely to be charged, and what services will be charged for? The Government must have something in mind; otherwise they would not have included the provision in the Bill.
Baroness Seear: Not necessarily.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We know that the Government do all sorts of quaint things. But they must have the intention to charge certain groups. There is no question that they want to make money. I am sure that we are all suspicious of what the Government are doing. Before we reach Report stage, perhaps the noble Baroness can write to us all and give us an idea. She knows who is here. There are so few of

865
us that she could take our names and send us a letter to say exactly what sort of services she has in mind for charging. That would be helpful.
In withdrawing the amendment, I fear I must say that we shall probably bring it back at Report stage —unless the Minister can give some satisfactory answers in the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 55, line 5, at end insert:
("(5A) Charges to individuals shall not be made under subsection (5) above, for additional provision arising directly from disability or learning difficulties.").
The noble Lord said: The first part of the Minister's response to the last amendment and the first intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, show forcefully why it is necessary that this amendment should be incorporated in the Bill.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that disabled adults and those with learning difficulties do not have to pay for the additional support or the more specialised careers guidance that they require as a result of their disability. The careers officer may well need to spend more time with disabled people than with others, and training or other placements may take longer to organise because of particular needs. When an individual is still in education he will not be charged for extra time and effort put in by the careers service. But the need for extra assistance does not end when the individual leaves education. That point needs to be emphasised.
As people with disabilities and learning difficulties find it more difficult to gain employment, they may need assistance from careers services for some time after they have ceased to undergo relevant education. They may be more heavily represented among any groups which require the adult guidance that the careers services provide under their powers in the Bill.
If careers services are able to charge clients for provision, many people with disabilities will find as a result that their bills are much higher than those of other clients. For example, they might be charged for the extra hours or additional communication support that they need. People with disabilities and learning difficulties, while often needing more support from careers services, are the group least able to meet the costs of additional services arising as a direct consequence of their disability. It has been proved that disabled people are likely to have less disposable income than the general population.
I do not suggest that disabled people should be exempt from all charges; rather that charges to clients should not be prohibitively high and set at such a level that careers services will be inaccessible to those who most need them. I believe that the cost of additional guidance or support arising directly as a consequence of an individual's learning difficulty or disability should not be passed on to the individual client. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like extremely briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who
866
has so very comprehensively introduced the amendment. We are just talking about additional provision and disproportionate charging to a group of people who are perhaps most in need of extra help from the careers service and who are perhaps least able to meet the costs of that support.
I hope that I understood the Minister to say in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that she would look again into the whole issue of charging or explain it. I may have been a little slow and perhaps she will clarify the position when she comes to reply.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, that we have great recognition of this issue and great concern about it. We shall certainly clarify the situation and perhaps I shall be able to assist at the meeting which I have agreed to hold with my noble friend and other interested parties on this matter. There is no question of people with disabilities or learning difficulties who are in the core client group covered by current legislation being charged for services under the proposed legislation. In addition, new providers, as now, will be able to attract funds from sources other than the Secretary of State and charge him to provide free services for those adults where the need is greatest. The legislation proposes that, with the Secretary of State's agreement, services will be able to charge for guidance services provided to people outside the statutory core client group. There is no evidence that those with disabilities are charged more by current private providers of adult guidance. I can see no reason why those with disabilities and learning difficulties should be charged more.
The Secretary of State will always be in a position to monitor and control charging. If she were to find that those with disabilities and learning difficulties were charged inappropriately, she would have the power through the arrangements or directions that she will make with the providers to rectify such situations. The power to charge does not mean that the extensive range of guidance and employment services available to unemployed adults will now be subject to charges.
I am to have a meeting with my noble friend at which I am sure this will probably be one of the matters that he will wish to discuss. I hope at this stage that he may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for offering to include this matter in the discussions upon which we have already agreed. I gladly accept the offer. However, administrations change, and the intention of this administration may be one thing, but the intention of another may be totally different. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 258A and 258B not moved.]
12.15 a.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 258C:
Page 55, line 18, at end insert:
(", and

867
() to ensure that a written summary of careers guidance with agreed plans of action in relation to employment, education or training, is provided to all individuals receiving individual guidance from the provider of such services.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 258C, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 258CA in the name of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. The amendment seeks to ensure that all clients receiving individual careers guidance receive a written agreed summary for further discussion with parents, teachers and so forth, and as a stimulus to agreed further action or self-help.
It is an important entitlement for clients. The wisdom of it was first perceived by the then Conservative Government in 1972. We would all agree that it is easy to forget things. The written summary is not only an invaluable aide memoire to the individual following his or her careers guidance interview, it is also a key tool as an aid to their subsequent discussions with other important people in their lives, be they teachers, employers, partners or parents.
For young people undertaking education, it is obvious that parents have a special interest in their future development. Independent studies have shown the importance of parents in the guidance process. Their influence on their sons' and daughters' future career plans and ultimate decisions is known to be considerable, and parents need written summaries as well as young people. I hope therefore that the amendment can be accepted by the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the amendment, which seems to me to be extremely reasonable. The 1973 Act contained the provision, which is repealed by this legislation, and I should have thought that the Government would want to continue it.
What my noble friend Lady David said regarding the necessity for providing such a record is extremely relevant. It is a record which can be kept over a long period of time. It will assist the people receiving advice, and certainly it will assist parents. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I support the thinking behind the amendments, but do not agree that it is a matter that needs to be a statutory responsibility within the legislation.
The legislation is there to provide the overall framework within which the service will operate. Such a level of detail, as indicated by the amendment, is better covered in the guidance of a general character which will be issued setting out the nature of the local careers services, the standards they will be expected to achieve and also in the arrangements the Secretary of State will make with careers service providers.
The intention is to build upon and encourage best practice. The current practice of proving written summaries of guidance is valuable; but they are not necessarily the outcome of offering advice and guidance in every case and on every occasion.
Section 9(3) of the current legislation states that it shall be the duty of the authority to give a written summary of any vocational advice given, but there has
868
not been a commencement order for that part of the legislation. Instead, and much more to be desired, the practice has developed through those providing the careers services realising the benefits for themselves.
We do not want to dictate to providers of careers services every detail of how they should do their job. It is important that those should be developed while recognising their own skills. We believe that the provision of written summaries of guidance and careers action plans is an example of good practice, and the appropriate place for advice about such matters is the Secretary of State's guidance of a general character. In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will find it possible to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am reminded that the CBI in its Routes for Success published early this month spelt out the critical importance of what it called independent careers guidance leading to an up-to-date action plan based on individual guidance. For that I should have thought that one would need something in writing. I am partially reassured by the Minister but wish to read what has been said before I make up my mind. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 258CA not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 258D:
Page 55, line 18, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the inspection of services provided in accordance with this section and shall appoint persons with knowledge and experience in the fields of education, industry, commerce, careers guidance and the local community to a National Council which shall—

(a) advise him on the adequacy and the quality of the services provided in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) of this section and on matters relevant to the arrangements or directions under these sub-sections or to guidance given under subsection (6) of this section, and

(b) appoint such committees as it considers necessary and may appoint to committees persons who are not members of the Council, and

(c) publish an annual report summarising the findings of inspections and the work of the National Council.").

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this very important amendment is to ensure that independent inspections of the performance of contractors take place and are published, together with an annual report on the national council, and to propose a national mechanism dedicated to securing quality careers guidance. This is the key to quality assurance. It provides a national framework for quality throughout Great Britain. It provides authoritative and independent advice to the Secretary of State on the strategic development and delivery of quality careers guidance and the careers service, and safeguards the interests of the consumer, that is, the clients and customers of careers guidance. In focusing upon standards, receiving all inspection reports, offering strategic leadership and national advice to Ministers and contractors, the council will be a valuable asset to government. National councils elsewhere in Europe are manifestly valuable assets. So,

869
too, are national independent bodies in the United Kingdom, such as the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, the Post Office Users' National Council and OFSTED.
The national council would not include those directly involved in contracting but would comprise senior industrialists, educationists and other community interests, including those with expertise and knowledge of helping clients with learning difficulties and disabilities. The CBI and TUC would have a key input, and the independent professional voice of the Institute of Careers Guidance should also be included.
The call for a national council is supported by an impressive range of organisations and associations with an obvious interest in the process of enabling individuals to maximise their talents, thereby securing the economic success of the country. Sir Bryan Nicholson of the CBI, Sir Christopher Ball of the Royal Society of Arts and the director of the National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling wrote in The Times in late February advocating the establishment of the council. The CBI followed that up only a few weeks ago with a major recommendation in its Routes for Success that a
"National Council involving Government, Employers, Educationalists and Careers Professionals [should be set up] to establish national standards for careers education and guidance".
Associations representing the combined voices of secondary head teachers, college principals, education officers, local authorities, careers teachers, disability groups and the Institute of Careers Guidance all support the need and value of the national council. I know of no major interest group or national organisation with a concern for quality careers education and guidance that does not support it. I think that the case is made and the argument won. I hope that we can have that reassurance from the Minister.
Lord McCarthy: The case has been made and we support it. If there is one simple thing that the Government can do to reassure the very large number of people who work hard in this difficult field it is to accept the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I have listened to the noble Baroness and I recognise the calls from outside this House to set up by statute a national council to oversee the work of the careers services. I do not want to dismiss this issue lightly as it is a very important matter.
The Government fully endorse and support the intentions of those proposing a national council; we also want to see a better and more effective careers service. But our disagreement with their proposal reflects a lack of clarity on what the role of such a council might be and how it would contribute to that aim. Proponents themselves do not seem clear. Is it to be a consumer watchdog? Is its main purpose to be quality assurance and inspection or is it to be concerned with strategic planning? Perhaps it aims to perform all these functions.
There are already well-established consultative arrangements; at official level there is the Careers
870
Service Consultative Group, which has representatives from a range of organisations. It has proved to be a valuable forum for considering careers service matters. It will continue to operate, no doubt in a modified form to reflect the new arrangements.
The Secretary of State meets regularly with representatives of the Institute of Careers Guidance, the National Association of Careers and Guidance Teachers and the careers service Heads of Service Group. Careers service matters have been and can continue to be considered in a variety of forums, including the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Disabled People, and by the recently appointed body responsible for overseeing achievement of national education and training targets.
We believe that the existing consultative arrangements modified to reflect the changes we expect to see in the stakeholders and providers of careers services will be sufficient. If they are not, the Secretary of State will be able to establish whatever arrangements are necessary and appropriate without being constrained by the terms of reference of a statutory national council. I note that in the letter to The Times, to which the noble Baroness referred, Sir Christopher Ball, Sir Bryan Nicholson and Mr. Tony Watts were not calling for a statutory national council.
I am pleased to give the assurance that the consultation arrangements for the provision of careers services are something that the Secretary of State will keep under review as the legislation is implemented and she will modify them as necessary. It has been noted, for example, that careers guidance professionals and stakeholders in guidance are now talking together across a broader front than in the past. If such discussions lead to the formation of a body of likeminded experts we would listen to what that group had to say. It is our intention to continue with the annual report on the careers service published by the Department of Employment. I hope that, with those remarks, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: To put it bluntly, the reason why many of us support the amendment is that we are not happy to leave it to the Secretary of State in consultation with other bodies. I do not want to be offensive about this, but to be frank, we do not trust them to do it. We want another body of high standing which can check them. They are busy checking what the other people do. We want a body that can check what the Secretary of State and advisers do. That is why we want the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I understand the noble Baroness's concern but I do, of course, have great confidence in the Secretary of State.
Baroness Seear: I was referring not to a particular Secretary of State but to Secretaries of State in general.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may re-emphasise what I said. If the discussions between careers guidance professionals and those other

871
stakeholders in guidance lead to the formation of a body of likeminded experts, we would obviously listen to them.
Baroness David: I am extremely disappointed with that answer. My noble friend Lady Seear has put her finger on the point. We are not satisfied. We are not sure what these arrangements will be like. There is a great deal that we do not know about them so far. This proposal has had the support of a distinguished group of people, including the CBI and the TUC. I shall certainly come back to this point. If the noble Baroness wants something more specific, I am quite sure that after consultation we shall come back at Report stage with something that satisfies the noble Baroness rather better than this amendment. But come back we certainly shall. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 259 to 266 not moved.]
12.30 a.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 266A
Page 56, line 10, at end insert:
("(13) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament an annual report on how the duties and powers conferred on him under this section have been carried out in the preceding year".").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to ensure that, since the Secretary of State is taking over responsibility for careers services, she should be fully accountable to Parliament and provide it with a report as to how she has been administering the service and to what effect. The noble Baroness told us earlier how the Secretary of State was responsible to Parliament and how she would want to ensure that the service was carried out in a way which Parliament would expect of her.
Under the circumstances I believe that the noble Baroness will support this amendment. The kind of report we have in mind would include details of new services introduced, for example, and of services previously provided but discontinued by the Secretary of State, as well as the effectiveness of the total service.
At present there is some democratic accountability through local authorities, but once this Bill is enacted and implemented, there will be no accountability to anyone as far as we can see from the Bill. The Secretary of State will just wave her wand and say "I want this and that" and that will be the end of the matter. There will be no local council or committee. There will be no education authority and nobody at all —not even Parliament—according to the Bill. Therefore, the least we expect is a report from the Secretary of State to Parliament once a year. Surely that is not too much to expect. I look forward to the Government's acceptance of this amendment.
If the service is going to be so good and so much better under the Secretary of State than it is now, surely she will want to say to Parliament "Look at what I have done". She will want to put on record the improvements that she has made. I hope therefore under these circumstances that, without any hesitation at all, she will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The Secretary of State for Employment presents to Parliament, jointly with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, an annual report which sets out objectives and expenditure plans for the next three years. This already covers the department's work with respect to the careers service and it will continue to do so. In addition to describing the work of the department, the report gives an account of the department's performance in meeting its objectives. I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is expecting improvements.
Similar arrangements exist in Scotland and Wales. There are ample opportunities, through the usual channels, open to Members of both Houses to inquire about the work of the careers services and the Secretary of State's duties to secure the services. In addition, it has been the practice of successive Secretaries of State, as I have said, regularly to produce reports on the work of the careers service. I expect that to continue. Such reports can he found in the Libraries of both Houses. The continuation of that practice will, I hope, satisfy the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment. I cannot see that anything of value will be added by imposing a duty on the Secretary of State, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall have to beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this time of night; but I am not really satisfied with that reply. After all, as I have said, this service has been run democratically at local level, responding to local needs. People have been able to see what is happening and to make representation to their local councillors and local authorities; but apparently they will no longer be able to do so.
What I want to see is a special report to Parliament, setting out exactly how the service is being run; how it has improved, or perhaps how it has not been improved; how it has failed; what its failings are and what can be done to put them right; and how the service can be extended to assist all the groups that need to use the service. I should also like Parliament to have the opportunity to debate the report. That is what democracy is all about. Although I fear that the Minister had not given a satisfactory reply, at this time of the night, I shall have to withdraw my amendment. However, I feel sure that we shall want to return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Careers services: ancillary services.]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 57, leave out lines 12 to 16.
The noble Baroness said: Clause 38 recognises that where a contract to provide the careers service is placed elsewhere than with the local authority, there may well still be services which the careers service would want the authority to provide for it. However, the restriction of such arrangements to two years in subsection (5), which my amendment seeks to delete, makes this only a short-term expedient. It mirrors similar provision in the Education Bill which would

873
limit to two years the power of an LEA to provide goods or services to a grant-maintained school. The restriction is based on a dogmatic view, which appears to be the Government's ideology, that the private sector should and will develop to provide all the necessary services. We are of course familiar with that type of thinking from the Government.
The two-year restriction, which our amendment seeks to remove, seems even more inappropriate in the case of careers services. Careers offices will, in general, share premises with other local authority services. It will often be convenient to the public that services that they wish to visit or contact are to be found at a single and obvious site. Careers services may therefore not wish to have to find new offices simply because of new funding and management arrangements. As a relatively small service in any area, the careers service will need access to a range of support services and professional advice. It may well find it convenient to draw on the local authority for this, particularly in those cases where it may continue to share premises with the authority. It may also want to use the authority's printing and communication systems for contact with schools and pupils. A requirement to cease using the authority for anything after a set period can only add to the administrative burdens on a small service and runs the risk of actually increasing the overhead costs.
I am advised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that that restriction would be particularly harmful in the case of a number of partnership-type arrangements since the partnership would effectively be undermined. For example, if a partnership were funded via a TEC so that the LEA was not a direct party to the contract with the Secretary of State, or if the careers service was set up as an arm's length company (with LEA and TEC representation but with its own direct contract with the Secretary of State), subsection (5) would disbar the LEA from supplying goods and services in support of the partnership.
Looking at subsection (5), one cannot help thinking that it is designed to ensure that unless the Secretary of State chooses to contract with an LEA, the LEA will be written out of any real role within two years. Is that the Government's real intention? If so, it should be clearly stated. One would hope that that is not so. Partnership approaches to managing the careers service clearly have some advantages since they create opportunities for the service to draw upon the facilities and expertise that exist in TECs and LEAs. Omitting the subsection would make it clear that forms of partnership where the LEA is not directly involved in the contract with the Secretary of State will not be disadvantaged and that undue constraints will not be put upon the freedom of local careers services to choose the most appropriate source of goods and services. It would also avoid unnecessary administrative complications when LEA services are not easily replaced because of local circumstances.
It surely cannot be the Government's intention to oblige careers services to leave local authority accommodation for possibly more expensive premises, or, if they remain as tenants of the local
874
authority, to oblige them to look outside for expensive services which may be available more cheaply and conveniently within the same building. The provisions of subsection (5), which stipulate a period of only two years during which the authority may provide goods or services, strike me as being particularly absurd unless it is part of a concealed agenda for writing out the role of LEAs altogether and for total and complete privatisation of a service which is most unsuitable for such a course. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment. Will the noble Baroness give a straight answer? If this is not intended as a sign that the Government want to get rid of local authorities, what is it there for? Is it, or is it not, the intention that there will not be LEAs, if not at the end of two years, then very shortly afterwards? Is there any other conceivable reason why this provision should be in the Bill?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Local authorities are restricted in whom they can supply with goods and services. They are limited to providing those services to public bodies and certain defined organisations. Under this legislation for the careers service a wide variety of providers could emerge. These could include local education authorities.
I return to something I said at the beginning of the discussion on Clause 37. If LEAs' services are of the best, then they will continue. It is not the intention of the Bill to write local authorities out of the picture. Providers could also include local authority controlled companies, training and enterprise councils, local enterprise companies, joint ventures between LEAs and TECs (and in Scotland, education authorities and LECs) and other types of private providers.
As the law stands, many future providers of careers services would not be able to be provided with services from a local authority, even for a temporary period. We consider, as do many others, that many new providers will find those services valuable in getting started. By giving local education authorities the power to provide services to future providers of careers services for a transitional period of two years we will give time for careers services and private providers of such goods and services to become established. This is in line, as the noble Baroness noted, with the proposals for grant-maintained schools.
We want providers of careers services to be able to use local authorities' administrative, personnel and computer services for a transitional period to help them get established. Clearly such provision could be of considerable assistance. But the amendment would give LEAs a licence to trade indefinitely with careers service providers. It is not government policy that that should be available because local authorities exist primarily to perform their statutory functions. That is what charge payers and, from April, council tax payers are funding. They are not funding authorities to trade.
The prospect of an authority not being successful in its "trading" activity would entail too great a risk for local taxpayers' money. Moreover, if there were no time limit to the arrangements contained within

875
Clause 38 there would be very little real incentive for private providers of goods and services to enter the market and become established. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: Can the Minister explain how that fits in with some of her earlier comments in respect of previous amendments? She talked about the need to establish the best all round, about the need for variety and about it not being appropriate to be restrictive and to tie the hands of the Secretary of State. Surely all those comments apply to this particular amendment and to this particular service. We are not talking about a new service which is being given to local authorities; we are talking about a service which local authorities have had for a considerable time. The Government are making it possible for other competitors to come into the market.
All right, the Minister has won her case this evening simply because of the lateness of the hour and the number of Members present. However, she has not been logical throughout. If we are to have the best, and if there exist joint ventures where the two parties are not applying to be the provider but where they are working in co-operation, the rejection of the amendment will mean that those services which could be of the best will have to be phased out. That is really illogical.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps I may attempt to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that as regards the service given by the careers service the aim is to provide the best. However, the legislation moves to allow the development of the careers service during the next few years and allows it to have a transitional relationship with the local authority. The key issue of our difference is that it is not, however, the role of the local authorities to trade but to perform their statutory functions. They are not to perform trading functions. I do not believe that that impedes the best services available.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The noble Baroness said that she was seeking to reassure us. I am not at all reassured; quite the contrary. She said that the LEAs are not trading organisations but, on the other hand, they are already providing this service, as pointed out by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. The Government are introducing trading into the whole concept by introducing privatised companies but they are not even giving a reasonable period where services are already being provided by the LEAs. To say in an arbitrary way that there will be a cut off after two years seems to be entirely unsatisfactory.
In common with my noble friends, I realise that I cannot press the amendment to a vote. However, we must look at the matter again on Report because it is so unsatisfactory. To tell us all that we ought to be reassured just because the LEAs are not trading companies and all the rest of it is ludicrous and not at all satisfactory. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Employment and training functions of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 267A:
Page 57, line 49, at end insert:
("(3B) Where Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise make arrangements under this section in pursuance of an authorisation or direction made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3A) (a) above, they shall, at such time as the Secretary of State may require, report to him what provision, if any, they have included in those arrangements in relation to disabled persons.").
The noble Viscount said: The inclusion of this clause in the Bill is to be welcomed. It rectifies an omission in the legislation which provided for the establishment of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which are the bodies responsible for the full range of government-funded economic development and training functions in Scotland. At present their powers are broad enough to allow them to operate training but not work experience schemes. This clause provides for them, and through them the local enterprise companies, to cover the same range of training functions which the Secretary of State delegates to training and enterprise councils in England and Wales. As such, it is a technicality. But it is nonetheless important that we remove this anomaly and take steps to ensure that Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are able in future to respond to any new initiative or programme.
This amendment, in itself, will have limited effect; but that is not to say that it is unimportant. The needs of people with disabilities are already well catered for in government programmes; this is a stipulation embodied in the existing legislation governing the powers of the two enterprise bodies. However, should Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise make arrangements in accordance with a ministerial requirement under the new subsection (3A) inserted by Clause 39, the amendment provides a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to require the enterprise bodies to report on the provision they make for people with disabilities. This ensures that the needs of people with disabilities will be taken into account in all eventualities.
A commitment was made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State to look again at the needs of people with disabilities under this clause. Amendment 267A will serve to ensure that Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise continue to keep this issue uppermost in mind in executing any training or employment-related function. I am satisfied that with this addition, Clause 39 completely fulfils all its intentions, and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord McCarthy: We welcome the amendment. Of course the Minister welcomes it. I was going to spend time asking why we do not have in England such excellent bodies as Scottish Enterprise and Highlands

877
and Islands Enterprise, which have such beautiful names. However, it is too late in the evening for that. We welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 268 to 271 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Miscellaneous and consequential amendments]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: It may well be wondered why we have indicated our intention to oppose the Question that Clause 41 stand part of the Bill. It is rather complicated and I should like to take a few moments to explain.
It has recently come to my knowledge that the staff in the Palace of Westminster are not covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This is occasioning some worry particularly since, as I understand it, increasing numbers of staff here work under contracts held by outside firms, some of which are engaged upon structural work in the Palace. All employees, including clerical and administrative workers, have a right to work in a safe environment, but manual workers engaged on construction work are often rather more at risk.
It is understood that there are some reasons why it is thought it not appropriate that staff working in the Palace of Westminster should be covered by the health and safety at work legislation. It may be a matter of Crown immunity; I am not sure. However, I was sufficiently anxious about the matter to attempt to table an amendment to Schedule 6, the object of which was to extend the employment rights of House of Commons and House of Lords staff by the application to them of the health and safety legislation. The amendment went on to say that nothing in any rule of law or the practice of either or both Houses of Parliament should be taken to disapply the Act in the Palace of Westminster or any buildings or premises owned, leased or occupied by the corporate office of either House of Parliament.
I was advised that my amendment could not be printed on the first Marshalled List because the subject matter was not regarded as relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. I accepted that. I know that we have very experienced Clerks here and I accepted that I could not proceed with that amendment. However, I was anxious to find a way to ventilate the anxiety which I have about the need to extend to the staff who work here for us the cover of health and safety legislation applicable to employees generally. I have done so by giving notice that I intend to oppose the Question that Clause 41, which refers to the schedule that I was seeking to amend, should stand part of the Bill. I believe that notice has already been given to the department of the noble Viscount that I would be doing this. That was the reason why I, along with my two noble friends, had given notice that it was our intention to oppose the Question, That the clause should stand part of the Bill.
I am sure the noble Viscount will tell me that the
878
rights of the staff here will be properly looked after because the Palace of Westminster is a benevolent employer. I do not doubt that that is so, but with respect it is not quite the same as having specific rights laid down in statute to which reference can be made if things go wrong. I know that this is a matter of concern to the staff here and for that reason, despite the lateness of the hour, I felt that I had to make these comments because on Report it is not possible to oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Clause 41 also deals with the incorporation of Schedule 7 in the Bill. This may therefore be a convenient moment for me to say why, as I read it, Schedule 7 is unsatisfactory. I have not given the noble Viscount notice of this and I make my remarks with the intention that he may take them away and tell me if I have made an error in this matter. The conditions under which a ballot is required in regard to industrial action in Schedule 7 now differ as between the case where a trade union member can call for it and the case where other persons may sue in a civil action without the ballot because it is unprotected. The relevant references are paragraph 46 of Schedule 7 on pages 94 to 95 and paragraph 73 on page 99. The conditions there differ. If the noble Viscount tells me that I am in error in thinking that there is a difference, we shall not raise the matter on Report, but if my analysis is correct I shall raise the matter on Report.
Baroness Seear: I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has proposed. It is not frivolous of me to say, thinking back to what was going on some nine hours ago, that not only are the conditions of the staff working here very much below what could be desired, but the conditions in this Chamber are very much below what could be desired. After the protest we made earlier, I understand that the engineers were telephoned and the result was that the conditions became very much better. If the solution is as easy as that, the conditions never should be as bad as they frequently are. I assure the Minister that I am not the only person who finds the physical conditions in this Chamber almost intolerable on a great many occasions. I beg the Government to reconsider this matter.
Viscount Ullswater: I am sure that the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will not fall on deaf ears. Before dealing with the Question of whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that I am pleased he has given me notice of the point he wishes to raise with regard to Schedule 7. I have noted the paragraphs he mentioned. I shall consider carefully his comments and make certain that what we intend is correctly drawn in the statute.
As regards the clause stand part debate, the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill concerns miscellaneous aspects of the relationship between employers and employees, the functioning of their respective associations and unions, and their interaction with each other. It is not about the law

879
regulating physical conditions obtaining at the workplace. The extension of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to House of Commons and House of Lords staff would therefore be outside the scope of this Bill. However, it may help Members of the Committee if I update them on recent discussions between the Health and Safety Executive and the Palace authorities regarding the extension of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to the Palace of Westminster. The Palace authorities have agreed in principle to this extension, and this will be dealt with in the next appropriate legislation. In the interim there is no suggestion that standards of health and safety at the Palace of Westminster are inferior to those of other employers. Indeed, HSE already inspects the Palace of Westminster at the invitation of the Palace authorities.
I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness and that she will not press the matter to a vote.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Viscount sits down, can he tells us whether the Government plan to do that little thing in their planned legislation in this Session, this Parliament or beyond?
Viscount Ullswater: I am afraid that I cannot be quite as helpful to the noble Lord as he would wish. He must be content with the words that I used—namely, that it will be done when a suitable occasion occurs.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
1 a.m.
Schedule 7 [Consequential amendments]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 271A:
Page 89, line 23, after ("60") insert ("or 60A(1)").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 186A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 272 and 273 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 274 and 275:
Page 99, line 19, after ("action)") insert ("; and in those sections "not protected" means excluded from the protection afforded by this section or, where the expression is used with reference to a particular person, excluded from that protection as respects that person." ").
Page 99, line 20, leave out paragraph 72.
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 274 and 275 form part of a grouping debated with Amendment No. 65. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 276 not moved.]
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
[Amendment No. 277 not moved.]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals and revocations]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 277A:
Page 107, line 3, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 11(3) and (7).").
The noble Viscount said: I hope that: this purely technical amendment need not detain us. Its purpose: is to delete subsections (3) and (7) of Section 11 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Those provisions no longer have any practical effect as they relate to Section 4(3) of that Act, a subsection which was deleted by an amendment which the Government brought forward at Report stage in another place in response to a point raised by the Opposition during Committee stage debate. The amendment now before us is a purely consequential one which should also have been made at that time but was inadvertently missed. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 110, line 5, column 3, leave out (" "not protected" ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Northern Ireland]:
Lord Blease Lord Blease moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 60, leave out line 8.
The noble Lord said: I hope that I shall not detain the Committee long because it has been a long day and I know that many Members of the Committee are weary.
Clause 31, which was dealt with earlier, relates to the abolition of Part II of the Wages Act 1986, which applies to wages councils in Great Britain. One could argue that that Clause 46(2) (f) has been wrongly drafted as Section 31 of the Wages Act 1986 does not apply to Northern Ireland. Since 1920 there has been a separate body of trade union and industrial law for Northern Ireland as distinct from the body of law for Great Britain.
In moving the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, the Northern Ireland spokesman, who was also the Paymaster General, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, stated on 28th February 1992 at col. 512 of Hansard:
"As your Lordships will appreciate, the legal and administrative framework for industrial relations in Northern Ireland is separate from that in Great Britain but the legislation has generally followed that in the remainder of the United Kingdom".
The main point I seek to make is that the legislation is separate and the administration too is distinctly separate. At this late hour I do not wish to prolong the debate, but there is a long history of acute problems which arise because of the two distinct bodies of laws and the two different administrative systems.
I have a list of examples. One example of the separate legislative framework is the enactment of the Trade Disputes Act 1927. It was enacted in Great Britain and followed through in Northern Ireland. That had nothing to do with strikes, but I give that as an example of how the two systems can vary considerably.
Allowing for the direct route regime, the legislative provisions which are set out at the commencement of Clause 46, I question the constitutional propriety of the inclusion of "section 31" at page 60, line 8, if it does what I assume it intends to do but does not so

881
state: that is, to abolish the wages councils in Northern Ireland. The wages councils in Northern Ireland are enshrined in the Wages (NI) Order 1988. Paragraph 14 of the order states:
"The Department may at any time by order abolish, or vary the scope of operation of, any wages council. Before making an order under this Article the Department shall have regard to the current levels of remuneration among any workers in relation to whom the wages council concerned would cease to operate, or (as the case may be) begin to operate, as a result of the order, and such other matters as appear to it to be appropriate, and shall consult such persons or organisations as appear to it to be appropriate".
That clearly states that there has to be in the legislation a separate and distinct framework of effective consultations with each individual wages council operative.
Nowhere in the Bill do I see reference to the Wages (NI) Order 1988. It is not even quoted in the schedules. In that connection, there has been an exchange of letters between Mr. Carlin, the secretary to the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right honourable Sir Patrick Mayhew, as well as Mr. Robert Atkins, the Northern Ireland Minister for the Economy.
That correspondence is not of a private or confidential nature. It deals with issues relevant to the clause. However, I do not believe that it is feasible, nor would it be helpful, if I were to debate the matters contained in this correspondence at this late hour, after one o'clock in the morning.
I simply wish to quote from one part of a letter from Mr. Atkins which indicates the relevance of my keeping the Committee at such a late hour. He states:
While this means there is no consultation period (as with an affirmative order) it does allow MPs"—
and I assume Members of your Lordships' House also—
"to debate the clauses and to seek amendments on the floor of the House."
That is a statement from the Minister responsible for economic and industrial affairs in Northern Ireland. It indicates that there have to be effective consultations.
There are 10 listed provisions in the Bill relevant to Northern Ireland and subject to the negative resolution order; there are 19 listed provisions subject to the positive resolution order. I suggest that paragraph (f) should be included in the positive resolution list. Nothing would be lost and I believe much would be gained in the Northern Ireland context if that was undertaken.
I have tried to be as succinct as I can in handling the matter which is serious for the constitution and as the Bill applies to industrial relations in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister reply to the points I have made?
Viscount Ullswater: I am afraid that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, is not one which I am able to accept. The negative resolution provisions contained in Clause 46 of the Bill will enable legislation to be introduced for Northern Ireland on the same timescale as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The proposed amendment would remove the abolition of wages councils from the clause, thereby
882
requiring the affirmative resolution procedure to be used for an order abolishing wages councils in Northern Ireland and so delaying their abolition.
The Government have repeatedly made known their opposition to wages councils which distort the labour market and add to the burdens on business. It would be anomalous to abolish them in Great Britain yet permit them to remain in Northern Ireland for any length of time.
There are no good reasons why the councils should remain in Northern Ireland. Their abolition is as important in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. The question of abolition has been thoroughly debated and voted on a couple of times by Members of the Committee today.
A consultation document seeking views on the abolition of the Northern Ireland wages councils was circulated in Northern Ireland in late 1988 at the same time as consultations were taking place in Great Britain. I believe that the consultation requirements have been acceded to; therefore I ask the noble Lord, Lord Blease, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blease: Before the noble Viscount sits down, did I hear him say that the affirmative resolution would be introduced?
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that I said that it was suitable for the negative resolution and that if it were removed from the clause it would have to be done on an affirmative resolution.
Lord McCarthy: I am sorry, I understood the noble Viscount to say that one of the reasons why he could not accede to the request of my noble friend was because to move to an affirmative resolution would cause delay. Is that right? How much delay would it cause?
Viscount Ullswater: As Members of the Committee know, the tabling of an affirmative resolution cannot be done as quickly as with a negative resolution. It demands time in Parliament.
Lord Blease: I am sorry. This is my last point. What is to be gained in any way—from the industrial relations point of view or as regards the position in Northern Ireland—from pushing ahead with this negative order for immediate action to coincide with the situation in Great Britain? My view and that of many people in Northern Ireland is that there is nothing to be gained. On the other hand, much would be gained by waiting until the affirmative resolution was available and a consultation period could take place.
Viscount Ullswater: I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The consultation period is now past. The publication of the Bill provided another period of reflection. The matter has been fully debated in another place and in your Lordships' House. It has been voted on. Possibly the right way to tackle it is to do it simultaneously both in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland.
Lord Blease: I am not happy with the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but on the understanding that I shall raise the matter again at Report stage.
[Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Dawat-e-Hadiyah (England) Bill
Read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Pwllheli Harbour (Amendment) Bill
Read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past one o'clock.