Sitting of 5 May 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    DUNHAM BRIDGE (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Carstairs-Edinburgh Rail Services
    Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of reinstating rail services from Carstairs to Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations from local interested parties about rail services from Carstairs to Edinburgh. The detailed operation of the railways, including the precise level of services to be offered on individual lines, is, however, a matter for British Rail.
    Mr. Hood: The Minister is aware that Carstairs rail junction used to be known as the gateway to Scotland. Is he further aware that since InterCity ceased to stop trains at Carstairs, my 50,000 Clydesdale constituents have been deprived of rail services to the capital city of Scotland? Will he reflect on what he has told the House and arrange a meeting—a meeting that I would want to attend—to encourage InterCity to reinstate rail services between Carstairs and Edinburgh? That would not only open up employment and cultural pursuits for my 50,000 constituents but open up the Clyde valley for tourism.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The detailed operation of the railways, including the precise level of services on individual lines is, at present, a matter for British Rail. British Rail is encouraged to tailor its service to meet the markets concerned. The Secretary of State for Transport, because of his overall responsibilities for railways, may, however, give British Rail such directions as he thinks fit, with regard to recommendations made by transport users' consultative committees. I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's representations to him.
    Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg t o give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    "Scotland in the Union"
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to assess public opinion in Scotland on his White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good", Cm. 2225.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): The response to the White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" has been generally very favourable.
    Mr. Canavan: If the Secretary of State is still afraid to take up my suggestion of a referendum along the lines set out in my Bill, will he take up an alternative suggestion to test the White Paper proposal for an enhanced role for the Scottish Grand Committee? Will the Government table a substantive motion for a full-day debate in Scotland in that Committee and give the Opposition parties the opportunity to table, debate and vote on amendments to it so that the Government can ascertain, and act upon, the majority view of the elected representatives of the people of Scotland, most of whom want a real Scottish parliament rather than the Mickey Mouse White Paper, which proposes no genuine transfer of voting power from this place?
    Mr. Lang: A referendum was not part of the proposals that we included in the White Paper, and we do not contemplate proceeding in that direction; nor was the suggestion that we should establish a separate Scottish parliament. Central to the White Paper was our commitment to maintaining the integrity of this Parliament of the United Kingdom. As to the views of other parties, I shall be consulting in due course and there will be opportunities, if any amendments to Standing Orders are required, for such matters to be debated.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As the Government flounder for a new bank holiday, may I suggest that it should be on I May? That would give the Opposition the impression that it was union day, when it was actually the day on which the treaty of Union 1707 came into force and it is one of the most important circumstances in our history.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It is worth noting that the May day holiday has existed in Scotland for more than 100 years. It existed long before the Labour party and it will probably long outlast the Labour party.
    Mr. Salmond: Is not one of the key arguments in "Partnership for Good" for a new relationship within the United Kingdom, with Scotland's subordinate position being changed? Has the Secretary of State deployed that new relationship with the oil tax changes announced in the Budget? Did he know about them before they were announced? Does he now understand that they will cost thousands of jobs in Scotland? Has he done anything since the Budget to try to alter the changes—or has he just been, in Lord Boothby's term, the scullery maid of the Cabinet attempting to clear up the mess that his political betters have left behind?
    Mr. Lang: Only an hon. Member with the inferiority complex of the hon. Gentleman would regard Scotland's role as in any way subordinate. Scotland is a full partner in the United Kingdom and our White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" reasserts that. Within this unitary Parliament and within this United

    171
    Kingdom, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for taxation matters. I am sure that he will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no better commendation of the White Paper than the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) who, at a recent Scottish Grand Committee meeting, pleaded for the Minister responsible for health to be present? For the benefit of those on the Opposition Front Bench, will my right hon. Friend explain that the implementation of "Scotland in the Union" would permit that Minister to participate in future Scottish Grand Committees? Does he agree that all hon. Members should join the hon. Member for Maryhill in welcoming our right hon. and learned Friend from another place?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend has identified an important point in the White Paper. Its proposals include providing an opportunity for greater scrutiny of Scottish Office Ministers, including the opportunity to ask questions of Ministers from another place. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be interested in pursuing that opportunity.
    Mr. Galloway: Is not it true that the White Paper "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" has been received in our country with all the joy that a paperback edition of "Satanic Verses" might have been received had it arrived in down-town Tehran? Is not it also true that the long labour to produce that White Paper has been followed by what looks to be an equally long period of "due course"—as the Secretary of State puts it—before the Government take stock of the Opposition's responses?
    Frankly, is not it an excuse for the Government doing nothing—nothing at all—about the democratic deficit in our country? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman do the simple thing and allow the Scottish people to give their opinion in a democratic referendum that would be worthy of a Government?
    Mr. Lang: Perhaps I do not get about as much as the hon. Gentleman, but I do not know what sells in down-town Tehran. However, I can tell him that the publication of the White Paper received an extremely favourable response throughout Scotland. I feel sure that when we bring more detailed proposals before the House, they will find favour with the Opposition.
    Sir David Steel: As the proposals in the White Paper, however welcome, are really quite minor, why has it taken so long to implement them? When will we have that first opportunity, to which the right hon. Gentleman keeps referring, to question him in the Scottish Grand Committee?
    Mr. Lang: The implementation of a number of the proposals in the White Paper is already under way. I said at the time of publication that I envisaged that any amendments to the Standing Orders of the House would start in the next parliamentary Session. Between now and then, there will be an opportunity to consider what amendments might be necessary, what views people of other parties put forward, and how best to proceed.
    Mr. McLeish: Is not it a disgrace that the Secretary of State should even hint at his concern for public opinion? Why is it that in Scotland, with so many people opposed
    172
    to water privatisation, the right hon. Gentleman is willing to spend vast sums of taxpayers' money behind closed doors to further that issue?
    Why is it that when public opinion in Scotland wants young people to be trained, the right hon. Gentleman reneges on his commitment to 7,500 potential YT trainees? This is not about a partnership for good, this is an organised hypocrisy—a conspiracy against the citizen. The Opposition believe that trust and faith in good government in Scotland will be restored only when we have a Parliament run by Labour at Westminster and a parliament in Edinburgh run by Scots for Scots.
    Mr. Lang: Not only are the hon. Gentleman's figures on water and youth training places wrong, but he knows that they are wrong. He has had the facts pointed out to him and he knows how misleading he has been on those matters. However, the water case at any rate will be aired in future questions when the answer will be spelt out to him.

    Water Privatisation
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received about water privatisation in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 4,834 individual responses to the consultation on water and sewerage services, and 1,237 other letters about the future of the services since 17 November last year.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that chaos and misery have been created south of the border with 8,000 disconnections in 1989–90, 21,000 in 1990–92 and another 8,000 in 1991–92 in the Thames water authority? Those are shocking figures. Seven water authorities have doubled their disconnections, while salaries for managers and directors have increased. Will the Government never learn that the people of Scotland do not want privatisation or franchising? They want to keep their water in public hands.
    Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman, like so many of his hon. Friends, jumps to conclusions. We have put forward eight suggestions and we are quite prepared to consider other methods of sorting out water in Scotland after the unitary authorities have been introduced. At present, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no disconnection in Scotland. We shall have to wait and see what legislation is required. But, in the meantime, I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that local authorities in Scotland are finding plenty of ways of collecting water charges without the need for disconnection.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that among the representations that he has received, there have been representations from me, which have clearly suggested that the Government of Scotland must address the fact that we no longer have a means of measuring our entitlement from the public purse, because there is no allocation to England and our share of zero is exactly that—zero? Consequently, we must examine ways in which private money can reach the Scottish water industry in order, first, to take it out of the public sector borrowing

    173
    requirement and, secondly, so that we do not use money that would otherwise be spent on hospitals and other important matters in our constituencies.
    Sir Hector Monro: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a number of important points and his representations on the consultation document are being carefully analysed. What he has said is correct. A great deal of money has to be spent in future and the ways and means of providing it is part of the reason that we are dealing with the responses to the consultation document.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Secretary of State is leaving the Under-Secretary of State to answer all the difficult questions, will the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) tell us why the cost of privatisation has gone up so rapidly since the £50,000 estimate was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) last year? Why, having spent £100,000 on consultants, are the Government planning to spend £400,000, and where is the money going? If the latest estimate of £2·5 billion to meet EC conditions is accepted by the Government, why do not they meet the local authorities, which are perfectly capable of responding to that figure? Above all, since my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) asked the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question, will the Under-Secretary ask the Secretary of State to do what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did, and drop the whole crazy idea of water privatisation?
    Sir Hector Monro: I certainly have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman's involvement in the matter, because for some months I have had a postcard on my desk showing the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in a rather droochit boat, trying to catch something better than a cold. His hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has been misleading Scotland about the cost of water in the past 24 hours. His radio discussion this morning was disgraceful, as he said that water costs had been reduced to £2·5 billion and he is totally wrong. He misread his question, which dealt solely with the European Community directive, and my answer, and he forgot the £2·5 billion required for infrastructure in Scotland, so he was wrong in both cases and he shot himself badly in both feet. The money for Quayle Munro, including the intial tranche and going through the consultation responses, was budgeted for and the rest of the money is certainly there to pay the salaries of the civil servants who are dealing with water, whichever route we decide to take.

    Education
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on educational standards in Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish education enjoys a high reputation, which is well deserved. The Government's programme of educational reform in Scotland will improve standards further, through changes in curriculum and assessment, teacher development and appraisal, the devolution of management to schools and more and better information to parents. All those initiatives are under way and yielding results.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that an important part of the improvements in education that the Government are determined to
    174
    introduce is more involvement for parents in the choice of their children's schools, and that we are looking forward to the day when parents are as welcome in schools as they are in Jenners in Princes street, Edinburgh or in Marks and Spencer? Will he outline the ways in which his Department is going about giving parents greater opportunity to contribute and to choose their children's schools in Scotland, so that we can learn about it down here in the south?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend and strongly agree. I do not believe that a little information is a dangerous thing—parents need more glasnost, not less. We have consulted on better information for parents and have received about 300 responses. We are going to take action in that connection and, by early summer, we shall have drawn up a revised circular and regulations. The two sets of regulations will be put before Parliament and will come into effect early in August. Four of the relevant subjects that we intend to cover are pupil attendance and truancy rates; school exam results; school leaver destinations; and school costs, so we are definitely taking action.
    Mr. McFall: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) could learn more from her area. I have a letter in front of me from a demoralised head teacher in that area, who is complaining about the Government's interference, is weary of being blamed for everything, including the moral decline of society. He states unequivocally that the people responsible are those who have been in power for the past 14 years. Does not the Minister think that the hon. Lady could learn from Scottish education, not least over testing, where changes to the national curriculum in England and Wales followed a successful campaign by parents and teachers in Scotland? Does he agree that comprehensive education has resulted in increased standards and qualifications in Scotland and that such a system, which does not reject 80 per cent. of our young people at a tender age, is good for the aspirations and talents of young people and for Scottish society? Does not the hon. Lady have a lot to learn from Scottish society and education?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All European educational systems have a certain amount to learn from each other. Testing in Scotland is designed to operate as part of our distinctive five to 14 development programme, but the principles underlying our policies are the same north and south of the border—to ensure that pupils are regularly tested against a national standard and at defined stages of the curriculum and that the results are reported to parents. Standards have risen and we have made a lot of effort, through assessment and achievement programmes, research, regular inspection and reports by inspectors—who do an extremely good job. We have information on the level of success of pupils in standard grade, higher and other awards. We have national testing, which will give the teacher a view of a pupil's progress compared with national standards—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] It certainly is not rubbish and it is being delivered.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the figures for reported cases of truancy in Scottish secondary schools in (a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No accurate truancy figures are available for those years, but we plan to lay before Parliament this summer regulations that will require education authorities to collect comprehensive information on attendance and truancy rates, and to include those figures in school handbooks.
    Mr. Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a recent speech made in my constituency, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that truancy and juvenile crime were inextricably linked? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will examine more imaginative ways of combating truancy in schools, including raising the level of parental fines and introducing the suspension or reduction of family allowance payments to the parents of wilful and persistent truants?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree that truancy can not only blight education, but because the incidence of youth crime. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 includes a provision for parents who are brought before a court in this connection——
    Mrs Gorman rose——
    Hon. Members: There goes a truant.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have a good sense of humour, but I think that we ought to proceed with Question Time.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The penalty for parents who allow their children to play truant regularly is substantial: a fine of up to £1,000, one month in prison or both. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), however, that I do not consider reducing family allowance payments made to the parents of persistent truants to be the best option at present. Many other measures can be taken, including involving parents at a very early stage; I support that.
    Mr. Watson: I am glad to see that a truant from Billericay has managed to return to the fold after a brief disappearance—[HON. MEMBERS: "She is missing again."] Ah, she is missing again.
    Will the Minister call for a report from the appropriate authorities, following yesterday's truancy from a Scottish airport by the international crook and contributor to Tory party funds, Asil Nadir? Will he tell us whether Mr. Nadir's passport was withdrawn—if not, why not?—and whether Group 4 Security was responsible for guarding the airport?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the wrong question. The question relates to truancy in Scotland, and I have just given permission for one hon. Member to leave. Let us move on.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the £55,000 paid to Touche Ross for a report by Anna Capaldi on the financing of local government reform he has asked to be returned to the Scottish Office.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend has not asked for the return of any of the fee paid to Touche
    176
    Ross for its report on the financing of local government reform; nor does he intend to. The consultants delivered a helpful report on an acceptable time scale.
    Mr. Dalyell: Ought the taxpayer to pay up in full for a report that is so flawed that Bruce Mackie, the Conservative leader of Tayside council, describes it as having been blown out of the water by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has secured an Adjournment debate about the matter on Friday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's question. In that debate, the issues that he has raised can be debated more fully
    A wide variety of comments have been made about the Touche Ross report; however, we consider its conclusions broadly acceptable, and believe that they provide a basis for the reorganisation of Scottish local government into a single-tier system.
    Mr. Kynoch: When examining the figures in the Touche Ross report and considering local government reform in Scotland, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not simply a question of the number of local authorities concerned? It is also a question of the way in which those authorities will conduct their business. Is it not important for us to have well-run authorities, delivering local services efficiently?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. What will matter is exactly what local authorities do in practice under the new structure. My hon. Friend will also be interested to know that in his own region of the country, Aberdeen City district council, which is run by the Labour party, said of the Touche Ross report that
    "Many of the cost assumptions which can be checked have been shown not to be unreasonable, while further sensitivity analysis has been carried out."
    That gives the lie to some of the fantastic statements that have emanated from Opposition Members on the issue.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: If statements are regarded as fantastic, why does the Minister not only publish the full report but all the papers and evidence so that it is available in the public domain and people can make up their own minds? Above all, instead of this flimsy response to local government problems and a reference to an Adjournment debate, important though that is but which few people will hear about, why can there not be a proper commission and a proper review of local government, such as that which is taking place in England?
    Mr. Stewart: First, I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman's question. We have published the full Touche Ross report. I am sorry that he has not read it.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot take points of order at this stage.
    Mr. Clarke: The Minister has misunderstood the question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister has got the question.
    Mr. Stewart: I must repeat that the Touche Ross report has been published in full. Some of the fantastic figures that the hon. Gentleman has put forward in the press

    177
    about the costs of local government reorganisation are as realistic as the chances of democracy in the Monklands Labour party.
    Mr. Wallace: I noticed that in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the Minister damned the report with faint praise. He said that its conclusions were broadly acceptable, but he did not say that they were accurate. So that we have an informed debate, not one in which fantastic figures fly around, can the Minister tell us what the cost of savings will be for each of the four different structures that were announced in the Government's consultative document, on the basis of any revised figures that he has received from Touche Ross?
    Mr. Stewart: We have not received any revised figures from Touche Ross. We made it absolutely clear in the consultation paper that we would look at the figures in the light of further evidence. That is to be found in paragraphs 5.14 and 5.15 of the consultation paper. Of course we are looking at the Touche Ross figures in the light of the variety of comments upon them, even though many of them have been mutually contradictory. When we publish the White Paper we shall publish the estimates of cost associated with the preferred structure.
    Mr. John Marshall: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Touche Ross report referred to the benefits of compulsory competitive tendering, which has enabled local authorities to give the same or a better service, at much less cost to the taxpayer? Did the Touche Ross report also refer to the cost of nepotism, as practised in Monklands?
    Mr. Stewart: The Touche Ross report did not refer to the second matter raised by my hon. Friend, although it has been widely referred to in other ways. I agree with my hon. Friend about the immense benefits that local authorities can gain by pursuing compulsory competitive tendering. That is proved by the gains that many local authorities, even under the present structure, have achieved by pursuing compulsory competitive tendering in Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, it was extremely far-seeing of you to give us an Adjournment debate on Friday.

    Secretary of State (Letters)
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many constituents of Renfrew, West and Inverclyde have written to him at the Scottish Office in the last eight months.
    Mr. Lang: Correspondence with the Scottish Office is not normally categorised by constituency, except when received from Members of Parliament. I have received 19 letters from the hon. Gentleman in the past eight months.
    Mr. Graham: I warn the Secretary of State that he will be receiving more letters from my constituents and from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 20,000 of our womenfolk and constituents are living in anguish and anger over the results—or, rather, the lack of results—of smear tests? Those women are calling on the Government to ensure
    178
    that the inquiry involves no cover-up; that there is no lack of funds available to ensure that the tests are carried out speedily; and that this blunder will never ever be repeated in the health service. Will the Government ensure that there is no cover-up; that the results are circulated quickly to ensure that our constituents can sleep in peace; that the women affected are treated expeditiously, with no lack of funds to the national health service?
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that I—in my statement to the House last Thursday—and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office have made clear the importance that we attach to the need to have this matter concluded as quickly and effectively as possible. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that nine other health boards, in collaboration with the Argyll and Clyde health board, are allowing their laboratory facilities to be used. A large batch of results should be sent out by the middle of May and most of the women involved will have heard the results of their first re-examination by the beginning of June.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Although the Opposition were satisfied with the Minister's immediate response last Wednesday, questions have certainly arisen since. Why were any slides sent to a small private laboratory rather than to other NHS laboratories within Scotland, as was clearly the Minister's intention last Wednesday? How many slides were sent to that small private laboratory and why was there delay in taking up the Minister's own directive of last Wednesday that the matter should be dealt with within the health service?
    Given the investigation of Inverclyde Royal hospital, questions arise about the entire screening programme for the whole of Scotland. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance this afternoon that he personally will see to it that confidence in the service is restored by ensuring that money is spent on any technology necessary to reduce the possibility of error to the minimum and by reviewing the fact that there was no legal requirement for laboratory staff to be trained in screening slides? As it was apparently possible for one laboratory to have no system for double checking, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that such a system is created throughout the health service and that women have an answer to their question—what is the point of preventive medicine if it does not prevent?
    Mr. Lang: Some 2,000 slides have been processed and the results are now known. A further 1,000 slides from the original 2,000 that were sent to Mediscreen will be reported on by Friday. The remaining 16,000 slides are being sent to other NHS laboratories and, as I told the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), we hope that a large batch of results will be announced by mid-May. Great care is being taken over this matter and all possible speed will be made in ensuring that accurate answers are released to the women involved.

    Government of Scotland
    Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for all-party talks on the future government and administration of Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: I intend to invite representatives of Opposition parties in Scotland to meet me in due course to

    179
    discuss the proposed changes in parliamentary procedure announced in the White Paper "Scotland in the Union: a Partnership for Good".
    Mr. Taylor: As there is increasing concern about the lack of progress in resolving matters concerning the administration and government of Scotland, can the Secretary of State tell us even one reason why the Scottish Conservative party is opposed to round table talks with the other three main political parties in Scotland about Scotland's future?
    Mr. Lang: The matter is being pursued not by the Scottish Conservative party but by Her Majesty's Government. We will pursue the matter in the way that I have described and will in due course lay before the House proposals on which I hope we shall have broad cross-party agreement.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend meets the other parties from Scotland, will he bear in mind that the comments during the passage of the Maastricht legislation make it clear that if the treaty comes into force and we are bound by it, with subsidiarity and the creation of, for example, the Committee of the Regions, it will lead to structures under which the United Kingdom will be broken up and it will be a vehicle for separatists? Will he also bear that in mind when considering the changes affecting Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: Although of close interest to him, the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred are not part of the subject matter of the White Paper. I hope that he will agree that the best way of maintaining the United Kingdom is to maintain a united Government and a united Conservative party.
    Mr. McAllion: If the Secretary of State says no to all-party talks on the establishment of a Scottish parliament, if he continues to say no to 61 of Scotland's 72 elected representatives who are demanding a Scottish parliament, and if he also says no to a referendum on the establishment of a Scottish parliament, how will he assess public opinion in Scotland on that critical issue? Will he talk to the trees or just to the dense undergrowth that sits beside him and behind him on the Government Benches? They do not represent Scottish opinion which remains overwhelmingly in favour of a return to Scottish democracy by the establishment of a directly elected Scottish parliament sitting in Edinburgh and not down here in England.
    Mr. Lang: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should think that he represents Scottish opinion on the matter. He does not even represent his own party on it; he represents the separatist wing of the Labour party. There are also in the Labour party devolutionists, federalists and, I am glad to say, a large number of unionists. The unity of the United Kingdom was the issue at the general election, and the verdict of the electorate was clear.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Since 82 per cent. of the Scots who live in Britain live in England, and since 90 per cent. of the Scots who live in the world do not live in Britain, is not all the nonsense about Scottish government irrelevant? If we are talking about Scottish assemblies, will my right hon. Friend remember that there used to be a kingdom of
    180
    Fife, and may we be separated from the Scottish assembly? If I do not like that, may Fordell castle be separated from Fife?
    Mr. Lang: As usual, my hon. and learned Friend has the capacity to ask the unanswerable. Let me assure him that the people of the United Kingdom and of Scotland gave their verdict at the general election last year. That was that they wanted to keep Britain united.

    ScotRail (Strathclyde)
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Strathclyde regional council about the level of Government support for regional council financial aid to ScotRail services and maintenance programmes within Strathclyde region.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has received no representations about the level of Government support for regional council financial aid to ScotRail services and maintenance programmes within Strathclyde region.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that Government cuts in financial support have affected the relationship between Strathclyde regional council and ScotRail, resulting in pressure on ScotRail to cut costs by reducing safety standards through the installation of single-lead junctions, particularly at Newton, the location of a crash which was caused by a single-lead junction? Will the Minister give a commitment that Government finance will be forthcoming to implement the removal of all single-lead junctions, not only in Strathclyde but throughout Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The matter has been discussed in the Standing Committee on the Railways Bill, and I understand that action is being taken. I will ensure that the hon. Member's representations are passed on. With regard to the financial settlement to the region, it is 5 per cent. more than in 1992–93, well ahead of current and projected rates of inflation. The overall resources available to Strathclyde regional council next year are expected to be at least at the level of the resources provisionally notified for last year. Of course, Strathclyde council has discretion to vire from one programme to another if it so wishes, but the settlement was generous. I will make sure that the specific point on safety is passed on.

    Local Government Services
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he intends to meet COSLA to discuss local government services.
    Mr. Stewart: I addressed the annual conference of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 26 March. My right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the convention later this year as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.
    Mr. Maxton: If the Government insist on continuing with the unwanted and unnecessary reform of local government, does the Minister agree that all the existing services provided by local government should continue to be provided by a direct democratically elected local government? If so, does he believe that he should stop his

    181
    open and active campaigning for the retention of Eastwood district council as a single absurd unitary authority which made a nonsense of the consultation process on local government reform? Does he accept that the logic of his argument means that Eastwood should be part of a Greater Glasgow council that is democratically elected? Does he also agree that it would be obscenely unfair if his wealthy constituents in Giffnock and Whitecraigs should sponge off my poorer constituents in Castlemilk when they use the facilities provided by Glasgow?
    Mr. Stewart: May I first wish the hon. Gentleman many happy returns on his birthday? I am sure that hon. Members will agree that he is wearing well. He will not be surprised to learn that I wholly disagree with him and deprecate his remarks, as do, for example, the Labour leadership in Strathkelvin district council. I suggest that he consults them on his plans for a Greater Glasgow. Objectively, one might look at what has happened, for example, to Roukenglen Park. Glasgow district council wanted to walk away from it, but it is now a major excellent asset for the whole community under Eastwood district council. That is a classic example of the success of Conservative local government policies in action.
    Mr. Oppenheim: When my hon. Friend meets COSLA, will he discuss the employment practices of Scottish councils? While English Members find many Scottish customs both colourful and quaint, one that we find extremely strange is the practice of issuing green forms to general job applicants and pink forms to applicants who apply through councillors or who are relatives of councillors at Monklands council. Does that novel application of the share and share alike principle account for the fact that no fewer than 22 close relatives of councillors are employed at Monklands council?
    Mr. Stewart: I think the figure may be higher than that. My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted matters of major concern to people in local government in Scotland. What is absolutely astonishing is that the shadow Secretary of State and the leader of the Labour party have remained silent on this matter for months, even though it directly affects their constituents at least one way or the other. They are capable of commenting on anything except this matter which affects their constituents.

    Water and Sewerage Services
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the outcome of the consultation on the future of water and sewerage services; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a statement on the future of water services in Scotland.
    Sir Hector Monro: My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on the future of water and sewerage services in Scotland in due course.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware of the devastation caused by the disconnection of domestic water supplies to tens of thousands of individuals and families in England and Wales? If so, why did he say in a letter to me that the Government will consider such powers in Scotland? Will
    182
    he give an absolute guarantee that there will he no disconnection of household water supplies and that this obscenity will never be visited on Scotland?
    Sir Hector Monro: I am really rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask a question on water when he is quoted in The Scotsman as saying:
    "sabotage could mean everything from turning a tap off to blowing a pipe right up…when we threaten, we will deliver."
    I have never heard such arrogance from a Member of Parliament about civil disobedience on the issue of water supply. I made clear in an earlier answer the Government's exact position on water disconnection.
    Mr. Worthington: Can the Minister name any people or organisations in Scotland who have written to him supporting water privatisation?
    Sir Hector Monro: Yes, indeed, I could. If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library he can wade through the list and see the number of people who have supported it. I accept that many more have been against privatisation, but all the Opposition Members jump to conclusions. They think that the horse called privatisation is past the post. The fact is that there are still eight or nine other runners in the starting stall. It will be up to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide later this summer which style we shall use to bring good quality water services to Scotland.
    Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than scaremongering with this emotive claptrap, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) should address the main issue of how to fund £5 billion of capital expenditure on water services and sewage treatment during the next 10 to 15 years? Does he agree that the most important decision to be taken is how to fund that expenditure at the least possible cost to the taxpayer?
    Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not know why the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) cannot understand the difference between £2·5 billion and £5 billion. We have to accept that, whatever happens, water charges are steadily increasing and have increased dramatically in the past few years. It is the duty of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to provide the best service in the future and to provide the best quality water and sewerage in Scotland. That is what we will do and we shall announce how later this summer.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that, whatever option Her Majesty's Government take up for the future of Scotland's water and sewerage, it will not be the option suggested by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—bomber Welsh—who advocated blowing up water pipes throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is disgraceful.
    Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot take a point of order at this stage. I do not wish to take up time. However, we should watch the language that we use in the Chamber. Tolerant language at all times is the hallmark of good parliamentary debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will remember that.
    Sir Hector Monro: I note what my hon. Friend has said. Anyone who looks at Library cuttings of what the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and the Scottish National party have said will know that what my hon. Friend says is true.
    Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: On two occasions here today, the Minister has mentioned that privatisation is not necessarily the solution that the Government are looking for. May I put it on record that on two Saturdays in one part of my constituency alone—Dennistoun—6,000 people put their name to a petition saying that they did not want privatisation? That included three French visitors who visited Duke street. Even they said that they did not want it. So there is no one in Dennistoun who wants privatisation.
    Sir Hector Monro: I would much rather drink the water in Dennistoun than the water anywhere in France. But I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Boundary Reviews
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on boundary reviews for both Westminster and European elections in relation to Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Under section 2(2) of the Boundary Commissions Act 1992, the Boundary Commission for Scotland has a statutory duty to complete its fourth general review of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland by 31 December 1994. The commission will undertake a review of European parliamentary constituency boundaries in Scotland immediately thereafter.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the strengths of the Union is the equitable way in which it should treat all its citizens? On the basis that very large numbers of Scots have now migrated to their colony of England and are much involved in the government of that nation, why should those Scots be disfranchised because their vote is worth less in England than it is in Scotland? Will the Scottish Office please give instructions to the boundary commission that the next time the boundaries are reviewed it should work on the average constituency size for the whole of the United Kingdom?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The general answer to my hon. Friend is that the Scottish electoral quota takes account of Scotland's status as a small nation of large, sparsely populated and inaccessible areas. I. have good news for him in one respect. Since 1918, the number of Scots constituencies has increased by one, which is less than 2 per cent., whereas since 1948 the number of English seats has increased by 18–3·4 per cent.—and in Wales by two—5·3 per cent. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the changes in population since 1918, when the present arrangements were set up, are broadly reflected in changes in representation in the House. In other words, if England's population is swelling, England may have a case for more Members of Parliament, but there is no need to alter the number of Scots.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: More seriously, will the Minister ensure, first, that the Boundary Commission for Scotland has sufficient funds to carry out the important task on which it is presently engaged and, secondly, that a specific household survey is carried out by electoral registration officers throughout Scotland to ensure that the registers are up to date?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I will make every effort to ensure that both the requests of the hon. Member are acted upon.

    Committee of the Regions
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the details of Scottish representation on the Committee of the Regions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: The Government are still considering the detailed arrangements for Scottish representation on the Committee of the Regions.
    Mr. Hogg: What is more important to the Secretary of State, his shabby deal with the Scottish National party or the representations that he has received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? Is he aware that yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) pressed the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to give the terms of the deal between the Government and the Scottish National party? This information was not forthcoming, either from the Minister or from the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) who on that occasion was making a feeble attempt to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party. Will the Secretary of State this afternoon tell us the terms of the agreement with the SNP and end once and for all speculation on this matter?
    Mr. Lang: As regards the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I would certainly expect to be interested in its views about representation on the Committee of the Regions. As regards the deal with the Scottish National party, contents of deals of that kind are confidential and I do not regard it as my job to breach a confidence. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Scottish National party failed to honour the deal that it offered the Government and therefore the Government regard themselves as under no obligation to it.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The answer we have just had to my question is so important for Scottish Members that we must have clarification of it from the Government and from the SNP.—[interruption]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot take a point of order at this stage. The hon. Gentleman is in any case not raising a point of order.

    Water Charges
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will examine ways of reducing the level of water charges faced by island authorities.
    Mr. Stewart: The setting of water charges in the islands is a matter for the islands councils. It would therefore be for the councils to examine ways of reducing the charges.

    185
    There is no statutory basis on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can intervene in the setting of charges.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister accept that the island authorities face a particular problem in that they must finance very expensive schemes on the basis of a relatively small population and that this leads to a huge disparity in the costs faced by island consumers compared with those on the mainland? Will he therefore undertake to look at this problem and try to find ways to reduce the disparity and to bring the water charges in the islands more into line with those on the mainland?
    Mr. Stewart: The Western Isles has been allocated £3 million for water and sewerage for 1993–94. That allocation has more than doubled in four years. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Western Isles council qualifies for the top rate of grant of 75 per cent. for rural
    186
    water supplies. In the past three years, around £600,000 has been paid to the Western Isles in respect of assistance for eligible schemes, and the council will continue to qualify under particular schemes.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Given that it was necessary to wait for the advent of privatisation to find the £85 million necessary to invest in a badly needed new sewerage treatment plant in my English constituency, will my hon. Friend join me in my enthusiasm that Scotland should benefit as soon as possible from the very many advantages to be gained from privatisation of the water industry?
    Mr. Stewart: As my hon. Friend says, there are considerable advantages south of the border from water privatisation. My right hon. Friend will, of course, be considering all the representations he has received on this issue.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. An attempt was made by a Minister and a Conservative Back Bencher to attribute to me ideas which I have never propounded. I have made my views clear to the House and to yourself, Madam Speaker, and they are on record in Hansard. I cannot use the word "liar", but how else can I describe somebody who continues to promote an untruth?
May I suggest to the Minister, through you, Madam Speaker, that he tries to attribute those ideas to me directly outside of the House? I cannot make my views more clear. They are on record in Hansard,s and I think that all hon. Members should read that record and note what I said.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Member knows, that is not a point of order for me. It is a question of dispute, which has now been dealt with.
Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any request from a Minister to make a statement regarding the circumstances of Mr. Asil Nadir's departure from the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom? This is a matter of great importance for the ability of this country to prosecute serious City fraud, and I believe that a statement should be made by the relevant Government Minister. I see that the Foreign Secretary is in the Chamber and I wonder whether he would be able to say something on the Government's behalf.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the man in question as if he has already been found guilty. That he must not do. As to the hon. Gentleman's question, I have not been approached by any Minister wishing to make a statement on the issue.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If, as a result of the case of Mr. Asil Nadir, there should be any legislation before the House, will you give a ruling on whether any Conservative Member would be allowed to vote, in view of the very large number of donations which Mr. Nadir has given to the Conservative party, and which provides them with a direct pecuniary interest in his case?
Madam Speaker: Whenever there is any legislation before the House and individual Members have a financial interest, the hon. Gentleman knows that they must declare that interest.
Dr. Keith Hampson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) that I was going to raise with you the fact that last week a constituent of mine received from him a letter begging for funds on behalf of the Danish "no" campaign, which he argued was going bust. My constituent was offered the additional incentive that, if she donated £50, she would be sent, free, a copy of one of his books on Europe, worth £14. My constituent wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston only last November in favour of the Maastricht treaty, not against, and received this letter——
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue the case but come to the point of order for me.
Dr. Hampson: My point of order is that this letter was part of a large-scale operation asking for funds on behalf of the Danes and it was sent on House of Commons notepaper in a pre-paid House of Commons envelope. My hon. Friend is one of those who is among the first to decry wasteful use of taxpayers' money on European ventures and my constituent would like your assistance, Madam Speaker, in getting back some of our money.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. I note that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) is rising to put a point of order. I shall hear him before responding.
Sir Richard Body: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for having been given notice that the matter would he raised. but unfortunately that notice arrived only a short time ago, and I have yet to see the Leeds letter in question. But I have received a huge amount of correspondence from the public about my views on Maastricht and about how I have voted.
I have sought to reply to all of them, but, because there have been so many, I have had to respond by means of a standard letter—[interruption.] I have in my pocket a copy of that standard letter. Almost all the letters—in fact, I think all of them without exception—sought my advice about what people could do about the Maastricht Bill——
Madam Speaker: Order. I now understand the point of order. I must tell the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) that I cannot guarantee that his constituents will get their money refunded. Indeed, contents of letters are not a matter for me. But the use of House of Commons stationery for such an appeal is a matter for the Administration Committee, and I have already referred it to the Serjeant at Arms. I shall hear no further points of order on that matter. I have now dealt with it.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter relating to the rights of the House consequent on three ministerial answers that I received. While the content of the answers is not a matter for you, their effects on the rights of the House is, which is why I make this submission to you.
I put down three questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services relating to the cost to the Exchequer of certain payments and expenditure of the Benefits Agency. One related to the Benefits Agency funding examinations by private well person clinics for all staff aged over 35. Another was about the cost to the Exchequer of the Benefits Agency requiring staff during the past 18 months to work
"at time and a half and double time, plus travelling expenses, for the purpose of making up the backlog of disability living allowance cases."
The third was about the cost to the Exchequer of the activity of the Benefits Agency in providing its staff with corporate clothing, whatever that might be.
I received a response to the first question from the junior Minister at the Department which. while not a full

189
reply, provided me with the information that I requested, which was the cost to the Exchequer, which was £2·1 million.
In relation to the other two questions, which were in precisely the same form, the Minister of State in one case and the junior Minister in the other refused to give me that information and said instead that it was a matter for the notorious and ineffable Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who would be writing to me.
Two matters arise, Madam Speaker, one more important than the other. The first is why, in relation to three questions put in identical form, the information is provided in response to one but refused in response to the other two.
The second is that this House votes supply. The Exchequer, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers, is responsible to the House, and only Ministers have the duty and responsibility of explaining to the House how supply is spent through the Exchequer. Yet in this case they have decided to ask an over-paid errand boy, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, to reply on a matter which is the responsibility of the House and on which it is the duty of a Minister to reply to the House.
Therefore, I ask you, Madam Speaker, to advise me on how we can prevent the Government from delegating ministerial responsibility to the House to a person who is not responsible to the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I must make it clear to him—I hope once and for all, as I have dealt with such matters before on his behalf—that I have no responsibility for ministerial answers or for refusals to answer. The right hon. Gentleman raised the general issue in an Adjournment debate, and if he wishes to take the matter further or make further submissions he may care to contact the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, which has taken an interest in the status of agencies. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that it is not a matter for me.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understand it, all citizens are or should be equal before the law and no one should he in a privileged position because he has donated to the party in office—even if he has donated £440,000.
In view of the considerable public disquiet over what has happened, what steps can hon. Members take to obtain a statement from the Government on the disappearance of Mr. Asil Nadir, who was facing serious charges? Apparently, his passport had been taken away and he was due to report daily to a police station—he has simply disappeared. A lot of money is owing to his creditors—some of it was donated to the Tory party without being put on the company accounts.
In view of the public disquiet, what can be done to obtain a statement from the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary on that individual and how he has fled the country?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, knows that I do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House. He knows the ways of the House and does not have to seek information from the Chair on how to proceed in order to obtain the information that he wants.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry that I was not able to give notice of my point of order, but it was prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and is a general point of order.
It relates to your previous references to the misuse of parliamentary notepaper and official stamped envelopes. You may remember when, in December, I raised an issue involving my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I am sorry to raise the matter again, but surely the crucial issue is not that the stationery was used to reply to letters, but that unsolicited letters were sent to people whose names and addresses—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I have seen the letter and satisfied myself as to what it is all about.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think that somebody should try to give you some assistance on this, Madam Speaker——
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I am willing to hear it, but I need little assistance from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Skinner: During the past 10 minutes, blood has been flying across from Tory Benches as Tory Members have been fighting like Kilkenny cats. I want to know whether you will give permission to the Services Committee or whoever to make a splash apron to place across the front of the Opposition Benches to keep the blood away.
Madam Speaker: No, but I shall give authority for the hon. Gentleman to have a bullet-proof vest if he wishes.
Mr. Eric Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to Scottish Question Time, when four out of five Tory Back Benchers each asked two questions? I have been patiently waiting as I am 34th on the list and have a question to ask about a health issue. Could you be more fair in your asking of questions to all those involved?
Hon. Members: Oh.
Madam Speaker: I very much resent the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I seek an apology from him right now.
Mr. Clarke: I did not mean, Madam Speaker, that you were being unfair—I apologise for that. I am just voicing—not very well—the anger and frustration from which we suffer because of people stealing time from us.
Madam Speaker: I think that what the hon. Gentleman suffers from is a great bout of frustration, but he knows as well as the House knows that I deal very fairly with all questions, including Scottish questions. If he has any further complaints, I seriously suggest that he put down a substantive motion. I doubt that he will do that; if he looks at the record, I think that he will shy away from doing so.
Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, arising out of Scottish questions this afternoon. For some time, from early March onwards, Opposition Members have been endeavouring to secure information about the terms of the agreement reached between Her Majesty's Government and the

191
parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party. The Government have steadfastly refused to provide that information; this afternoon we were told that it was confidential. I understand that point, although I do not go along with it, because I believe in open government.
The Secretary of State then said that the Scottish National party had failed to honour the terms of the agreement reached, and that, in the circumstances, no such agreement now existed. I hope that I understand the position correctly. If I do, I feel that the matter ought to be pursued, because the SNP has written to all its councillors in Scotland, and there has been a great deal of press briefing. It is clear that, yet again, the Scottish people have been misled, and I hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me. It is more a matter of the hon. Gentleman seeking to extend Scottish Question Time.
Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the fifth Member of the five referred to by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), and despite having bounced up and down like a peerie during Scottish Question Time, am I to suppose that there is something wrong with me, since I have not been called a second time?
Madam Speaker: The House appears to be in very good spirits this afternoon.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. As Ministers are clearly most reluctant to make a statement about Mr. Nadir, would it be in order to table questions to the Home Secretary asking what bail conditions applied, whether his passport was held by the police, and most particularly whether Group 4 was involved in this fiasco?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is again asking for procedural advice. He knows how to proceed.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Leaving aside the neurosis—indeed, the paranoia—of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsysth (Mr. Hogg) who, as a former Whip, well knows that many discussions and negotiations take place in this House, will you, Madam Speaker, accept that the Scottish National party has always been very open about its discussions on the Committee of the Regions and the Maastricht treaty, and on how we view our future in Europe?
Would you therefore agree that, when a Privy Councillor gives his word that negotiatons are worth pursuing and worth fulfilling but that is not subsequently followed through, it must be a matter of resignation for the Privy Councillor concerned?
Madam Speaker: I think that that is a matter for the Privy Councillor himself to determine.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As to the Asil Nadir case, for those of us who know something about the history of Cyprus—that is to say, not many Members of this House—[Interruption.] You are all bloody ignorant about it.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not let his audience detract from his point of order to me.
Mr. Faulds: I am an old man, and I occasionally get impatient at the stupidity of my colleagues on both sides of the House.
Is it not a fact that, if the British Government had taken appropriate action when Archbishop Makarios aborted the constitution—[Interruption.] try to learn—of the Republic of Cyprus in 1963, and if the British Government had had the guts to take any action in 1974, when there was an attempted coup in southern Cyprus, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be recognised, and there would be no problem about the return of Asil Nadir?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time. He knows that that is not a point of order for me, but a political comment. We must now proceed.

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants)
3.51 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to privity of contract and estate in respect of covenants in tenancies; to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in that regard; and for connected purposes.
The Bill was drafted by the Law Commission—which exists to advise the Government and the House on changes in the law—in report 174, and was published in 1988 under the title "Landlord and Tenant Privity of Contract and Estate". It has the support of a large number of property lawyers and of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It will remove a dangerous catch in the law. I know that the Lord Chancellor has promised to legislate along the lines of the Law Commission's report, but only for leases granted after the date of the enactment of any measure that he introduces. That is a wholly inadequate response to a problem that afflicts many business tenants here and now.
The problem that the Bill addresses was considered carefully by the Law Commission. The easiest way to describe the Bill is by illustrating the problem. At the moment, in law, original tenants and landlords are contractually liable, under the terms of the lease, no matter how long after they have ceased to have any interest in the property to which the lease relates. In the words of Michael Caine, "Not a lot of people know that." However, it is a fact, and it has caused some suffering to some business tenants.
Let me give an illustration. Let us suppose that a landlord grants a 21-year lease on a shop or a factory to a tenant. After three years of the lease, perhaps because that original tenant is making a success of the business, he transfers the lease to a second tenant. The second tenant then transfers the lease to a third tenant, the third to a fourth and so on down a chain of transfers.
Let us assume that, after the lease has run for 19 of the 21 years, in the 19th year the tenant then in possession of the premises defaults on payment of rent or fails to carry out essential repairs to the premises. The law is that the original tenant, who took the property on 19 years ago but gave it up 16 years ago, is liable for the default and has to deal with the repairs. The problem may be even worse with the rent, because if the 21-year lease has rent revision clauses, the original tenant may be liable to pay a rent perhaps five or even 10 times the original rent that he signed up for. Recently, Iandlords—mostly institutional landlords—have begun to spring that trap on unsuspecting original tenants.
The liability of the original tenant is not a fanciful notion. It is a disabling. even a bankrupting, event for the original tenant, and it has been particularly marked during the recession. After all, in London alone last year, over 40,000 businesses became insolvent or at least went out of business, based on the figures for VAT terminations. Therefore, many thousands of original lessees could find themselves liable as a result of subsequent tenants defaulting. For many original tenants, the original lessee liability leases represent a timebomb ticking away underneath them, although they have no control or
194
influence over what happens with the later tenants. As I have explained, it could be even worse as there may have been later rent reviews.
I shall give two recent dramatic examples. When the IRA bomb exploded in Bishopsgate, causing millions of pounds of damage to premises—some of which may not have been insured because of the changes in the insurance market—the original tenant of one of those premises could be liable for millions of pounds' worth of damage, long after he had parted with the lease.
The second example is Canary Wharf. If its developers had done a lease swop—had taken over the lease of premises in the City of London in order to persuade that leaseholder to take a lease at Canary Wharf—when those developers then failed, the business tenant could find himself holding a lease at Canary Wharf and having to pay rent there, and also liable as the original lessee for the rent on the premises in the City of London.
The central feature of my Bill would be to release the original tenant once he or she had transferred the lease, but subject to some safeguards for the landlord in the first transfer by the original lessee—if it were reasonable to provide safeguards in the particular circumstances. That is one of the recommendations of the Law Commission. The Bill would also provide for the original landlord to be released from his obligations under certain circumstances.
A few people—I suspect, very few—might say that the Bill is unfair to landlords. However, the truth is that the institutional landlord, as it usually is, that enforces the original lessee liability is able to spread his risk. The unfortunate original tenant cannot, except in a very few circumstances, spread the risk.
That is why the law should be changed, and that is why the Law Commission has taken the same view. It is essential that we legislate for that now and that it should apply to current leases. The Lord Chancellor's proposals to direct legislation only at future leases are inadequate.
The Bill will prevent a massive injustice—the falling upon original tenants of wholly unexpected but unavoidable losses. Business people may have moved out of their premises long ago because of their success, or perhaps because of retirement. Indeed, there are many instances of retired people being caught under the present law.
The Bill has the support not only of both sides of the House, but of chambers of commerce and many retail associations. Indeed, the recession underlines the need for the Bill. It will correct an ancient but commercially dangerous feature of the law and I ask the House to give me leave to present it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Fraser. Mr. John Morris, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Jim Dowd, Mr. Douglas French, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. David Nicholson, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Chris Mullin.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (COVENANTS)
Mr. John Fraser accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to privity of contract and estate in respect of covenants in tenancies; to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission in that regard; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 May, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]
Orders of the Day
  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
Clause 1

  TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
  3.58pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 18, after 'Community', insert—
  'with the exception of the Protocol on Social Policy on page 117 of Cm 1934'.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss amendment No. 26, in page 1, line 18, after 'Community', insert—
  ', with the exception of the Protocol on Social Policy'.
  Dr. Cunningham: The amendment stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition; the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats; the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the parliamentary leader of the SNP; the right hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP; the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley), the leader of the DUP; and myself. It is supported by a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I begin by saying that, already, one important victory has been achieved for the House of Commons—after a long struggle to have a vote on the issue at all. In pursuing that objective, we have had very much in mind the need to uphold the rights of the House of Commons itself and the rights of Opposition parties represented here.
  As it stands, the Bill keeps the United Kingdom outside the scope of the protocol on social policy, so excluding the United Kingdom from the social chapter. It prevents the people of the United Kingdom from being part of the full social dimension of the EC.
  The Bill excludes Britain from provisions, which our 11 partners have agreed, to facilitate greater protection for employed people in their working conditions, better rights of consultation and information, equality of treatment and opportunity for men and women and the integration into the labour force of people who have been long-term unemployed, including people with disabilities.
  Those benefits will flow to the citizens of the 11 other members of the Community, but will be denied to the people of our country by the actions of Her Majesty's Government. We deplore that denial of the legitimate rights of the people of our country. Those rights will be readily available to other citizens of the Community, and we have always held that they should be available to the people of Britain too.
  The opt-out that the Government negotiated was to do not so much with the rights or wrongs of the provisions of the social chapter as with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary trying to buy off opposition in their own party by throwing some kind of sop to their opponents over the Maastricht treaty ratification process—a trick which has signally failed to deliver the goods.
  196
  The Government have been consistent in their inconsistency on the matter. First, they said that the provisions of the social chapter would be damaging to the interests of Britain and the British economy, but they failed to produce a single shred of evidence to substantiate that.
  Then we had a long series of statements over many months by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who I note is not in his place today. I think that we can assume that the field marshal is here to try to organise an orderly retreat from everything that the Government have said hitherto about the consequences of amendment No. 2, formerly Committee stage amendment No. 27.
  But it is worth reminding the House what the right hon. Member for Watford has said. For example, on 20 January he said that, if the Labour party pressed amendment No. 27 to a Division, we should be aware that,
  "under the terms of the amendment, United Kingdom law would not conform to the treaty's provisions, so it would be impossible for the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty".
  On the same day, he went on to ask whether I could explain the Opposition's objectives if the United Kingdom was not in a position to ratify the treaty as a result of the amendment. Our objectives have always been clear and consistent—to secure the real benefits of the provisions of the social chapter in the interests of the people of our country.
  The right hon. Member for Watford was nothing if not persistent on that occasion. He went on:
  "the question remains, and the hon. Gentleman must answer it"—
  that was me—
  "does the amendment place the British Government in the position of being a non-ratificant?"—[Official Report, 20 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 403–4.]
  "Non-ratificant" is an odd word, but it is an odd argument—one that we have never believed.
  At least there was some consistency between our side of the argument and the position adopted by the Foreign Secretary, who said in a statement:
  "The House will recall that the protocol on social policy authorises the other 11 member states of the Community to have recourse to the institutions, procedures and mechanisms of the treaty of Rome for the purposes of implementing their agreement on co-operation in the social area—the so-called social chapter. Most significantly, it specifies that acts adopted by the Council under the terms of the protocol shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 27.]
  For us, that is what the argument has always been about.
  On that occasion, the Foreign Secretary said that all the previous advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—based on the consistent legal opinion of his advisers during many months and enunciated on many occasions in this House and elsewhere by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford—had suddenly been found to be completely wrong.
  He said that, for many months, during the Maastricht treaty negotiations and subsequent discussions about the significance of the social chapter and the Government's opt-out, he and his colleagues had been misled by their legal advisers. That was, and remains, a singularly unconvincing argument.
  In their various manoeuvrings and meanderings during this long labyrinth of debate about the significance of our

  197
  amendment, the Government have shown a unique facility to be able to stick their heads in the sand but still come up with egg on their faces.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Although I concede that it is not precisely within the same framework, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the argument for pressing the amendment is displaced by the existence of clause 5 of the Bill, which was voted on as new clauses 74 and 75?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not agree. Throughout arguments over the statements and decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means about the admissibility of a vote on the issue, I have always maintained that amendment No. 2—amendment No. 27 in Committee—and new clauses 74 and 75 had specific, discrete and different purposes, and different implications for the legislation. That was my position, and it remains so. Whatever else the hon. Gentleman may say, we have been completely consistent about that throughout the debate and I maintain that position today.
  The Foreign Secretary went on to advise the Committee that it did not really matter whether amendment No. 2 was carried. Speaking on the advice of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, he said that it would have no consequence. We did not accept that belated, eleventh-hour and extremely partial analysis of the consequences of amendment No. 27 on 15 February, and nor do we accept those arguments today.
  The Government—in the form of the Foreign Secretary—then went on to say that, even though the amendment was of no significance, it did not matter, as it should be defeated anyway. His phrase was that it should be defeated for the sake of "completeness and clarity."
  Whatever the right hon. Gentleman can claim for the Government's position during this long drawn-out argument, it is not clarity. Even now, as the debate on amendment No. 2 commences, there is no clarity about the Government's intentions. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would like to rise to tell the House the exact significance of his presence.
  One way or the other, the Government are bound to lose. If—in the words of the Daily Mail, which is not generally known as a supporter of the Labour party—the Government do not know whether to run or to stand and fight, that tells us something about the confusion that continues to reign.
  If the Foreign Secretary proposes that the House should accept the amendment now, after all the weeks of deliberation, obfuscation, prevarication and delay, the obvious question for us to ask—and, surely, for those outside to ask—is "What has it all been about?" Why did not the Government agree to accept the amendment in the first place? Not only would that have saved the House and the Chair a good deal of unnecessary anguish and difficulty; it would have saved perhaps thousands of metres of column inches in the national newspapers and other publications which have been picking over the entrails in an attempt to establish the Government's objectives.
  Our objectives, in contrast, are consistent, and benefit from the clarity to which the Foreign Secretary referred.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: The right hon. Gentleman asked the Government for clarity. Will he
  198
  clarify what he seeks to achieve? It is clear that amendment No. 2 will not reinstate the social chapter in the treaty; what, then, is its object?
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. He made an almost identical intervention when I spoke in a similar debate on 20 January. He clearly has not changed his view; I have not changed mine either. As I said on 20 January, and have said several times today, the object of the amendment is to secure the benefits of the social chapter in the interests of the people of Britain.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): How will the amendment do that? Its wording does not even purport to do that.
  Dr. Cunningham: On 20 January, I said—ah, I see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has entered the Chamber. The debate is no longer "Hamlet" without the prince.
  On 20 January, I said that the amendment would confront the Government with a dilemma. Either they would have to renegotiate with our 11 Community partners to fold into the treaty the benefits of the social chapter for Britain, or they would have to resolve the problem in some other way. Now, friends of the Foreign Secretary are saying that, if the amendment is carried, they will use the opportunity to take action in the courts—perhaps to seek judicial review. I do not know—that is a matter for them.
  We also believe that the amendment will give employees and trade unions, singularly or in groups, an opportunity to take their cases to the European Court to ensure that the benefits of the social chapter apply to them in exactly the same way as they will undoubtedly apply to employees of their own companies operating in other Community member states. I know what the Foreign Secretary will say: he will say that none of that will result from the amendment.
  Mr. Hurd: It is not in the amendment.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am talking about the amendment's consequences. Here is another attempt at obfuscation: already, the right hon. Gentleman is starting to dissemble yet again. I have no doubt that he will repeat what he said on 15 February, on the advice of the Attorney-General. Let me reiterate that that interpretation is not widely shared—not only in the House, but among legal experts elsewhere in the Community, let alone elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  As I have made clear, we will pursue our amendment. We shall ask the House to support it, unless, as I suspect—the Foreign Secretary has already refused the opportunity to make the Government's intentions clear to the House at the outset—the right hon. Gentleman now tells us that the Government are going to accept it after all.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am a genuine seeker after truth. On four occasions the right hon. Gentleman has talked about the benefits of the social protocol. Can he tell the House what the social protocol will provide that is not in articles 118A and 118B of the Single European Act, articles which he will know well?
  4. 15 pm
  Dr. Cunningham: At the beginning of the debate, I took, the precaution of reading out what we thought the general benefits of the social chapter provisions would be, but I guess either that the hon. Gentleman was not here at the time or that he was not listening very carefully. I have another observation to make on his intervention. If he is a genuine seeker after truth, I put it to him that he joined the wrong political party to attain that objective.
  The reasons that the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary have in mind have nothing to do with neatness and tidiness. They involve something more substantial, I would argue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has argued in the past.
  The Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary still appear to be terrified of the consequences of amendment No. 27, and seek to play down its implications by saying that it will have no effect at all. The reality, however, is that they have manoeuvred over a long period to try to prevent the House from coming to a decision on the matter.
  The Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary were relieved each time that the amendment temporarily seemed to disappear from the agenda of the business of the House but, thanks to our persistence and the correct ruling in the interests of the House of Commons that you eventually gave, Madam Speaker, we have that opportunity today.
  The Attorney-General's view—produced, as I said, quite unexpectedly—had all the hallmarks of a desperate attempt to get the Government off the hook on the issue. It is astonishing—many people share this view—that the Government, having gone through the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty and having seen the amendment on the Amendment Paper for many months—from the spring of last year—should have consistently advanced one view and then, when it became apparent that they faced defeat, should have got the Attorney-General to pop up, like a rabbit out of a hat, and say something else. The Government did not even have the grace to say that the Foreign Secretary had been wrong. They just said that they had come to a different conclusion.
  I put it to Ministers and to those who sit on the Conservative Benches that that kind of procedure and action has no credibility at all, not only in this House but with people outside. Little is more calculated to bring the workings of Government into disrepute than that kind of behaviour over discussions and decisions in the House of Commons. It is our belief—that is why we have persisted with amendment No. 27, and we are confident about it—that the consequences of its inclusion in the Bill will be to the eventual benefit of the people of Britain.
  The Foreign Secretary asks why we persist with it. If he believes—I am not sure what in his heart of hearts he really believes in any longer—that the amendment is likely to end in the possibility of long, complicated and expensive litigation, there is a simple answer: accept the provisions of the social chapter now and stop this reactionary isolation, thus preventing our citizens from having the advantages that everyone—except the Conservative party and, as I said on 20 January, the neo-fascist party of France—believes will flow from it.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many Conservative Members feel that the social chapter is a mistake not just for this country but for much of the rest of Europe, given the
  200
  fading competitiveness of Europe vis-a-vis the United States, Japan and the far east? Does he not agree that, if we are to protect our citizens and work forces and ensure that they have jobs in future, we need to be extremely careful about introducing high-cost employment laws?
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not believe that, and neither does any other democratic party of any political persuasion in any member country of the European Community. The German Christian Democrats do not believe it; the Free Democrats do not believe it; and nor does any political party in any of the countries that are applicants for membership of the European Community.
  As I said, the only other political party that shares that view is that led by Mr. Jean-Marie Le Pen. I doubt whether even the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is comfortable in his company. I might add that, if she is successful in her quest for a seat in the European Parliament—a subject on which there is also some doubt in my mind—she will not find that any of the parties represented there share her view.
  The view taken by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is reminiscent of the isolation of the Conservative party over another issue—the poll tax. We all remember how, in the face of all the evidence, of all rational argument and of all sensible debate, the Conservative party alone ploughed on into the quagmire of the poll tax, with all that that meant and with all the damage it caused, not only to individuals but to the formidable and worthwhile institution of democratic local government. I do not know how Conservative Members can take comfort in their isolation—their unique position of obstinacy. Their views are completely their own and are not supported anywhere else.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Given that the Labour party has changed its mind so many times in recent years, is it not possible that parties in other parts of Europe will eventually see the light and join the Conservative party in taking a realistic approach?
  Dr. Cunningham: The light coming from the Conservative party to which the hon. Gentleman refers is little more than one-candle power. In reality, the concentrated beams of searchlights across the rest of Europe are all focused on one issue—the need for a developing European Community to be more than just a market economy and to have a social dimension.
  That is what the argument has always been about. That remains our argument. That is why we have persisted. I believe that we have done parliamentary democracy a service by making sure that we all had an opportunity to vote on the issue and that we are right, too, on the merits of the argument.
  I suspect that the Foreign Secretary will say that the Government propose to accept the amendment. In that case, he will have little credibility, but it seems that this Government will do anything rather than have to face a defeat in the Division Lobbies on this issue.
  Mr. Hurd: It is not very long since we discussed the substance of this matter; it seems to be a situation comedy that runs and runs, episode by episode. I noted today that it still has its addicts among the press, but I am not sure that its popular ratings are as great as all that. Only about

  201
  a fortnight ago, I debated with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) the substance of the question, and I shall not do so again, except in the briefest summary.
  Most of my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that one of the biggest challenges facing the European economy is declining competitiveness. Unemployment is the biggest source of poverty in this country today. If we are uncompetitive, we create unemployment. From the figures that were given in the debate on 22 April, there can be no doubt that European competitiveness is declining. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was right in saying that that is one of the main problems.
  If that is so, the true question for those interested in the social dimension of the single market is not how to ensure, through a social chapter, precisely the same levels of social provision in each member state, but how Europe can effectively compete in the world. Competitiveness is the key to generating the necessary wealth to provide the social safety net. The social provisions of any treaty cannot by themselves generate that. That is a brief summary of the substantive argument against the social chapter which led my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to insist on the opt-out.
  The debate is not a new one in the House. We have debated the issue time and again over almost a year and a half. In that time, the House has rejected on three separate occasions Opposition motions or amendments calling for the incorporation of the social agreement into the treaty. So the House of Commons is repeatedly on record on that point. In the pre-Maastricht debate on 20 and 21 November 1991, a Labour amendment, which called for, among other things, the inclusion of the social agreement in the treaty of Rome, was defeated by 191 votes. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was in the previous Parliament."] I shall come to this Parliament in a moment.
  In the debate on 18 and 19 December 1991, immediately after Maastricht, the Liberals tabled an amendment deploring the social opt-out. It was defeated by a majority of 364. On Second Reading of the Bill, on 20 and 21 May 1992—in this Parliament—Labour moved that the Bill not be read a Second time, partly because of the opt-out on the social chapter. That amendment was defeated by 99 votes. There is no doubt about the judgment of the previous Parliament and of this Parliament on the question whether the treaty should or should not include the social chapter.
  Nevertheless, we recognised that the House wanted yet another chance to vote on the principle. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pressed that, as did other hon. Members, and we accepted new clause 74, now clause 5 of the amended Bill. That will allow a further debate and a vote after the Bill has received Royal Assent, when the opt-out can be considered on its merits. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is just.
  What is clearly not possible, despite the arguments of the right hon. Member for Copeland, is to discuss the substance on the basis of the amendment that we are debating. It does not provide for consideration of the opt-out on its merits. What we see as a result of the manoeuvring—this is the heart of the matter—not by the Government but by the Opposition, as has been spotted by the more perceptive commentators, is two different groups in the House engaged in procedural manoeuvres which are incompatible.
  202
  The two camps who favour the amendment do so for entirely different and contradictory reasons. First, there are those who are opposed to the social chapter but even more opposed to the treaty of Maastricht itself; they sit on the Conservative Benches. We know that they are opposed to the social chapter. I have here the record of the Divisions in which they expressed that opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who intervened just now, has a stalwart record of voting against the social chapter. My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—I simply draw attention to two hon. Members who are immediately prominent in the debate—have a stalwart record, such as one would expect from Conservative Members, of opposing the social chapter. They are clear about that. The only thing that is clearer is that they dislike the treaty of Maastricht even more, and they will lose no opportunity to prevent it from being ratified.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) talked about the benefits of the social chapter—my right hon. Friend is talking about the dangers of the social chapter. Before my right hon. Friend goes much further, will he go into the details of the protocol and tell us precisely what the Government are frightened of that is not contained in articles 118a and 118b of the Single European Act?
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) pressed me on that point during the debate on new clause 74. I do not have the list of examples that I gave him. If my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North wishes to refresh his memory, he will find the answer to his question in Hansard.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North voted five times in debates, in one way or another rejecting the social chapter. Obviously, after his research into the matter he concluded that the social chapter was deeply undesirable. A group of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, dislike the social chapter. They dislike the treaty even more and will swallow their scruples about the social chapter because they believe that they can prevent the treaty from being ratified by voting for this amendment. That is completely in contradiction to the larger group of Labour Members who favour the social chapter and claim to support the Maastricht treaty.
  We have one group of hon. Members who want the treaty—[Interruption.] I cannot be entirely exhaustive in my catalogue of the eccentricities of opinion in the House. But, broadly speaking, one group wants the treaty and the social chapter and another group wants neither the treaty nor the social chapter. Extraordinarily, both groups—this is the curious feature of amendment No. 2—seem to think that the amendment serves their contrary purposes. Both groups cannot be right. In fact, both are wrong, and I shall explain why we believe that to be so.
  Some Conservative Members want, above all, to prevent ratification, despite their Conservative analysis and rejection of the social chapter. I explained to the House in some detail in a statement on 15 February, to which the right hon. Member for Copeland genially referred, why the present amendment—amendment No. 2 is virtually the same as amendment No. 27—would not prevent ratification—[Interruption.] I was in sackcloth

  203
  and ashes on that occasion and I do not intend to put them on again. I can recap the argument and the advice I received from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General which I gave to the House on that occasion, and which he repeated in the House a week later. Clearly, I must do so.
  Amendment No. 27 is the same as amendment No. 2 in that it would exclude from the scope of clause 1(1) of the Bill—that is, from incorporation in domestic law under the European Communities Act—the protocol on social policy. That is all that it would do. The amendment would not have any effect on the treaty or its protocols. Therefore, the legal question must be: can Britain ratify the treaty even if the protocol on social policy were not incorporated in domestic law? Earlier this year, the Law Officers advised—as the House was told on 15 February—that if the amendment were carried, Acts adopted under the protocol would still not apply to the United Kingdom. It follows that no rights and obligations arise from those Acts which need to be given effect in our domestic law.
  While incorporation of the protocol in domestic law is desirable, it is not necessary for ratification or for implementation of the Maastricht treaty. That is what I explained to the House on 15 February. There is no change of position. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explained to the House on 22 February. That is the view and the analysis to which we hold today.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Foreign Secretary explain why he takes the view that the provision on the social chapter does not require to be ratified in accordance with the procedures of Parliament set out in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, sections 6(1) and 6(2) of which require any measures flowing from an agreement of European Community countries which affect the powers of the European Parliament to be approved by Parliament? It seems to me that that makes it a necessity for the House to approve the social chapter. If the amendment is not passed, that cannot happen.
  Mr. Hurd: That point has been raised by Liberal Democrat Members previously and there has been correspondence about it. But I am advised that clause 1(2) of the Bill specifically deals with and covers that point. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point does not contradict the analysis that I have been given. The point has been covered previously and the hon. Gentleman has returned to it.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend explain something which puzzles a great many laymen such as myself and has done so for many months? If the social protocol is apparently so unimportant, why was the opt-out described as the main achievement of the Maastricht negotiation when my right hon. Friend returned from Maastricht?
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is, indeed—I do not blame him for this, because I have wandered through these tracks myself—showing himself to be a layman. The opt-out is in the treaty. The protocol is attached to the treaty. The protocol is part of the treaty. Its status in the treaty is not affected by the amendment. I am seeking to show,
  204
  following the advice from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, that the effect of the amendment is simply on the question whether the opt-out protocol should be embodied in domestic law. Its status in the treaty and its value as an opt-out are not affected by the amendment, because the opt-out remains in the treaty.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman's point in a moment.
  The effect of the amendment—here I repeat the answer that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell)—would be to remove the social protocol from those parts of the treaty to be incorporated into domestic law. However, as no obligations on the United Kingdom which require incorporation under the 1972 Act arise from the social protocol, the amendment would not prevent ratification.
  The question of administrative costs has been raised by several of my hon. Friends. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already advised how that obligation, if it ever arose, could be discharged. So those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who believe that passing the amendment would prevent ratification of the treaty are, in our judgment and according to our legal advice, incorrect.
  Then there is the other, completely opposite, contrary and contradictory group who support the amendment. It is a larger group and is on the Opposition Benches. It accepts that the amendment will not prevent ratification of the treaty, but argues that it will force Britain to accept the agreement annexed to the protocol on social policy. We tried in a gentle way to press the right hon. Member for Copeland on that point during his speech. He moved sharply from the supposition that the amendment would have the effect that he described to some other vague talk about the consequences that would flow from it.
  We are all experts on consequences that might flow from this or that, but that is not the same as saying that a vote for the amendment is a vote to bring Britain into the social chapter. The amendment does not have that effect either. It cannot do so because it is the treaty—I repeat the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey—which contains Britain's opt-out from the social agreement. The treaty cannot be amended by our debates on the Bill.
  It will be for the House, at the end of all these exhaustive discussions, to decide on Third Reading whether to pass the Bill and thus enable the Government to ratify the treaty when the Bill comes into force. That is a decision for this Parliament. It will relate to the whole Maastricht package—that is to say, to the treaty including the protocols. The treaty is not a package—there are other matters that the House has debated and on which it has voted against the Government, which relate not to the treaty but to peripheral matters—but the treaty is not a package from which one can pick and choose. The House must and will soon decide whether it wishes to proceed with the legislation that makes ratification possible.
  Mr. Michael Lord: My right hon. Friend has said that some Conservative Members do not want the Maastricht treaty or the social chapter. He has explained how a vote for this amendment will not necessarily damage the treaty. Will he confirm the

  205
  statement that he made in one of our earlier debates, that a vote for this amendment will not in any way be a vote for bringing the social chapter to this country?
  Mr. Hurd: That is a point which I am now developing. The Opposition Front-Bench Members are wrong and my hon. Friend is right: it does not have that effect. It simply concerns whether the protocol which allows 11 other countries to proceed down this path should be incorporated into domestic law.
  Mr. George Robertson rose——
  Mr. Hurd: No, if I may proceed.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions, and again today, that amendment No. 27 and now amendment No. 2 are undesirable, but he will not tell the House why they are undesirable. Previously, he said that he wanted to defeat amendment No. 27 for the sake of completeness and clarity. If the passing of amendment No. 27 is undesirable and will leave the Bill unclear and imprecise, will the Secretary of State tell the House the consequences of that? He consistently refuses to do so.
  Mr. Hurd: Because I have not reached that part of my speech. I am trying to show how the whole basis on which the Labour party, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) in particular, has manoeuvred, with unrivalled perseverance and occasional skill, is misguided. It does not work. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) is entirely right. It is a false supposition that has brought the Labour party, through all this ingenuity and this maze of amendments, to this particular position.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose——
  Mr. Hurd: This amendment does not, and cannot be argued to, incorporate the social chapter in the treaty and therefore bind it on this country. What the House has achieved is an undertaking, soon to be embodied in law. that there will be a debate on the substance, but that debate does not flow from this amendment or from this discussion.
  Mr. Budgen rose——
  Mr. Hurd: I will give way to my hon. Friend before I close.
  4.45 pm
  In view of what the right hon. Member for Copeland said about other partners and their views, I would remind the House that all those states——
  Mr. Budgen rose——
  Mr. Hurd: I will give way to my hon. Friend, arid then not give way later.
  Mr. Budgen: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), does he agree that when the Home Secretary and the chairman of the Conservative party addressed the conference at Harrogate, knowing the advice that the Attorney-General had given to my right hon. Friend, it was rather unfortunate that it was said that any
  206
  Conservative Member who voted for amendment No. 27 was voting for the imposition of the social chapter on this country?
  Mr. Hurd: I cannot recall the phrases or the dates on which they were used, but we shall see when we come to the debate which follows from clause 5. That will be the test because there will be no doubt then that we are voting on the substance of the social chapter. That is its purpose. So we will perhaps remember these exchanges on that occasion.
  I should like to finish the point that I had started on. The right hon. Member for Copeland drew attention to our alleged isolation on the substance of this matter, but all those states that have already ratified the treaty have ratified the social protocol—that is to say, the British opt-out—along with the rest of the treaty. Despite their supposed preference that Britain should join them in the social chapter, they have not made a point of it or held up ratification on this issue. It is only the Labour party, to the constant puzzlement of its friends abroad, which persists in giving this matter priority.
  The amendment, therefore, would not achieve either of the contradictory purposes of its backers. It could not possibly achieve both. It does not, in our view, achieve either.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I am just wondering about the right hon. Gentleman as his speech unfolds. He has already repudiated his right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his own Department and now he has repudiated the view of his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. How many other colleagues' views will he repudiate in the ramshackle argument that he is advancing to the House?
  Mr. Hurd: I am not sure why I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I stand absolutely on the statement, the analysis and the advice which we gave on 15 February on the essence of the matter and which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General repeated on 22 February. That is our position and our advice. The two groups advocating this amendment cannot achieve their purpose by its passage.
  What would the effect of the amendment be? It would depart—and here I come to why the Bill was drafted as it was—from our consistent legislative practice, which has been to list all amendments to the treaty of Rome in the 1972 Act. That has been the practice over the years. It has not been essential, but it has been desirable, for obvious reasons, to avoid possible confusion in British law. That is why we argued against amendment No. 27 and that is why, other things being equal, it will be desirable for the Bill to proceed as originally drafted. It comes under the heading of "desirable", and we have made that position clear ever since 15 February.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) rose——
  Mr. Hurd: May I just complete this point?
  That is why we have argued that this amendment, like amendment No. 27 before it, is undesirable. Although it neither forces Britain to adopt the social agreement nor prevents ratification of the Maastricht treaty, that is why we have argued that it is none the less undesirable and that it would be preferable to incorporate the protocol in our

  207
  domestic law in the usual way. That is the reason for the original drafting of the Bill and for the way in which we have phrased the arguments ever since.
  Mr. Wilkinson: In what way would it be desirable for the British people to be called upon to pay for the imposition of the social chapter to which they are not a signatory? We are already the second highest net contributor to the Community. How would it benefit the British people? Would the elimination of this protocol not at least make payment by the British people more difficult?
  Mr. Hurd: If the protocol were eliminated from the treaty, that would be so, but the amendment does not and cannot have that effect. I do not know whether there will be additional administrative expenses. It is a question of dividing electric light bills and salaries. But if there were, it would be entirely legal and reasonable that, through the procedures that I have already listed, those expenses should be met.
  We are faced with an alliance of opposites and we must counter that. Their purpose is not to consider the opt-out on its merits—there will be an opportunity to do that in the debate on clause 5 of the Bill. I do not doubt, relying on the good sense of my hon. Friends on the Government Benches, that when we come to the debate on substance under clause 5, the House will confirm again its support for the opt-out. The only common purpose of those favouring the amendment is to inflict a defeat on the Government, which is reasonable and understandable from the point of view of the Opposition. I do not see why, in the circumstances that I have described, we should give them that satisfaction. [Interruption.] As I have tried to show—and I think that the argument has been listened to with patience—this amendment is tiresome, undesirable, but, in practice, irrelevant.
  The Government are prepared to acquiesce on the amendment—[Interruption.]—on the basis that I have explained, rather than give our push-me pull-you opponents the entirely synthetic victory, revealed by their cackles, that they crave.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Well, well, there we are. The Foreign Secretary, in another context a few moments ago, said that the attitude to the social chapter adopted by the Opposition parties was a constant puzzlement to our friends abroad. I would have said that the Foreign Secretary's various speeches about the social chapter certainly well merit that particular description.
  We are now told, in the presence of the Attorney-General, that legislation is cast in a manner in which things are put in that are preferable and desirable—not necessary, but preferable and desirable. I am no lawyer, but all my lawyer friends—of whom I have, sadly, quite a number—always tell me that the essence of legislation is the words that it contains, all of which are necessary. I presume that that is why all legislation is so spare and lean.
  In any event, the Liberal Democrats contend that, far from being simply preferable and desirable, the words contained in the amendment which the Government have now accepted are necessary and have certain definite effects. That is a view which the Foreign Secretary contests, but he will have to admit that it is held by a considerable number of persons of very considerable legal
  208
  reputation. There is no doubt that, by accepting this amendment, in due course of time a legal challenge will be made and it will then be determined whether we and others are right or the Government are right. Our contention, in essence, is that the Maastricht treaty and the social protocol to it are separate legal entities. That is also made clear in clause 1(2) of the Bill. We would therefore argue—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) when he intervened on the Foreign Secretary—that if amendment No. 2 is accepted, as it now is, while it will not affect ratification of the treaty about which the Foreign Secretary agrees, it will compel the Government to renegotiate the social protocol with the other 11 member states. Even if the Government deny this, it is our contention that in time a challenge to the European Court will reveal them to be wrong. That will not force the Government to accept the social chapter—in the end we cannot force them to accept it despite our various efforts.
  The Foreign Secretary talked about an alliance of opposites. I agree with him; I have said in other speeches that there was a putative alliance of opposites.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: An unholy alliance.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It must be if I voted with him.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The knowledge of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on ecclesiastical matters is greater than my own.
  Mr. Skinner: Bishop Cormack.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I have lost the thread of my argument.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should sit down while he is winning.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I was talking about the putative alliance between the Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Benches, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who would have united to support an amendment to the social chapter—in the alliance one group favours Maastricht, the other group sees it as a means of defeating Maastricht.
  There is another group in the House, however, consisting of a number of Conservative Members who do not fear the social chapter. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the former Prime Minister, does not fear the social chapter; nor that it will have all the horrific consequences that have been spelt out at various times by various Ministers, by and large in a fairly unclear way. Those hon. Members in the Conservative party—the one-nation Tories—are not afraid, in their political attitudes, to accept that the state has a responsibility to ensure that certain minimum social standards are sustained and, if necessary, legislated upon. A considerable number of people in the Conservative party hold that view, but given the nature of the voting structure of the House they would be compelled to vote against what they want. So the Foreign Secretary, in talking about this alliance of opposites—and I agree that he has a fair point—omits the other group that is equally important.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is always a great pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman; I think that he adds a great deal to these debates. As a constitutionalist, would he not agree that it would he very odd for a Government of this country to ratify a treaty—whether or not that was legal—part of which Parliament had voted to exclude in a democratic debate on the Floor of the House?
  Would the hon. Gentleman respond to that question and expand on the relevant point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 relating to the authority of the House in respect of the particular matter to which the hon. Gentleman drew our attention?
  Sir Russell Johnston: 1 am grateful for the kind remarks with which the hon. Gentleman commenced his intervention. I take note of them and will, of course, immediately give way to him the next time he tries to intervene.
  As to the first point that the hon. Gentleman made, I do not think that if this House voted to exclude the social protocol—and indeed the contention I was making at the very beginning of my remarks was that, although we have not voted about it, because amendment No. 2 has been accepted, it has had the same consequences—I do not take the view that that necessarily means that the Government is prevented in any way from ratifying the main treaty. That is what I said at the beginning, and perhaps I am repeating myself because I did not make myself clear. So, as to the first point the hon. Gentleman made, the answer is no.
  As to the second point, I confess that I was not entirely clear about what difference he was making, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) stands on its own; we think that the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 has the legal consequence to which my hon. Friend referred.
  I will not delay the House; we know what the situation is. We have already spent twenty one and three quarter hours debating the social chapter in Committee—I had that checked earlier—and that does not include the three and a half hours we spent querying your decision, Mr. Morris. That is a very long time.
  So while any complaint about our not having spent sufficient time debating the social chapter cannot be substantiated—because we have had ample opportunity to debate it. I deeply regret the way in which the Government were unwilling to make it possible for the House to express a decision on the subject.
  While much has been said about an alliance of opposites, it must be accepted that such alliances are not new in the House of Commons. Hon. Members vote on various occasions for all sorts of reasons, and in some cases because they are dragooned to do what they really do not want to do. There is nothing startling or different about what has happened. Even so, I regret that we were not given an opportunity to express a decision on the matter.
  At the end of the day, amendment No. 2 is accepted. I regard that as a step towards Britain being in a position to take advantage of the safeguards that the social chapter represents. That is why I greatly welcome the Government's decision to accept the amendment.
  5 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: In the agreeable and gentlemanly way in which we expect my right hon. Friend to address the House, the Foreign Secretary revealed how amendment No. 2 is the joke of the week. Perhaps we should have a quiet chuckle, go home and say, "It was all a misunderstanding." Joke or not, a few issues arise from what has happened and they will not go away.
  I begin with one such issue on a personal basis. We must try to do something to improve communications between Ministers. The Foreign Secretary will recall that he had the pleasure of attending the Harrogate conference. While I am fortunate in having a pleasant and easy-going constituency, many of my hon. Friends have been through the most appalling experience of receiving threatening letters and of being accused of selling out the Conservative party because they proposed to vote for the mad communist policy of the social chapter in the form of amendment No. 27.
  While the Foreign Secretary may regard that as a joke, I assure him that it was not a joke for decent, honourable Conservative Members who, unwillingly, were voting against their party in an effort to put right what they believed to be wrong and contrary to the interests of their country. We had Cabinet Ministers standing up at Harrogate speaking what they knew was basically a load of rubbish, and later they admitted it was rubbish.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is extremely agitated on that point. So that he and the rest of us may be more at rest, will he assure us that when it comes to the vote on new clause 74—which will be a vote of principle on the question whether Britain should sign up to the social protocol—he will vote with the Government?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend knows that I have always taken that view and I will answer his question directly. The whole issue of the social chapter represents the most bogus nonsense I have ever heard in my life. 1 t is the culmination of party virility symbols, with the Conservative party saying, "This is terrible communist conspiratorial nonsense" and the Labour party saying, "Poor British workers will not have the same rights as foreigners."
  When replying to comments of mine recently, the Foreign Secretary was kind enough to explain some of what was in the social chapter which was not in the rest of the document. He gave me a list of small items—for example, redundancy payments—which previously required unanimity but which would require a majority vote. But we would like to know—perhaps it can be discovered from the Commission—what on earth can be done under the social chapter which cannot already be done under the health and safety legislation. An examination of an issue such as the 48-hour week directive shows that there is nothing much in it, apart from social security, subject of course to unanimity.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend was misinformed if he was told that the Foreign Secretary said what he said he said, because how a contract is terminated—in other words, redundancy pay—is a matter for unanimity.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am simply making the point that it has become a party virility symbol, with people waving their arms about. But,

  211
  sadly, the ordinary people have been left out because, for reasons of which we are well aware, the issue has become all-important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) asks if I can be trusted to vote the right way. While I can be so trusted, it would not make a great deal of difference whichever way I voted. But I assure him that he can count on my straightforward loyalty, the sort of loyalty that he always gives the Government, irrespective of the issue.
  It is genuinely worrying that there should have been such a huge difference in the assessment of legal opinion by the Government. It may be regarded as a joke, but for a senior Government Minister—on the advice of officials of our splendid Foreign Office, who can always be relied on to tell the truth about everything—to say that under the terms of amendment No. 27 it would be impossible for the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty, represents a carefully thought out and clear statement of principle. Now we are told that that is a load of nonsense and that it will have no such effect.
  The Foreign Secretary is one of the more gentlemanly members of the Government and a decent chap, too. He should worry about the possibility that those sorts of statement are being made, not in an effort to set the facts before people but simply to gather cheap votes in the House of Commons.
  I am in no way suggesting that the Liberal Democrats, for whom I have high regard, are cheap people, but they will be well aware of what happened in the debate. One might gather from what was being put to the Liberal Democrats that they are about the only people in the House who believe all the European nonsense, for they were being told, in effect, "If you vote for the amendment, you might put your Europe at risk." We should worry about that.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I invite my hon. Friend to answer the question that I put in an intervention to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). Does he consider it constitutionally appropriate that the British Government should ratify a treaty to which the social protocol has been attached when the House has agreed that the social protocol should not be part of the treaty? What is the point of having protracted debates if the Government then do precisely what the House has said they should not do?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an important point that should concern hon. Members, but we need not worry too much about it in terms of European legislation because the Government have said, "We can chuck out the protocol from British law. But do not worry because we shall still stick it in the treaty and that will be that." In other words, the Government will support amendment No. 2, by which they will remove the protocol from British law, although, according to what was said in the previous debate, it will be included in the treaty which will be ratified. If I am wrong about that, perhaps the Foreign Secretary will correct me.
  Mr. Hurd: Ratified, subject of course to my hon. Friends and the House as a whole approving the Third Reading.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend is correct. He is saying that even though we have voted to chuck out and tear up that part of the treaty—because we are not prepared to have the protocol in the treaty—nevertheless, it will be in the treaty that Britain signs.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will ask his colleagues in the Foreign Office, who always tell the truth about everything, to say how many times in the history of the United Kingdom a Government have ratified a treaty from which the House of Commons has said that a part should be excluded. There must be hundreds of such examples and we await all the papers flowing to us showing the House voting to remove a clause from a treaty and then the Government of the day ratifying it. Being a simple person, I am not aware of such a case. There must be something significant about that.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend is developing a completely bogus argument. If the amendment is accepted tonight, the impact of the social protocol will be excluded from clause I. But given, under the social protocol in the treaty, that we opted out in any event, the terms of the social protocol would not have applied in the first place. That is why the Attorney-General said that it was a double negative. There is absolutely no restriction on the Government, subject to Third Reading and the Bill passing through both Houses, seeking Royal Assent and ratifying the treaty.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has a strange idea of what we are meant to do in the House of Commons. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say that the Finance Bill would contain a new tax on red ties, the House voted against that tax, and the Chancellor went ahead with the Finance Bill all the same, some of us might be angry.
  Mr. Milligan: The fault in my hon. Friend's logic is that if the House of Commons were to vote for us to sign the social chapter and we did not, it would be in defiance of the wishes of the House, but the amendment is unclear on that issue.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend, who has recently become a Member of Parliament, is a guardian of democracy and a regular attender of our debates. Unlike most of those who voted for the treaty, he has often been in the Chamber. When hon. Members vote to have something chucked out of the treaty—which is what we are doing with amendment No. 2 because we do not want the protocol—that action should be significant. However, it is being said that such action has nothing to do with it and the protocol is not an opt-out.
  Mr. Marlow: It is a simple matter. The Government came before the House with a treaty. The House has torn out some of its pages and thrown them away. Given the sovereignty of the House, how can the Government proceed to ratify the treaty when it has pages missing?
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is it in a nutshell.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has put it in a nutshell. My lengthy speech has given the Foreign Office boys plenty of time to compile a list of the previous occasions when the House of Commons has voted to take something out of a treaty, then proceeded to ratify the treaty. I am sure that many examples have now been gathered and the Minister of State will list them.

  213
  Despite the fact that honest, decent and respectable Members of Parliament have fought hard on their constituents' behalf, those Members have been accused by Ministers and leaders of the Tory party of being conspirators and of wanting to impose communist and socialist policies on this country. We now know—indeed, we always did—that the protocol merely achieves two little things.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The oldest fight for the House of Commons is the fight against legislative authority and prerogative power. Are not we having a rerun of Charles I versus Parliament? [Laughter.]
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Some hon. Members may laugh, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) knows that many people in Harrow share my views, not his—although they all love him.
  I hope that it is appreciated that the Maastricht treaty is destroying our democracy. It means that people who vote——
  Mr. Terry Dicks: I had the impression—perhaps wrongly—that the Single European Act took away much of our power. Who steered it through the House? Baroness Thatcher, Lord Tebbit and many others who are now called rebels, like the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Their voting record on Europe was better than that of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). How can my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) say that the Maastricht treaty threatens us and the Single European Act did not?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I have a high regard for my hon. Friend, but he knows that I fought against the Single European Act and voted against every clause of the Bill. However, that is not at issue. It does not help the genuine argument to state that the previous Prime Minister was worse than the present one. I am talking not about that, but of the rights of my hon. Friend's constituents and the rights of the British people. It does not matter to me who voted for what—all I know is that something had has happened.
  What does the protocol include? It does not include many of the issues that some people said it did. It says that the 11 members can use the institutions to implement their social chapter and that British taxpayers—my constituents and others—will have to pay a 12th share. The Foreign Secretary, who is always helpful with legal advice, said that even if we chucked the social chapter out of the Bill it would not matter because
  "the likelihood is that they"—
  the costs—
  "will be a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, as authorised under the 1972 legislation."—[official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 33.]
  5.15 pm
  My understanding of the 1972 legislation was that it authorised us to pay for Community obligations—obligations of the 12 members, not obligations of six, seven, eight or nine members. We are talking about an agreement of the 11. There is a serious problem—goodness knows how we can resolve it. The problem can probably be solved only in the courts of law. We know that if the Government want to ratify the treaty, including the protocol, many British citizens will consider it wrong. They will say, "If our Parliament has voted against paying
  214
  for a twelfth share of the administrative costs and the Government say that they can do so under the 1972 legislation, we think that the issue should be clarified in a court of law." I think that it is inevitable that a British citizen will want the matter to be clarified in that way.
  Unfortunately, despite the attempts to call the matter a big joke, it could result in a long delay for the treaty's ratification. I do not know anything about the law—the Minister of State knows it all. I am told that when a European issue is taken to court, one is sometimes told that the matter will have to go to the European Court, which could involve even more delay.
  The House should appreciate that something nasty has happened over amendments Nos. 27 and 2. A lot of rubbish has been spoken and people have been wrongly abused and misled. We have created a bit of legal nonsense. I prophesy that the amendment could result in a long delay in the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. We could end up with people having rows and disputes and the lawyers earning more money through discussions in court.
  It would have been easier and simpler if our pleasant Foreign Secretary and our clever Government had avoided the trouble and prevented the embarrassment caused to the Labour party by simply saying that we should let the people decide such a big issue with a referendum. If the Labour party had wanted it, the referendum could have included a second question: "If you approve of the treaty, do you want it to include the social chapter?" If we had had a referendum and let the people decide what should happen to their powers, freedom and liberty, the lengthy debates, nastiness, disagreements and unfortunate incidents that we have witnessed would have been unnecessary.
  What has happened today has not been a joke, but a sad reflection on the way in which we have managed the dreadful treaty. The freedom and liberty of the British people belong to the people, not the politicians. We have no right to hand over those powers without asking the people first.
  Mr. Bryan Gould: I am not one of those who believe that a great deal turns on the protocol or the social agreement. Anyone who reads the protocol and the social agreement will have to concede that the terms are astonishingly vague and general. It is hard to see that they achieve anything that is not equally well achieved elsewhere in the treaty of Rome and other provisions. The lie to the contrary argument was conclusively given by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) in his contribution to the substantive debate that we held some months ago.
  It is easy to see why the respective Front Bench teams want to pretend that the issue is one of great substance. The Labour Front Bench team finds it convenient to use its support for the social agreement as a stick with which to beat the Government, so giving the illusion of firm opposition while ensuring that the substantive measure—the Bill—is passed, effectively unamended.
  It is equally easy to see why the Prime Minister is a willing participant in that charade. He has to explain to Conservative Members, the House and the country why he has accepted a treaty that runs so contrary to our interests. Therefore, he hopes to bamboozle the ideologues among his hon. Friends by saying that he has secured a signal victory on a matter of great importance. The truth is that

  215
  it is not a matter of great importance, so it is perhaps a little peculiar that we have debated at length a protocol that has such a limited effect.
  I am one of those who would rather not have the treaty, but if we are to have it I would, on balance, rather have the protocol and the social agreement—modest and marginally helpful little pieces of verbiage. So if a vote is called this evening, I will be happy to vote for the Labour amendment.
  What is much more important—I do not believe that any of the supporters or opponents of the social protocol would dispute this—for the purposes of our debate today is not the effect of carrying or failing to carry the amendment; it is the effect—the procedural, legal and constitutional effect—on the future of the Bill and the treaty. That is what preoccupies us this evening, and rightly so.
  The real question is: if we carry this amendment, what will be the impact on the Government's ability to ratify the treaty? At first glance, some Ministers will argue that the decision taken by the House of Commons does not count. They will try to say that by running away from a Division they have disarmed those who have forced the amendment through. Let us be under no illusion about what has happened, however. It does not matter whether this decision is imposed on the Government by a majority vote or whether the Government simply yield to the will of Parliament. At the end of the evening Parliament will decide, and it will decide to accept the amendment and hence to exclude from the Bill the social protocol.
  Then there will be those who mutter, perhaps from the Conservative Back Benches, that we can disregard this decision because the motivations of those who support it are so at variance and, indeed, contradictory. That may well be true, but it is also true of many decisions that we take in this House. If anyone ever inquired into some of our decisions, the results would doubtless be somewhat unedifying. In almost every case we would discover that the primary reason why most of our colleagues vote on a given issue is the fact that they are told to do so by the Whips—and had there been a Division this evening, that would have been true of this occasion as well.
  The truth is that it does not matter a toss what our motivations are. They will always vary; they will always be inconsistent; it is never profitable or necessary to inquire into what they may be. What matters is the decision of the House. So the amendment is to be carried and the Bill will carry on its face a statement of the House's hostility to the opt-out protocol.
  What are the legal consequences of this decision? The first question to be asked is: what is the consequence for domestic law? After all, the purpose of the Bill is not to ratify the treaty: it is to incorporate those parts of the treaty that need incorporation into domestic law. The House will say that it does not wish to incorporate the protocol in domestic law. On that question it might be assumed that there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that this matters a great deal; otherwise, why would the Government have insisted when they drafted the Bill that this provision should be included in it and thus incorporated into domestic law? Incidentally, the Foreign Secretary was rather disingenuous when he tried to explain, quite wrongly, that it
  216
  was a matter of convention that all amendments to the treaty of Rome were listed and therefore incorporated. The very Bill with which we are dealing distinguishes between the parts of the amending treaty which are to be incorporated and the parts which are not.
  The Government must explain why they incorporated the protocol in the parts of the treaty which they believed had to be incorporated in domestic law, and why they have since changed their mind, saying now that it does not matter.
  For a long period the legal advice, as one would suppose in this context, was that a refusal to incorporate the provision in domestic law would create a real problem for the Government. It is surely common ground that if a disparity arises between our commitments as incorporated in domestic law and the commitments that we undertake under treaty law, it becomes impossible for the Government to ratify the treaty. This could hardly, therefore, be of more central importance.
  So we have the mystery not only of the original drafting but of the sustained legal advice to the effect that, in accordance with the drafting, a failure to incorporate would make for real problems. Then there was the further mystery, even once the legal advice had been magically changed, that it was still the Government's position that they would resist this amendment to the utmost. The fact that they have now faced the inevitable does not alter the fact that, until an hour ago, as far as we knew, the Government attached considerable importance to voting down the amendment.
  So all the presumptions must be that a failure to incorporate the protocol makes a great deal of difference. Nevertheless, speaking as a lawyer—sometimes it is not wise to admit that—I am inclined to take the view that the Attorney-General's opinion is likely to be proved right: that the Government, having had second and better thoughts, have, on the balance of probabilities, come up with the right answer. Incidentally, we are told in interviews and statements conducted outside the House that the Attorney-General has ruled on the matter. We should remember that he is not a court of law; he is simply offering an opinion which may or may not be correct. We wait to see, if it is tested in the courts, whether it proves correct.
  Mr. Skinner: We are often told that we debate legislation in this place in a way that is different from how other nations in the Common Market debate theirs—we discuss it line by line and clause by clause. As the Speaker has selected this amendment, it must be a valid amendment or it could not have been selected. Would not a court of law, therefore, say that the amendment must, prima facie, be in order and fit for incorporation in our law? Would not that argument carry more weight than the Attorney-General's statement to the House?
  Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend makes a further persuasive point on the side of the argument that there must have been a purpose in incorporating the provision—or attempting to—in the first place, so failing to incorporate it must have some legal consequence.
  Let us return to my personal view—it is the best that I can arrive at—which is that the Attorney-General, on balance, would be the favourite to win if the issue were litigated in a court of law. That is not to say that he would win. There is a powerful argument to be made along the

  217
  lines of what my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) have said, to the effect that the absence of the exclusion of the social agreement, as achieved by the protocol, might matter to domestic law. I confess that I find it a little difficult to think of a case in point, but one would not be beyond the bounds of possibility.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Perhaps my hon. Friend has discovered a sliver of a case that the Foreign Secretary might have had for completeness and clarity's sake. There is a major flaw in the argument, however. Clearly, the legal advisers in the Foreign Office who advised the Minister of State and the adviser-in-chief to the Attorney-General hold views that are widely differing. The former say that adoption would preclude ratification, the latter that the issue is more or less neutral and does not matter either way. My hon. Friend may have some knowledge of the legal department in the Foreign Office; it appears that the Government did not even get their legal arguments straight before the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) delivered his initial opinion.
  Mr. Gould: The fact that the Foreign Office legal advisers and the Attorney-General's legal advisers reached diametrically opposite conclusions makes the point, which is surely apparent to everybody and which perhaps I am somewhat labouring, that no one can be certain. As my hon. Friend suggested, I happen to know the Foreign Office chief legal adviser, Mr. Frank Berman, who is an excellent lawyer. I would be astonished if he had not based his conclusion on powerful and convincing legal argument. As we have not been privileged to see the detail of the argument, either for or against, my best estimate is that the Attorney-General might prevail.
  However, the point that I wish to emphasise is that it would be worth while if an appropriate case could be found to test the matter in the courts. If the Attorney-General turned out to be wrong, that would be—I am sure my hon. Friend would agree—a bar to the Government's being able to ratify the treaty. All that I can say to those who are contemplating litigating on the issue is that it should be done soon, as the possibility of getting a judicial review of a statute is pretty slight.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Wilkinson: Could the hon. Gentleman give us his learned opinion on a matter that I referred to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but on which he gave no reply because by then, in naval parlance, he was already making smoke prior to withdrawal? As the protocol will be eliminated by acceptance of the amendment by Her Majesty's Government, will there be no obligation in British law to accept its provisions? Does that mean that the United Kingdom could get away with not paying its contribution to the costs of the administration of the social charter on behalf of the others who have signed it, or will the European Court oblige us to pay our contribution to that to which we are not a signatory?
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman raises what I can best describe as a "colourable" argument. If a citizen could overcome the problems of locus standi, which in my view are never as great as they are said to be, that argument might lead to a justiciable issue on which a court might
  218
  have to decide. In those circumstances, there is at least a chance that the court will decide against the Attorney-General and in favour of the Foreign Office legal advice.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has said that he knows all about the Foreign Office legal department. If that case were to come before the court, does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be beneficial, indeed essential, that those in the Foreign Office who gave their legal advice came before the court and explained the legal advice?
  Mr. Gould: I am sure that means might be found to produce that sort of expression of opinion if the matter were ever litigated.
  I want to pass on to a second possible aspect of tonight's decision. It is not the obstacle to ratification that would be imposed by some disparity between the treaty and domestic law. Rather, it is the effect of the statement by the House on the propriety of the Government exercising their prerogative power to ratify a treaty in defiance of what the House has said. Everybody concedes—it is a well-established part of our constitution—that the power to ratify a treaty is a prerogative power that is not to be affected, at least not easily or directly, by the deliberations of the House. Some would argue that it is not even justiciable in the courts.
  However, as often happens in such cases, a convention has grown up. It was established nearly 70 years ago and given the title the Ponsonby rule. It is the convention that certain treaties of major importance should not be ratified in the exercise of prerogative power without being laid before Parliament for 21 days. That practice has varied and has sometimes been abandoned, but nevertheless it has been a pretty constant feature of our practice over that 70-year period. One can only assume that the whole purpose of laying the treaty for 21 days so that Parliament can consider it is to enable Parliament to express an opinion.
  What we do not know, as far as I am aware, is what would happen if Parliament expressed a view that was contrary to the treaty—if Parliament said, "We don't want you to ratify the treaty." We certainly do not know that in the European context because in the case of the great Acts of Parliament that preceded the Bill—in 1972, 1986 and so on—no such attempt to change the treaty or express a different view from that in the treaty succeeded. This is novel. We are in uncharted territory. We simply do not know what would be the court's view--or even whether it would accept that there was a justiciable case—if it was asked in such circumstances whether it would be right for the Government to ratify the treaty in defiance of a solemn expression of opinion by the House of Commons.
  Mr. Peter Shore: My hon. Friend said that there was no precedent for that happening. Has he dismissed from his memory, or thought not appropriate, the case of the Laval pact of 1934? The rejection of that pact by the House led to the abandonment of it and the resignation of the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Gould: That is an interesting precedent. Perhaps I should refine the point that I am making. What would be the consequence of the House saying that it was prepared to endorse the treaty as a whole, but that it objected to part of it? That creates a problem. Everybody concedes that one cannot ratify in part. One either ratifies a treaty or one

  219
  does not. Let us imagine that we were arguing the case before a court, although nobody can be sure that we could get it before a court. No doubt the Government would say that Parliament has endorsed the treaty by a majority on Second Reading and on the paving debate. Those on the other side would say that, in a subsequent vote, Parliament made it clear—that has nothing to do with legislation because we are doing two separate things at the same time—that, quite apart from what happens in legislation, its solemn view is that it does not want the protocol.
  Unfortunately for us, it is not open for us to say that we do not want the protocol in the treaty because that is not a judgment for us to take. We can do only two things—decide what goes into domestic law and, in accordance with the conventions, express a view on whether this is a treaty that we can support and which the Government are therefore authorised to ratify. I argue that, in accepting the amendment, we would not only change the Bill but we would make it as clear as it could conceivably be made clear that the House of Commons, unanimously—for whatever reasons—does not want the protocol. That is the judgment of the House.
  We therefore need to know the consequence of that. All that I suggest is that, quite apart from the obstacles that might arise from the interpretation of domestic law, there may be, in accordance with constitutional convention, some inhibition on the Government's ratifying the treaty in those circumstances, particularly when, as is inevitable, we come to vote on Third Reading. A vote for the Bill on Third Reading will not be a vote for the treaty, but will be a vote, as far as we can engineer it, for part of the treaty but shorn of the protocol. We shall have done it twice and we can hardly do it in more solemn, considered or deliberate fashion.
  After all those hours of debate and all the attention. importance and significance invested in the decision, it would be inconceivable that, the House having reached such a view and expressed it in the most solemn form open to it and, through the agency of people such as myself, pointed to the consequences in terms of the Ponsonby rule and the constitutional conventions, the Government could then blithely go on and ratify the treaty.
  Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his argument carries less force if one views the protocol as a separate international agreement not affected by the ratification of the treaty as a whole? Does he further accept that the internal language of the protocol makes it clear that the signatories of the protocol regarded it not as an integral agreement but as a separate agreement, although one related to the treaty, and that the failure to approve the protocol would not damage the ratification process of the treaty itself? It certainly calls into question whether it is appropriate to declare, as appears to be the Foreign Secretary's intention, that Britain will ratify the social protocol regardless of what Parliament says.
  Mr. Gould: That point has been argued on a number of occasions by the hon. Gentleman and others in his party, but in all honesty I do not think that it has any merit. I speak only from memory, but I believe that the 1978 Act declared that a treaty includes the protocols and all the other bits and pieces that go with the treaty. There is no question but that the protocol is part of the treaty for the
  220
  purposes of the 1978 Act and, therefore, for the purposes of clause 1(2) of the Bill. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument fails.
  In addition, clause 1(2) is absolutely conclusive on the fact that, for the purposes of the 1978 Act, the treaty is approved—but that is only for the purposes of that Act and does not, in my view, touch the wider constitutional question with which I am dealing.
  Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the agreement on social policy is attached to the protocol—it could be argued that it is part of the protocol—it is annexed to the treaty? Is not it also clear that, under article 2 of the agreement, it is only through the unanimous action of the Council, on a Commission proposal to consult in the European Parliament, that the progeny of the protocol can be achieved? Therefore, it must be integral to the institutions of the Community and the treaties that establish them.
  Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend must be right. In any ordinary interpretation of these matters, a protocol is part of the treaty. That was made clear in the 1978 Act. Although I sympathise with the purpose behind what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, his point has no validity.
  In the light of the arguments, uncertainties and confusions, it would be wrong of the Government blithely to assume that they can proceed in defiance of Parliament's will. Because of that, I want to make a particular point to my Front Bench spokesmen. We have the opportunity, if we wish, to stand up for Parliament on this issue. We can say that it is an outrage for a Government to say both in advance and in retrospect that they will pay no attention to the view of Parliament. If we are parliamentarians—and surely we are that, if nothing else—we must stand up for the authority of Parliament. The Opposition Front Bench, above all, has that obligation. The Executive will always try to get away with the issue, but the Opposition Front and Back Benchers must always be vigilant and protect Parliament.
  We have it in our power to deliver a very harsh lesson to the Government if they refuse to listen to the voice of Parliament. The official Opposition can vote against Third Reading. There is no doubt that, by doing so, we can defeat the Government. Any Government posturing and blustering to the effect that they would take no notice of Parliament would be brought to a rapid conclusion. The Government would then have to sue for terms not just with us, but with their European partners. Surely that is exactly what we want, in our various ways. We want a renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty and we want to force the Government to negotiate a social agreement. So why do not we do that? I urge the Opposition Front Bench to act in the interests of Parliament and of the country and to do the job of an Opposition, which is to bring the Government to heel if they refuse to heed the voice of Parliament and persist in acting in defiance of it.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) spoke with his customary clarity and lucidity. We always listen carefully to his speeches. I agreed with much of what he said and, from the Opposition's general vantage point, I could understand his main points. However, I strongly disagree with his statement that the social

  221
  protocol and the opt-out provisions that the Government negotiated are an integral part of the treaty. I strongly agree with what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said on that point.
  Far from it being right for the hon. Member for Dagenham to suggest that the Government are riding roughshod over the opinion of the House in respect of amendment No. 2, the reverse is true. I shall stand corrected if anyone wishes to intervene and say differently, but it is my understanding that the Government are accepting the will of the House by accepting an amendment that will change the text of clause 1.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is not the Government's fault that constitutionally, legally, juridically and in actual fact, the Bill and its text are different from the treaty. The hon. Gentleman conceded that reality. Indeed, it is the way that we deal with these matters in our international relations.
  There is a difference between the Crown prerogative of the treaty and its provisions and the legislation that is needed to change some aspects of domestic law in the successive treaties that began with the treaty of Rome—when Britain was not yet a member—and then with the treaty of accession, when we decided to join. I cannot understand why hon. Members become so worked up about that point and think that the Government are being devious.
  I feel no resentment towards the Opposition in general. I remind the hon. Member for Dagenham that, even if his colleagues followed his advice and voted against Third Reading, I assume that a substantial, respectable and admirable number of Opposition and other Members would support the Bill, or abstain at the very least. If that were not to be the case, it would be depressing, in view of the strong pro-European line that those hon. Members have displayed throughout our debates. We all know who I mean, and it is a considerable number of hon. Members. Perhaps they will be active in Labour party discussions between now and Third Reading to ensure that that point is conveyed.
  I reserve my principal bitterness for my hon. Friends who have dealt the Government a very bad card in making unnecessary threats about amendment No. 2 and its predecessor, amendment No. 27.
  Mr. Milligan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is pretty rich for the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and our hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who say that they stand up for the voice of Parliament, to be supporting an amendment that will, in effect, transfer the decision on such a vital issue to unelected judges, rather than leaving it with elected Members of Parliament?
  Mr. Dykes: That is a valid point. I hope that the homespun reality that those hon. Members probably could not afford to go to the courts might be a more practical restraint on them. The cavalier references by some of my hon. Friends to taking prolonged High Court action against our own Government and party are scandalous.
  I use that word with some restraint. I feel bitter about such antics. I am one Conservative Member who might be tempted to accept some aspects of the social provisions. After all, many of the leading clauses appear in the Single European Act, and the remainder follow in the Maastricht
  222
  treaty. The initial aspirations of the social provisions that will be adopted by the other II member states are written down, in the same language, in the Single European Act. We all know that.
  I am probably one of those Conservative Members who would not get as worked up as others about the iniquities of the social provisions. But, bearing in mind that the Government achieved a remarkable and successful negotiation of their position vis-a-vis the Maastricht treaty and intend to ratify the overwhelming proportion of that treaty, with the exception, perhaps, of this and another segment, it is wrong and reprehensible to say the least—that is too mild a word—for my hon. Friends to threaten the Government who have a reduced majority after the election for one reason or another and a Government who were entitled to ask all their supporters to go ahead on their manifesto programme with the ratification of this important and mild treaty. The idea that there is any transfer or loss of sovereign intrinsic power from this House or any elected Government as a result of the treaty is pure garbage, and I am amazed that some hon. Members continue to repeat it.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his place, but I shall mention the point that I am about to raise to him afterwards. I disagree with his interpretation of the principle and meaning of the selection of an amendment by the Chair. I in no way wish to question the selection of amendments—I know that it is a delicate and sensitive subject nowadays, so for various reasons I shall refrain from doing so—but the fact that Madam Speaker at this stage of the Bill or the Chairman of Ways and Means at earlier stages selects an amendment does not mean that it is perfectly respectable in constitutional and juridical terms. I would be surprised if that were so. The hon. Member for Dagenham agreed with that assertion by the hon. Member for Bolsover, and I think that it is literally incorrect.
  A selection represents an important subject for debate and an important potential amendment or change to an important part of the Bill, but that is all. I cannot imagine that it has the purist definition of textual purity, constitutional correctness, and juridical approbation, and that therefore learned judges or legal experts outside court systems would say that the amendment was correct in all those terms. I should be surprised if that were so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is still in the Chamber. He has been one of the best attenders of these prolongued debates, and I pay tribute to him for that. I think that he was confused about the intentions and aspirations of the public outside. I have not noticed that there are millions of people in Britain worrying about any loss of power as a result of the treaty, or that there is any great interest in it even. That is no criticism of them. I think that they regard it as a fairly routine matter. What appals them and many people in the House is the amount of time that has been spent on unnecessary debate.
  I say that deliberately, and I do not mean to be anti-democratic or to say that the House does not have the right to have such prolonged debate. I do not mean that at all. I am talking about the misinterpretation of the substance of the treaty and the mischievous and mis-explanation of it for purposes to do with our original entry into the Community as a member state rather than the further development of the gradual integration of some decision making—not all—in the Community, which I find completely acceptable.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend when he has said exceptionally kind things about me, but I make him a public offer. I should be happy to donate £100 to the European Movement if he can find a majority of people in any street in his constituency who are not in favour of a referendum. I find that the vast majority of people say that they do not know about Maastricht and they want to know about it and to have a say in it. I shall go with my hon. Friend to any place in Harrow, and if the majority there do not want a referendum I shall give him £100.
  Mr. Dykes: When Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister, she stopped the grant to the European Movement in 1985, but I should be happy to accept my hon. Friend's offer for reasons unconnected with this debate. Again, my hon. Friend misunderstands what I am saying. If anyone in the street is told that he is being deprived of a say in something and asked whether he would like a say in it, the answer will be overwhelmingly yes.
  Some Opposition Members say that referendums are wonderful, sacred, very important and so on and should not be limited to this subject. What about capital punishment? Others say no, there are other key subjects. If we had a referendum, we know that the result would be totally uncongenial to all members of the official Opposition. Therefore, that argument does not arise.
  More important and relevant is the reality of those matters. I think that I am right in saying that, in the Newbury by-election campaign—we shall see the conclusion and result of that tomorrow and, axiomatically, I hope for a Government win and I think that there will be one—the opinion polls revealed that, despite the hysterical antics of the Euro-sceptics, the anti-Europeans and Alan Sked screaming around the town to a bemused public about the dangers and evils of federalism, the subjects of concern to people were mainly economic problems, unemployment and so on. Only 6 per cent. were concerned with the European Community.
  Alan Sked, heroically and bravely, stood in Bath at the election as the anti-federal candidate against Chris Patten, now Governor of Hong Kong, and won 117 votes. An anti-federal candidate in Harrow, East won 49 votes. There is more than one such candidate standing in the Newbury by-election, and I think that we shall see a similar result tomorrow. It is nonsense to say that the public are worked up about this. What they have been worked up about are the prolonged debates, which appear to mean that even pro-Europeans in the House have voluntarily and enthusiastically chosen to spend hours on repeat debates on unnecessary amendments.
  I say that in no anti-democratic spirit at all. That is the literal reality. That is what has concerned the House of Commons—this so-called sovereign and primordially important Parliament, the one that we all love—rather than the crucial economic problems that most preoccupy members of the public. In the end, that is the disturbing thing for the anti-Europeans, as well as the way in which some Conservative Members have let down the Government.
  I have read again and again the legal judgment of the Attorney-General in order to convince myself that I understand it—the advice given not only to the Government but to the House on the matter—and I am satisfied with it. I think that I was also able to follow what
  224
  the Foreign Secretary was saying, and there may be further explanation and elucidation from the Government on the matter.
  I do not see that any of this would impede the ratification of the treaty, which pleases me, because I am impatient for it. It will be of great, good value and good store for Britain's future welfare. That is why I am glad that, after much muddle and delay, which I regret, some of which could have been avoided, we now face that position.
  I enjoin the House now to proceed on the basis of what appears to be being agreed in the debate in all parts of the House, depending on the later outcome of any votes or questions that may be put. That will then be the way to deal with the matter in the most acceptable way, without in any way reducing the basic democratic decision-making of the House of Commons in respect of an important treaty.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the demonology of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), I could be termed a true believer in the Community, but I do him the credit of being a true believer in what he says on the other side of the argument. It is from the position of a true believer that I want to ask a question of the Foreign Secretary which concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and others of us. I have, for the sake of convenience, given the officials the background against which I put the question.
  The matter started with a letter on 3 April addressed to me by someone writing from Switzerland. He said:
  "I am sending you a copy of an advertisment which has appeared now for five consecutive weeks in the Basle Zeitung. Although obviously as a British subject working in Switzerland I have nothing against the investment of Swiss capital in the UK, I feel that the negative image of Britain as a country with low wages and poor social conditions is something which should be improved and rapidly rather than extolled as a virtue."
  It will be recollected that in France, during what I must encapsulate as the Cambuslang-Dijon problem—when Enoch Powell was a Member of the House, he had the habit of expressing a view succinctly by giving it a heading—there was considerable ill-feeling when the workers of the Hoover plant in Dijon apparently lost their jobs because of the lower wages paid in Cambuslang. It was rather more complicated than that, but that was basically the situation.
  I do not go along with the argument—which is not true—that the Cambuslang workers were in any way underpaid by British standards, nor will I indulge in any criticism of the Hoover factory. It was said, however, that the Hoover workers in Cambuslang were able to keep their jobs because France had accepted the social chapter and we had not.
  I do not wish to quote the advertisement in full; that would not be possible anyway, because it is in German. However, it begins:
  "Niedriger Landkosten in Grossbritannien."
  It suggests that there is every opportunity to invest in Great Britain, because of the lower wages and lesser obligations involved. I have given a copy of the advertisement to the Foreign Office.
  6 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is something mean-minded and demeaning, in the eyes of the British people, about their Foreign Office spending public money on an advertisement

  225
  campaign in Switzerland—and, as we knov, from Monday's Guardian, another in the Federal Republic of Germany—telling people that this country is a haven for low standards and low pay.
  My hon. Friend was present when, in his speech the week before last, the Foreign Secretary dismissed with a flick of the wrist the argument that jobs moved around on the basis of wages and conditions. Why, then, is public money being spent to lower our country's standards and its reputation abroad? My hon. Friend has raised a valid point, which I strongly endorse.
  Mr. Dalyell: I have been told to be succinct——
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dalyell: I rather hoped that the Foreign Secretary would comment at this stage, so that we could get the point about the advertisement out of the way now. However, I will give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Mallon: Let me reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point by alluding to the removal of the Digital plant from Galway to Ayr. The same argument was used in that instance—that, because the Republic of Ireland had ratified the Maastricht treaty, cheap labour was available in Ayr. That, surely, must be bad for the whole concept of competition on a level playing field within the European Community.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am very glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend. It so happens that I know a good deal about Digital, which has a huge and modern plant at South Queensferry. I have visited the Ayr plant, and have talked at length to the management there and at South Queensferry; I have also talked to the trade unions involved. I must admit that there is some embarrassment in Scotland about what happened in relation to Galway. Of course we were pleased to have the plant, but genuine sorrow was felt about those who suffered in Galway.
  Mr. Hurd rose——
  Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I should enable the point to be cleared up by giving way to the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Hurd: I have not yet seen the advertisement to which the hon. Gentleman referred; when I have done so, and have been able to examine the background, I shall write to him.
  This argument—based, as it is, purely on statistics inside the European Community—is becoming increasingly unreal. The whole Community is becoming uncompetitive; the whole Community is allowing burdens on employers to increase, to such an extent that, if the process continues, it will soon be a question not of whether firms locate themselves in the Republic of Ireland or in Scotland, but of whether they locate themselves in Europe at all.
  Mr. Dalyell: That raises real problems. When I invited the Foreign Secretary to intervene, I did not want to trick him into some long argument. I think that we should leave it at that for the moment, as was my undertaking.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton pointed out, other advertisements have appeared in other newspapers. People who place such advertisements do so at considerable expense to themselves: they must think that they are gaining some advantage, even if the Foreign
  226
  Secretary and others do not. Those who advertise normally have their motives. I hope that the Foreign Office will reflect on the issue, and possibly write to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and others who are interested, including myself.
  Mr. Marlow: I have here a copy of the Maastricht treaty. Through the decision that it has made today, the House is mutilating that treaty. Given the overriding sovereignty of the House and the significance of the issue, how can the Government—having seen the treaty mutilated—then ratify that mutilated treaty? That is the question that will be before the House and the country; that is the question that my constituents will ask. They will see that we have wrought great changes in the treaty today. It is not the treaty that the Government negotiated: it has been changed.
  I have heard all the smart legal points about this being a Bill and a potential Act of Parliament—about Ponsonby rules, and the Government's entitlement to ratify treaties. My constituents, however, will say, "Here is a mutilated treaty." Parliament has decided to reject part of the treaty; how, then, can my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Government, in all conscience, proceed to ratify this rotten relic of a rotten treaty?
  Mr. Hurd: Only with the permission of the House, which will be expressed in the form of agreement to Third Reading.
  Mr. Marlow: If the Bill is to have its Third Reading—I understand that that is dependent on the result of the Danish referendum, unless the Government change their mind about that as well—it will be Third Reading of a mutilated Bill, in connection with a mutilated treaty. Will the Government then be able to ratify the original treaty, given that the Third Reading given by the House will relate to a changed perception of a mutilated treaty? I am assuming that the House proceeds with Third Reading. In an eloquent speech, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) suggested that the House should reject the treaty at that stage. Even if the Bill secures its Third Reading, however, it will not be the original Bill, and the House will specifically exclude the social protocol in its assessment of the treaty. It will be saying no to the social protocol. How, after that, the Government can then ratify a wounded, mutilated treaty beggars belief.
  In response to an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out that—along with hon. Friends who share my point of view—I had apparently supported the social protocol in earlier votes. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister never wanted the Maastricht treaty. It was not his idea; it was suggested by other countries on the continent. We felt that they were going too far too fast, and tried to slow them down. Eventually, my right hon. Friend was ambushed: he was put in a position where he had to go along with something. Along with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was involved in a devastating, excellent, brilliant holding operation—a damage-limitation exercise. The treaty that we have here is not the treaty that other European Governments would have wanted: I congratulate my right hon. Friends on that.
  Before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht, I gave him overall support, although I did not

  227
  support every jot and tittle of the argument that he was taking to Maastricht. I realised that he had been ambushed, and that he wanted to do his best for the United Kingdom. Certainly, no one could have done better than he did 18 months ago—and no one could have done better than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We are all full of praise for his effectiveness in difficult circumstances. When my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister came back and it was put before the House—not far removed from the date of a potential election—yet again we supported my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister for the excellent work they had carried forward.
  My right hon. Friend said that I supported the Government on Second Reading. That is not correct. I did not support the Government on Second Reading of the Bill. Many of my colleagues opposed the Government on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend has also made the point that if we vote for a package—for a lengthy amendment with a whole series of details in it—we support every single detail in it. Is my right hon. Friend saying that if in future we disagree with some small aspect of a composite amendment or composite motion we should therefore vote against it?
  If that is the point that my right hon. Friend is trying to make, I suggest that he has a word with the Patronage Secretary. The Government are not in a particularly happy position with this legislation. If we have to believe that we are committed to every single thing in every amendment that we vote for in the future, I put it to my right hon. Friend that the job of the Patronage Secretary will be much more difficult than it has been in the past.
  What is it all about? What is this social protocol? As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said, it is a totem. The Government say that they have achieved a great success which will benefit the United Kingdom; we shall not be chained and shackled by the social protocol, as other Europeans will be. The Labour party looks at the social protocol and says that it is jammed full of benefits, that it is what we all want and that the people of Britain will be devastated if we cannot have it. But what is the reality? The social protocol is an agreement between 11 countries in Europe, from which we have an exemption. The agreement is that they can go ahead and work out these policies between them but that they should not apply to the United Kingdom. But what is the social protocol all about?
  Article 1 concerns the objectives of the social protocol. It states:
  "The Community and the Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions".
  Who can disagree with that? We are all in favour of promoting employment and, in so far as they do not destroy employment, improved living and working conditions. The article also states:
  "To this end the Community and the Member States shall implement measures which take account of the diverse forms of national practices".
  We do things differently here. So do Greece, Belgium, and Luxembourg. We shall be able to continue to do things differently in different parts of the Community. Would
  228
  anybody disagree with that? According to the objectives, which set the tone of the whole of the social protocol, we also have to take account of
  "the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy."
  All the burdens that my hon. Friends are concerned about have to be weighed against the effect that they will have on the competitiveness of United Kingdom and European industry and commerce. Is that something that we ought to be concerned about? What can be done which is of benefit to the working people of Europe and to the social cohesion of Europe if at the same time it undermines the competitiveness of the European Community and the countries within it? The objectives of the social protocol are something that Members of Parliament, if they look at them carefully, cannot object to. They represent pure motherhood; they are good. If we can get them, why worry about them?
  Article 2 is the meat of the treaty. I shall return to it in a few moments. Articles 3 and 4 are permissive. In other words, if we do not like them we can say that they are nonsense. They deal with trade unions and management getting together, being permitted to do this, that and the other and the Commission becoming involved, if it can give a helping hand. They take a bit longer to say that, but is the substance any different from article 118B of the Single European Act, which says:
  "The Commission shall endeavour to develop the dialogue between management and labour at European level which could, if the two sides consider it desirable, lead to relations based on agreement."?
  That is an economical way of saying what is set out in articles 3 and 4. That is all; there is no great difference. There is just a little more flesh put upon articles 3 and 4.
  Mr. Dykes: To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, does he agree that it is interesting to see in the text for the other member states that the word "legal" stands before the word "agreement"? The word "legal" was taken out of the English text.
  Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is a great linguist, and we all surrender to him on that point. Simple fellow that I am, I have to restrict myself to the text that is written in the English language. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore bear with me.
  6.15 pm
  Article 5 has no great significance. It relates to the Commission being able to put its views forward regarding co-operation. Article 6 is a politically correct article. It says:
  "Each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work is applied."
  That applies anyhow. It is part of the laws of Europe; it is part of the laws of the land. Article 7 has no great additional significance.
  So what is the meat of the protocol? It is article 2, which says:
  "the Community shall support and complement the activities of the Member States in the following fields:
  —improvement … of the working environment".
  That exists already in article 118A. We all know well that that exists. We are constantly getting legislation—some good, some bad—from the European Community regarding the working environment and also the health and safety of workers.

  229
  Secondly, article 2 refers to working conditions. It does not refer to the bettering of working conditions, or to the improvement of working conditions. I presume that it means that if Europe became desperately uncompetitive with the Pacific rim, the participants in the social protocol could sit down together and extend the working week, if they wanted to. That is what working conditions means. The article does not say that we should move in any particular direction. So who is concerned about that?
  Article 2 also refers to
  "the information and consultation of workers"
  and to
  "equality between men and women".
  We already have that in article 6. The article refers also to
  "the integration of persons excluded from the labour market".
  Everybody, I believe, is in favour of the integration of persons excluded from the labour market. It may be that some enthusiasts in the European Community, with the Commission at the back of it—we are all a bit worried about the Commission—will come forward with ideas that are burdensome.
  The article states that the Council may adopt directives. It does not say that it has to adopt directives. However, when the Council adopts those directives, it has to take account of the following sentence:
  "Such directives shall avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings."
  Anything that can be brought forward on this basis, even though it can be brought forward in certain restricted fields, most of which are already covered by article 118A, has to take account of the satisfactory development and the wealth and prosperity of medium-sized and small undertakings. Is that not something that is satisfactory from my right hon. Friend's point of view, from the Conservative Government's point of view, from the Cabinet's point of view? What are they concerned about?
  If we look further down, we see that social security, termination of contracts, representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers—that is, trades union legislation—the conditions of employment of third country nationals and financial contributions for the promotion of employment and job creation is all to be done by unanimity. If my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Conservative Government do not like them, they can stop them. They have got a veto.
  Anything that might be contentious on a party political basis, any of the things that we do not want but that the Labour party might want, the United Kingdom Government, if it were participating in the social protocol, would have the ability to control and prevent from going ahead.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Or anybody else.
  Mr. Marlow: Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman says, it would be possible not only for us but for anybody else to do that. If an individual country in Europe wished to do so—if it regarded it as socially beneficial and not burdensome—it could pass its own legislation. But if we were participating in the social protocol, we could veto proposals that we thought would be burdensome for the United Kingdom and for Europe and prevent them from being implemented.
  The final part of article 2 of the agreement on social policy states:
  230
  "The provisions of this Article shall not apply to pay, right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs."
  A great deal of trade union legislation has been introduced since the Conservative Government came into power in 1979. I voted for it. I agree with it and am of the opinion that it has been of great benefit to this country; I know that Labour Members will disagree with that view. But that legislation, too, is safeguarded, so what are the problems?
  I put it to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that Europe is changing. It is becoming less competitive. Massive cracks are opening up in the German economy and the Germans' ethos and their attitude to those problems is changing. They know that they have the highest priced work force, the highest on costs and some of the worst absenteeism in Europe—that the great German economic miracle stands balanced between further progress and potential disaster. Attitudes towards working conditions and social legislation in Germany may well be on the threshold of a major change.
  Suppose that we do not participate in the social protocol. Ideas come forward. Germany may have second thoughts—from a Conservative point of view—about some of those ideas. The idea may be anathema to Labour Members—it may fill them with horror—but the Germans may not like what is proposed. If we are not there, they will be alone and the proposals will go through. The Germans will feel that they must show solidarity with the others; no one will be there to join them, to agree with them, to share their misgivings. Legislation will be implemented and will affect—in theory—11 member states.
  Do we really believe that the other member states will allow it to stop at 11? We know what has happened with other legislation. We had safeguards in the Single European Act. Originally, all these great and important matters were to be decided by unanimity. They were not. A lot of things—including the length of the working week—have been decided by majority voting. If Britain is not involved and if Britain's ideas are not in evidence, we shall have legislation under the social protocol—first for the other 11 member states and then for the United Kingdom—which we shall not have been able to influence. If we participated alongside the Germans—other people with more realistic views about the potentially damaging effects of social legislation on this scale at this stage, with the European economy going down and other economies in the world coming up—we might be able to mould and modify the legislation, not just for the benefit of the United Kingdom but for the benefit of the rest of Europe.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is a fascinating new spectacle. For the first time ever, the hon. Gentleman appears to be brimming with enthusiasm for the Maastricht treaty. It is wonderful to watch, but I am not clear that I follow his argument. Is the essence of his position that we should scrap the rest of the treaty and just pass the social chapter?
  Mr. Marlow: The essence of my position is the same as the essence of the hon. Gentleman's position: it is that vie should scrap the treaty. What I am saying is that we have had a totally bogus debate about the social chapter so far, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said. The opt-out has been used as a virility symbol—good jungle stuff. We heard from my right hon. Friends what a great victory they had won for Britain in securing an opt-out from the social chapter and we heard from the

  231
  Opposition how it would be the end of the world if we did not have the social chapter—our people would be victimised; their working conditions would be appalling; it would be back to Dickens if we did not sign. That is nonsense. If I have one plea to put to hon. Members it is that, before we return to the debate at a later stage, they should read the social protocol, take advice on it and understand it. Let us stop talking slogans and talk reality.
  Today, through a combination of views and pressures and attitudes, we have changed the Bill before the House in such a way that I believe that it would be improper for the Government to go ahead with ratification. They know that there is no feeling of warmth, affection or commitment towards the Maastricht treaty in the country at large. They know that people are uneasy about it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said, let us have some fresh thoughts. Let us put this mangled issue before the people of this country in straightforward terms in a referendum. Let us put the social protocol in front of the people of the country.
  We do not have referendums on capital punishment. Who would pass the legislation if we did? But we can have a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. The questions can be simple: "Do you want Maastricht or do you not?"; "Are you prepared to make a decision on Maastricht?"; "Do you want the social protocol or do you not?" Those are simple questions with simple answers.
  In this place, we use the powers of the people and if, from time to time in using those powers, we abuse those powers, we will get kicked out. If that happens, Labour will get in and put right what, in its view, we have done wrong. But if, by ratifying the treaty, we dispense with the powers of the people and pass them to institutions over which we have no control, we do something that we do not have the right to do. Those powers are not our powers to dispose of: they are the people's powers. Why not let the people choose?
  Mr. David Trimble: I think it was the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who said that this was, in many ways, a sad occasion and a sad reflection on our procedures and debates. Other hon. Members have commented on the length of time that has been spent discussing the social protocol and the agreement on social policy and discussing amendments Nos. 27 and 2. We have spent an awful lot of time discussing those issues. Until yesterday, the amendment was billed as or expected to be the crunch event in our discussion of the Bill—the one issue on which the Government would suffer a really important defeat. Today was to be the day on which everything happened. Yet now, at half-past six, the Benches are empty, people have gone away and nothing is happening. The whole thing has become a damp squib. That is indeed a sad reflection on our proceedings.
  What has happened has been largely the result of the cumbersome way in which we proceed in ratifying treaties such as this. It would be much better if we had ratification processes similar to those adopted in other member states, where the legislature has to legislate in respect of all the terms of the treaty and where there can be proper debate on it. We do not have that opportunity. Instead, amendments have to be tabled to a Bill that refers to only part of the treaty. Then there is the difficulty of trying to
  232
  frame them so that they will have a serious effect. The interest, time and trouble that we have taken over this issue would not have been taken had it not been for the view expressed by the Government and by other hon. Members that amendment No. 27 was important. That is why it became a headline issue. Later, different opinions were expressed about the effect of amendment No. 27 and subsequently the present amendment.
  There has been speculation about the differences of opinion and the differences of legal opinion offered within the Government. We have had regrettably brief explanations by the Attorney-General and the Foreign Secretary of the revised opinions. We have not had—this is a serious omission—a full statement of the original opinion on which the Government acted and of the reasons for it.
  People outside the House must look on our proceedings with amazement. It would be of benefit to them if they could see the full range of opinion that lay before us or if, even at this late hour, the Government could explain those opinions. That would help people outside to understand how the confusion arose, how conflicting opinions were given and how an amendment that was originally regarded as a killer, both in the House and in comments and briefings outside the House, has ended up a damp squib. It is not the first time that that has happened. Other amendments which were thought to involve major issues ended up as damp squibs. That has given rise to accusations by some hon. Members of a conspiracy between the two Front Benches so that one Front Bench could appear to oppose without frustrating the passage of the Bill. I do not know the truth. I always take the view that if there is a choice between a conspiracy theory and the alternative—I am not sure whether it is parliamentary to refer to a cock-up theory—one should prefer the latter unless there is real evidence to the contrary.
  6.30 pm
  As to the effect of amendment No. 27 and now amendment No. 2, we had an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) explaining in detail his views. I found much of what he said persuasive. I shall not go over the same ground in detail, but with the indulgence of the House I want to make some observations on my view of the position.
  Two different matters are involved and it is easy for the language to slip between one and the other. There is the protocol on social policy and the agreement on social policy. The agreement is an agreement made by the other 11 members of the Community. It will not extend to the United Kingdom, nor will amendment No. 2 extend it. The protocol is separate from the agreement. The important point about the protocol is that it authorises the other 11 members, who entered into the agreement on social policy, to use the institutions of the Community for the purpose of carrying out the agreement. They need that permission. They cannot operate the agreement on social policy unless permission is granted by the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom does not grant permission, the agreement on social policy will be frustrated.
  The protocol also contains a provision about administrative costs, a point of considerable concern to some Conservative Members. An issue of principle is involved, but the amount is minor and there may be other

  233
  ways in which the expenditure can he justified legally and politically. I will leave the question of administrative costs to one side.
  As I said, the important point about the protocol is that it authorises the other 11 member states to proceed. I understand why Liberal Members have said that, in substance, the agreement on social policy and the protocol are separate. There is merit in the argument that their subject matter marks them out from the rest of the treaty. If, for the sake of argument, there was a separate treaty, the question would arise whether the Government could give effect to that separate agreement and ratify it without legislation.
  That brings in the argument of the Liberal party about section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. That section is ambiguous and I should not like to give a strong opinion about its effect. The argument of Liberal Members about the effect of section 6 is interesting. I suspect that the hon. Member for Dagenham is right, but it is for the courts to decide. I am prepared to assume that the Government could ratify an agreement on social policy and a protocol on social policy if they were in a separate document. To some extent, that supports the revised legal opinion given to the House by the Attorney-General and would appear to support the view that the adoption of amendment No. 2, which will occur later, would have no effect and that the Government could proceed to ratify.
  However, we do not have a separate agreement. The agreement on social policy and the protocol are in the treaty on European union. If Parliament decides that the protocol should not be endorsed, and by doing so clearly expresses the view that the Government should not authorise the other 11 member states to use the institutions of the Community, can or should the Government proceed? That is the kernel of the issue.
  Perhaps—I emphasise "perhaps"—on a narrow legal view the Government can proceed to ratify the treaty after the adoption of amendment No. 2, but is it constitutional for them to do so? There is a difference between what is legal and what is constitutional. It stems from the nature of our not clearly defined and evolving constitution. It would be against the spirit of the modern British constitution for the Executive to ignore the formally stated view of Parliament. The arguments of the hon. Member for Dagenham on that point are extremely persuasive.
  It would be unconstitutional for the Government to ratify the treaty after Parliament has expressed, as it probably will later, the view that the protocol on social policy should not be endorsed. If the Government proceed on that basis they will be changing constitutional practice. I appeal to them to think carefully before creating an important precedent and departing not only from practice but from what arguably would be constitutionally proper. What has arisen as a result of the Government's decision throws up a serious issue.
  One cannot be certain, largely for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Dagenham, but I suspect that there is potential for disparity between United Kingdom law, as it will be if the Bill, as amended, is passed, and the position as stated in the treaty. If there were not potential for disparity, the Bill would never have been drafted as it was. Without being able to identify where the disparity would be between United Kingdom law and the law of the Community, I suspect that there will be disparity.
  234
  If there is disparity, the best way to proceed is as the Government originally intended—by including a reference to the protocol in the Bill. By accepting amendment No. 2 and removing the protocol on social policy, the Government are taking the second-best way. They will be all right until the disparity between the United Kingdom law and Community law is apparent, when they will be in serious trouble because they will be out of step with Community law and they will have to come back to Parliament to pass new legislation.
  It is not a good way of proceeding, but it is interesting to note that there is a precedent for the Government to behave in precisely that way. I shall mention it briefly because it involves Northern Ireland legislation, in particular the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 1947, passed by the Stormont Parliament. Before it was passed, the Law Officers of the Crown in Northern Ireland, including Lord MacDermott and the father of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, William Lowry, advised the Northern Ireland Government and Her Majesty's Government in London that the legislation was ultra vires the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Their advice was not published at the time; it became available only 30 years later. We now know that they had good and solid reasons for believing the legislation to be unconstitutional. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government was, "Go ahead, legislate, and if you get into trouble later we will repair the damage by passing legislation at Westminster to rescue you."
  The Government have adopted a cavalier attitude to the ratification of the treaty. By accepting amendment No. 2, they have been forced into the position in which there is potentially a conflict between United Kingdom law and Community law. However, they accept that danger to get through today's crisis—to avoid the issue today. They will wait until the crisis comes back tomorrow, next month, next year or whenever and then come back. It may not be them: it may be someone else because people may have been reshuffled or moved on since then. That is a bad way to proceed. As the hon. Member for Southend, East said, what is happening today is a sad reflection on the House.
  I said at the outset that I hope the Government will have the opportunity to put into the public domain the original legal advice that they received from the lawyers in the Foreign Office and a detailed statement, not the short, almost contemptuous statements that we have had from the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General. It occurs to me that that material, advice and information will probably be in the public domain soon, despite the Government.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham wondered whether it would be possible to go to the United Kingdom court to seek a judicial review of an Act of Parliament. He is right to wonder because such action would create other precedents. It would be an interesting way to proceed. Of course, it is not necessary to do that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the question of locus standi is not a serious problem. It will be easy for people to seek a declaration that, in the light of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill as amended today, it will be unlawful or improper for the Government to proceed to ratify the treaty on European union. If people proceed to seek a declaration on that basis, one will move for discovery. On discovery, I am sure that a whole range of interesting material will come out of the Foreign Office and elsewhere.

  235
  Perhaps it is appropriate to get the shredders going before too much more time has elapsed on this issue—they may already be at work. An interesting issue will arise.
  The serious point underlying all this is that the Government will proceed in the way in which they said they want to—they will accept amendment No. 2 and thus have all of Parliament, in a deliberate and formal Act, say that it does not approve of the protocol on social policy and, consequently, does not think that Her Majesty's Government should authorise the other 11 member states to proceed to use the institutions of the Community for the purposes of the protocol. If they say that they will ignore the formal and unanimous statement of the House and rely on the strict letter of the law as they see it, it will be a bad day for the House and the British constitution. There are those who say that the whole operation of enacting the Bill will be a bad day for the British constitution.
  Mr. Maclennan: Earlier, the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) spoke with feeling and great conviction about the significance of the Bill and amendment No. 2. They are right to recognise, in a way that the Government have never allowed, that we are engaged in a significant matter. It is not about elegance in parliamentary drafting or tidiness: it is about what will appear on the face of an Act of Parliament and the consequences of that. Neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Attorney-General has been candid about that matter at any stage of the proceedings on this Bill.
  It is a matter of great regret that, in consideration of amendment No. 27 and in today's debate, responsible Ministers have paid such cursory attention to the legal effects of what we are seeking to do and what, apparently, as a result of the volte face by the Government, we shall do without dissension as a result of their acceptance of amendment No. 2. The hon. Member for Southend, East, whom I have known for a long time in the House, must not exaggerate the pressures that were put on him and other Conservative Members to kowtow to the Government's interpretation. That pressure does not stem from a matter of elegance of drafting because some course of action is preferable but not necessary—the Government took the view that what we are doing today is not simply preferable but necessary to achieve their purpose of the proper ratification of not only the Maastricht treaty but the social protocol.
  6.45 pm
  Why did the Government take that view, which they appear to be prepared to jettison today? Why is there that great inconsistency? Throughout the Maastricht process, the Government have talked with two voices. On the one hand, they have tried to convey the impression to the other member countries of the European Community that we were going along step by step with the development of the European union. On the other hand, they preferred not to emphasise that step-by-step approach to the British public but to trumpet a nationalistic rejection of the development of the European union. As evidence of that, they have produced the elements of the agreement, especially the provisions relating to the social chapter, that could be held up as evidence of Britain going it alone.
  The operation was always a two-faced one. It backfired badly on the Government not only today when the Foreign Secretary was faced with an intervention from the
  236
  hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) that put him on the spot and that he was unable to answer. If the matter was so massively important, as it had been declared earlier, why did the Foreign Secretary shrug it off today? The Foreign Secretary shrugged off not only that difficulty but a much more serious difficulty for the Government that flowed from the reaction of other member countries of the Community to what had been done in Maastricht. If the Government had been straightforward about the matter instead of covering up what was going on, it is probable that the Danes, in their referendum, would have come to a different decision. They would have felt not that Britain had pulled a fast one on them and got some sort of separate advantage but that it was proper and appropriate to move in step with the other 11 member countries of the Community.
  That has not been done without cost to the United Kingdom—it has certainly not been done without cost to the European Community. It has led to this Parliament having to debate the matter for months in ways that have forced other items off the agenda and that have led to the bafflement of the wider public because the Government have been so lacking in candour about what they are doing.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is another possible explanation for the lack of candour? I am not sure whether it also applies to his party. I do not believe so, but it certainly applies to the Government. Is it not possible that if the Government had been candid about the nature of the treaty and of the European union for which the hon. Gentleman is an enthusiast and for which he speaks, there would have been such a strong reaction inside the Conservative party and an even stronger reaction in the country that people would have said, "No. Up with this we will not put."?
  The same may well have happened in Denmark. It may happen again. It is an open secret that the Government of Denmark are trying to get something through, just as the British Government are trying to do. They knew that if they were candid, they probably would not do it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I point out that this is not a Second or Third Reading debate. We are debating amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recall that.
  Mr. Maclennan: If you are referring to my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I will endeavour to recall that. I thought that I was closely following the impact of the amendment. The intervention may have widened the issue way beyond what I had in mind. For that reason, perhaps I shall not follow what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said. [Laughter.] If the hon. Gentleman provokes me, I will answer.
  I do not believe that the British community would have rejected the treaty simply because the hon. Gentleman's view of what had been done had been trumpeted. When the Bill was first voted upon, the House accepted it overwhelmingly. I believe that the country would have accepted it overwhelmingly if the Government had been much more straightforward about what they were doing.
  We must consider the effect of what the Government have accepted in amendment No. 2. It appears to me that at best they have thrown considerable doubt on the effectiveness of our ratification of the social protocol. I

  237
  doubt whether the amendment will result in the defeat of the ratification process of the treaty, for, as I read it, the treaty and the protocol are related but distinct legal instruments.
  Furthermore, it is right to recall that the Maastricht treaty provides that it must be ratified by the high contracting parties
  "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
  I put it to the House that the respective constitutional requirements for both the treaty and the social protocol are that they be approved by the House. That is because of the provisions of section 6 of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978.
  When I put that point to the Foreign Secretary, he—apparently relying on something that had been quickly whispered in his left ear by the Attorney-General—said that it was taken care of by clause 1(2) of the Bill. I am bound to say that it is not clear from any fair-minded and objective reading of clause 1(2) that that is so. The clause refers to the treaty. It certainly does not refer to the protocol. It may be argued that the treaty includes the protocol. But that argument will not be so easy to sustain following the passing of amendment No. 2 this afternoon.
  Clause 1(1) will now explicitly exclude the protocol and make it clear that within the four corners of the legislation a distinction is drawn between the treaty and the protocol. Of course, that argument only goes to reinforce the view that may fairly be arrived at from the language of the protocol, which provides that it and the agreement on social policy are
  "without prejudice to the provisions of this Treaty".
  It appears to me that the protocol regards the treaty as separate and that the treaty and the protocol are two international instruments separately signed, separately debated and separately agreed. They are related in subject matter, but they are distinct international agreements. They are both subject to our constitutional requirements.
  I put it no stronger than this. The Government have created great uncertainty about whether we are in a position to ratify the social protocol. It is well known that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not wish to see the social protocol ratified. We do not wish to be out of step with the legislative measures in force in the European Community for the protection of the interest of our people, however that may be defined.
  I wholly accept the view expressed by the hon. Member for Northampton, North in his impassioned speech that, when such matters are discussed in Europe, it is exceedingly important that the British Government are represented. The matter affects our vital national interests. The exclusion of our voice from the debate can, by no stretch of the imagination, be regarded as in the interests of Britain.
  How will the matter be resolved? The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and several others have speculated that perhaps the matter will come before our domestic courts fairly soon and said that it should. I do not know precisely what they have in mind. I heard what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said about seeking a declaration. It may be a little more difficult than has been anticipated to have the matter considered by our domestic courts.
  Although I know that, proceeding by originating summonses, the courts may feel that it is appropriate not to test too carefully the question of locus standi and to take
  238
  a broad view, I should have thought that it would be necessary to show that one had some interest in the courts' finding before such a test could be made. I do not doubt that the matter could come before the European Court if any step were taken by the other 11 members of the Community on the basis of the social agreement which was seen by any citizen of Britain to be adverse to our country's interest and to our citizens' individual interests.
  At the European Court we would have an undoubted right to challenge the effectiveness of what was being done and to test whether we had properly ratified. Indeed, we could test whether the other 11 members of the Community could enact anything under the provisions of an agreement which had not been properly ratified by one of the member states.
  It may be called into question whether the social protocol falls as a result of the decision taken by the House of Commons today. It is a matter of speculation whether such doubt can exist in the minds of senior legal counsel in this country. It undoubtedly was in the mind of the Foreign Office legal adviser, Mr. Frank Berman, when he gave the advice on which the Government originally relied before the Attorney-General came up with his convenient alternative when he discovered that the Government did not have a majority on the matter.
  The way in which the Government have proceeded is unsatisfactory. It is not only politically damaging to Britain's interests but creates continuing legal uncertainty within the European Community. In our view, the only proper way to resolve the matter is to take it back to an intergovernmental meeting as soon as possible and for the Government to say that they are prepared to withdraw from the position which they have taken hitherto of opposition to the social agreement, which has commended itself to all the other 11 member countries of the Community. I hope that that is the action that they will take, but it remains to be seen, because we have heard very little from the Government today on what they intend to do as a result of this. They tried to pretend that it was simply a matter of drafting elegance, but this is a threadbare argument that carries no conviction at all.
  Mr. George Stevenson: The statement of surrender that we heard from the Foreign Secretary regarding the Government's intention on amendment No. 2 poses fundamental issues for the House, many of which have been elaborated by other right hon. and hon. Members, and it is not my intention to repeat them. Suffice it to say that the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the Government's attitude was absolutely right and unanswerable.
  The dramatic change that has come about as a result of the Government's acceptance of amendment No. 2, from the position where the social chapter opt-out was absolutely crucial to the position where it had no importance, cannot by any stretch of the imagination warrant the term "credible". Why have we seen this humiliating climb-down? I suspect that the Government decided that a climb-down would be marginally less humiliating for them than an outright defeat. In other words, out of a sense of panic they were looking for a bolthole in which they could ensure their survival.

  239
  7 pm
  I want to make a point to those who argue that there are really no legal problems to worry about as a result of acceptance of amendment No. 2. The Attorney-General has advised us that there are no legal problems, but removing the opt-out leaves many questions. If we are to remove the opt-out to the social chapter, as is the case, who will decide what is the position with regard to that social chapter and to social policy within the United Kingdom? Someone will have to decide. The Government seem unable or unwilling to take a positive or definitive view on this, so who will decide? It will be the courts, either in this country, or, more likely, the European Court.
  So because the Government are apparently prepared to ignore what we are sure will be the clear wish of the House and of Parliament, in relation to the social protocol opt-out and in an attempt to save some shred of their tattered credibility, they seem content to take the view that they can hide behind the skirts of the courts, which will sort things out if the Government are not prepared to—hardly an example of decisive government or of being at the heart of Europe. However, this appears to be the attitude that the Government are prepared to take and it is a direct result of the inept handling of the whole situation by the Government, together with their apparent willingness to deny what we are sure will be the clear authority and decision of the House.
  The Government could take a positive attitude. They could say that since the House of Commons has made its intentions known, they will reverse their attitude and their policy and accept the full-blown social chapter and social policy of the European Community. There is no indication whatever from the Government Front Bench that they intend to do that. What we face here is another historic miscalculation by the Government.
  There is a second important miscalculation that I wish to highlight. The Prime Minister, no less, has argued consistently in the House and elsewhere that the social chapter opt-out is vital—not important, vital—for United Kingdom interests and economic competitiveness. But I believe that as a result of what has happened the European Community will scrutinise the Government's position carefully. The other members of the European Community may be prepared grudgingly to acquiesce in a short-term opt-out so that they can have a political deal on Maastricht and so that they can stitch up an agreement. I suggest, however, that what the European Community will not tolerate is the House removing the opt-out of the social chapter and the United Kingdom continuing to act as if the opt-out was still there. Member countries will not accept that the United Kingdom can have it both ways.
  There may be challenges in the courts of this country and perhaps in the European Court, but I am pretty sure that the other member states will not tolerate a situation where the United Kingdom Government, for the sake of sheer expediency, see fit to take these measures in an attempt to have their cake and eat it, and try to operate as though the social policies in the other member states will go ahead but the social policy in this country will not, even though the House of Commons has removed the opt-out to the social chapter.
  The Government may continue to seek this because they believe that it gives us a competitive advantage if what we have so often heard described as the burdens of the social protocol are not imposed on British business and industry. Many of us simply do not accept that, but it has
  240
  been the basis of the Government's argument. The opt-out will have no support in Parliament and it will simply not be accepted as a credible position in the Community. I can safely predict that it will not be tolerated.
  I argue strongly that those who seek to support the Maastricht Bill on Third Reading, given the situation that we are now facing and given the fundamental issues raised in the debate this afternoon, will do European progress and integration no service whatever. If the Maastricht Bill is accepted on Third Reading, there will, because of actions taken as a result of the present position, be severe delay and it could even result in the ultimate destruction of the process begun at Maastricht.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

  ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 2, line 1, after 'Article 2', insert 'of the Treaty establishing the European Community'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 47, in clause 3, page 2, line 4, leave out from first 'of' to 'and' in line 5 and insert
  'the Treaty establishing the European Community'.
  No. 48, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out from second 'of' to 'information' in line 11 and insert
  `the Treaty establishing the European Community'.
  Mr. Smith: The purpose of the amendments is simply to bring the language into conformity with the references to the treaty made elsewhere in the Bill.
  I am moving the amendments because they amend the successful amendments to the Bill which the Labour party has already had accepted. By the end of our deliberations on the Bill we will have rewritten around two thirds of it, a considerable achievement for the Opposition.
  Mr. Spearing: Had I known two hours ago that I would be speaking on what appear to be, and probably are, procedural amendments, I would have been surprised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) knows, the amendments relate, indirectly, to a number of questions which I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to answer. It is a pity that the Attorney-General has fled the Chamber because the issues are much more in his line than that of anybody else.
  As my hon. Friend said, amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 respectively refer to clause 2, which deals with the change from stage 2 to stage 3 of economic monetary union; clause 3, which relates to a report by the Bank of England; and clause 4, which deals with information for the Commission.
  When one looks at clause 2 it is obvious that, without the insertion
  "of the Treaty establishing the European Community"
  an anomaly would be created because it might be thought that article 2, as mentioned in the clause, referred to the article of the treaty on European union, to which the whole Bill is consequential.
  I noted that the amendments tabled to clauses 3 and 4 did not follow, so I made some inquiries as to why the articles referred to in clauses 3 and 4 did not appear to match up with the text of the treaties that we have before us. Those inquiries produced, at first sight, a simple answer

  241
  —that the treaty establishing the European Communities will be the continuing title of the consolidated treaty that will result from the marriage of the existing treaty establishing the communities, popularly known as "Rome", with the treaty establishing a European union, popularly known as "Maastricht". This is a mystery because the Government were requested on many occasions, both in writing before the presentation of the Bill and in Committee, to print and distribute the consolidated treaty as it is designed to emerge. In other words, we have before us two treaties which will be pushed into one. The Government have persistently and consistently declined to meet that request. A number of hon. Members were surprised by this because, since the Government are committed to public informal ion, we wanted to see the treaties as they will be once the Act is passed and assuming that those treaties are ratified. Only an ingenious, private entrepreneur produced such a volume. It has not been referred to in the course of the debate because, quite rightly, we have been using the HMSO version of both treaties.
  A question arises as to what will happen given ratification and the production of the third or fourth treaty—whatever number one would like to give it—which has no name but is now being named precisely by the amendments. I cannot understand why that specific title has been chosen. At the present time the treaty establishing the European Economic Communities is that signed originally at Rome—the present version is Cm 455—and it will be amended. I assumed that the treaty, as amended, would have some other title—perhaps the "Treaty on European Union and the Communities"—but no, it appears that on advice, which I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East and other hon. Friends have taken, it will be called, quite simply, in the words of the amendment,
  "the Treaty establishing the European Community".
  How can that be when, for months, we have been discussing a treaty on European union? It is bad that a Foreign Office Minister is not on the Front Bench, or somewhere handy, for this penultimate debate of the important Report stage.
  The Foreign Secretary has said time and time again that two great edifices are involved; that we are beefing up the European Communities—that is the core of the Bill—and we will have some intergovernmental pillars, that is, the union. The Foreign Secretary—I am sorry he is not here—has been peddling this week after week, month after month. Some of us have said that, in practice, we will end up with the same, original edifice. We have also said, further, that the Community will enlarge into something much bigger than we were used to in the old Common Market and the old Community; it will be a union that takes on most of the characteristics of a nation. "Oh no", the Government said, "It will not be like that at all." But we have two parts to the treaty: we have titles II, III and IV which under articles G, H and I, will clearly create a beefed-up "Rome" and, indeed, establish the European Communities. But those communities are within and part of what will be the intergovernmental union. The articles of the treaty which relate to that—I refer to the treaty on the union—are titles I, V, VI and VII. They comprise all the articles A to F, inclusive, and J,K,L,M,N,O,P,I),R and S.
  242
  As a result of the drafting of the treaty signed at Maastricht it is clear that we will have a single, consolidated treaty. The amendments, however, tabled as a result of good advice, will result in the treaty being called
  "the Treaty establishing the European Community".
  Clearly, as those of us who have been here in the past weeks know, that is not a correct title. It is a treaty that will establish European union within which there will be an inner core of the European Community—and that comes straight out of the mouth of the Foreign Secretary and his Foreign Office colleagues, who are not here. How can it properly have such a title when it will establish that union? As some of my hon. Friends and I have already said, that union will be a much bigger and more important entity than the communities inside it.
  The Minister on duty in the Chamber is from the Treasury. What is the House coming to when we have an important treaty before us and the Foreign Office is not represented? What are the Secretary of State for Health, the Financial Secretary and two other members of the Cabinet doing here, trying to answer for the Foreign Secretary and his Minister of State? Those right hon. Gentlemen are in enough trouble already, having had to climb down from their respective positions.
  What will be the name of the final treaty? Will it take the title of the Bill or that offered in the amendments? If it takes its title from the amendments, it will be inaccurate; if not, will the Government table further amendments in another place to give the accurate name of the treaty? Why was it that the Government would not print the consolidated treaty so that it could be laid before the public and the House before we embarked upon our deliberations on the Bill? Were the Government being open with the public and the House? Are they being open with the House by tabling such amendments, or rather suggesting to my hon. Friends that they should regularise their own amendments?
  The Financial Secretary is now, I believe, able to shed some light on this. I appreciate his difficult position, but I am also aware that the Government have mishandled this matter, because in this penultimate debate on the Bill no member of the Foreign Office or the Cabinet is present who could answer what I believe to be some important questions.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I am happy to accept the amendment. It was odd to hear the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) claim credit for more than half—indeed, he mentioned two thirds—of the words in the Bill, as amended, as having been written by the Opposition. The Government are normally, in the legislative process, under criticism for prolixity. It is a happy state of affairs when I can return the charge to the Opposition Benches. We regard the amendments as an improvement to the Bill and I am happy to accept them.
  I admire the extent to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) can build a conspiracy into the title that is put over the treaty. The answer to his question is straightforward and it is made clear by the description of the purposes of the different titles contained in the table of contents in the published version of the Bill. That explains that titles II, III and IV are, as their name implies, titles which amend the treaties that established the European Communities, while titles I, V, VI and, to a large measure, VII, are a treaty that was signed at Maastricht

  243
  —with force in its own right under international law—and do not aspire to amend the treaties that established the European Community.
  Two separate things were done at Maastricht, one of which involves the amendment of the treaties establishing the Communities, the other of which involves the establishment of the pillars on which the Minister of State rightly placed considerable stress during the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for the Minister's description and perhaps I was a little hard, although hopefully not conspiratorial. Matters are totally different for those who know the answers from the start compared with those who are discovering them only as we go along.
  Is he suggesting that we shall have two treaties? Will there be the central titles, II, III and IV, to which he referred as the treaty creating the Economic Communities, as amended by the amendments made at Maastricht, as one treaty, plus another called the treaty on European union comprised of titles I, V, VI and VII and the other lettered articles to which I referred? That might make some sense, although it would mean two volumes of treaties rather than one. If there is one, it cannot be given two titles, particularly as the central part is sandwiched between two thick slices of bread on the outside.
  Mr. Dorrell: This is a semantic argument which is not getting the House far. We have signed a succession of treaties, the effect of part of one of which—that is, the treaty of Maastricht—is to amend the terms of earlier treaties signed at Rome and other places. The effect is made clear by the textual development contained in the terms of the relevant treaties as they were signed.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

  ANNUAL REPORT BY BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Amendment made: No. 47, in page 2, line 4, leave out from first 'of to 'and' in line 5 insert
  'the Treaty establishing the European Community'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]
  Mr. Dorrell: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'the Commons' and insert 'each'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Government amendment No. 45.
  Mr. Dorrell: The effect of amendment No. 44 is to amend clause 3, which was accepted by the Government in Committee. Clause 3, the House will remember, was originally new clause I in Committee. It provides an opportunity for the House to consider and vote on the report submitted by the Governor of the Bank of England on the work of the European system of central banks.
  The clause as drafted provides that that vote shall take place only in this House. It is conventional that when votes are called for on free-standing resolutions in one House, the same opportunity is provided to the other House. The only normal exception to that process arises in the context of supply procedures. The new clause does not relate to supply procedures and the Government think it would be
  244
  appropriate to afford a similar opportunity to another place to have a vote on the subject contained in clause 3 of the Bill, as amended.
  Mr. George Robertson: These amendments are not as simple and uncontroversial as the otherwise plausible Financial Secretary would have the House believe, and I will explain why. Earlier today, the Government accepted amendment No. 2, and Ministers have been perambulating around television studios telling the world that it did not matter, that what happened was of no great consequence and that the protocol should not have been there in the first place.
  It is as though the Foreign Secretary was holding a grenade in his hand and this afternoon it went off. He wiggles his hand about saying, "I did not need that hand, anyway." The Government are trying by their generosity to tell the British people that what happened was of no real consequence, and in the amendments now before the House they are at it again.
  Amendment No. 44 would, says the Financial Secretary, simply give the other House the right to debate the report of the Governor of the Bank of England and an opportunity, equal to that of this House, to vote on that report. Clause 3 is historic. This is the first time in British history that the Governor of the Bank of England will be required to report to this House. Not only is that a first, but the Government have accepted a provision that will oblige Parliament to have a vote on the Governor's report. Clearly, it is not an insignificant feature.
  As the Financial Secretary points out, the normal exception to the convention in this House on measures that are considered by one House and not by the other is in relation to finance. He uses the word "supply," but we know that that relates to finance, and there is a good and proper tradition for that. We are talking of a report by the Governor of the Bank of England to Parliament on questions of finance and the discharge of his responsibilities in relation to economic and monetary union and the European central bank.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is making an important mistake. The principles of supply would remain unaffected by the treaty. The responsibilities of the Governor concern monetary policy, and if we move to stage 3 of the treaty, any vote on monetary policy will be governed by the standard procedures of the House and will not be part of supply.
  Mr. Robertson: The last time I was accused of making an important mistake was when the Minister of State told me that my amendment, then called amendment No. 27, would wreck the Maastricht treaty. So I treat the authoritative words of a Treasury Minister with a degree of scepticism.
  Although the Minister talks of the precise details of the convention, the fact remains that we are concerned with monetary policy and the discharge of the responsibilities of the Governor of the Bank of England in relation to the European system of central banks. So it should remain, as a matter of principle, in the province of the House of Commons and not necessarily the House of Lords. Accordingly, I recommend my hon. Friends to oppose amendment No. 44.
  Amendment No. 45 is linked with that amendment and, as a Government amendment, will be put to a vote. It, too, looks simple, equating the responsibilities of the House of

  245
  Commons and the House of Lords. When we get to the vote arising out of what was known as new clause 74, it will be the final cliffhanger vote of the whole ratification procedure which, perhaps unfortunately, I described as a ticking bomb. My description may have been unfortunate, not because it will explode in the Government's face but because such explosive similes are not in the best taste, especially in recent times.
  We are being told that that process will prevent a Lords amendment from returning to the House. Hon. Members have been told, sotto voce through the usual channels, "It is simply George seeing shadows." It is said that I, of all people, want to detain the House further to consider Lords amendments before ratification. If there is any one person in the House of Commons who does not intend to detain the House for any longer than necessary on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, it is me. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.
  7.30 pm
  The Government's intentions are clear. The Bill now provides for a vote in the House of Commons that will take place—as the Foreign Secretary said—between Royal Assent on the ratification Bill and the actual ratification and notification of ratification. That is simple and straightforward—this afternoon the Foreign Secretary laid it on the line for Conservative rebels and told them what they would be voting for. I have made it clear in a previous debate that the amendment—to whichever motion the Government table—will explicitly refuse the Government the right to send the articles of ratification to Rome until they have signed the social chapter.
  If the Tory rebels care to believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who said in the Budget debate that we would never sign the social chapter—they can vote with us in the knowledge that the amendment will wreck the Maastricht treaty. It will stop it in its tracks, not just for this country but for the whole of Europe. I hold the contrary view and believe that the Government would not dream of taking the country into the wilderness which that would represent by destroying the treaty for everyone. However, that will be the issue on that vote.
  Now, the Government are saying that the House of Lords will have an equal right to vote. Is the Minister of State to be allowed to reply to the debate? The Government do not usually allow the Minister of State to open or reply to debates any longer—he is to resign the moment that our proceedings are over. However, if he is allowed to reply, I should like him to answer a simple question for the House: what happens if the House of Commons votes for our amendment and the House of Lords does not? What will happen at the end of the ratification process? What would the constitutional position be? There is nothing in the constitution of the United Kingdom or in "Erskine May" to deal with such a situation. We shall be moving from a relatively straightforward position—with the House able to make a decision on whether to ratify a treaty that does not include the social chapter—to one that places the Government in the dilemma of having to sign the social chapter or walk away from the treaty. Therefore, I recommend that, when we come to it, my hon. Friends should vote against amendment No. 45.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not there a double lock in that both Houses have to approve the measure? I am sure that it will not be a problem—it is a double lock or additional safeguard.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir. T. Taylor) usually sees more conspiracies and ghosts than even I do. However, my considered view is that. the Government are trying to avoid the House of Commons having to come to a conclusive decision on the issue. Anyone who has watched the Government meandering around the labyrinth that my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) described so eloquently earlier will come to the same conclusion as I have, rather than any other more generous conclusion. I believe that, when we reach it, the House should vote against amendment No. 45.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 256.

  Division No. 257]

  [7.33 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Congdon, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Conway, Derek

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alton, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Ancram, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ashby, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dicks, Terry

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bates, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dover, Den

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Duncan, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dunn, Bob

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Body, Sir Richard

  Eggar, Tim

  Booth, Hartley

  Elletson, Harold

  Boswell, Tim

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evennett, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Faber, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butler, Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Butterfill, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Freeman, Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  French, Douglas

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gale, Roger

  Churchill, Mr

  Gallie, Phil

  Clappison, James

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Garnier, Edward

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gillan, Cheryl

  247

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  Gorst, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mates, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, William

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pawsey, James

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sims, Roger

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stern, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stewart, Allan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Madel, David

  Sumberg, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sweeney, Walter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sykes, John

  248

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Ward, John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watts, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

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

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tracey, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilshire, David

  Trend, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trotter, Neville

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Tyler, Paul

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walden, George

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell

  Waller, Gary

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cryer, Bob

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cummings, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Darling, Alistair

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Davidson, Ian

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Denham, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dewar, Donald

  Battle, John

  Dixon, Don

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobson, Frank

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bell, Stuart

  Dowd, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eastham, Ken

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Enright, Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blair, Tony

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Blunkett, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Fisher, Mark

  Boyes, Roland

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Keith

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fraser, John

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Burden, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Byers, Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Garrett, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gerrard, Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Cann, Jamie

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Coffey, Ann

  Gunnell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hain, Peter

  Connarty, Michael

  Hall, Mike

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hanson, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hardy, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Henderson, Doug

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Heppell, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cox, Tom

  Hinchliffe, David

  249

  Hoey, Kate

  Olner, William

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Home Robertson, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hood, Jimmy

  Parry, Robert

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hume, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hutton, John

  Prescott, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Radice, Giles

  Jamieson, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Keen, Alan

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leighton, Ron

  Rooney, Terry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Salmond, Alex

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAllion, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Short, Clare

  McCartney, Ian

  Simpson, Alan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McGrady, Eddie

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

  McKelvey, William

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

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McLeish, Henry

  Snape, Peter

  McMaster, Gordon

  Spearing, Nigel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spellar, John

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Stevenson, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Stott, Roger

  Mandelson, Peter

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marek, Dr John

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Martlew, Eric

  Turner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Meacher, Michael

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Meale, Alan

  Walley, Joan

  Michael, Alun

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Milburn, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wise, Audrey

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Worthington, Tony

  Mudie, George

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Murphy, Paul

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  O'Hara, Edward

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4

  INFORMATION FOR COMMISSION
  Amendment made: No. 48, in page 2, line 10, leave out from second 'or to 'information' in line 11 and insert
  'the Treaty establishing the European Community'.—[Mr. Gard-Jones.]

Clause 5

  COMMENCEMENT (PROTOCOL ON SOCIAL POLICY)
  Amendment proposed: No. 45, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'the House of Commons' and insert 'each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 264.

  Division No. 258]

  [7.47 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cormack, Patrick

  Alexander, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

  Alton, David

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Amess, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ancram, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Ashby, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Baldry, Tony

  Dover, Den

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan, Alan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bates, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Batiste, Spencer

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bellingham, Henry

  Eggar, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Elletson, Harold

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Faber, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brazier, Julian

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Forth, Eric

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Burns, Simon

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Butler, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  French, Douglas

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gale, Roger

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gallie, Phil

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Garnier, Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Churchill, Mr

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clappison, James

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gorst, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Congdon, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Conway, Derek

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  251

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hague. William

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mills, Iain

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hayes, Jerry

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Heald, Oliver

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hendry, Charles

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Norris, Steve

  Horam, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

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

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Paice, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Redwood, John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robathan, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sackville, Tom

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

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lightbown, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lord, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, David

  Stephen, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Streeter, Gary

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mans, Keith

  Sykes, John

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thomason, Roy

  252

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

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

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tracey, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Tredinnick, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trend, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Trotter, Neville

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Willetts, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Wilshire, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walden, George

  Wallace, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Ward, John

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Allen, Graham

  Darling, Alistair

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Austin-Walker, John

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Denham, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Dewar, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  Battle, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dowd, Jim

  Bell, Stuart

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Eagle. Ms Angela

  Benton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Enright, Derek

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Blair, Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blunkett, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Boateng, Paul

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Fisher, Mark

  Boyes, Roland

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Keith

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fraser, John

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Burden, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Byers, Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Garrett, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cann, Jamie

  Godsift, Roger

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clelland, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gunnell, John

  Cotfey, Ann

  Hain, Peter

  Cohen, Harry

  Hall, Mike

  Connarty, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Bob

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cummings, John

  Home Robertson, John

  253

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Neill. Martin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Parry, Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hume, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prescott, John

  Ingram, Adam

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jamieson, David

  Radice, Giles

  Janner, Greville

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Keen, Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rogers, Allan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leighton, Ron

  Rooney, Terry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Terry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Litherland, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Salmond, Alex

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAllion, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McCartney, Ian

  Short, Clare

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McGrady, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKelvey, William

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

  Mackinlay, Andrew

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

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Snape, Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Spellar, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Stevenson, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Straw, Jack

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Maxton, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Meacher, Michael

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walley, Joan

  Milburn, Alan

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Miller, Andrew

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Watson, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Welsh, Andrew

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morley, Elliot

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Winnick, David

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wise, Audrey

  Mudie, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Mullin, Chris

  Wray, Jimmy

  Murphy, Paul

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Hara, Edward

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones

  Olner, William

  and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

  Debt-collecting Agencies
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  8 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I am delighted to be able to speak to my Adjournment debate at such an early hour of the evening, and not much later as I had originally anticipated. I am also delighted to see the Paymaster General in his place. The issue that I want to raise concerns the Government's employment of private bailiffs for the purpose of debt collection. The number of bailiffs and the companies that they represent have mushroomed during the recession. My aim is to expose some of the difficulties and injustices and to urge the Government to respond positively to them.
  As a starting point, I concede that some of the problems that I am about to detail also arise when local authorities employ private bailiffs to collect business rates or other debts. I shall rely heavily on investigative journalism, namely, the investigations carried out by HTV, the results of which were contained in its "Wales This Week" programme on 25 February. I want to pay a well-deserved tribute to the quality of the work done by the members of the HTV team—especially Chris Segar, the interviewer—for their commitment to revealing what, in my judgment, should be a major cause of public concern.
  I accept the case for bailiffs—someone has to carry out work that is, by its very nature, distasteful because of its effects on both individuals and business people, who try, often against the odds, to keep their businesses afloat.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend is fortunate to have such a long time for his Adjournment debate. In referring to business people, he is surely talking about small businesses that find themselves in difficulty. The big fry always seem to get away with everything. I doubt whether my hon. Friend will say anything about bailiffs going to get money from Asil Nadir—a man heavily in debt not only to businesses, but to the Tory party. It is a shame that my hon. Friend cannot say tonight that bailiffs were sent round to Nadir's place before he flew out of the country.
  Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend raises a new dimension. I think of the words of Ernest Bevin, "When you open the Pandora's box all sorts of Trojan horses come out." Much as I am tempted to go down the path suggested by my hon. Friend, I shall instead confine myself to talking about a number of small businesses that have suffered through the operations of private bailiffs.
  I readily concede that enforcement can be effective only if there are sanctions. I accept that whenever there is a forced sale the financial returns, simply by the very nature of the transaction, inevitably will be lower than they would have been in a normal market sale. However, I submit that the HTV revelations show that the public interest and the interest of the debtor are frequently overridden in practice.
  The Government should not seek to evade responsibility for the effect of the actions of their agents. After all, Customs and Excise and other Government Departments employ people, who act in the name of the Government, to collect debts that are due and owing to the Government. The Government's responsibility should not end at the point when they put enforcement in the hands of agents and delegate certain functions to them.

  255
  The HTV revelations show that, in some cases, the Government's agents sell distrained goods down back alleys, in shady places, at ridiculous prices. The public interest is not served, the interests of the debtors are not served and, indeed, the interests of the Government are not served by that practice because the return to, for example, Customs and Excise is very small indeed. The only individuals who benefit from such transactions are the several agents at the points of distrainment, removal and auction. The practice has the makings of a scandal and I urge the Government to investigate and to take appropriate action.
  The HTV programme focused on three cases, which I shall use only as examples. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) in his place because the first case relates to a late constituent of his. It is a tragic case involving John Herbert of Abergavenny, a local family business well known in the area, which had existed almost from the start of the century. Mr. Herbert shot himself in February when agents acting on behalf of Torfaen borough council stripped his furniture store because he owed business rates of £33,000.
  As a result of that distrainment, five people are out of work and a family business of longstanding and repute which, alas, had over-extended itself during the recession, has closed. Clearly, I cannot comment on whether the local authority acted responsibly and used its discretion properly, but the tragic results are clear. There is some evidence that in this case, and, more particularly, in the other two cases to which I shall refer, the details of the sale were not properly advertised.
  The second and third cases raised in the HTV programme are relevant to the enforcement operation by Customs and Excise for VAT debts. The second case is that of Peter Morgan of Swansea, builders' merchants, who owed £33,000 in VAT. A warrant for distrainment was signed by a VAT official and bailiffs distrained goods of a retail value of £67,000. The debtor took a careful inventory of the goods that had been taken and alleges that the bailiffs handled the goods roughly and took only a rough-and-ready inventory of the goods. Those goods, with a retail value of £67,000, realised only £2,000 at auction. Of that, Customs and Excise was paid £900. Peter Morgan's debt remains. The prices realised at the auction were astonishingly low. For example, 250 doors were sold for a total price of £l.
  Tim Jones, a local solicitor of some standing in the City, gave impressive evidence to the HTV programme. The advertisement for the auction gave no address for it, only the name Roach and Company, and it gave no details of the nature of the goods to be auctioned, so the ordinary member of the public, interested in builders' materials or do-it-yourself for the home, would not have been attracted to the sale.
  The auction was carried out by a body called Revenue Collection Services, which the solicitor could not trace in the Registrar of Companies or contact by telephone. The programme illustrated an attempt by its producers to contact the company with only a mobile phone number. Clearly, there was hardly any attempt by those responsible for the auction to advertise it to the general public.
  The third case is that of Richard Jenkins of Swansea who owned a small business. That business owed £3,000 in
  256
  VAT to the Customs and Excise and business rates of roughly £20,000. It claimed that it had sought to pay by instalments but had been refused. The majority of the stock was taken and, again, roughly handled into a van. The business said that the retail value of the stock taken was £40,000 and, again, roughly only £2,000 was realised. From that £2,000, £580 was paid for the removals.
  The family of Richard Jenkins of Swansea discovered by chance that the auction was to take place in a seedy back street of Cardiff. Of particular interest is the fact that the family, having learnt the location of the auction, attended it and recognised the bailiffs who had taken the goods. They say that few members of the public, if any, were present. Clearly, in those circumstances, the goods were unlikely to obtain the best price.
  The family also allege that the bailiffs were clearly well known to the auctioneer. In between sales, there were a number of conversations between the bailiffs and the auctioneer. The auction took place at the premises of RCS, which is linked to the bailiffs, being the holding company of the bailiffs, Roach and Company. Again, the solicitor, Mr. Tim Jones, could not trace the company at Companies House.
  There is a chain from the bailiffs, through to the removal people and the auctioneers, showing the clear dangers of a cosy and possibly corrupt relationship between each link, potentially acting against the public interest.
  Revenue Collection Services, or a similar name, was found by the programme compilers at the premises of Roach and Company in Bristol. The managing director was photographed at the auction, which was attended by the programme compilers. There must clearly be a suspicion that the company was exposing and exploiting the looseness of the present controls on the Government agents in this respect.

  What points arise from those cases? First, there is the danger of an interrelationship between each link in the chain. Clearly, far from being secret, the auctions should be properly advertised so that members of the general public who wish to attend can do so. It may be too that a reserve price should be set as 250 doors should not be sold for £1.
  It is questionable whether those irresponsible—in the full sense of the word—agents are serving the public interest. There are clearly substantial risks of corruption when there is a total lack of monitoring by the Government or any other agency of what is done in such cases.
  I shall submit later that the dangers are aggravated by the new privatisation proposals for Customs and Excise. There is no complaints procedure, no investigation procedure and no appeal procedure to investigate the behaviour of agents acting on behalf of their principals—in this case the Customs and Excise.
  I am glad that there is evidence that the Government recognise some of the problems that have arisen, but they are extremely slow to respond. I read with interest the consultation document published by the Lord Chancellor's Department in August last year headed "A Review of the Organisation and Management of Civil Enforcement Appeals". In that consultation document, the Lord Chancellor's Department says that the system is "ripe for change". In paragraph 5.1 it is said that there are

  257
  "compelling reasons for change". The interested citizen would say that the Government have taken the problem on board and are willing to address it with some urgency.
  This afternoon, as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I had the good fortune to be able to question senior officials, including the permanent secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department, on the progress of the consultation document. I was told by the relevant senior official that the Government had received a large number of responses to the consultation document, that they were being evaluated and that, as a result of those responses, the Lord Chancellor's Department would need to embark on yet another consultation process on a more specific basis.
  In the consultation document we are advised that legislation will be necessary to put right the potential abuses that the Government have readily recognised. If legislation is necessary, when might it come about? If there is to be another consultation process, clearly it Hill miss the boat in the next Session of Parliament beginning in November 1993.
  The earliest opportunity for legislation to he put before the House would be in the parliamentary Session 1994–95 and that will depend on the Lord Chancellor's Department's good fortune in finding a place in a Session that is coming perilously close to an election. This is clearly not a major area of partisan interest.
  It is very likely that, having recognised the compelling need for change and the injustices that may arise from the current position, the Government will allow matters to drift for several years while those injustices continue to be suffered by individual business people. That should not be allowed to happen. Even if the Paymaster General concedes—as I think he must—that the Government will not introduce the necessary legislation for at least two or three years, I hope that he will tell us that the Government will seek to end the abuses, and to prevent the exploitation of business misfortunes, in the interim period before such legislation is in force.
  Having acknowledged the existence of compelling reasons for change and public concern about the lack of regulation of private bailiffs, the consultation document stresses that any system must be cost effective. Given that less than £1,000 was realised on a VAT debt of £30,000, the system clearly was not cost effective in that instance.
  The Government concede that there is a lack of general statutory control over the fees charged by agents. Perhaps a strict table should be drawn up showing the fees that are relevant in each case; perhaps a general professional or trade body should be established to regulate the performance and behaviour of bailiffs, including those who act on behalf of the Government, granting certificates only to those of good standing and character and ensuring that certain professional standards are maintained in the enforcement of civil debts. It is also clear that the Government have not carried out adequate supervision.
  I believe objectively—on the basis of the examples that have been given and, indeed, on the basis of the Government's concessions and admissions in their consultation paper—that the position is now very unsatisfactory. It is likely to be made even worse, and the temptations are likely to increase, as a result of action that the Government are likely to take soon. That action may well move the position even further away from public accountability, unless the change to a privatised system is coupled with stringent safeguards.
  258
  Those dealing with the VAT side of Customs and Excise who give orders to bailiffs may be privatised in the next steps programme that is currently under way. It is conceded that that is relevant to the part of the Customs and Excise operation that covers south Wales and the borders—the south Wales and the borders VAT debt collection management services. A decision from the Government is expected in December.
  It is interesting to note that the Roach Group—which has figured largely in the examples that I have given, and which also figured in the HTV programme—was taken over last year by the Capita Group. Capita is a respectable company, which does finance work on behalf of Kensington and Chelsea borough council and has set up an accountancy firm in the white-collar section of the market; it is now trying to move into the blue-collar section, dealing with debt collection. It has expressed an interest in tendering for the contract for the work currently done by civil servants in Customs and Excise: there is 'thus a danger that the work involved in such enforcement will become even further removed from public control, and further outside the public domain.
  We need greater accountability, and a separation of the different stages of the operation. The auctions must cease to be secret, and the public need to feel confident that the agents employed by the Government are acting responsibly. Do the Government accept that something needs to be done in the interim before the necessary legislation is introduced—that is, over the next three or four years? Are they prepared to do anything to prevent potential abuses, and to prevent the cosy relationship between bailiffs and auctioneers that is currently possible? If they are not, the abuses that have been revealed will he allowed to continue.
  I suggest that, in the interim, the Government resume a former practice, and allow Customs and Excise officials to carry out spot checks on auctions. Clearly they have contracts with their agents, the bailiffs; under those contracts, they could insist—on a normal commercial basis—that all sales of distrained goods are properly advertised to the general public. That, by definition, is more likely to lead to an adequate return from the sale, and less likely to tempt people to enrich themselves at the expense of a business and an adequate return to Customs and Excise.
  Are the Government happy about what is being done in their name by agents? If they are not—and the evidence suggests that they may not be—they should not wait several years for legislation; they should take action now.
  I accept that the revelations in the HTV programme may not tell the whole truth, given the nature of the operations available to the journalists and television investigators involved. I accept that there may have been some exaggeration; I accept that those revelations may not have been accurate in every detail. Surely, however, the Government will support a view buttressed by a well-respected solicitor in the city of Swansea. If they accept that the revelations in the programme are substantially true, surely they must now act before more business men are fleeced in the same way—before we see further examples of the public interest not being served, and of business men going to the wall purely to benefit those who purport to act in the name of Government, and as Government's agents.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Roger Evans: In Monmouthshire, the full horror of this unhappy issue was brought home by the tragic case of Mr. John Herbert, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
  It is, of course, public Departments that have the widest powers of distraint and the most privileged position in insolvency. That is why we see more examples of public Departments abusing those powers than ordinary litigants. The fact remains, however, that enforcement against personal chattels, whether it be by a Government Department, Torfaen or a private litigant, brings us into that extraordinary Dickensian, murky world of bailiffs and auctions in back streets. The picture is every bit as appalling as anything that Charles Dickens depicted—of landlords seizing the last sticks of furniture.
  This has gone on for far too long. There may be all sorts of arguments for altering the law on enforcement. There may also be all sorts of interesting arguments as to whether the position of Customs and Excise should be quite as privileged as it is in the case of insolvency. However, the simple, practical question that business men are asking is whether something can be done immediately to improve standards and the way in which the system operates. There should not be conflicts of interest whereby bailiffs and auctioneers are in any way connected.
  It may be that the existing law could resolve that problem, but people who are going bust are not the people most likely to litigate. We need a system under which much higher standards are required of bailiffs, with much stricter supervision of them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General can give us some good news about what may be done.
  8.31 pm
  The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): There are two parts to what the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) said which I shall do my best to try to unravel and deal with separately.
  The first part relates to the general law and rules that apply to bailiffs, particularly private bailiffs. Those rules are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The second part relates to the operation of the procedures by Customs and Excise in the case of value added tax. That is a more limited aspect of the question for which I have ministerial responsibility in the Treasury, under my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I shall say a few words about matters that are not my direct responsibility. I refer to the consultation paper, to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department in August 1992 on the employment of private bailiffs for distress work. That paper covers the law and practice in England and Wales. In Scotland, the law is different in certain respects. Some of the proposals in the consultation document would bring the law and practice in England and Wales nearer to the arrangements in Scotland, which were revised much more recently than those for England and Wales by a recent Act of Parliament.
  The paper sought views on whether changes should be made to the organisation and management of bailiffs in the civil enforcement process, the part that the state should play in the organisation and management of bailiffs, the ways in which any changes to the organisation and
  260
  management of bailiffs could be achieved, and whether any changes to the law governing their work were necessary or desirable.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to private bailiffs. There are two types of private bailiff: certificated private bailiffs and non-certificated, plain private bailiffs who are not certificated by the courts.
  Mr. Anderson: I understand that the distinction means very little in practice. It is a certificate in respect of road traffic matters. There is no difference in terms of the controls on those bailiffs.
  Sir John Cope: It is about rent as well as road traffic matters, but there is another important difference to which I shall turn in a few moments. It was shown that the appointment of certificated bailiffs, as set out in the consultation paper, is subject to varying degrees of regulation by statute, but that there is little statutory control over private bailiffs who are not certificated. The law governing their activities is unclear.
  The important distinction, from my point of view, is that Customs and Excise, as a matter of practice, use only certificated bailiffs. That gives Customs and Excise an extra leverage over those whom it employs for this purpose. It is not for me to anticipate what the Lord Chancellor's proposals might be when the consultation period is concluded. It may, however, be worth quoting from the consultation document in order to give the flavour of the Lord Chancellor's approach.
  Paragraph 4.4 says:
  "The Lord Chancellor believes that all civil enforcement agents should be subject to some form of control over their appointment and that there should be some control over how they do their job, in that they must be subject to disciplinary arrangements if they fail to meet whatever minimum standards of competence and conduct are deemed necessary. There is much room for debate on what these controls and minimum standards should be, and the next section of the paper will consider the various options for change."
  The Lord Chancellor welcomed the expression of views. I shall draw my noble Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman said about the urgency, as he sees it, of addressing these general points regarding the law and the courts' activities relating to bailiffs.
  I intend to deal specifically with matters for which I have personal responsibility—the management of Customs and Excise, and, in particular, the use by Customs and Excise of certificated bailiffs. It may help if I outline the general approach of Customs and Excise to collecting VAT.
  VAT-registered traders are required to pay the correct tax at the correct time. They are obliged to render and pay their VAT returns by the due date—usually one month following the end of the VAT return period which, in the majority of cases, is three months. If traders do not submit their returns, an assessment is issued. Where either a VAT return is rendered but not paid, or an assessment is issued but is then not paid, a debt is established and recovery action is required.
  The vast majority of traders pay their VAT on time, but some do not. It is important that those who pay on time are not put at a disadvantage compared with those who do not. All must be treated equitably. It is in the interests of those traders who pay on time that, among other things, Customs and Excise should collect the debts from those

  261
  who do not pay on time. The prime responsibility of Customs and Excise is to collect the right tax at the right time.
  VAT is collected by each registered business from its customers, and Customs and Excise has to collect it properly from each business. A business that delays payment gains a commercial advantage over its competitors. While Customs and Excise is prepared to be as helpful as possible when businesses find themselves in unexpected difficulties, it is rightly criticised, not least by the Public Accounts Committee of this House and others, if it does not carry out its responsibility firmly arid fairly within the regulations approved by Parliament.
  It is worthing quoting some of the conclusions of this year's Public Accounts Committee's hearing on the subject. The Committee said:
  "We note the Department's assurance that they have now stabilised the VAT arrears position. It is important that the further measures now being introduced lead to a significant reduction in arrears in the future…We recognise that the Department's primary responsibility is to collect the revenue."
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Swansea, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth will appreciate that Customs has that primary obligation to protect Government revenue. At the same time, however——
  Mr. Anderson: I accept that it is the primary responsibility of Customs to collect revenues that are due and owing, but is it the Minister's contention that his Department's responsibility ends at that point and that it has no responsibility for the position thereafter?
  Sir John Cope: No, I certainly do not contend that. As I shall explain, the bailiffs act as agents of Customs and Excise in carrying out their duties, as do the auctioneers and so on. But we try, and have tried—particularly at a time of recession—to take account of the fact that businesses are experiencing difficulties. It is not, of course, an easy balance for the Customs and Excise to strike but it has to do it every day—it is doing it all the time.
  We need as sympathetic an approach as possible subject to the primary responsibility to collect the revenue. What was called the enforcement division has recently changed its name to the debt management division. That indicates a change of attitude. In addition, that division is working through an action programme putting into effect the recommendations of an efficiency unit scrutiny to improve the debt management process.
  There are a couple of measures in this year's Finance Bill which will help in that regard and which we shall debate in due course. I refer to the bad debt relief provisions, which reduce the time limit to six months, and to the changes in the VAT penalties. Those measures indicate a positive response to the changes that we are making in the matter of debt management generally.
  Once a debt has been established, Customs issues a written demand and gives fair warning of the consequences of failure to pay. The time from the establishment of a debt to the warning letter—during which many people pay—is typically about six weeks. The local VAT office then decides how best to set about recovering the debt if it has not been paid. The decision will be based on the particular circumstances and particular information available about the individual trader.
  In the majority of cases, traders have sufficient goods or assets to justify distraint action against them. But if there are no assets either known to exist or discovered on a visit,
  262
  action through the courts—for example, bankruptcy or liquidation—may be considered, although that is very much a last resort, to be used after other processes have been exhausted.
  The position of Customs and the Inland Revenue is different from that of other creditors. I draw that to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth in particular, as he referred to the privileges of the Revenue departments in their position as creditors. Unlike the commercial sector, neither Customs nor the Inland Revenue can choose its customers. Both are therefore involuntary creditors. They do not have available to them the normal commercial practices such as the withholding of supplies to ensure that a debt does not rise further. As long as a trader is trading, his VAT debt is likely to be increasing. The same is true in respect of debt to the Inland Revenue.
  As a result, in some cases, insolvency or distraint can be the only recourse to prevent a VAT debt from rising through the trader's being allowed to carry on trading. There is a big difference in the relative positions of a commercial creditor or a bank—which probably has various charges against assets and so on on which it can call and other actions available to it—and the Revenue departments.
  In addition to issuing the warning letter, staff al the local VAT office may telephone or visit to attempt to recover the debt. Requests for time in which to settle debts are considered and sometimes agreed to. Customs will consider realistic offers of instalments right up to the time at which any order is made in court for bankruptcy. During 1991–92 there was a 52 per cent. increase in the number of time-to-pay agreements and a 70 per cent. increase in their overall value, which was, of course, a response to the problems of the recession.
  If payment is not forthcoming, a distress warrant will be issued by a senior executive officer in the local VAT office. The warrant directs an authorised person, who is a named individual and usually a bailiff—although he can be a Customs officer—to visit the trader and, where necessary, levy distraint on goods. The trader is given an opportunity to pay the debt before such a levy commences.
  A walking possession agreement is a legal document, with an undertaking signed by the trader, which allows him to retain the goods distrained for a period of time—usually 15 days and perhaps longer—in exchange for the goods not being removed, sold or otherwise disposed of. The effect of such a walking possession agreement is to give the trader additional time to settle the debt and the costs which are by then beginning to be added to it. At the expiry of the walking possession agreement, if the debt and costs are not settled, the goods are removed for sale.
  If the debtor pays the debt and the costs at that stage, the goods are not removed or can be returned. Where it is necessary to proceed to a sale, the goods are removed to a place of storage—usually an auction room—and advertised for sale by public auction. That is the process to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East drew particular attention. It is not a process that is as uncontrolled as he suggested. The VAT (General) Regulations 1985 require that goods distrained upon are sold by public auction. We require that they are properly advertised for sale and appraised before that happens.
  Mr. Anderson: The Minister said that Customs requires and ensures that proper advertisement is made. Is he

  263
  saying that the case in which only a mobile telephone number was given, and in which there was no address, no means of contact and no specific description of the goods for sale, was a one-off—or does it expose a general fault in the system?
  Sir John Cope: I shall deal with the details of that case a little later. I want to deal first with the general position, and hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the position is not quite as unsound as he may think.
  At the sale, both the general public and the trader himself can bid for the goods. The trader is informed about when the sale will take place. That enables him to attend and monitor—or, if he wishes, to bid.
  That whole process is quite an effective means of recovering VAT debt. In the year to December 1992 some 407,000 written demands were issued. More than half of those prompted payment without further action, but 186,000 distress visits followed when payments had not been made. Of those, only 27,900 required distress to be levied and a large proportion paid as a result, so that only 1,242 cases continued to sale. That was 0·3 per cent. of the cases for which a written demand was issued.
  As the hon. Gentleman realises, it is important that bailiffs who act for Customs should be properly selected. They are selected by local management only from those certified by the county court and believed by the local Customs and Excise to be capable of dealing with VAT debts. Most have experience and provide a service for us frequently, but they are employed on a flexible basis which allows local management to choose alternatives, should the standard of service decline or be unsatisfactory, or should practices be entered into which they do not approve of.
  All bailiffs working alone on VAT debt recovery have been issued with written guidance on how to proceed. It is not generally the policy of the Department now for officers to accompany bailiffs in the course of their work, although that happens sometimes. If a certified bailiff fails to perform his duties to a satisfactory standard, two things can happen. First, the local VAT office monitors the performance of the bailiff and draws attention to any shortcomings which it observes, so the sanction is that the bailiff may lose his work for Customs and Excise. Secondly, if the bailiff still fails to perform his duties to a satisfactory standard, the court can withdraw the certificate which allows him to do other work.
  In the case highlighted by the hon. Gentleman, he accepted that the television programme may not have given a 100 per cent. accurate impression, but I do not want to get involved in quibbling about details. As a result of the programme, the local VAT office examined the actions of the bailiff company concerned and found that some at any rate of the allegations were unfounded. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall call for further reports to follow up the concerns which remain about that case.
  In general, it is not uncommon for auction firms to be associated with firms of bailiffs. However, collusion between an auctioneer and a buyer—the nub of the mischief to which the hon. Gentleman and the programme apparently drew attention—is illegal and against normal commercial law. It is not a matter primarily for Customs, except where auctioneers or bailiffs are acting as its agents,
  264
  but where there were indications of such practices, Customs would bring that to the attention of the appropriate authorities. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was no monitoring or insufficient monitoring of the process, but Customs attempts to carry out monitoring.
  Mr. Anderson: Can the Minister confirm that practice has changed, and that for the past three or four years Customs officials have not attended auctions?
  Sir John Cope: No. From time to time Customs officials attend auctions, sometimes making their presence known and sometimes observing the auction as members of the general public. That is how they attempt to monitor what happens.
  I should make clear too that the fees which are charged, and which incidentally are recoverable from the debtor, are in accordance with a scale set out as part of the VAT (General) Regulations 1985. They are printed on the distress documents. Sometimes special action has to be taken for which a special fee is agreed, but the basic fee for the basic service is laid down. Bailiffs do not retain their fees from the proceeds of sale or any money paid on account. All the money is paid to the local VAT office, and the bailiff sends in a bill for his services. The office checks the accuracy of the bill before payment.
  There is a difficulty about prices realised at public auction. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged, as I know from experience, that the value of articles can vary according to different circumstances. It is required that goods are sold at public auction and, in the absence of evidence of collusion and of improper practices, Customs have to be satisfied with the amount raised. From time to time, Customs officials attend auctions to ensure that goods are properly handled. Of course, further use of auctioneers and/or bailiffs depends on their findings. Specialist auctioneers are used when certain goods, such as commercial vehicles or machinery, are being sold.
  The HTV programme alleged that goods were treated carelessly and in a manner likely to cause damage. Such an approach would work against the interest of an auctioneer, because his remuneration comes from commission on the proceeds of the sale. Therefore, an auctioneer has a direct financial interest in raising as much as possible.
  The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern about the possible result of market testing which, as he rightly said, is being undertaken under the Government's general market testing policy. I am not anticipating the results of market testing, but if it was decided to contract out the activity, it would be subject to a contract which laid down a detailed specification of the responsibilities of debt collectors. Policy would remain the responsibility of Customs and Excise, who would still have to ensure that the contractors carried out their duties.
  In addition, Customs and Excise officials will continue to be the only people who can sign warrants. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's description of officials who give orders to bailiffs overstated the proposals.
  Mr. Anderson: Is not the Minister troubled by the danger that each stage of the process after the signing of the warrant by a Customs official will be in the hands effectively of one company? If the Capita Group is successful in its bid, it will colonise Customs and Excise and be responsible for each stage of the operation from the bailiffs through to the auctions.
  Sir John Cope: That may lead to improvements in efficiency and running as well as the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. The contract is not without safeguards. I must emphasise that Customs and Excise will still remain responsible for what the contractors undertake on its behalf and will continue to monitor contracts and so on, if that is the way it goes. In addition, debt management officials will continue to be Customs and Excise officials at the warrant signing stage.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to various companies. I do not want to comment on individual companies, but I understand that some changes were made in the companies involved between the time that some of the events referred to took place and the time that inquiries were made into them, which may have led to some of the difficulties.
  The advertisements in the specific case identified the general type of goods that were involved, such as a photocopier, furniture and so on. There were some telephone difficulties as a result of a reorganisation—the company was moving offices at the time. All of that is not satisfactory. Nevertheless, it explains some of the matters which seem to have caused concern in the cases that were raised on the television programme.
  266
  Any decision on contracting out will be taken in the light of assessments of benefits as well as costs in terms of improved efficiency and cost savings, and ensuring that the work involved is carried out effectively. Customs are market-testing the debt management units in 11 of its 22 collections, including the one in south Wales. As the hon. Gentleman said, the result of that market testing is expected in the autumn.
  Controls on the use of bailiffs and others by Customs to collect debts are not as non-existent as the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, I certainly acknowledge that it is important that the duties of bailiffs as agents of Customs and Excise, and hence the public, should be properly carried out and that the various regulations that apply to the auctioning of goods in difficult cases should be properly carried out.
  All those matters are specific to the management of debt by Customs and Excise. I acknowledge that there are concerns about the general points raised in the Lord Chancellor's consultative document. As I said, I will draw them to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Nine o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost, including redundancy payments, incurred by his Department as a result of the abandonment of the prison service supply and transport market test.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John McAllion, dated 4 May 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the costs incurred as a result of the abandonment of the Prison Service supply and transport market test.

  In July 1992 approval was given for the award of a contract, subject to negotiation of satisfactory terms and consultation with the TUS, to Beck and Pollitzer for the operation of the warehousing and distribution function of the Prison Service Supply and Transport Branch. The operative date of the contract was to be 1 April 1993.

  At the time of this decision, it was anticipated that all staff working in the function would be made redundant, although some might be re-employed by Beck and Pollitzer. The estimated redundancy payments for all the staff were £875,000.

  As it was not possible to negotiate a satisfactory contract with Beck and Pollitzer, a 3-year service level agreement was awarded to the next best bid, the in-house bid. Staff, who had received redundancy notices in September 1992, were given the option of accepting redundancy or agreeing to the withdrawal of the redundancy notice. Redundancy payments to those who decided to accept redundancy were £620,000.

  The Prison Service did not incur any other costs as a result of the abandonment of the market test.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contract was awarded to Beck and Politzer following the abandonment of the prison service supply and transport market test; whether it was a result of a competitive tendering exercise; and whether an in-house bid was permitted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John McAllion, dated 4 May 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the contract awarded to Beck and Politzer.

  Following the decision to award a 3-year service level agreement for the in-house management of the Prison Service Supply and Transport warehousing and distribution function, a 1-year consultancy contract was agreed with Beck and Politzer to provide the in-house management team with advice and assistance in achieving operational and administrative improvements to the function.
  74
  A great deal of preparatory work was carried out by Beck and Politzer in the seven months from the original decision to award them the contract for the management of the function up to the decision to retain the work in-house and this latter decision was made only 4 weeks before the operative date of 1 April 1993. There was therefore not time to arrange for competitive tendering, nor would it have been practical for either another contractor or an in-house team to act as consultants, as the new computer systems to be used after I April for stock control and distribution planning were based on the original Beck and Politzer proposal. They were therefore the only organisation capable of providing the necessary consultancy advice.

  The agreement reached with Beck and Politzer is an example of the private sector working closely with the public sector to enhance services quality and provide value for money.

  Prison Transport
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements are laid down on how meals are to be provided by Group 4 to prisoners being held in court and police cells while awaiting or during trial; and if these will be hot meals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from I. Dunbar to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 May 1993:

  In the absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, the Home Secretary has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what requirements are laid down on how meals are to be provided by Group 4 to prisoners being held in court and police cells whilst awaiting or during trial; and if these will be hot meals.

  The contract with Group 4 Court Services Limited requires the contractor to feed all prisoners who are in its custody at any time between the hours of 1100 and 1400. The lunchtime meal need not be regarded as the main meal of the day, but should be such as to sustain the prisoner until he or she is escorted to the prison or otherwise dealt with. Fresh drinking water should be available to prisoners on request throughout the day. This is in line with guidance to Governors in respect of prisoners held at courts staffed by the Prison Service. Breakfast and tea meals will ordinarily be given either by the police or Prison Service as appropriate.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost currently paid by the prison service for each new cellular van to be constructed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from I. Dunbar to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 May 1993:

  In the temporary absence of the Director General, Mr. Lewis, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost paid by the Prison Service for new cellular vans.

  The last cellular van purchased by the Prison Service was in July 1991, for a 14-cell van with air-conditioning, at a total cost of £50,667 exclusive of VAT. The last 12-cell van was purchased in September 1990 at a total cost of £47,275 exclusive of VAT. Air-conditioning was fitted to this van in July 1991 at an additional cost of £7,173 exclusive of VAT.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the location, date, list of injuries and cost of repairs incurred in road accidents in
  75
  1990, 1991 and 1992 involving (a) cellular vans and (b) other means of transporting prisoners (i) in England and Wales and (ii) in the east midlands and Humberside area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from I. Dunbar to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 May 1993:

  In the absence of the Director General, Mr. Lewis, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the transport of prisoners.

  Only a relatively small number of prisoner movements are by cellular vehicle. In fact the use of cellular vehicles by the Prison Service only began in 1990 and so far only 26 are in use. Apart from those prisoners conveyed by Group 4 most prisoners are escorted to magistrates' courts and the Crown Court, and between establishments, by Prison Service staff but using contract hire taxis and coaches. Movements from magistrates' courts to prisons are undertaken by the police using their vehicles. (In some areas, eg in London, the police also convey prisoners to magistrates' courts, but are paid for this service by the Prison Service.) We do not therefore have the information with which to answer your question.

  We do however have information on the amount spent on repairs, and in settlement of third party claims, in respect of accidents involving Prison Service cellular vehicles. The only years for which the information is complete are 1990 (when these vehicles first began to be used by the Prison Service) and 1991. The information is as follows:

  All areas

  East Midlands and Humberside

  £

  £

  1990

  264

  nil

  1991

  2,354·50

  618

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoner custody officers are employed by Group 4 Court Escort Services Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from I. Dunbar to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 May 1993:

  In the absence of the Director General, Mr. Lewis, the Home Secretary has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of prisoner custody officers employed by Group 4 Court Escort Services Ltd.

  Group 4 currently have 288 staff employed to undertake prisoner custody officer duties as part of the court escort service in the East Midlands and Humberside.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the running costs incurred during 1992 for transporting prisoners in the east midlands and Humberside area; and if he will give a breakdown of the costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from I. Dunbar to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 May 1993:

  In the absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, the Home Secretary has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the running costs incurred during 1992 for transporting prisoners in the East Midlands and Humberside area.
  76
  Our estimate of the operational staff costs in 1993–94 prices is £9·0 million. This excludes overheads, vehicle costs, catering and medical support. Neither the Prison Service nor the police can readily identify these additional costs. By contrast the total cost under the contract is £8·1 million (excluding VAT, which is reclaimable). This sum contains the cost of administrative and management back-up, together with costs of catering, medical support, accommodation (headquarters, control centre and vehicle bases), vehicles and IT. Of the £9·0 million, £6·0 million is attributable to police costs, and £2·8 million to Prison Service costs.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoner transport movements were made in the east midlands and Humberside area during 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from I. Dunbar to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 May 1993:

  In the temporary absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General from the office, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of prisoner transport movements made in the East Midlands and Humberside area during 1992.

  Data on prisoner movements is not collected centrally. Survey work conducted last summer indicated an annual rate in the area of about 50,000 prisoner movements from police stations and prisons to courts. More detailed data for 1993 will become available in due course from the contractor's management information system.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the number and types of vehicles Group 4 has in its fleet for transporting prisoners under the private escort service in the east midlands and Humberside.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from I. Dunbar to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 May 1993:

  In the absence of the Director General, Mr. Lewis, the Home Secretary has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Group 4's fleet of vehicles for the court escort service in the East Midlands and Humberside.

  Group 4 are using 70 vehicles, of which 57 are cellular vehicles, three are personnel carriers and 10 saloon cars.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost in(a) money and (b) man hours of retaking prisoners who escape while in the charge of Group 4 personnel.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from I. Dunbar to Mr. David Young, dated 4 May 1993:

  In the absence of the Director General, Mr. Lewis, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the cost and man hours involved in the re-taking of prisoners who have escaped from the custody of Group 4 personnel.

  The nature and circumstances of incidents of escapes differ widely from one case to the next and the Prison Service is not charged for costs incurred in recapturing prisoners. The information requested is not, therefore, available.
  77
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the contract with Group 4 to provide prisoner escort services contains penalty clauses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from I.Dunbar to Mr. David Young, dated 4 May 1993:

  In the absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about penalty clauses in the contract with Group 4 Court Services Ltd. for the provision of the court escort service in the East Midlands and Humberside.

  The contract with Group 4 contains mechanisms which allow adjustments to payments to be made in the event of circumstances occurring which fall outside the terms of the contract. Where a material failure is caused by circumstances within the contractor's control and is not corrected within 20 days of it being brought to his attention, the Prison Service may terminate the contract.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to allow male and female prisoners to travel in the same vehicle while being escorted to court; and if he will call for an investigation into an incident on Tuesday 20 April when a female prisoner was put with male prisoners in a vehicle operated by Group 4 Court Escort Services Ltd. with no female custody officer present.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 5 May 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply directly to your recent Parliamentary question about male and female prisoners being escorted in the same vehicle.

  The Prison Service has no objection in principle to escorting male and female prisoners to court together as long as the escort is properly staffed and supervised. The contract with Group 4 requires the separation of male and female prisoners, but the Prison Service is content that such separation be achieved by placing prisoners in separate compartments of a cellular vehicle. Where it is judged in the prisoner's interest to be escorted rather than to await the arrival of a female PCO, a female prisoner may be escorted by male PCOs. The contract with Group 4 states that the general presumption will be that a female officer will accompany a female prisoner, and that escorts of females by male Prisoner Custody Officers will be very much the exception.

  Prison Regime (Code of Standards)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making with the establishment of a code of standards for the prison regime; when he expects the code to be ready for issue; what account he has taken of previous recommendations on the subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  78
  Letter from I. Dunbar to Mr. Harry Green way, dated May 1993:

  In the temporary absence of the Director General, Mr. Lewis, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about progress on establishing a code of standards for the Prison Service.

  Following two public consultation seminars last year on the aims of a code of standards, drafting of the code is now well underway in the Prison Service. Standards are being drafted to reflect the Prison Service's responsibilities towards both the public and prisoners, and will take account of the views expressed in the Woolf Report, the Government White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice", and comments received during consultation.

  The code will be published in December 1993.

  Prison Education Service
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many redundancies he expects as a result of the tendering out of the prison education service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The staff who provide education services in prison establishments are not employed by the prison service. Decisions on redundancy are a matter for the employer and it is not yet possible to quantify whether and to what extent staff currently employed in delivering education services in prisons may be made redundant following competitive tendering.

  Fire Service, Wales
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to improve the efficiency and response times of each fire service in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government are concerned to ensure that all fire authorities in Wales conform to the minimum nationally recommended standards of fire cover, and that they do so as efficiently and economically as possible. The primary responsibility for providing an efficient fire service rests with the fire authority and the chief officer of the fire brigade. Each brigade in Wales is inspected annually by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services to ensure that fire authorities are operating as efficiently as possible and continuing to meet acceptable standards of fire cover.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes exist in each county in Wales for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the number of neighbourhood watch schemes is recorded at police force level and so it is not possible to attribute schemes to individual Welsh counties. The number of schemes recorded by the police at the end of each year in question is given in the following table:
  79

  Neighbourhood watch schemes in Wales

  Number of neighbourhood watch schemes

  Force

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Dyfed-Powys

  108

  514

  719

  807

  940

  1,102

  Gwent

  3

  10

  17

  22

  35

  113

  North Wales

  1,135

  1,572

  1,812

  1,787

  2,061

  2,615

  South Wales

  500

  510

  638

  546

  821

  1,141

  Total

  1,746

  2,606

  3,186

  3,162

  3,857

  4,971

  Victim Support
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy for funding and supporting Victim Support.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government attach importance to the work of Victim Support in providing both practical help and advice and emotional support to victims of crime. There are currently about 380 branches and schemes with some 8,000 volunteer visitors covering 98 per cent. of the population of England and Wales. They handle about 800,000 cases a year.

  Home Office grant to the national charity Victim Support will amount to £8·4 million this year. This is an

  Force As at 31 March 1979

  Police strength

  Civilian strength

  Force population1

  Police authority/population ratio

  Avon and Somerset

  2,825

  686

  1,328,000

  1:378

  Bedfordshire

  902

  277

  490,000

  1:415

  Cambridgeshire

  1,064

  302

  564,000

  1:413

  Cheshire

  1,778

  397

  914,000

  1:420

  Cleveland

  1,334

  308

  569,000

  1:363

  Cumbria

  1,056

  250

  474,000

  1:363

  Derbyshire

  1,563

  636

  897,000

  1:408

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,660

  752

  1,361,000

  1:399

  Dorset

  1,128

  281

  583,000

  1:414

  Durham

  1,312

  505

  608,000

  1:335

  Essex

  2,461

  686

  1,357,000

  1:431

  Gloucestershire

  1,076

  231

  493,000

  1:377

  Greater Manchester

  6,419

  1,415

  2,675,000

  1:341

  Hampshire

  2,949

  698

  1,564,000

  1:429

  Hertfordshire

  1,462

  370

  799,000

  1:436

  Humberside

  1,849

  499

  845,000

  1:360

  Kent

  2,724

  887

  1,445,000

  1:400

  Lancashire

  3,097

  879

  1,368,000

  1:344

  Leicestershire

  1,701

  363

  833,000

  1:404

  Lincolnshire

  1,171

  314

  530,000

  1:357

  Merseyside

  4,472

  914

  1,562,000

  1:290

  Norfolk

  1,223

  248

  675,000

  1:459

  Northamptonshire

  905

  254

  514,000

  1:443

  Northumbria

  3,272

  768

  1,465,000

  1:362

  North Yorkshire

  1,342

  338

  654,000

  1:389

  Nottinghamshire

  2,117

  561

  974,000

  1:364

  South Yorkshire

  2,546

  599

  1,304,000

  1:414

  Staffordshire

  1,978

  571

  994,000

  1:390

  Suffolk

  1,064

  329

  588,000

  1:422

  Surrey

  1,440

  360

  726,000

  1:403

  Sussex

  2,758

  723

  1,278,000

  1:367

  Thames Valley

  2,639

  970

  1,723,000

  1:477

  Warwickshire

  841

  204

  467,000

  1:447

  West Mercia

  1,743

  493

  963,000

  1:431

  West Midlands

  5,981

  1,418

  2,730,000

  1:369

  West Yorkshire

  4,727

  1,186

  2,073,000

  1:351

  Wiltshire

  997

  251

  514,000

  1:412

  City of London

  829

  275

  6,000

  1:5

  Metropolitan

  22,214

  12,443

  7,445,000

  1:215

  1 Population figures provided by OPCS June 1977.

  80
  increase of 15 per cent. over last year's provision, which itself represented a 28 per cent. increase over the previous year's.

  Police Forces
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, for each police authority in England, for the most recent year for which figures are available,(a) the number of police officers, (b) the number of civilian staff, (c) the population in the area covered and (d) the ratio of officers and staff to population; and what were the comparable figures for 1978–79.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is as follows:
  81

  Force As at 31 December 1992

  Police strength

  Civilian strength

  Force population1

  Police authority/population ratio

  Avon and Somerset

  3,065

  1,120

  1,431,000

  1:342

  Bedfordshire

  1,119

  391

  534,000

  1:354

  Cambridgeshire

  1,265

  446

  670,000

  1:392

  Cheshire

  1,901

  543

  967,000

  1:396

  Cleveland

  1,492

  473

  558,000

  1:284

  Cumbria

  1,197

  414

  490,000

  1:304

  Derbyshire

  1,810

  588

  940,000

  1:392

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,920

  1,048

  1,515,000

  1:382

  Dorset

  1,318

  553

  663,000

  1:354

  Durham

  1,377

  541

  604,000

  1:315

  Essex

  2,917

  1,088

  1,477,000

  1:369

  Gloucestershire

  1,148

  373

  539,000

  1:354

  Greater Manchester

  7,055

  2,539

  2,562,000

  1:267

  Hampshire

  3,287

  1,089

  1,705,000

  1:390

  Hertfordshire

  1,688

  594

  843,000

  1:369

  Humberside

  2,033

  699

  874,000

  1:320

  Kent

  3,106

  1,107

  1,539,000

  1:365

  Lancashire

  3,209

  1,071

  1,408,000

  1:329

  Leicestershire

  1,834

  667

  891,000

  1:356

  Lincolnshire

  1,191

  483

  593,000

  1:354

  Merseyside

  4,656

  1,638

  1,441,000

  1:229

  Norfolk

  1,426

  460

  759,000

  1:402

  Northamptonshire

  1,203

  436

  587,000

  1:358

  Northumbria

  3,586

  1,232

  1,433,000

  1:297

  North Yorkshire

  1,408

  454

  721,000

  1:387

  Nottinghamshire

  2,329

  742

  1,016,000

  1:331

  South Yorkshire

  3,000

  960

  1,293,000

  1:327

  Staffordshire

  2,172

  736

  1,047,000

  1:360

  Suffolk

  1,237

  520

  662,000

  1:377

  Surrey

  1,674

  604

  768,000

  1:337

  Sussex

  2,980

  971

  1,430,000

  1:362

  Thames Valley

  3,833

  1,458

  1,972,000

  1:373

  Warwickshire

  1,002

  332

  490,000

  1:367

  West Mercia

  2,060

  927

  1,099,000

  1:368

  West Midlands

  6,952

  2,471

  2,619,000

  1:278

  West Yorkshire

  5,070

  1,878

  2,066,000

  1:297

  Wiltshire

  1,262

  490

  575,000

  1:328

  City of London

  805

  309

  4,000

  1:4

  Metropolitan

  27,812

  14,584

  7,285,000

  1:172

  1 Population figures provided by OPCS June 1991.

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports have been recorded by the police of racial abuse or racial attacks in south-east London in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of racial incidents recorded for 3 Area of the Metropolitan police, which consists of the London boroughs of Southwark, Lewisham, Bromley, Greenwich and Bexley, is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  244

  1988

  292

  1989

  396

  1990

  394

  1991

  596

  1992

  811

  Public Order Act
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose amendment of the Public Order Act 1986.
  82
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend gave to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 31 March at column 225.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from the Association of Chief Police Officers concerning the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Department has received one letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers concerning the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of consulting canine experts to determine whether or not dogs at the centre of the Mold Hendre Woods trial are pit bulls.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The cost to the prosecuting authorities of obtaining advice as to the identification of the 29 dogs involved in this case is £2,514·50.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a national identity card for all United Kingdom citizens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Although I remain ready to consider any arguments which may be advanced in favour of introducing an identity card system. I am not at present persuaded that the case for such a system has been made.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he is making to the recommendations in the NSPCC report into "Joint Enterprise and Parents", relating to(a) seeking separate trials in such cases, (b) reviewing the guidelines on what constitutes neglect or cruelty for the purposes of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, (c) making admissible evidence of behaviour of one parent against a child and (d) clarifying the extent to which a trial judge may comment on a defendant's choice not to give evidence.

  Mr. Jack
  The principal recipient of the NSPCC report into "Joint Enterprise and Parents" was the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which is expected to report in the summer. The Government will very carefully consider any proposals the commission may make that have a bearing on the issues raised in this question. A copy of the report was also sent by the director of the NSPCC to my right hon. and learned Friend, who in his reply offered the view that the report provided a useful analysis of actual cases while clearly demonstrating that there were no easy answers to the problems identified.

  Corporal Punishment
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 169, on corporal punishment, if he will list the evidence referred to in his answer.

  Mr. Jack
  The evidence referred to in that answer is the same evidence which informed policy in 1948.

  Boards of Visitors
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has to report on Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations concerning a president of boards of visitors.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have been considering the report of a working group which was established to look at this recommendation, together with the representations that have been made to me by interested parties.

  I have decided against appointing a president of boards of visitors. There is no strong consensus of opinion amongst boards in favour of a president and some concern from them that their local, autonomous and voluntary nature might be compromised by such an appointment. Lord Woolf suggested that a president migh develop more effective methods for recruiting new members to boards and give guidance on good practice to be followed by boards, including the provision of training. These areas are
  84
  already being addressed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in conjunction with the board of visitors representative bodies and the prison service liaison section for boards of visitors.

  Consequently, I am not convinced that the appointment of a president is required.

  Boards of visitors have served the Crown and the public for many years and as Lord Woolf pointed out, we have good cause to be grateful to them for the work they do. The many changes that are happening now within the prison service have resulted in boards of visitors being faced with increasing demands upon their time. With this in mind, I have asked that once the prison service agency has had time to adjust to its own new status, consideration should be given to Lord Woolf's other recommendations and conclusions regarding boards of visitors to see whether we can assist boards further in carrying out their important role.

  Directorate of Telecommunications
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for privatising the directorate of telecommunications.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As I announced on 3 February 1993 at column 204, I have been given approval for advisers to be engaged in preparation for the privatisation of DTELS (formerly the Directorate of Telecommunications). The aim is privatise during 1993–94 by means of a trade sale.

  Expenses in connection with the sale will be met from sale receipts. Parliamentary approval of this new service will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Home Office's privatisation of DTELS vote (class VIII, vote 5). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure incurred in advance of the sale will be met by repayable advances, not expected to exceed £1 million, from the Contingencies Fund.

  Racism and Homophobia
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that all police forces monitor racial and homophobic attacks.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: All police forces monitor racial incidents reported to them, and report to HM inspectorate of constabulary each year the number of incidents.

  The introduction of systematic monitoring of homophobic attacks is a matter for chief officers.

  Life Imprisonment
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment spends in prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (table 8.5 of the latest volume, for 1991, Cm 2157), copies of which are in the Library. There are wide variations in time served, as shown by table 8.3 of the same publication.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce new legislation to ease the implementation of further market testing programmes for central Government Departments and agencies in 1993–94.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government's legislative programme for 1993–94 will be announced in the Queen's Speech.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the percentage savings arising from market testing in previous years; and if he will give details of evidence he has for the level of savings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Annual returns from Departments indicate that in previous years savings arising from market testing have typically been around 25 per cent. of the original cost even when the activity has remained in-house.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what safeguards exist, under the market testing programme, to prevent contractors or consultants already engaged by a Department from bidding for new work to which they had access or privileged information as a result of their involvement in an earlier contract.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is the responsibility of each Department to assure itself that proper safeguards are in place to preserve fair and open competition and any competitive tendering exercise. Guidance on these matters was set out most recently by Her Majesty's Treasury's public competition and purchasing unit in its guidance note No. 40, "The Competitive Tendering Process", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if it is Government policy for external contractors to be market tested against an in-house bid at the re-tendering stage following a market test in which the initial contract was awarded to an external contractor.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is the Government's general policy not to allow in-house bids when contracted out services are re-tendered. But there may be circumstances when such a bid would be allowed, for example when it could be made as part of a larger in-house bid, in a market test also covering services currently done in-house, or when there appeared to be insufficient external competition.

HEALTH

  Sellafield (Emissions)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimates her Department have made of the number of people who will die each year(a) in Cumbria, (b) in the United Kingdom and (c) worldwide, as a result of the proposed emissions of krypton gas from Nuclear Fuels Ltd.'s thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria;

  (2) what assessment has been made of the additional cost to the health service of treating the additional
  86
  childhood leukaemias and other cancers due to the emissions of radioactivity from the Sellafield site compared with current, actual emissions.

  Mr. Sackville
  The estimated collective dose for members of the pubic in the United Kingdom, Europe and worldwide from the proposed emissions of radionuclides, including Krypton 85, from British Nuclear Fuel Ltd's thermal oxide reprocessing plant are tabulated in the authorising Departments' explanatory memorandum to the draft authorisations. Copies of the draft authorisations are available in the Library. Estimates of the theoretical number of fatal cancers can be made using the fatal cancer risk factor recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, which is currently 0·05 deaths per Sievert. For example, this theoretical calculation would imply, for all radionuclides discharged annually to the atmosphere from these proposed authorisations (covering all plants on the Sellafield site), rather less than one excess death in the United Kingdom over the next few decades. This precludes any sensible quantification of cost.

  Tuberculosis
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) cases of and (b) deaths from tuberculosis were recorded in each district health authority area in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of cases of tuberculosis recorded in each district health authority is not available centrally. The numbers of deaths from tuberculosis will be placed in the Library.

  Transitional Grants
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the basis for adjustments, and transfer of funds where appropriate, to transitional grant where boundary changes take place.

  Mr. Yeo
  We will consider the effects of any significant changes in future years when calculating the distribution of the special transitional grant for those years.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list in rank order the top five providers measured in terms of home help hours per year for those aged over 75 years among social services authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not available centrally. Figures on hours of home help received by clients of all ages are collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and an indicator relating this information to the resident population aged 75 and over by local authority is included in the Personal and Social Services Key Indicators. A copy of the latest publication, for 1990–91, is available in the Library.

  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact of the annual financial settlement on the level of spending on personal social services in 1993–94.

  Mr. Yeo
  Total standard spending for local authority personal social services in 1993–94 is £5,585 million, an
  87
  increase of 15 per cent. over 1992–93. With effective use of these resources, now almost 35 per cent. in real terms above the 1990–91 level, authorities should be able to make progress expanding existing services and fully discharge their new responsibilities for community care.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the level of provision of magnetic resonance imaging scanners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 28 April at col.447. The latest figures held by the Department indicate that there are 78 magnetic resonance imaging scanners in England.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of district health authorities met the patients charter targets for(a) assessments following admission to accident and emergency units and (b) waiting times in out-patient clinics in the first six months of the financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  District health authorities, as purchasers of health care, will shortly be publishing their first annual report on performance against all patients charter standards achieved by their providers.

  A commentary on overall performance will be included in the chief executive's annual report for 1992–93.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of dispensed drugs are liable to full prescription charges; what proportion are free; and what proportion of the population are liable to pay prescription charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1992, a prescription charge was paid on around 15 per cent. of items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, a further 5 per cent. were covered by prescription prepayment certificates and about 80 per cent. were dispensed free. An estimated 50 per cent. of the population are liable to pay prescription charges.

  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to monitor the impact of increased prescription charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information we regularly collect does not indicate that the level of prescription charge influences patient access to necessary medication. The number of prescribed items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors rose from 305 million in 1979 to 387 million in 1992, and is expected to exceed 403 million in 1993–94.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health (1) whether a rolling capitation system of dental remuneration for treating non-exempt adults is to be introduced;
  88
  (2) what will be the role of family health service authorities in the provision of general dental services following consideration of the Bloomfield report on dental remuneration;

  (3) what new arrangements for dentistry in the general dental service will be put in place after consideration of the Bloomfield report on dental remuneration;

  (4) if she will make it her policy that (a) the doctors and dentists pay review should continue to exist under any new service arrangements for dentistry following consideration of the Bloomfield report on dental remuneration and (b) the current expenditure on dental services should remain at its present level;

  (5) if she will (a) ring fence family health services authority funds for general dental services and (b) uprate funds in addition to inflation factors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Consultation on the Bloomfield report is continuing. We will announce our proposals in due course.

  Community Care
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met representatives of(a) the Association of Directors of Social Services, (b) the British Association of Social Workers, (c) organisations representing those with learning disabilities, (d) carers, (e) service users, (f) the Social Care Association and (g) organisations providing residential, drug and alcohol projects to discuss the implementation of the changes in community care and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I most recently met the Association of Directors of Social Services on 26 April 1993.

  I met representatives of the British Association of Social Workers on 11 November 1992.

  I met the national development team on 7 May 1992, Rescare on 14 May 1992, ARC on 7 July 1992 and Mencap on 27 July 1992.

  Ministers have attended a number of functions arranged by carer organisations in recent months. I met the Relatives Association on 11 March 1993.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had several meetings with Age Concern, the most recent of which was on 8 February 1993. I met the National Schizophrenia Fellowship on 10 February 1993. I met the all-party disablement group on 3 November 1992. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the all-party parliamentary group for pensioners on 15 December 1992. We are setting up a group of users and carers who will give Ministers feedback on their experiences of the implementation of the community care reforms.

  The Social Care Association has not sought meetings to discuss the implementation of community care.

  At the end of last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met a large number of independent sector drug and alcohol service providers to discuss various issues surrounding the implementation of community care.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in improving ambulance response times: and if she will make a statement.
  89
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 23 March at col.576.

  Nurses
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the level; of job opportunities available to newly qualified nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  The level of job opportunities available to newly qualified nurses will be for regional health authorities and local employers to decide. Where possible, regional health authorities and local employers are taking a variety of approaches to manage the situation, including expansion of flexible working patterns, job sharing, short-term contracts and clearing house schemes which alert newly qualified nurses to suitable posts.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on hepatitis B vaccination.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the United Kingdom hepatitis B vaccine is recommended for those at particular risk as a result of occupation, lifestyle or other factors such as intimate contact with a person infected with hepatitis B or a carrier of the disease. High risk groups include:

  intravenous drug abusers;

  those with multiple sexual partners;

  close family contacts of an infected person or carrier;

  babies born to mothers who are chronic carriers or who have had acute hepatitis B during pregnancy;

  certain occupational groups, including all health care workers involved in invasive procedures.

  The policy is kept under constant review, with expert advice from the Advisory Group on Hepatitis and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress towards "The Health of the Nation" targets.

  Mr. Sackville
  "The Health of the Nation" is a long-term strategy, with many of its targets for the year 2000 and beyond. The mechanisms are in place to meet the targets. All national health service regions have implementation plans and a wide range of other bodies are now actively working together to bring about improvements in health.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the regulations to be made under section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 will be laid.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have today issued a consultation document which includes draft regulations to be known as the Parental Orders for Gamete Donors Regulations 1993. The period for public consultation will end on 2 July 1993. The Government intend to lay the draft regulations before Parliament as soon as possible after the results of the consultation exercise have been considered. Copies of the consultation document are available in the Library.

  Tranquilliser Addiction
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued by her Department to general practitioners concerning the treatment of patients with tranquilliser addiction.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Detailed advice on the prescribing of benzodiazepines issued by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines is given in the British National Formulary which is issued free to all doctors. This advice contains a withdrawal protocol for general practitioners to help patients reduce their dependency gradually.

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the numbers of employees in(a) administrative grades and (b) medical staff employed in the national health service for each of the past seven years, and currently.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Whole-time equivalent administrative and medical staff in England for 30 September of each year

  Year

  Administrative and clerical

  Medical

  1985

  110,940

  38,900

  1986

  110,840

  39,270

  1987

  113,900

  39,060

  1988

  114,720

  40,390

  1989

  116,840

  41,680

  1990

  120,040

  42,990

  1991

  127,370

  44,210

  Sources:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census.

  Department of Health form KM 49 (1991 figures).

  Notes:

  1. The figures represent staff directly appointed in the Hospital and Community Health Service. Those for administrative grades are the staff employed on the terms and conditions of the NHS Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council. Medical staff include those in both career grades and training grades in the Hospital and Community Health Service.

  2. The figures for 1991 include staff in NHS trusts.

  3. The figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of remuneration paid to chairmen and members of regional and district health authorities and trusts; and what has been the level of remuneration in each case of the past five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The current levels payable since 1 December 1991, of annual remuneration for chairmen and non-executives of NHS authorities and trusts are:

  RHA Chairmen: £20,925.

  DHA Chairmen are paid according to a banding structure based on the district revenue budget. The present rates are:

  Revenue budget 1985–86

  Band

  Rates per annum

  (£)

  In excess of £60 million

  Band 1

  19,285

  Between £30 million to £60 million

  Band 2

  17,145

  Less than £30 million

  Band 3

  15,125

  91
  FHSA chairmen are also paid according to a banding structure based on the population of the area covered by the authority. The present rates are:

  FHSA population mid 1985

  Band

  Rates per annum

  £

  Over 750,000

  Band 1

  12,605

  250,000–750,000

  Band 2

  11,720

  Under 250,000

  Band 3

  10,845

  NHS trust chairmen are paid according to the unit turnover in 1988–89. The present rates are:

  Unit turnover 1988–89

  Band

  Rates per annum

  £

  In excess of £50 million

  Band 1

  19,285

  Between £20 million and £50 million

  Band 2

  17,145

  Less than £20 million

  Band 3

  15,125

  Remuneration for non-executive members and directors of NHS authorities and trusts was introduced in 1990. All receive £5,000 per annum.

  The remuneration of NHS authority and trust chairmen since July 1987 was:

  Date

  RHAs

  DHAs

  Trusts

  £

  £

  £

  1 July 1991

  19,110

  13,812–17,610

  13,812–17,610

  1 July 1990

  18,921

  13,674–17,437

  —

  1 July 1989

  12,462

  12,462

  —

  1 July 1988

  11,709

  11,709

  —

  1 July 1987

  11,205

  11,205

  —

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will indicate the criteria used in appointing members of health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Members of health authorities are appointed for their personal qualities and skills, and for the contribution they can make to the authority. The aim is to achieve a balance on the authority of different skills and experience, including local knowledge.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of self-deferrals by people who had been waiting(a) 0–11 months, (b) 12–23 months or (c) 24 or more months for (i) in-patient and for (ii) day case treatment in each six months period since April 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 23 April 1993]: Such information as is available is given in the table. Information about self-deferred cases is available only from September 1987. The increase in self-deferrals for day case treatment reflects the 128 per cent. increase in day case admissions over the same period.

  Self-deferred cases

  Numbers at end of six-month periods ending;

  In-patients

  Day case

  September 1987

  40,766

  8,977

  March 1988

  39,115

  8,361

  September 1988

  40,753

  8,433

  92

  In-patients

  Day case

  March 1989

  37,098

  8,769

  September 1989

  38,224

  9,905

  March 1990

  36,441

  9,735

  September 1990

  39,274

  11,865

  March 1991

  36,115

  11,998

  September 1991

  33,868

  12,469

  March 1992

  30,965

  13,151

  September 1992

  35,992

  18,134

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients waiting more than two years for treatment were removed from waiting lists(a) by admission for treatment and (b) for reasons other than treatment; and how many were self-deferred, in each regional health authority in each six-month period since September 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 23 April 1993]: The information available centrally on the total numbers of patients who were either admitted or removed from waiting lists or self-deferred has been placed in the Library. Information on the numbers of these patients who had waited over two years is not held centrally.

PRIME MINISTER

  Treaties
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister how many treaties have been ratified by Her Majesty's Government since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty's Government have ratified 243 treaties since 1 January 1979.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the City of London about the proposal to close the accident and emergency department at St. Bartholomew's hospital.

  The Prime Minister
  So far as I am aware, none.

  Orders in Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the statutory powers which have authorised the use of the Orders in Council in the last six months.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1 November 1992, Orders in council have been made under the following Acts and Measures:

  Burial Acts 1853 and 1855

  Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985

  Civil Aviation Acts 1949 and 1982

  Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

  Continental Shelf Act 1964

  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

  Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990

  Dioceses Measure 1978

  Education Reform Act 1988

  Education (Scotland) Act 1980

  European Communities Act 1972

  Extradition Acts 1870 and 1989

  Foreign Compensation Acts 1950 and 1969

  Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

  Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978

  Local Government Act 1972 and 1974

  93

  Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972

  Merchant Shipping Act 1894

  Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865

  Northern Ireland Act 1974

  Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973

  Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986

  Pastoral Measure 1983

  Royal Marriages Act 1772

  Social Security Administration Act 1992

  Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977

  Supreme Court Act 1981

  Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992

  United Nations Act 1964

  University of London Act 1978

  Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923

  Universities (Scotland) Act 1966

  Publlic Servants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister how many persons have been appointed to grades 1 to 7, or equivalent grades, in the civil service since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1979 there has been about 1,250 grade 1 to 3 appointments in the home civil service. This figure includes those appointed from within the service.

  About 4,000 recruits have entered the home civil service at grade levels 4 to 7 during the period. This figure excludes promotions from within the civil service, on which information is not readily available.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Ecclesiastical Buildings
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the peculiars enjoying the ecclesiastical exemption from listed building control.

  Mr. Brooke
  This information is not available. My Department will shortly be discussing the status of peculiars with church representatives, in the light of the changes to the scope of the ecclesiastical exemption which I announced on 17 December at columns 370–71.

  BSkyB
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what response he has made to the Independent Producers Association and to the all-party media committee in respect of their submissions concerning the regulatory framework for BSkyB.

  Mr. Brooke
  The chairman of the all-party media group has recently written to me and I shall be responding shortly. I have not yet received a submission from the Independent Producers Association.

  Bernard Shaw Estate
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps have been taken to ensure that the British museum has used the proceeds of the Bernard Shaw estate to fulfil the ends expressed in Mr. Shaw's will.

  Mr. Key
  The use of income from the bequest is entirely a matter for the trustees of the British Museum.

  Deaf and Blind Sports
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what level of direct financial support will be available to the British Deaf Sports Council and British Blind Sport in the coming financial year;

  (2) if he will make a statement on Government aid for profoundly deaf people in sport;

  (3) what action he will take to assist the British Deaf Sports Council with administrative costs associated with costs arising from participation in the world games for the deaf in Sofia, Bulgaria;

  (4) what steps he will take to improve awareness of deaf persons' needs in sport.

  Mr. Brooke
  In 1993–94, the British Deaf Sports Council and British Blind Sport will each receive a grant of £30,000 from the Sports Council, channelled through the British Sports Association for the Disabled. The Sports Council also assists the British Paralympic Association (BPA) which has agreed to provide £70,000 towards the costs of the World Games for the Deaf and hopes to contribute more. My Department will be represented in Sofia and I am sure that the achievements of our deaf athletes will increase public awareness of this aspect of disabled sport.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Security
  Mr. George
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans there are to reduce the cost of security at the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Beith
  None. All services provided in the Palace are monitored to ensure that best value for money is obtained.

  Silverware
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will list the occasions in each of the last five years when cutlery has been sold; what were the scrap weights and the estimated number of items in each consignment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  I understand from the Director of Catering Services that the Refreshment Department records show that cutlery and holloware has been sold on three occasions, detailed as follows:

  Date

  Scrap weight cwt.

  Approximate number of items

  Scrap value per cwt.

  Credit received

  £

  £

  3 May 91

  6·82

  2,000

  16·00

  109

  12 February 1992

  4·25

  500

  17·50

  74

  1 April 1993

  1·37

  75

  25·50

  35

  The Department's records indicate that damaged and worn out cutlery and holloware were not sold back to its supplier until May 1991. Prior to that time, they were written off by stock-takers, agreed by the National Audit Office as "unusable" and accumulated in the Refreshment Department stores. This accumulated stock was sold in the two lots noted above, dated May 1991 and February 1992,

  95
  hence the large number of items disposed of in these transactions. At the financial year-end stock-take in March 1993, approximately 75 items were written off as a result of wear and tear and were sold for scrap in the transaction above dated April 1993.

  There is no evidence of any substantial theft of cutlery or holloware from the House.

  The Department's conditions of trade now specify that no cutlery or holloware will be disposed of by its supplier unless all identifiable crests and marks have been erased.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will publish the letter from the Director of Catering Services to the hon. Member for Bradford, South dated 27 April, relating to House of Commons silverware.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The terms of the letter are as follows:"Further to your question tabled for reply on 26 April, I am pleased to write with the details you requested.
  The cutlery to which I believe you refer was damaged as a result of normal wear and tear and was disposed of by sale as scrap to the Department's nominated silverware supplier. In fact two small consignments of redundant silverware have been disposed of in this manner in the past six months. The total scrap value paid to the Department was £109, based on the weight of the redundant silverware.
  In November 1992, it was brought to our attention by The Sunday Times that House of Commons silverware was being offered for sale in the USA. It transpired that a consignment of redundant silverware sold back to our supplier in the normal way had been sold on by them for melting down by a third party without having first erased all Portcullis badging. The silverware was then sold on by the third party and eventually appeared for sale on the open market in the USA. Rest assured, contractual agreement has since been formalised that no old silverware will be disposed of by our supplier unless all identifiable crests and marks have been erased.
  I trust this information is helpful to you, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any points you would like to raise on the matter."

  I understand from the Director of Catering Services that there was an error in the letter. The two consignments of silverware mentioned in the second paragraph of the letter were in fact disposed of in February 1992 and April 1993.

  Committee Stages
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list each Bill, since 1979, whose Committee stage exceeded the hours spent overall on the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in Session 1992–93; and in respect of which of those Bills the House made allocation of time orders.

  Mr. Newton
  Since Session 1979–80, no Bill which was committed to a Committee of the whole House has had a Committee stage as long as that of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Comparative figures for Bills committed to Standing Committees are only available at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION

  Ministerial Visits to Schools
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many of the schools(a) he and (b) the three schools Ministers have visited in the past year are (i) grant maintained, (ii) local authority run and (iii) private.
  96
  Mr. Forth
  Of the 117 schools visited by the DFE ministerial team my right hon. Friend has visited three grant-maintained schools, 25 local authority maintained schools, two non-maintained special schools, five independent schools and two city technology colleges.

  I, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) have between us visited 13 grant-maintained schools, 55 local authority maintained schools, one non-maintained special school, seven independent schools and four city technology colleges.

  Postgraduate Students
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to assist postgraduate students to fund their course fees and living expenses where their education authority are refusing to grant discretionary awards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Local education authorities have power to make discretionary awards to students on postgraduate courses, other than those designated under the Postgraduate etc. Courses (Exclusion from Discretionary Awards) Regulations as being within the ambit of another postgraduate award-making body. Universities can use their access funds to help full-time postgraduate students facing financial difficulties. My right hon. Friend has no plans to establish a new award scheme for postgraduates unable to secure support from other sources.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the newspapers and other journals in which he placed advertisements on 27 April; and what was the cost to his Department in each case.

  Mr. Forth
  Advertisements were placed in The Independent and The Guardian. The rates for placing advertisements are negotiated on an individual basis and this information is commercial in confidence.

  Tests
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list the local education authorities which in the seven years before the introduction of assessment and testing within the national curriculum failed to ensure that children in their schools were assessed and tested until they took examinations at 16-plus;

  (2) if he will list the schools in each local education authority area, which in the seven years before the introduction of assessment and testing within the national curriculum failed to ensure that children were assessed and tested until they took public examinations at 16-plus;

  (3) if he will list the action taken by his predecessors and himself since 1979 to remedy the failures reported to them as far as the non-testing of children before the age of 16-plus was concerned.

  Mr. Forth
  Comprehensive information on testing and assessment policies in individual local education authorities and individual schools is not available in the form requested. There have been a number of surveys of tests used for different age groups, however. The most recent was conducted by the National Foundation for
  97
  Educational Research on behalf of the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC) in March 1992 on existing practices in local education authorities for testing 11-year-olds. No testing took place in 49 out of the 91 authorities which responded—over half.

  The same theme is to be found in a number of reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate. For example, in OFSTED's most recent report, "Assessment, Recording and Reporting in 1991–92", the schools inspectors said that they had found that
  "The quality of teacher assessment during key stage 3 remained variable with the norm being weak"
  and
  "the quality of teacher assessment in middle schools was rarely good."
  The main action to remedy this was taken by my right hon. Friend and his predecessors when the national curriculum and its associated assessment arrangements were introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988, to ensure that all pupils were rigorously assessed in the national curriculum subjects four times during 11 years of compulsory schooling, on completion of programmes of study associated with each key stage—for most pupils at the ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16. Implementation of statutory assessment procedures began with tests for seven-year-olds in 1991. Tests for 11-year-olds will be the last to be introduced, in 1994.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress has been made to reduce the time taken by local education authorities in issuing statements of special needs; and which local education authorities have met his Department's recommended time of issuing special needs statements.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested has not to date been collected centrally. However the Government recognise that there has been concern over the time some LEAs can take to complete their statutory duties in this area. The Education Bill, now in the other place, accordingly empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing time limits for the making of assessments and statements, subject to prescribed exceptions.

  Parents' Guide
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will name the advertising agency handling the campaign to publicise the parents' guide, "How is Your Child doing at School?" and what is the fee for this account.

  Mr. Forth
  The advertising agency is GGK London Ltd. Information about the agency's handling fee is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the estimated cost of the free phone line set up for parents to request copies of "How is Your Child Doing at School?".

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of setting up the free phone line is estimated at £3,500. The cost of operating the line will depend on the response rate.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he placed the order for the parent's guide 98
  "How is Your Child Doing at School?"; and how many copies of the leaflet have been published in each of the 10 languages listed in the advertisement published on 27 April.

  Mr. Forth
  Proposals for a campaign to provide parents with information about testing, based on similar campaigns undertaken in the previous two years, formed part of the Department's publicity strategy approved by the Secretary of State in December last year. The number of copies being produced in each language is:

  Number

  English

  3,000,000

  Hindi

  10,000

  Bengali

  10,000

  Punjabi

  10,000

  Gujerati

  10,000

  Chinese

  10,000

  Greek

  10,000

  Turkish

  10,000

  Urdu

  12,000

  Vietnamese

  7,500

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much it cost his Department to publish the parent's guide "How is Your Child Doing at School?" in each of the 10 languages listed in the advertisement published on 27 April.

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of producing the guide in Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujerati, Chinese, Greek, Turkish and Vietnamese is estimated at £18,000 in total. It is not possible to allocate a cost for each individual translation. The cost of producing the version in English is estimated at £132,000.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for future DOE leaflets for parents.

  Mr. Forth
  During the current year, my right hon. Friend proposes to issue the following leaflets whose primary target audience is parents:

  a revised version of the parents charter;

  the 1993 comparative tables of schools' performance;

  a leaflet about the assisted places scheme;

  a leaflet, "Questions Parents Ask", about self-governing (GM) schools; and

  a leaflet about GNVQs.

  University Students' Grants
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average annual grant for university students in each European Community country.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is not held centrally. The table shows the latest available estimates for the expenditure per student on student support and welfare in higher education. A fuller set of comparisons for 1986 is given in the DFE working report "International Comparisons of Higher Education"; copies of which are available in the Library.

  Public recurrent expenditure on student support and welfare per higher education student in 1989 at 1989 prices

  Type of support available

  1£

  France

  Loan and grant

  248

  Germany

  Loan and grant

  62

  99

  Type of support available

  1£

  Spain

  Loan and grant

  112

  United Kingdom

  Loan and grant

  2 3785

  1 At purchasing power parity.

  2 Excluding expenditure and students on nursing and paramedic courses at Department of Health establishments. Also excludes in-service teacher training secondments and costs.

  3 Excludes tuition fees.

  Dance Students
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what level of financial support is available for students studying dance; and if he will make a statement on the availability of courses in dance and future financial support for dance students.

  Mr. Boswell
  Students on designated full-time first degree and equivalent level courses in dance are eligible for a mandatory award and a student loan on the terms prescribed in the regulations. Other students may apply to their local education authority for a discretionary award, the availability and amount of which is for the authority to determine. Some dance students also receive support under the Government's music and ballet scheme. The Government keep these arrangements under periodic review.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Kent Marshes
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what role the flood defence function of the National Rivers Authority has in the implementation of higher water levels in the north Kent marshes environmentally sensitive area.

  Mr. Curry
  Where higher water levels are sought there will be careful liaison between the Ministry and the National Rivers Authority.

  Meat Regulations
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the implementation of EC directives on slaughterhouses(a) in general and (b) in regard to the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 and the requirement for stainless steel hooks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on 29 April at col. 1136, and to the independent report on hygiene and structural requirements in slaughterhouses which my right hon. Friend the Minister placed in the Library of the House on 31 March (Official Report, 31 March 1993, col. 251).

  Pesticides
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of progress in the speeding up of pesticide registration and evaluation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Good progress is being made by the Pesticides Safety Directorate in speeding up the pesticide evaluation system. Applications for new active ingredients are now being evaluated shortly after receipt of the full data package and the target is to clear 15 such applications in the current year. This is a substantial increase on previous years. Queues have also been eliminated in three other approval streams covering experimental permits and minor changes to existing approvals. The waiting period for applications requiring the evaluation of new data in respect of existing products had been reduced from a peak of 91 weeks to 67 weeks. I expect this period to be reduced significantly over the next few months.

  Table Salt
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has plans to ban the use of sodium hexacyanoferrate as an additive in table salt.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans to ban the use of this additive. Sodium hexacyanoferrate is permitted by the Miscellaneous Additives in Food Regulations (as amended). It was last evaluated by the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) as an anti-caking agent in salt in 1988. The COT confirmed that sodium hexacyanoferrate was provisionally acceptable for use in food pending the submission of further studies. These studies have now been carried out and will be reviewed by the COT when full details have been submitted.

  Radioactive Fallout
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep and farms, covering what land area in total, are still affected by the restrictions imposed on farms as a result of the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear accident in May 1986.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of farms

  Acreage (approx)

  Number of sheep (approx)

  England

  126

  90,588

  110,500

  Northern Ireland

  98

  18,742

  17,750

  Scotland

  54

  137,579

  106,000

  Wales

  353

  180,000

  248,000

  Dairy Herds (Bacteria)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how often the Milk Marketing Board performs a bacteria count and cell count on every dairy herd.

  Mr. Curry
  The Milk Marketing Board aims to test the milk supplied to it by each producer once a week.

  IACS Forms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will extend the deadline for the submission of integrated administration and control system forms for one month from 5 May.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Department's approach to those who return their IACS forms with(a) minor and (b) major errors.

  Mr. Curry
  We are carrying out an initial brief check of IACS forms received to ensure that essential details have been provided and the application has been signed. Applications which satisfy this test are accepted as having been lodged with the Department on the date of receipt. Other applications are returned to farmers for completion or signature, and will be lodged on the date we received the completed or signed form. We cannot, however, guarantee to check all applications in time for them to be completed before the deadline, and it is for farmers to ensure that they have supplied all the necessary information. All applications will subsequently be subjected to more detailed checks of the information provided. The penalties to be applied where IACS forms are late or inaccurate are laid down by EC regulations. Details are set out in the IACS explanatory booklet, together with the procedures for the correction of genuine errors. We shall be as reasonable as we possibly can in our checks of applications received, particularly where minor errors are involved, but we have to operate within the legislative framework.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what penalties he is proposing for those who return IACS forms late; what is the return date for IACS forms in every other EC country; and what are the penalties for late submission in every other EC country.

  Mr. Curry
  The penalties for late claims are laid down in EC regulations, and apply equally in all EC member states. Details are set out in the IACS explanatory booklet.

  The EC regulations set a deadline of 15 May for the return of IACS applications this year. I understand that the majority of member states have opted for a deadline on or around 15 May, though Spain set a closing date of 31 March and France a date of 30 April. Portugal has set 30 April for farmers with autumn and winter crops and 15 May for the others. There is provision in the EC regulations for member states to set a deadline between 15 May and 1 July where the application relates only to permanent pasture and it is submitted at the same time as a livestock aid application. I understand that only Ireland has exercised this option.

  Dairy Inspectors
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy inspectors there are in the United Kingdom; how often dairy inspectors visit each farm to administer the dairy regulations; what is the cost to the farmer of each visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  There are 21 dairy inspectors in England and Wales. The frequency of inspection visits varies but top quality milk producers whose milk is consistently 102
  placed in Band A of the Milk Marketing Board's total bacterial count scheme, who have a good history of compliance with milk and dairy regulations and who demonstrated satisfactory on-farm conditions during the most recent visits, will normally be visited every three and a half years. Other producers are visited more frequently depending on the standards they achieve. The present cost to the farmer of each visit is £92, or £71 if he has fewer than 20 cows. The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the respective Secretaries of State.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those EC countries operating restrictions on specified offals.

  Mr. Soames
  According to information collected by the European Commission in April 1991, in addition to the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands have a ban on the feeding of specified bovine offals to ruminants.

  The export of the specified bovine offals from the United Kingdom to other member states is prohibited.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those EC countries that have recorded incidences of BSE.

  Mr. Soames
  In addition to the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and France have confirmed cases of BSE in indigenous cattle, and there has been a single case of BSE in Denmark in a cow which had been imported from the United Kingdom.

  Captive Birds
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decision he has taken in relation to resuming imports of captive birds from Tanzania.

  Mr. Soames
  The issue of licences for import of captive birds from Tanzania was suspended in March 1991 because of the failure of the authorities there to respond to our request for a veterinary official of my Department to make a visit and discuss with them various animal health and welfare matters, the standard of health certification and the conditions under which future imports of captive birds would take place.

  The Tanzanian veterinary authorities agreed to a visit from a senior MAFF veterinarian in July 1991. Following this visit a new protocol for the provision of animal health certification was subsequently drawn up. The main provision of the new protocol is that the director of veterinary services in Tanzania will be responsible for the production and issue of an official veterinary health certificate, which will be required for all birds entering Great Britain, regardless of their final destination.

  I have now received assurances from the Tanzanian veterinary authorities that they will observe the new protocol on exports of all birds to Great Britain, regardless of their final destination. Arrangements are also in hand for verification of the certifying veterinarians.

  In view of these assurances, I have agreed to the immediate resumption of the issue of licences for imports of captive birds from Tanzania.

  We shall be monitoring closely at ports of entry any consignments of birds arriving from Tanzania in the

  103
  coming months to ensure that the terms of the protocol have been met. The lifting of the moratorium will not affect the requirement for CITES export permits originating in Tanzania for bird species covered by the convention to be checked for validity by the CITES Secretariat in Lausanne before an import permit can be issued by the Department of the Environment.

  We remain committed to securing reductions in the level of mortality in imported captive birds, both whilst in transit to this country and while in post-import quarantine. In addition, we will continue to take appropriate measures to ensure that the highest possible standards are complied with by those transporting birds and those responsible for their care after import.

  Animal Breeding Techniques
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to respond to ethical concerns about the use of new animal breeding techniques on farms.

  Mr. Gummer
  Ethical concerns about the use of new animal breeding techniques in farming are matters which I take very seriously. I have therefore invited Dr. Michael Banner, Dean of Peterhouse college, Cambridge to chair an ad hoc committee to consider the ethical implications of emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals. The committee's terms of reference are:To consider the ethical implications of emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals; to advise on the adequacy of the existing legal and other safeguards in those areas: and to make recommendations.

  I shall discuss the membership and work programme of the committee with Dr. Banner, and will make a further announcement as soon as these issues have been settled. I expect the committee to report in about a year.

  Meat Products
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the degree of over-capacity in the United Kingdom meat foods manufacturing sector.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Overall capacity of the food industry is for the market place to decide. My contacts with representatives of this sector suggest that they are continuing to invest and are optimistic about the future.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Radar Speed Cameras
  Ms Walley
  to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ban the sale and advertising of devices to evade radar speed camera technology.

  Mr. Leigh
  The use and advertising of such devices is already subject to a number of controls.

  The use of radar speed trap detectors constitutes an offence under the Wireless Telegraph Act 1949.

  Under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 it is an offence to obscure the registration number of a vehicle. It is a common law offence to incite a person to commit an offence, for example, in an advertisement.
  104
  The British code of advertising practice, administered by the Advertising Standards Authority requires that advertisements should contain nothing which is in breach of the law.

  I understand that the Department of Transport is to strengthen existing regulations to make it illegal to sell reflective number plates of the type designed to evade camera technology.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been loaned by each of the participating banks in the loan guarantee scheme in the prior two years.

  Mr. Leigh
  Money loaned, by lender, under the small firms loan guarantee scheme in the past two years has been:

  £ thousands

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Total

  National Westminster

  34,600

  13,672

  48,272

  Barclays

  14,060

  13,281

  27,341

  Midland

  8,770

  14,029

  22,799

  3i

  4,950

  4,220

  9,170

  Bank of Scotland

  2,710

  2,127

  4,837

  Lloyds

  2,300

  2,306

  4,606

  LENTA

  1,620

  13

  1,633

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  990

  569

  1,559

  Clydesdale

  —

  1,197

  1,197

  Ulster

  —

  229

  229

  Yorkshire Enterprise

  —

  225

  225

  DONBAC

  —

  218

  218

  Northern

  —

  190

  190

  Power Stations (Sour Gas)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which power stations in the United Kingdom have been authorised to use sour gas.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has given consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to the following stations which are to be fuelled by "sour gas":

  Ryedale, North Yorkshire (50–60 MW)

  Connah's Quay, Deeside, North Wales (1,350 MW)

  Power stations with a capacity of 50 MW or less are dealt with under the Town and Country Planning Acts and my Department does not have information on such stations.

  Consents for power stations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce his decision in respect of Nuclear Electric's application to set up an incinerator to dispose of contaminated oil at Trawsfynydd power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will announce his decision on this application in due course.

  Motor Insurance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the role of his Department in ensuring that only motor insurance companies with current valid authorisation can issue insurance cover; what steps are taken to protect policy holders where there is no valid authorisation: if he will list all recent cases of companies issuing cover without authorisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department has responsibilities for administering the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Part of this responsibility is to ensure that only properly authorised companies underwrite motor insurance business in the United Kingdom. When the Department becomes aware of possible illegal underwriting of motor insurance business it will therefore seek to act to have any illegality stopped. Depending on the circumstances of a particular case action by the Department against those who may be in breach of the Act might include investigation, prosecution and seeking a winding up; and if fraud is suspected, referral and/or assistance to the police. Where appropriate, it would also seek to alert the public to the dangers of an illegal operation through appropriate publicity and would liaise with other bodies e.g. the Department of Transport, that may need to be aware of a case or may be able to help with it.

  It is the responsibility of drivers to make certain that they are properly insured. They can help themselves by dealing through reputable intermediaries or direct with authorised insurance companies. They should always ensure that they know the name of the insurer carrying their risk as well as the name of any intermediary with whom they deal. If they have doubts about the status of the insurer, they may contact the Motor Insurers Bureau for advice or, failing that, ask the Department. In the event that an uninsured motorist is involved in an accident the Motor Insurers Bureau will meet a third party claim but may pursue the uninsured motorist for recompense.

  Recently there has been an increase in the number of illegal motor insurance operations coming to the attention of the Department. The list gives the names of those who over the last three months are believed to have issued motor insurance without proper underwriting by an authorised insurer. In addition, a further four cases are currently being investigated to establish whether the issuers of the insurance are acting legally. Many of these cases have involved targeting particular groups of motorists who have been affected by rises in insurance premiums. For example, young drivers and those with convictions may be attracted by the unusually attractive rates offered.

  Those running illegal operations will usually advertise their products in a very limited way. Thus advertising may be restricted to particular local areas or limited to distribution of leaflets to domestic premises. By these means they seek to minimise risk of detection. Such approaches should be treated with some caution. As with all fraudulent activity, it is the responsibility of those paying money to take reasonable precautions against being duped.

  RECENT CASES OF COMPANIES ISSUING MOTOR INSURANCE WITHOUT AUTHORISATION

  February 1993

  Westbridge Corporation Ltd.

  106

  72 New Bond Street

  London

  trading through Red Rose Insurance Consultants in Bolton

  March 1993

  Royal Lytham Insurance/Royal Lytham Holdings

  Lytham St. Annes

  Sunrise Insurance Co. (UK) Ltd./L & G Security Ltd.

  Neath

  Crest Motor Securities (UK), trading as Springwood Insurance Services

  Ipswich

  April 1993

  Sterling Motor Securities UK Ltd./Sterling Union Assurance

  72 New Bond Street

  London

  trading through Nationwide Insurance Bureau Ltd

  Westbridge Corporation Ltd.

  72 New Bond Street

  London

  trading through Paul Rogers Insurance & Financial Consultants in Hove

  Jordan (Exports)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of export licences awarded by his Export Control Office for equipment sent to Jordan since 1985; and what information Her Majesty's Government have received on compliance with end-use certificates of goods exported to Jordan over this period.

  Mr. Needham
  A complete breakdown of figures for the number of licences issued for Jordan is not readily available. However, the following table shows applications received and licences issued where available:

  Year

  Applications received

  Licences issued

  1985

  n/a

  n/a

  1986

  200

  n/a

  1987

  340

  n/a

  1988

  310

  n/a

  1989

  138

  n/a

  1990

  155

  47

  1991

  104

  69

  1992

  157

  122

  1 1993

  39

  13

  1 1 January 1993 to 30 April 1993.

  Information on compliance with end-use certificates is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Export Guarantee Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of the £1 billion fund created in 1988 under section 2 of the Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978 has been used.

  Mr. Needham
  ECGD has issued guarantees worth £834·2 million against the ceiling of £1 billion under the arrangements which Ministers announced in June 1988 for underwriting large contracts for defence goods.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the outstanding liabilities, and the annual cost, of expenditure incurred under section 2 of the Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978 in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on section 2 is only available up to March 1987 after which ECGD introduced
  107
  a new form of account under which information was no longer accounted for separately between section 1 and section 2.

  Amounts at risk1

  Amounts in default2

  Consolidated fund balance3

  Trading reserves and surpluses4

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  31 March 1980

  8,177

  77

  342·0

  309·3

  31 March 1981

  8,465

  94

  371·3

  364·5

  31 March 1982

  12,266

  180

  380·6

  454·6

  31 March 1983

  17,737

  403

  166·0

  680·3

  31 March 1984

  18,673

  623

  -15·5

  566·3

  31 March 1985

  19,354

  876

  -156·7

  405·3

  31 March 1986

  16,930

  1,200

  -252·8

  551·0

  31 March 1987

  14,821

  1,549

  -510·0

  297·2

  1 These amounts represent ECGD's gross contingent liability under extant guarantees excluding unrecovered claims payments.

  2 These comprise gross paid claims, plus interest, which have not been recovered or written off.

  3 These amounts represent ECGD's cumulative cash balance under Section 2. Notional interest in line with commercial rates was earned on positive balances and charged on negative balances.

  4 These amounts represent the cumulative value of ECGD's assets (positive cash balances, paid claims net of provisions) over its liabilities (negative cash balances, provisions for future claims).

  Mothballed Collieries
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if collieries which are to be mothballed will have their shafts, roadways, and coal faces maintained; if water pumping operations will be maintained at collieries where this is necessary; and if he will give details of what the mothballing process consists of.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what permits, licences or grants have been given by the nuclear installations inspectorate/Health and Safety Executive, in the recent and current rounds of the licensing procedure for THORP, for radioactive processes and/or the use of radioactive substances in THORP, other than the reception and storage of irradiated fuel.

  Mr. Eggar
  The regulation of THORP, which is undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate (NII), is effected by conditions attached to the nuclear site licence for Sellafield. As regards the commissioning of THORP the NII has not yet permitted the introduction of radioactive material except for small amounts of natural uranium needed to calibrate certain instruments.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account has been taken of(a) the Tomsk-7 and (b) the 1973 B204 Sellafield accidents in the design of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) but I understand that all relevant factors, including lessons learned from the accident at B 204 Sellafield, have been taken fully into account by BNFL in the design and construction of THORP. In addition, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate ensures that the design of nuclear plant such as THORP meets the high standards of safety they require.
  108
  The information has been published in ECGD's trading accounts from 1979–80, copies of which can be found in the Library. For convenience the relevant details are brought together in the following table:

  Metric and Imperial Measures
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will enable consumers to compare the price of metric and imperial measured catch-weight goods by waiving the statutory requirement to show dead-weight marking on them so that display of comparison weight can be made by means of charts at the premises.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government are reviewing the present statutory requirement for dual price marking.

  Postal Deliveries
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has, in his plans for the universal letter service at a uniform tariff following the Post Office review, for the provision of a second daily domestic delivery in most areas of the country.

  Mr. Leigh
  There are no plans to change the overall arrangements.

  Coal Stocks
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what have been the average level of coal stocks held(a) by British Coal and (b) by the generators in each of the past five years; and what guidance he is giving each in respect of stock levels in the current and two subsequent years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The average levels of coal stocks held by the electricity generators and British Coal in each of the last five years were:

  British Coal

  United Kingdom electricity generators

  (thousand tonnes)

  (thousand tonnes)

  1988

  6,105

  25,813

  1989

  9,851

  27,975

  1990

  8,593

  26,895

  1991

  9,827

  28,942

  1992

  12,632

  31,989

  The current stocking requirements are set out in the Government's White Paper, "The Prospects for Coal"

  109
  (Cmnd 2235). As envisaged in the White Paper, consultations are taking place about stocking arrangements for 1993–94 and following years.

  Oil Exploration
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specific conditions have been imposed on oil exploration licences issued to Marathon Oil for blocks 103/1, 103/6, 106/27, 102/10, 106/18, 106/19 and 106/23.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 304.

  Energy and Environment Council
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the issues discussed and decisions taken at the joint Energy and Environment Council held on 23 April.

  Mr. Eggar
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside and I represented the United Kingdom at a joint session of the Energy and Environment Councils on 23 April to review progress in relation to the Community strategy on climate change. Discussion focused on the proposal for a Community carbon/energy tax and the concept of burden-sharing in 110
  achieving the carbon dioxide stabilisation objective. We noted that the Economic and Financial Council had concluded last December that a great deal more work was needed before it could take any decisions on whether a tax was needed and, if so, what form it should take. This work was under way and, in the meantime, it was premature to seek to commit member states to the principle of a Community-wide carbon/energy tax. The United Kingdom was not yet convinced that such a tax was either a necessary or appropriate response to the problem of global warming. A number of other member states who were willing to accept the principle of a Community tax made clear that they could do so only on the basis that they would be exempted from applying the tax as part of the proposed burden-sharing arrangement. No decisions were taken or agreement reached, on the proposed tax or on the structure of burden-sharing.

  The Council also discussed a Commission report on Community assistance to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to improve the safety of nuclear reactors, in which the United Kingdom and others called for improved implementation of Community programmes.

  The Commission announced that it would shortly submit proposals for a new Council regulation on ozone-depleting substances.

  British Coal Pension Scheme
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department has given or offered an indemnity to British Coal against any liability that might fall upon the corporation as a consequence of the deferment of payments of additional contributions to the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: No indemnity has been given or offered to British Coal for any such liabilities.

  Waste Disposal Contracts
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 306, if a municipal waste-to-energy scheme which had been granted a waste disposal contract relatively soon after a third tranche of the non-fossil fuel obligation is announced would be eligible to bid into the new order.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Provided that such a project met the other requirements, I would expect it to be eligible to bid.

  Number of offers accepted

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Advanced technology programmes

  15

  89

  58

  73

  34

  EUREKA

  19

  10

  21

  69

  55

  LINK

  13

  38

  90

  110

  109

  SMART

  130

  215

  258

  278

  272

  SPUR

  0

  0

  1

  137

  128

  Total

  177

  352

  428

  667

  598

  Expenditure in constant 1992–93 prices (£k)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Advanced technology programmes

  10,434

  10,407

  12,992

  20,942

  28,821

  EUREKA

  6,200

  6,713

  10,599

  12,116

  22,736

  LINK

  74

  1,508

  4,472

  9,969

  15,483

  SMART

  3,206

  6,533

  10,120

  12,140

  12,113

  SPUR

  0

  0

  7

  329

  5,856

  Total

  19,914

  25,161

  38,190

  55,496

  85,009

  Regional Development Funding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of European regional development funding in each region in each year since 1984(a) at current prices and (b) at 1984 prices.

  European regional development fund allocations to the United Kingdom

  £ million, 1984 prices

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  North

  39

  24

  35

  55

  58

  45

  6

  28

  49

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  51

  20

  36

  27

  16

  19

  35

  35

  42

  East Midlands

  4

  17

  2

  2

  3

  0

  5

  5

  16

  South West

  28

  10

  20

  25

  15

  4

  4

  3

  8

  West Midlands

  18

  44

  36

  58

  21

  0

  87

  22

  31

  North West

  57

  70

  42

  33

  30

  39

  0

  41

  27

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  ENGLAND

  197

  185

  171

  199

  143

  107

  137

  135

  173

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on progress made by AEA Technology at the Dounreay nuclear establishment to secure the import of spent research reactor nuclear fuel from Iraq.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 April 1993]: The IAEA issued a formal invitation, on 27 November 1992, to tender for the removal, transport and disposal of irradiated fuel stored in Iraq. No tender was submitted by the United Kingdom nuclear industry.

  Innovation Schemes
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will provide information on the take up of each of the(a) Smart, (b) Spur, (c) advanced technology programmes, (d) Link and (e) Eureka innovation schemes;

  (2) if he will outline the expenditure, in constant prices, on each of the (a) Link, (b) advanced technology programmes, (c) Smart, (d) Spur amd (e) Eureka schemes.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 April 1993]: Information on take-up of the schemes listed is represented by the number of projects for which offers were accepted. Information on expenditure is presented in 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: European regional development fund allocations, in current and 1984 prices, to each of the regions of the United Kingdom are given in the tables:
  113

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  WALES

  57

  54

  40

  49

  52

  50

  10

  36

  56

  SCOTLAND

  92

  66

  49

  101

  79

  37

  86

  88

  35

  Multi Regional

  1

  0

  12

  2

  1

  10

  0

  0

  8

  GREAT BRITAIN

  346

  304

  272

  352

  275

  204

  233

  260

  272

  NORTHERN IRELAND

  21

  22

  36

  35

  36

  69

  20

  41

  60

  TOTAL UNITED KINGDOM

  367

  326

  308

  386

  311

  273

  253

  301

  332

  European regional development fund allocations to the United Kingdom

  £ million, current prices

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  North

  39

  25

  39

  63

  70

  57

  8

  39

  72

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  51

  21

  40

  31

  19

  24

  45

  48

  61

  East Midlands

  4

  18

  2

  3

  3

  0

  6

  7

  23

  South West

  28

  10

  22

  28

  18

  5

  5

  4

  12

  West Midlands

  18

  46

  40

  67

  26

  0

  113

  30

  45

  North West

  57

  74

  47

  38

  36

  49

  0

  56

  40

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  ENGLAND

  197

  195

  190

  230

  172

  134

  179

  184

  252

  WALES

  57

  57

  45

  56

  63

  63

  13

  50

  81

  SCOTLAND

  92

  69

  54

  117

  94

  46

  112

  120

  51

  Multi Regional

  1

  0

  13

  3

  1

  13

  0

  0

  12

  GREAT BRITAIN

  346

  321

  302

  406

  330

  256

  304

  355

  395

  NORTHERN IRELAND

  21

  23

  40

  40

  43

  87

  26

  56

  87

  TOTAL UNITED KINGDOM

  367

  344

  342

  446

  373

  343

  330

  410

  482

  "The Abuse of Market Power"
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the individuals and bodies from which his Department received written or oral representation in connection with the Green Paper, "The Abuse of Market Power".

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the summary of responses to the Green Paper which was placed in the Vote Office when I announced to the House on 14 April the Government's decision to strengthen the existing legislation on abuse of market power. An appendix to the summary lists those who made representations on the Green Paper.

WALES

  Fords
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many fords there are in Wales where public roads cross watercourses; how many fatal or serious accidents have occurred in each of the last 10 years as a result of vehicles failing to negotiate water on fords on 114
  public roads; if he will list fords which have been closed to traffic following such accidents; and what is his Department's policy towards fords and the provision of warning to motorists when water conditions may be dangerous.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are no fords crossing trunk roads in Wales. Information on local authority roads is not held centrally. There are warning signs prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 which local authorities can use to alert drivers to the existence of a ford and to the depth of water.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the town-village regeneration schemes that have been undertaken under the valleys initiative to date, indicating the amount spent by his Department on each scheme; and if he will list forthcoming town-village centre regeneration schemes to be funded under the valleys initiative in the forthcoming year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The table shows the urban development schemes which have been and will be funded by the Welsh Development Agency in the period from 1988 to 1994:
  115

  Welsh development agency urban development: programme for the valleys

  Indicative expenditure 1988–89 to 1993–94

  £000s

  Town/Project

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Merthyr Tydfil

  260

  —

  500

  1,220

  2,100

  3,210

  Cynon Valley

  —

  100

  400

  990

  2,600

  3,030

  Abertillery

  100

  150

  200

  560

  720

  500

  Ebbw Vale

  —

  70

  —

  155

  200

  300

  Tredegar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  350

  1,795

  Pontarddulais

  50

  —

  565

  435

  540

  150

  Pontardawe

  —

  80

  360

  340

  220

  600

  Ystalyfera

  —

  50

  200

  250

  500

  250

  Neath/Dulais

  100

  100

  —

  100

  —

  —

  Rhondda

  —

  240

  190

  340

  500

  800

  Pontypridd

  80

  210

  110

  180

  200

  800

  South Islwyn

  —

  120

  175

  280

  90

  500

  Caerphilly/Abertridwr

  —

  —

  200

  150

  350

  150

  Amman Valley Ammanford

  —

  50

  186

  —

  —

  200

  Rhymney

  40

  80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pontypool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  680

  Torfaen

  —

  300

  —

  125

  300

  —

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the environmental improvement schemes undertaken as part of the valleys initiative in each year from 1990; and if he will list forthcoming environmental schemes to be developed under the initiative in(a) 1993 and (b)

  Mr. David Hunt
  Under the programme for the valleys the Welsh Development Agency has supported 134 environmental improvement schemes since 1990.

  Projects have included:

  £

  Garden Festival Approaches

  383,000

  Dowlais Top landscape works (Part of WDA/Welsh Office heads of valleys corridor project)

  114,000

  Landscape Works: Rassau and Gamlydan

  Housing Estate

  Blaenau Gwent

  76,000

  Landscape Works: Cefn Golau Housing Estate

  17,000

  Taff Trail long distance cycleway

  95,000

  Taff Valley Coed Cymru initiative

  18,000

  Alltwen Triangle landscaping

  20,000

  Brynamen Road landscaping Gwaun Cae Gurwen

  25,000

  Seven Sisters town centre improvements

  48,000

  Resolven town centre improvements

  68,000

  Resolven canal basin

  50,000

  In addition many environmental improvement projects have been supported by the urban programme and by groundwork trusts. It would not be possible to list every individual scheme other than at disproportionate cost.

  Future Development

  The WDA will be promoting a number of landscape and forest strategies in the valleys programme area. Four areas have so far been identified, namely:
  Blaenau Gwent, Rhymney, Rhondda and Ogwr.

  In each case there will be a package of action based on a landscape masterplan including the planting of new woodlands, management of existing woodlands, the upgrading of land reclamation sites, and a range of amenity creation and landscape projects in the urban fringe. These will be achieved in partnerships which will include local authorities, the Forest Authority and the Countryside Council for Wales.
  116

  Drugs and Alcohol
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has issued to local councils in relation to their responsibilities for drug and alcohol misusers under the community care arrangement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Advice was issued to Welsh county councils on 1 April 1993 in Welsh Office circular WHC(93)30, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. This advice covers the councils' responsibilities to assess the needs of alcohol and drugs misusers and to plan and arrange appropriate services for these individuals under the general community care arrangements. It includes reference to residential care arrangements.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the poorest 10 per cent. of the population of Wales were(a) pensioners, (b) families with children and (c) single people with children in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the estimated real income after housing costs of(a) the richest 10 per cent. of the population of Wales and (b) the poorest 10 per cent. in each year since 1979 and what was the average real income in Wales in each year since 1979;

  (2) what estimates he has of the number of households in Wales that currently have debts owing to three or more creditors and what was the number in (a)(b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available centrally.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current state of the outstanding caseload for the local government ombudsman in Wales for cases waiting(a) three months, (b) six months and (c) nine months or longer to be investigated.
  117
  Mr. David Hunt
  The Commission for Local Administration is an independent statutory body and questions relating to its activities are for the Commission itself to answer.

  The annual reports of the Local Commissioner, copies of which are in the Library of the House, provide statistics on the number of complaints received and the time taken to deal with them. The report for 1992–93 is likely to be available in June.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received to date in support of the local Government reform proposals set out for Dwyfor; and if he will indicate the number of representations received that were in favour of granting independent unitary authority status for(a) Meirionnydd and (b) Montgomery.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since publishing my White Paper on 1 March 1993, I have received one written representation in support of a Caernarfonshire and Meirionnyddshire unitary authority. In addition, I have received 10 representations in favour of a Meirionnydd unitary authority and 181 representations in favour of a Montgomeryshire unitary authority. I have also received 4,135 signed postcards in favour of unitary authority status for Montgomeryshire.

  Bypass Schemes
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the estimated cost of the proposed Builth Wells bypass, the estimated number of vehicles per day that will use it, the estimated timescale for completion, the length of delays currently experienced by drivers and the present level of accidents in Builth Wells.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The estimated cost of the Builth Wells bypass is £15 million (at out-turn prices). Depending on which route is chosen, some 6,500 vehicles a day could use the new road. The anticipated two year construction contract is currently programmed to start between April 1996 and March 1999, subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and the availability of funds. Traffic delays presently vary according to the time and season, but are particularly significant in the summer months. At the southern end of the proposed scheme, and in the town centre, the accident rate is above the national average. For the remainder, it is about the national average.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all(a) town/village bypass schemes and (b) traffic calming measures undertaken by his Department within the south Wales valleys in each year from 1990; and if he will list the schemes which are intended to be developed in (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The primary responsibility for the road network in the south Wales valleys rests with local authorities. No bypass schemes or traffic calming measures have been introduced in the valleys on trunk roads for which I am responsible since 1990. The A465 Aberdulais to Glynneath and the A470 Pentrebach to Cefn Coed improvements which it is planned to start in 1993–94 will 118
  each by-pass local communities. Road conditions are kept under review, but no specific traffic calming measures are planned on trunk roads in the valleys in 1993 or 1994.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the 1993–94 budget for each training and enterprise council in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Welsh Office are currently finalising contracts with TECs for 1993–94 budgets and the information is not yet available.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received in favour of his proposals to transfer the communities of Coychurch Lower, Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick into the Vale of Glamorgan, under his proposals for unitary authorities, from people living in these communities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since publishing my White Paper on 1 March 1993, I have received four such written representations in favour of my proposals to incorporate the communities of Coychurch Lower, Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick into a Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much will be spent or has been spent in each year from 1990–91 to 1995–96 on(a) stage 1 ESAs, (b) stage 2 ESAs, (c) stage 3 ESAs and (d) stage 4 ESAs, identifying how much of the total is allocated for the public access payments; what is the amount to be spent on (i) nitrate sensitive areas, (ii) the moorland scheme, (iii) the habitat improvement scheme, (iv) set aside management, identifying how much of the total will be for public access payments and (v) organic farming in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is as follows: Expenditure on ESA payments to farmers in Welsh ESAs was £0·9 million in 1990–91, £1·5 million in 1991–92 and £1·5 million in 1992–93.

  Planned expenditure is £5·8 million in 1993–94, £7·6 million in 1994–95 and £7·8 million in 1995–96.

  Public consultation proposals have been issued for public access to ESA land. Planned expenditure is £0·51 million in 1994–95 and £0·52 million in 1995–96. In addition to this expenditure on ESAs, we have also issued for public consultation proposals for a moorland scheme, a habitat improvement scheme, a meadowland scheme for public access to set-aside land and an organic scheme. Current plans for expenditure on payments to farmers under these new measures is £0·5 million in 1993–94, £2·4 million in 1994–95 and £4·8 million in 1995–96. The precise allocation between the schemes will be decided in the light of the results of the public consultation. I have no plans to designate any nitrate sensitive areas (NSAs) in Wales.

  Pharmaceutical Services (Mold)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the factors upon which he based his decision to classify Mold and its outlying districts as a non-rural area for the purposes of the provision of pharmaceutical services.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Questions affecting the rurality of an area are governed by the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations, 1992. In considering the issue the Secretary of State has regard to the overall density of population, including any developments or population changes which may be expected; sizes of community; distance between settlements and the spread and frequency of public transport, together with the range of local services available.

  Death Rates
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidelines he has issued, and what proposals he has to issue further guidelines, to health authorities and general practitioner fund-holding practices in Wales concerning the implications for purchasers of hospital health care of statistically significant variations in death rates in or just after treatment; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the health authorities and hospital trusts in Wales in relation to the variations in performance in hospitals with respect to death rates during or just after hospital treatment;

  (3) what representations he has received with respect to the publication of league tables in relation to variations between hospitals in death rates during or just after surgery and other treatments (a) with and (b) without standardisation for age and social condition of patient intake; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he will publish figures indicating the gap between the highest and lowest death rate hospitals, with respect to death rates after (a) general surgery, (b) orthopaedic surgery and (c) other treatments, after standardising for age and social condition of the patient intake; and what proposals he has for improviong the performance of the hospitals with death rates related to treatment, that are markedly above average;

  (5) what is the maximum differential gap in death rates between the lowest and highest death rate in Welsh hospitals following (a) general surgery, (b) orthopaedic surgery and (c) other treatments; and what proposals he has for improving the performance of these hospitals whose death rates after surgical treatment is higher than the norm.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 30 April 1993 at column 589.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the finances that would accrue in a full year, after the deduction of all tax and other costs, from the national lottery to(a) sport in Wales, (b) performing arts in Wales, (c) other arts' activities in Wales and (d) other organisations or activities by type and category; and what percentage will be applied to revenue costs and capital costs, respectively, in each case.
  120
  Mr. David Hunt
  It is not possible to predict how much the various categories of beneficiaries will receive from the national lottery. Distribution arrangements are the subject of discussions with the distributing bodies and with other Government Departments, and the relevant criteria will be published in due course. With the exception of charities, I expect the proceeds to be used for the most part for capital projects.

  Strategy Resettlement Funding
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a table showing all housing associations and other organisations which have applied for all-Wales strategy resettlement funding for 1993–94, the figure applied for in each case and the figure actually agreed by his Department.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Housing associations receive funding for strategy-related housing through Housing for Wales as part of their special needs programme. Special grants are made to county teams who negotiate and commission care at a local level with care management organisations. The programme for resettlement for this year (1993–94) will evolve during the year. However, the full year costs to counties to supply a comprehensive package of care, including accommodation for 110 individuals is estimated to be £5 million to the Welsh Office.

  Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what objectives he has set(a) each section of his Department and (b) each quango or body responsible in whole or in part to his Department for (i) the publication of information or criteria relating to grants available for 1993–94 (ii) the time to elapse between publication date and closing date (iii) the time for notification of a decision after the publication date and closing date, respectively, and (iv) the information to be provided to any unsuccessful applicant.

  Mr. David Hunt
  These matters differ from grant to grant and organisation to organisation. The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hospital Services (South Glamorgan)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1992,Official Report, column 125, about the strategic plan for hospital services in South Glamorgan, what is his current estimate of the completion date of the strategic hospital planning review of South Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  While the issues of timing and content still remain a matter for the health authorities in South Glamorgan, I understand the issue of the review is imminent. I await it with interest.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the South Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan health authorities and the provost of the Welsh national school of medicine
  121
  concerning the strategic review of future hospital arid bed supply and demand and regional services provision., what is his current estimate of the prospective completion date of the review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 30 April 1993]: The review known as "Collaboration on Commissioning", which was completed in December 1992, is a matter for the health authorities and the University of Wales college of medicine.

  My right hon. Friend has had no meeting with the chairmen of South Glamorgan or Mid Glamorgan health authorities to discuss this review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Job Statistics
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new jobs have been created in the past two years, how many of these are now in existence; how many jobs have been lost during the same period; and if he will give details of the types of jobs created and lost.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on new job creations is not available except to the extent that 2,500 new jobs were created with assistance from the Local Enterprise Development Unit in the calendar year 1991 and 2,490 with assistance from the Industrial Development Board in the financial year 1991–92. All of these jobs were in the manufacturing and services sectors. Information on how many of these are still in existence could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Figures for jobs created in 1992 and 1992–93 are not yet available. The table shows redundancies notified to the Department of Economic Development in 1991 and 1992 and the sectors in which they occurred.

  Confirmed redundancies

  1991

  1992

  Manufacturing

  3,745

  3,667

  Construction

  370

  283

  Services

  1,163

  1,368

  Other industries

  21

  5

  Total

  5,299

  5,323

  Housing Development, Newtownards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the application for housing development at The Oaks, Old Shore road, Newtownards—planning application No. 0028/93—has within his ownership or agreement with other landowners the land required to provide the sight lines in both directions from the entrance of the proposed development on to the public road.

  Year ended 31 March 1992

  Salaries and Wages

  Northern

  Southern

  Eastern

  Western

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Medical

  10,857,873

  9,264,640

  45,639,656

  9,011,950

  74,774,119

  Dental

  657,852

  646,167

  3,328,520

  917,642

  5,550,181

  Trained Nursing

  35,547,724

  32,511,106

  97,564,997

  34,853,875

  200,477,702

  Other Nursing

  4,060,649

  5,497,214

  16,778,697

  4,641,848

  30,978,408

  Student Nursing

  1,413,441

  1,071,898

  12,275,416

  2,417,602

  17,178,357

  Para-Medical

  7,822,486

  5,946,629

  30,220,221

  5,451,678

  49,441,014

  122
  Mr. Atkins
  The certificate of land ownership which accompanied the application requires further investigation and I will write to the hon. Gentleman once this has been carried out.

  Donaghadee Urban District Council
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 26 April, whether his Department has copies of the minutes of meetings of the former Donaghadee urban district council.

  Mr. Atkins
  Copies of the minutes of meetings of the former Donaghadee urban district council are held in the Public Record Office. The minutes signed on 7 August 1945, show that the council approved a plan to divide Warren house, Donaghadee into two flats. However, as indicated in my reply of 26 April, the Department does not have a copy of any decision document pursuant to this meeting of the council.

  Ports Privatisation
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend the draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 so as to make the exercise of the proposed powers to privatise ports in Northern Ireland compulsorily subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.

  Mr. Atkins
  This issue has been raised in a number of the representations received during the consultation period on the draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. The responses have been extremely wide-ranging and I am considering them in detail before taking any decisions on the way forward.

  Health Service Wages
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the total wage bill of hospital and community health services staff in each board area, in each of the last five years and projected for the next two years, broken down into the principal groups of staff, including consultants, junior doctors and nurses.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 30 April 1993]: The information is not readily available in the form requested. The Northern Ireland health and social services boards provide integrated health and personal social services. The boards' accounts for 1992–93 are currently being prepared. However, for the last five years for which accounts are available the salaries and wages bill for each board are set out in the tables. It is not possible to provide accurate forecasts of future pay bills, although for the current financial year the Government's public sector pay restraint policy is designed to hold settlements to 1 per cent.
  123

  Salaries and Wages

  Northern

  Southern

  Eastern

  Western

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Pharmacy

  702,694

  685,762

  2,520,212

  591,065

  4,499,733

  Social Services

  15,215,535

  10,489,964

  35,696,671

  10,331,309

  71,733,479

  Home Helps

  5,097,525

  6,337,418

  12,078,649

  4,009,200

  27,522,792

  Administrative and Clerical

  14,492,221

  11,948,540

  39,055,723

  10,469,524

  75,966,008

  Domestic and Allied

  9,553,491

  7,028,102

  37,082,454

  7,336,035

  61,000,082

  Tradesmen

  2,259,585

  1,739,384

  6,688,063

  1,770,563

  12,457,595

  Ambulance

  2,527,488

  1,861,019

  4,020,604

  1,797,807

  10,206,918

  Other Grades

  1,661,284

  1,241,274

  4,234,596

  1,014,300

  8,151,454

  TOTAL

  111,869,848

  96,269,117

  347,184,479

  94,614,398

  649,937,842

  Year ended 31 March 1991

  Salaries and Wages

  Northern

  Southern

  Eastern

  Western

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Medical

  9,395,468

  8,532,108

  41,592,665

  8,098,570

  67,618,811

  Dental

  608,836

  561,370

  2,224,987

  823,778

  4,218,971

  Trained Nursing

  32,014,132

  29,753,099

  89,063,112

  31,615,746

  182,446,089

  Other Nursing

  3,454,762

  4,765,650

  13,835,590

  3,823,978

  25,879,980

  Student Nursing

  2,019,098

  1,377,555

  14,303,464

  2,823,449

  20,523,566

  Para-Medical

  6,594,455

  5,211,693

  26,757,616

  4,827,378

  43,391,142

  Pharmacy

  595,954

  583,736

  2,260,592

  506,794

  3,947,076

  Social Services

  13,676,336

  9,478,819

  32,582,283

  9,264,670

  65,002,108

  Home Helps

  4,572,915

  5,865,088

  11,441,670

  3,776,492

  25,656,165

  Administrative and Clerical

  11,897,290

  9,551,542

  32,718,131

  8,577,568

  62,744,531

  Domestic and Allied

  8,813,105

  8,980,095

  36,464,899

  7,399,067

  61,657,166

  Tradesmen

  2,174,325

  1,689,771

  6,319,575

  1,625,955

  11,809,626

  Ambulance

  2,329,043

  1,718,948

  3,719,830

  1,632,276

  9,400,097

  Other Grades

  1,501,552

  1,266,709

  4,401,367

  1,054,176

  8,223,804

  TOTAL

  99,647,271

  89,336,183

  317,685,781

  85,849,897

  592,519,132

  Year ended 31 March 1990

  Salaries and Wages

  Northern

  Southern

  Eastern

  Western

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Medical

  8,404,625

  7,481,029

  37,562,527

  6,663,507

  60,111,688

  Dental

  522,778

  544,932

  1,985,297

  616,934

  3,669,941

  Trained Nursing

  29,537,228

  28,396,668

  85,749,268

  29,736,471

  173,419,635

  Other Nursing

  3,207,993

  4,288,780

  12,077,375

  3,441,815

  23,015,963

  Student Nursing

  2,196,196

  1,545,937

  12,198,990

  2,739,662

  18,680,785

  Para-Medical

  5,681,586

  4,447,334

  23,833,195

  3,973,849

  37,935,964

  Pharmacy

  504,847

  343,644

  1,835,626

  425,165

  3,109,282

  Social Services

  12,320,159

  8,427,220

  27,763,816

  7,919,174

  56,430,369

  Home Helps

  4,123,825

  5,368,127

  10,483,163

  3,412,612

  23,387,727

  Administrative and Clerical

  9,517,381

  8,138,849

  27,064,126

  7,039,020

  51,759,376

  Domestic and Allied

  8,596,144

  9,364,311

  35,119,034

  8,915,478

  61,994,967

  Tradesmen

  2,103,004

  1,442,843

  6,270,209

  1,560,230

  11,376,286

  Ambulance

  1,837,318

  1,317,874

  2,741,239

  1,241,502

  7,137,933

  Other Grades

  1,528,518

  1,196,778

  4,081,633

  969,862

  7,776,791

  Total

  90,081,602

  82,304,326

  288,765,498

  78,655,281

  539,806,707

  Year ended 31 March 1989

  Salaries and Wages

  Northern

  Southern

  Eastern

  Western

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Medical

  7,678,916

  7,130,059

  34,825,759

  6,259,215

  55,893,949

  Dental

  546,769

  512,004

  2,176,636

  588,609

  3,824,018

  Trained Nursing

  28,545,400

  26,930,776

  81,431,637

  28,986,430

  165,894,243

  Other Nursing

  3,166,950

  4,232,571

  11,410,146

  3,126,695

  21,936,362

  Student Nursing

  2,078,282

  1,602,090

  13,583,907

  2,340,112

  19,874,391

  Para-Medical

  5,094,831

  4,010,000

  19,200,297

  3,483,720

  31,788,848

  Pharmacy

  441,900

  369,354

  1,605,101

  413,840

  2,830,195

  Social Services

  12,038,359

  7,761,914

  26,071,937

  7,426,115

  53,288,325

  Home Helps

  3,739,198

  5,141,034

  10,330,488

  3,220,458

  22,431,178

  Administrative and Clerical

  8,245,648

  6,966,201

  24,127,124

  6,138,037

  45,477,010

  Domestic and Allied

  8,469,583

  8,959,119

  33,542,449

  9,546,583

  60,517,734

  124 125

  Salaries and Wages

  Northern

  Southern

  Eastern

  Western

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Tradesmen

  2,024,983

  1,308,826

  6,296,567

  1,468,345

  11,098,721

  Ambulance

  1,998,709

  1,432,929

  2,994,535

  1,321,300

  7,747,473

  Other Grades

  1,452,956

  1,177,486

  3,906,973

  1,015,776

  7,553,191

  TOTAL

  85,522,484

  77,534,363

  271,773,556

  75,335,235

  510,165,638

  Year ended 31 March 1988

  Salaries and Wages

  Northern

  Southern

  Eastern

  Western

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Medical

  6,975,393

  6,253,181

  31,547,797

  5,455,613

  50,231,984

  Dental

  578,741

  451,204

  1,866,935

  668,600

  3,565,480

  Trained Nursing

  24,309,370

  22,884,704

  66,536,343

  24,156,932

  137,887,349

  Other Nursing

  2,896,608

  4,041,606

  10,359,937

  2,935,044

  20,233,195

  Student Nursing

  2,025,578

  1,544,402

  13,349,980

  2,592,894

  19,512,854

  Para-Medical

  4,533,036

  3,393,604

  17,572,398

  2,963,565

  28,462,603

  Pharmacy

  396,187

  334,802

  1,369,735

  371,617

  2,472,341

  Social Services

  10,969,179

  6,974,665

  23,369,826

  6,606,819

  47,920,489

  Home Helps

  3,671,358

  4,881,977

  9,938,176

  3,330,588

  21,822,099

  Administrative and Clerical

  7,578,908

  6,440,513

  22,204,442

  5,537,068

  41,760,931

  Domestic and Allied

  8,172,924

  8,603,619

  32,049,983

  9,354,802

  58,181,328

  Tradesmen

  2,025,649

  1,430,688

  6,184,258

  1,403,969

  11,044,564

  Ambulance

  1,922,675

  1,444,550

  2,813,902

  1,298,892

  7,480,019

  Other Grades

  1,292,214

  1,065,708

  3,617,468

  924,405

  6,899,795

  TOTAL

  77,347,820

  69,745,223

  242,781,180

  67,600,808

  457,475,031

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the changes in average pay levels for general practitioners, nurses, consultants and hospital porters in Northern Ireland since May 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 30 April 1993]: The information is set out in the table. Average monetary changes could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Increase for 1991–92

  Increase for 1992–93

  Increase for 1993–94

  Group

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  General practitioners

  9·50

  5·50

  1·50

  Nurses and midwives

  8·20

  5·80

  11·50

  Senior nurses/midwives

  7·43

  3·90

  2—

  Consultants

  10·50

  5·50

  1·50

  Hospital porters

  8·80

  4·93

  11·50

  1 Offered.

  2 No offer yet.

  Community Midwives
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many community midwives are employed by each health board in Northern Ireland.

  Average equivalised disposable income and percentage shares by households type and by quintile groups of households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  Using the McClements equivalence scale re-scaled so that a household of one adult = 1

  £ per year

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All

  1979

  Households with children

  Average

  1,161

  1,706

  2,223

  2,882

  4,462

  2,405

  Percentage share of total income

  2

  6

  10

  10

  9

  37

  Other households

  Average

  1,186

  1,654

  2,240

  2,947

  4,494

  2,558

  Percentage share of total income

  7

  7

  8

  13

  27

  63

  126
  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 30 April 1993]: The number of community midwives employed by each health and social services board at 31 December 1992 was as follows:

  Board

  Number

  Whole-time equivalent

  Eastern

  61

  57·45

  Northern

  35

  31·13

  Southern

  27

  23·65

  Western

  42

  41·75

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Incomes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage share, and average amount per equivalent adult at 1990 prices, of disposable income by quintile groups of households for(a) households with children, (b) other households and (c) all households, for 1979, 1987 and 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not available in the precise form requested because the equivalence scale used is based on households rather than adults. In addition the figures are only available at current prices.
  127

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All

  All households

  Average

  1,180

  1,677

  2,231

  2,918

  4,487

  2,498

  Percentage share of total income

  9

  13

  18

  23

  36

  100

  1987

  Households with children

  Average

  2,225

  3,329

  4,547

  6,184

  10,763

  5,059

  Percentage share of total income

  3

  4

  7

  8

  9

  31

  Other households

  Average

  2,297

  3,253

  4,538

  6,273

  11,473

  4,548

  Percentage share of total income

  6

  8

  9

  14

  32

  69

  All households

  Average

  2,273

  5,372

  7,446

  10,228

  18,544

  9,063

  Percentage share of total income

  8

  12

  16

  23

  41

  100

  1990

  Households with children

  Average

  2,632

  4,237

  6,062

  8,766

  15,627

  6,976

  Percentage share of total income

  2

  4

  7

  8

  9

  30

  Other households

  Average

  2,688

  4,085

  6,110

  8,698

  16,752

  7,934

  Percentage share of total income

  5

  7

  9

  15

  33

  70

  All households

  Average

  2,671

  4,134

  6,089

  8,721

  16,493

  7,621

  Percentage share of total income

  7

  11

  16

  23

  43

  100

  Percentages are rounded independently and may not sum to row or column totals.

  Households with children have fallen as a proportion of the sample from 39 per cent. in 1979 to 33 per cent. in 1990. This is the main reason that their share of income has fallen from 37 per cent. in 1979 to 30 per cent. in 1990. The variation in the shares of income between household types by quintile group is mainly a reflection of the different composition of the quintile groups.

  These figures are not strictly comparable over time because of changes in classification of both income and taxation and because of changes in the family expenditure survey.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of equivalised disposable income, at 1990 prices, for all households for the years 1977 to 1990, on the basis given in Economic Trends for January 1993, page 187.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The total value of equivalised disposable income for households in the sample at current prices can be obtained by multiplying the sample size by the average equivalised disposable income. It is not

  Average values of taxes and benefits, for bottom and top quintiles ranked by equivalised disposable income of all households

  Households with children

  1979

  1987

  1990

  Bottom

  Top

  Bottom

  Top

  Bottom

  Top

  £ per year

  Contributory cash benefits

  328

  112

  396

  115

  370

  156

  Non-Contributory cash benefits

  1,066

  355

  3,356

  700

  3,689

  735

  Direct Taxes and NIC

  461

  2,772

  721

  7,728

  1,026

  9,748

  Indirect taxes

  695

  1,817

  1,442

  3,653

  1,772

  4,805

  Equivalised disposable income1

  1,903

  7,314

  3,648

  17,645

  4,315

  25,618

  Benefits in kind

  1,883

  1,182

  3,529

  2,511

  4,367

  3,061

  Final income

  4,072

  9,839

  7,261

  23,703

  8,500

  34,397

  1 Using the McClements equivalence scale with a household of a married couple = 1.

  Notes:

  Due to possible mis-recording of some non-contributory benefits as contributory benefits, the split between the two types of benefit should be treated with caution.

  The equivalence scales used in the analysis are only applicable to disposable income. It is not appropriate to apply them to other income measures or composite parts of those measures.

  These figures are not strictly comparable over time because of changes in classification of taxes and benefits and because of changes in the Family Expenditure Survey.
  128
  possible to calculate the total value for all households in the United Kingdom as the appropriate grossing factors are not available.

  The average values of equivalised disposable income for all households for alternate years from 1977 to 1987 and for 1988 are published in the March 1991 edition of "Economic Trends", the average values for 1989 and 1990 are published in the January 1992 and January 1993 editions respectively. The January 1993 edition of "Economic Trends" has references to the annual articles.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average value in 1979, 1987 and 1990, at 1990 prices per equivalent adult in households with children of(a) contributory benefits in cash, (b) non-contributory benefits in cash, (c) direct taxes, (d) indirect taxes, (e) equivalised disposable income, (f) benefits in kind and (g) final income, within the bottom and top quintiles of all households ranked by disposable income.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not available in the precise form requested because the equivalence scale used is based on households rather than adults. In addition, the figures are available only at current prices.
  129
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the(a) total income of the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers, (b) unearned income of the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers, (c) unearned income of all taxpayers, (d) total number of taxpayers and (e) number of taxpayers in the top 1 per cent. in each year since 1979;

  (2) what was the total unearned income of (a) all taxpayers and (b) the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers divided into income from (i) shares and securities, (ii) bank and interest-bearing accounts, (iii) building societies accounts and deposits, (iv) rents, (v) pensions and annuities and (vi) other, with details for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: Available information is given in the tables. Estimates of income are based on information reported to tax offices and collected through annual surveys of personal incomes. For years before 1985–86, estimates exclude employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and some investment income on which tax is deducted at source. It is therefore not possible to provide estimates of the total unearned income of all taxpayers, although information on the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers is available. For years up to and including 1989–90, married couples are counted

  £ billion

  All taxpayers

  Top 1 per cent. of taxpayers

  Dividends

  Bank and Building Society Interest

  Rents

  Other unearned income

  Dividends

  Bank and Building Society Interest

  Rents

  Other unearned income

  1978–79

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·5

  0·1

  0·1

  0·4

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·7

  0·3

  0·2

  0·8

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·6

  0·4

  0·2

  0·7

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·8

  0·8

  0·2

  0·6

  1986–87

  3·7

  11·8

  1·0

  2·7

  1·0

  0·8

  0·3

  0·7

  1987–88

  4·8

  12·1

  1·1

  3·0

  1·2

  0·8

  0·2

  0·9

  1988–89

  6·9

  13·4

  1·5

  3·6

  2·5

  1·3

  0·3

  1·1

  1989–90

  8·1

  21·0

  2·0

  4·2

  3·3

  1·6

  0·5

  1·7

  1990–91

  8·7

  26·4

  1·8

  5·0

  3·0

  2·0

  0·4

  1·8

  Employment Earnings
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total earnings in(a) cash and (b) real terms from self-employment and employment in the manufacturing and service sectors by standard industrial classification of the earnings source in (a) 1963, (b) 1974, (c) 1979 and (d) the most recent period for which information is available; and what were the percentage changes for each sector between each of those successive dates.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for income from employment in the manufacturing and service sectors, analysed on the basis of the standard industrial classification in use at the time of publication, may be found in the following CSO publications:

  1963

  National Income and Expenditure 1963–73: tables 18 and 20 (wages and salaries only).

  1974

  (on 1968 Standard industrial Classification): National Income and Expenditure 1982 edition: tables 3.1 and 3.3.

  1974

  (on 1980 classification) and later years may be found in the appropriate issues of the National Accounts Blue Book, Tables 2.1 and 2.3, and also on the CSO database, which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  130
  as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards, husbands and wives are counted separately. Estimates for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are based on projections of the 1990–91 survey and are therefore provisional, and detailed information on the breakdown of unearned income is not available.

  Total income of top 1 per cent, of taxpayers

  Total unearned income of top 1 per cent, of taxpayers

  Total unearned income of all taxpayers

  Total taxpayers

  Number of taxpayers in top 1 per cent.

  £ billion

  £ billion

  £ billion

  (million)

  (thousands)

  1978–79

  5·0

  1·2

  —

  21·4

  214

  1983–84

  9·7

  1·9

  —

  20·4

  204

  1984–85

  10·9

  1·8

  —

  20·2

  202

  1985–86

  12·9

  2·3

  —

  20·2

  202

  1986–87

  14·6

  2·8

  19·2

  20·4

  204

  1987–88

  16·4

  3·1

  21·0

  20·8

  208

  1988–89

  21·2

  5·3

  25·4

  21·3

  213

  1989–90

  24·2

  7·0

  35·2

  21·5

  215

  1990–91

  28·3

  7·2

  41·9

  26·0

  260

  1991–92

  29·0

  6·5

  35·2

  25·3

  253

  1992–93

  28·7

  6·6

  31·8

  24·7

  247

  Estimates of income from self-employment by sector are not available.

  There are no official estimates of components of personal incomes measured at constant prices.

  Ministers' Accommodation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tax the benefits in kind received by Ministers who have access to official accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to change the tax treatment of any accommodation, provided for Ministers.

  London and Bishopsgate Investment Management
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date London and Bishopsgate International Investment Management plc applied to his Department for a principal's licence to carry on the business of dealing in securities under the provisions of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958.

  Mr. Nelson
  On 28 February 1988.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 749, to which firm or sole trader, whose

  131
  application was received after 27 February 1988, his Department granted a licence to carry on the business of dealing in securities under the provisions of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958.

  Mr. Nelson
  London and Bishopsgate International Investments Management plc.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why a package sent recently, via Federal Express, by Mr. Douglas Franze from Washington, USA, addressed to Mr. Paul Henderson, a former managing director of Matrix Churchill, was inspected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  As part of their general anti-smuggling activity Customs and Excise regularly examine a proportion of imported packages to check for undeclared goods and to protect society from the importation of items which are prohibited or restricted.

  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact upon the Scottish oil industry of the Budget proposals for changes in petroleum revenue taxation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  To the extent that production is within the charge to petroleum revenue tax (PRT), doubling investors' marginal share of profit should encourage investment in, and extend the life of, fields. Removing the burden of PRT from new fields will both increase after-tax costs and increase after-tax profits that would have been subject to PRT. So companies will have greater incentives to undertake commercially-viable investment. That should prove beneficial to the United Kingdom offshore industry and its onshore support, including onshore support situated in Scotland.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the total exploration and appraisal relief given against PRT liabilities over the last three years was allocated to(a) wells, (b) seismic, (c) overheads, (d) insurance and (e) other expenditure.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the Audit Commission report into local government finance.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I understand that the Audit Commission plan to publish its report into standard spending assessments around the middle of May.

  Local Government Reform
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the reasons for creating a commission to investigate local Government reform in England.
  132
  Mr. Robin Squire
  We established the Local Government Commission to make recommendations on local government structure and boundaries having regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government, against the background of a variety of existing local authorities in England.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities, of each type, existed in England on 31 March 1974; how many of each type now exist; and when he expects the commission on local government reform to report.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In England, on 31 March 1974 there were:

  Number

  County councils

  45

  Greater London council

  1

  County boroughs

  79

  Non-county boroughs

  227

  Urban district councils

  449

  Rural district councils

  410

  London boroughs

  32

  City of London

  1

  At present there are:

  Number

  County councils

  39

  Shire district councils

  296

  Metropolitan district councils

  36

  London boroughs

  32

  City of London

  1

  The Local Government Commission is carrying out its reviews of local government structure in the shire counties of England in rolling programme. The commission will be making recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as it completes each review. The commission has submitted its final report on the future structure of local government on the Isle of Wight and it is currently reviewing the other areas in the first tranche of its work programme.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties in Estate Action schemes have been disposed of to the private sector.

  Mr. Baldry
  Excluding properties sold under the right to buy, it is expected that some 29,000 dwellings will have been disposed of to the private sector by the end of 1993–94.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present value of land held by each urban development corporation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Wednesday 8 July 1992, Official Report, column 253.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts; and if his consultations about changes will include housing associations.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans at present to amend the current legislation.

EMPLOYMENT

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes she proposes to make in the occupational radiation exposure limits.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The UK's radiation dose limits for workers, comply with the current EC (Euratom) Directive on basic standards for radiation protection. Revision of this directive, and the dose limits therein, will begin later this year. There are no plans to reduce dose limits in advance of revision of the directive.

  Graduate
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures her Department is taking to reduce the number of university graduates who are unemployed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Employment Department is providing a wider range of measures than ever before to provide all unemployed people, including graduates, with the help they need to find a job. Some of these measures may be particularly appropriate for graduates, for example job review workshops, job search seminars or executive jobclubs. Training and enterprise councils have discretion to tailor training for work programmes specifically for unemployed graduates.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what percentage of female employees work(a) full time and (b) part time;

  (2) what percentage of male employees work (a) full time and (b) part time.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In December 1992, 54 per cent. of female employees in the United Kingdom worked full time and 46 per cent. worked part time. At the same date 89 per cent. of male employees worked full time and 11 per cent. worked part time.

  Training
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the youth training credit pilot schemes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On 8 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the next 10 training and enterprise councils (TECs) in England and Wales to be asked to develop youth credits. This round, the third in the progressive extension of the initiative, brings the number 134
  of TECs (and local enterprise companies in Scotland) offering or developing credits for young people to 34. The Government's aim is that, by 1996, every 16 and 17 year old who chooses to leave full-time education will have the offer of a credit.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she will publish guidelines for the operating of training for work schemes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Planning guidance for 1993–94 was issued to training and enterprise councils (TECs) on 4 December 1992. The operating agreement, setting out the contractual requirements for running training for work was issued to TECs during the first week in March.

  Maternity Leave
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received from employers and employers organisations on the extension of the 14-week maternity leave period set out in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill to 18 weeks.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have received one letter from an employer and one from an employers' organisation calling for an extension of the maternity leave period to 18 weeks. The Government are, however, satisfied from the extensive consultations carried out on the EC Pregnant Workers Directive that the great majority of employers wish the burdens on business arising from its implementation to be kept to a minimum.

  Health and Safety
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she has any plans to extend the pilot scheme currently running in Scotland involving public access to health and safety inspectors' reports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This exercise in making some information of inspectors reports publicly available was set up by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on a pilot basis and encompasses reports on inspections made by the field operations division in Scotland from 5 January 1993. It is intended that the exercise will cover inspections made until at least 30 June. I am informed that the HSE will be evaluating the exercise over the next few weeks before deciding whether to extend it.

  Mine Safety
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what actions she proposes to take to secure amendment to the regulations concerning mine safety; what proposals she has received to this end; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1983 the Health and Safety Commission, which advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on health and safety legislation, put in hand a programme to renew mining legislation. Regulations have been made, and codes of practice approved, for safety of exits at mines, electricity at work at mines, explosives in coal and other safety-lamp mines, and shafts and winding in mines. My right hon. Friend has recently received proposals for regulations and an approved code of practice for the management and administration of safety and health at mines.
  135
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy in her consideration of changes to the safety regulations applying to mines to adhere to the principles relating to maintenance or improvement of existing regulations set out in section 1 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The replacement of pre-1974 health and safety legislation is subject to section 1(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which requires such replacement to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare established by or under the earlier legislation.

  The Health and Safety Commission and the Government are committed to the maintenance and improvement of safety standards within the mining industry and this will remain a constant and paramount objective.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish the number of days lost due to official and unofficial industrial action for each year since 1978; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Because of the practical difficulties in distinguishing between official and unofficial disputes such an analysis was discontinued in 1981. However, a special exercise for the Government's Green Paper "Unofficial Action and the Law", showed that approximately 1·3 million working days were lost in unofficial stoppages in 1988, more than one third of the 3·7 million days lost in the year. Data for 1978 to 1980 are as follows:

  Table 6.1 Defendants1 proceeded against at magistrates' courts by type of offence Extract from Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1991

  Number of defendants (thousands)

  Percentage

  Indictable offences

  Summary offences

  Indictable offences

  Summary offences

  Year

  Total number proceeded against (thousands)

  Offences (excluding motoring offences)

  Motoring offences

  Offences (excluding motoring offences)

  Motoring offences

  Persons aged 10 and under 17

  1981

  130

  95

  22

  13

  73

  17

  10

  1982

  121

  90

  20

  12

  74

  16

  9

  1983

  112

  82

  20

  11

  73

  17

  10

  1984

  105

  78

  17

  9

  75

  16

  9

  1985

  94

  71

  15

  8

  76

  16

  8

  1986

  75

  57

  11

  6

  76

  15

  8

  1987

  68

  53

  10

  5

  78

  15

  7

  1988

  62

  48

  10

  4

  77

  16

  7

  1989

  55

  37

  14

  4

  66

  26

  8

  1990

  54

  36

  13

  4

  67

  25

  8

  1991

  50

  35

  12

  4

  69

  24

  7

  Persons aged 17 and under 21

  1981

  390

  144

  85

  161

  37

  22

  41

  1982

  394

  152

  82

  160

  38

  21

  41

  1983

  394

  149

  86

  159

  38

  22

  40

  1984

  372

  148

  79

  145

  40

  21

  39

  1985

  364

  149

  75

  140

  41

  21

  38

  136

  Year

  Working days lost Known official

  (Thousands) Unofficial and not known

  1978

  4,052

  5,353

  1979

  23,512

  5,962

  1980

  10,081

  1,883

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received against the abolition of wages councils since the Trade Union and Employment Rights Bill received its Third Reading in the House.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: I have received a number of representations since Third Reading in the House, both supporting and opposing abolition. Since announcement of the Bill over 85 per cent. of letters from employers and employer bodies support abolition.

LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT

  Juvenile Courts
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many children were brought before juvenile courts in each of the last five years; and how many of them had school reports submitted on their behalf.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on juveniles aged 10 and under 17 proceeded against at magistrates courts is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales". Table 6.1 refers. The latest available figures are for 1991; 1992 figures will be available in the autumn.

  Information on the number of school reports submitted to youth courts is not collected centrally.
  137

  Number of defendants (thousands)

  Percentage

  Indictable offences

  Summary offences

  Indictable offences

  Summary offences

  Year

  Total number proceeded against (thousands)

  Offences (excluding motoring offences)

  Motoring offences

  Offences (excluding motoring offences)

  Motoring offences

  1986

  339

  133

  70

  136

  39

  21

  40

  1987

  325

  140

  74

  110

  43

  23

  34

  1988

  322

  137

  79

  106

  43

  25

  33

  1989

  324

  122

  90

  112

  38

  28

  35

  1990

  329

  129

  85

  114

  39

  26

  35

  1991

  314

  132

  73

  110

  42

  23

  35

  Defendants aged 21 and over1

  1981

  1,774

  284

  365

  1,125

  16

  21

  63

  1982

  1,706

  297

  366

  1,042

  17

  21

  61

  1983

  1,797

  300

  415

  1,082

  17

  23

  60

  1984

  1,708

  295

  385

  1,028

  17

  23

  60

  1985

  1,689

  299

  379

  1,011

  18

  22

  60

  1986

  1,757

  273

  427

  1,057

  16

  24

  60

  1987

  1,451

  295

  421

  735

  20

  29

  51

  1988

  1,480

  310

  454

  716

  21

  31

  48

  1989

  1,484

  290

  464

  730

  20

  31

  49

  1990

  1,509

  304

  478

  727

  20

  32

  48

  1991

  1,591

  323

  488

  780

  20

  31

  49

  All Defendants1

  1981

  2,294

  523

  472

  1,299

  23

  21

  59

  1982

  2,221

  539

  469

  1,214

  24

  21

  55

  1983

  2,303

  530

  521

  1,252

  23

  23

  54

  1984

  2,184

  521

  482

  1,181

  24

  22

  54

  1985

  2,147

  520

  469

  1,158

  24

  22

  54

  1986

  2,171

  463

  508

  1,199

  21

  23

  55

  1987

  1,843

  488

  505

  850

  26

  27

  46

  1988

  1,863

  494

  543

  826

  27

  29

  44

  1989

  1,864

  449

  568

  847

  24

  30

  45

  1990

  1,892

  469

  577

  846

  25

  31

  45

  1991

  1,956

  489

  573

  894

  25

  29

  46

  1Including "other defendants", i.e., companies, public bodies, etc.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold an early meeting with representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Our aim is to give effective support to the continuing inter-communal negotiations on Cyprus under UN auspices. The timing of any possible meeting with Turkish Cypriot representatives must be carefully considered in the light of progress in those negotiations.

  Radio 4
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the United Kingdom's ambassador in Bonn has taken in respect of the petition received signed by listeners in Germany on the retention of Radio 4 on long wave; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Bonn has forwarded the petition to London for the BBC, who are reviewing their future plans for transmitting Radio 4, taking into account the various representations which they are receiving.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position the United Kingdom representative on the United Nations Security Council will take in relation to a continuing UN presence in Cambodia following the holding of elections there; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The mandate of the UN transitional authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) is due to end with the formation of a new Cambodian Government three months after the Constituent Assembly elections on 23–27 May. The UN is likely to maintain a strong presence in Cambodia after this through its specialised and humanitarian agencies and programmes, including for example UNESCO, FAO/WFP, UNDP and UNICEF.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations is taking in relation to requests for a war crimes tribunal or special genocide commission to investigate the actions of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No such proposal is currently under consideration at the United Nations. In the absence of an international tribunal with jurisdiction to try Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge for genocide, Pol Pot and his associates would have to be brought before a competent Cambodian
  139
  court. It is therefore for the new Cambodian Government to decide whether to bring them to trial. If this were to happen, we would be the last to object.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to assist the release of funds promised by the United Nations to Cambodia for reconstruction and the clearing of land mines.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The international community has pledged $880 million for the reconstruction of Cambodia over a number of years, of which some $94·3 million has been disbursed. The flow of international aid is likely to increase substantially once a new government is in place in Phnom Penh. We regret the failure so far of the Supreme National Council of Cambodia to sign an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development package to help with the reconstruction of Cambodia, and urge all Cambodian parties to reach agreement on this as soon as possible. We have pledged some $30 million of aid since October 1991 of which $23 million has been committed. We have contributed funds to the HALO Trust, a British non-governmental organisation involved in mine clearance in Cambodia and to the funding of the Cambodian mine action centre through our assessed contribution to the UN transitional authority in Cambodia.

  Political Parties (Funding)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the information available to him on the systems of state funding for political parties in the G7 group of countries, and in the Council of Europe.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the number of United Kingdom representatives in each of the constituent nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The numbers of United Kingdom-based staff are as follows:

  Number

  Ukraine

  19

  Moscow

  83

  St. Petersburg

  7

  Kazakhstan

  3

  We propose to open posts in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Belarus shortly. The other countries within the Commonwealth of Independent States are covered by United Kingdom staff based in Moscow.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states are in membership of the CSCE at the present time; and which of these belonged in November 1990.
  140
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are currently 53 states participating in the CSCE. A copy of the list has been placed in the Library of the House. This list also indicates which states belonged to the CSCE in November 1990.

  Yugoslavia was suspended from participation in all CSCE activity in July 1992. The Czech Republic and Slovakia were admitted as separate countries on 1 January 1993. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was granted observer status at the committee of senior officials meeting on 28 April.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names and nationalities of the committee of senior officials of the CSCE.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Meetings of the committee of senior officials are attended by representatives from each CSCE participating state, either its representative (normally an Ambassador) in Vienna or a senior official from its Foreign Ministry. The United Kingdom is normally represented by Mr. David Logan, an assistant undersecretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. By way of illustration a list of delegates at the committee of senior officials meeting in Prague from 2–4 February has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the locations of all the offices of the secretariat, the committee of senior officials and all other institutions of the CSCE.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The main centre for CSCE institutions is Vienna where the following are located: the conflict prevention centre and its secretariat, the Vienna group of the committee of senior officials, the secretariat for the Forum for Security Co-operation and the secretariat facilities for the CFE treaty and open skies implementation group. The recently appointed secretary-general will also have his office in Vienna.

  By tradition the committee of senior officials meets in Prague and is serviced by the CSCE secretariat there.

  There are three other CSCE institutions: the CSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is situated in Warsaw; the office of the CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities is in The Hague; the Parliamentary Assembly of the CSCE has its office in Copenhagen.

  Finally, the CSCE has resident preventative diplomacy missions in a number of conflict or potential conflict areas and sanctions assistance missions in countries neighbouring Serbia and Montenegro.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the subsidiary working bodies, committees and structures established by the committee of senior officials of the CSCE together with the names and nationalities of their members.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Council of Ministers of the CSCE, meeting in Stockholm in December 1992, instructed representatives of participating states to meet regularly in Vienna between sessions of the committee of senior officials (CSO). This body is now known as the CSO Vienna group.

  Ad Hoc groups of all participating states may also be formed to deal with a specific task. These are then dissolved after their task has been completed. There are

  141
  currently ad hoc groups dealing with the management of CSCE resources and with CSCE structures and institutions. A group will shortly be established to consider the legal status of CSCE institutions.

  An informal financial committee of experts meets as and when required to review the budgets proposed for CSCE institutions and activities and to make recommendations to the CSO.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the Sudan about the arrest, detention, and release of members of the Umma party in Sudan in April.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We raised with the Sudanese the brief detention in April of Sadiq al-Mandi, leader of the Umma party, and we shall continue to monitor cases of arbitrary arrest in the Sudan.

  India
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian Government on behalf of Mr. Pritam Sing Kang and his case of mistaken identity at New Delhi airport.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The High Commission in New Delhi was not contacted at the time and has no trace of the incident, but has written twice to the foreigners regional registration officer requesting a report. It has not so far received a reply.

  The Indian authorities alone decide who may or may not enter Indian territory and we have no standing to challenge their decision.

  North Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the decision of North Korea to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom is determined to maintain and strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. We deeply regret the announcement by North Korea on 12 March of their intention to withdraw from the Treaty. With the Treaty's other co-depositaries and with our European partners we have urged North Korea to reconsider their position. We are now participating actively in discussions in the United Nations Security Council aimed at ensuring North Korea's compliance with their treaty obligations.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the procedure necessary to provide for the election by Gibraltar of a member of the European Parliament; and what is the Government's policy on this issue.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Gibraltar does not participate in elections to the European Parliament. We have no plans to change this situation. Annex II of the EC Act on Direct Elections of 1976 limits the franchise for elections to the European Parliament to the United Kingdom.

  Entry Clearance
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated cost of the proposed monitoring officer examining refusals of entry clearance where there is no right of appeal.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is too early to make firm costings.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The following meetings are planned:

  4 May: Industrial Affairs Council

  10 May: Telecommunications Council

  10–11 May: Foreign Affairs Council

  11 May: Foreign Affairs/Gulf Cooperation Council

  17 May: Cultural Affairs Council

  24–25 May: Agricultural Council

  25 May: Development Council

  27 May: Health Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  (a) Industrial Affairs Council—4 May

  Restructuring of the steel industry of the Community

  ECSC Treaty

  Industrial competitiveness and environmental protection

  State Aid for ship building

  Maritime industries

  Small and medium sized enterprises. Community measures to intensify and ensure the continuity of a policy for enterprise.

  (b) Telecommunications Council—10 May

  European Telecommunications Equipment Industry (8304/ 92; 5704/92)

  Telecommunications Services Review

  Open network provision voice telephoning directive (8840/92)

  Postal services Green paper

  Introduction of Advanced Television Services (6242/92)

  Development of Technology and Standards in the Advanced

  Television Sector

  (c) Foreign Affairs Council—10–11 May

  Trade Policy Questions

  Relations with the EP

  Commission report on access to information

  Russia

  Central and Eastern Europe

  Ex-Yugoslavia

  Preparation of EC/ACP Ministerial—17–18 May

  Preparation of EC/GCC Ministerial

  Preparation of OECD Ministerial: trade and environment

  (d) EC/Gulf Co-operation Council—11 May

  Implementation of the Co-operation Agreement

  Exchange of views on the development of economic relations between the countries of the GCC and the Community

  Report of Joint Co-operation Committee to the Joint

  Co-operation Council on the implementation of the Co-operation Agreement

  Exchange of views on developments in the two regions:

  Gulf Co-operation Council

  European Community

  Exchange of views on questions of political interest

  (e) Cultural Affairs Council—17 May

  European Cultural Month 1995

  The Media Programme

  The Artemis Programme

  Draft resolution to create a scheme for the translation of dramatic works

  Future work on books and reading

  (f) Agriculture Council—24–25 May

  Price fixing

  Milk

  Sugar

  Cereal Quality

  GATT

  143

  Potatoes

  CAT reform

  Portuguese wine distillation

  (g) Development Council—25 May

  Development Co-operation in the run-up to 2000

  Human rights, Democracy and Development

  Population Policy Family planning

  Emergency Aid

  Untying of Aid

  Women in development

  UNCED follow-up

  The Special EC initiative for Africa

  (h) Health Council—27 May

  Resolution of future actions in the field of public health

  Conclusions on reduction of consumption of tobacco

  Policy debate on tobacco advertising

  Conclusions on "Europe against AIDS" programme

  Conclusions on "Europe against Cancer" programme (poss)

  Conclusions on "Smoking in Public Places"—(5867/93)

  The Industrial Affairs Council will meet on 4 May and will discuss restructuring of the steel industry of the Community; ECSC Treaty; Industrial competitiveness and environmental protection. Ministers will also discuss state aid for shipbuilding and maritime industries. There will be a policy discussion on small and medium sized enterprises.

  The Telecommunications Council will meet on 10 May to attempt to reach a common position on ONP voice telephony. Adoption of Council conclusions on the Commission Communication on the European Telecommunication Equipment Industry will be sought. Ministers will seek to adopt the proposed decision on the introduction of advanced television services. Adoption is also sought on the proposed Council resolution on the development of Technology and Standards in the Advanced Television Sector. The Postal Services Green paper is also scheduled for discussion.

  The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 10–11 May. EC Foreign Ministers will consider Trade Policy Questions; relations with the EP; Commission report on access to information. Ministers will also consider Russia; Central and Eastern Europe and Ex-Yugoslavia.

  The Foreign Affairs/Gulf Cooperation Council will meet on 11 May to discuss the implementation of the Cooperation agreement. Ministers will also exchange views on developments in the two regions and on questions of political interest.

  The Cultural Affairs Council will meet on 17 May. The agenda has not yet been finalised, but the European Cultural Month 1995, the media programme, and the Artemis programme are likely to be discussed. There may also be a draft resolution to create a scheme for the translation of dramatic works. Future work on books and reading may also be discussed.

  The Agricultural Council will meet on 24–25 May. Ministers will discuss price fixing; milk, sugar; cereal quality; GATT; potatoes; CAP reform and Portuguese wine distillation.

  The Development Council is planned for 25 May. The agenda has not yet been finalised, but development Cooperation in the run-up to 2000; Human Rights—Democracy and development; and Population Policy—family planning are likely to be discussed. Emergency Aid, Untying of Aid and women in development are also likely to be discussed. Ministers may also discuss UNCED follow-up and the "Special EC initiative for Africa".

  The Health Council will meet on 27 May to discuss a resolution on future actions in the field of public health. Ministers will discuss the draft decision on the cancer programme which notes the Commission's report on the effectiveness of action undertaken in the "Europe Against Cancer" programme over the past five years. Ministers will discuss the conclusions on "Europe against AIDS" programme and the conclusions on reducing smoking in the Community which stress the importance of price as a mechanism to reduce tobacco consumption. The conclusions on smoking in public places will also be discussed.

  UN Register of Conventional Arms Transfers
  Mr. Booth
  To the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what date the Government submitted to the United Nations' Secretary General a144
  return from the United Kingdom to the UN register of conventional arms transfers in New York; and if he will place a copy of the return in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We submitted our first return to the UN Register to the UN Secretary General on 30 April. It covers major arms imports and exports during the calendar year 1992. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mohammed Gham Ghani
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he is going to make a recommendation in the case (Ref: CON/4028) of Shenaz Begum, Afsar Khan and Shaira Begum, the children of Mr. Mohammed Gham Ghani, referred to his Department by the post in Islamabad on 2 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The immigration service interviewed Mr. Mohammed Ghani on 18 April. When a copy of the interview notes is received from them, the passport applications made to the British High Commission at Islamabad on behalf of Mr. Ghani's three children, will be considered again.

  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as a decision has been made on this case.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the Commission's work programme 1993–94, SEC(93)58 Final published on 26 January; and what is his policy towards the proposal to change the scope of Euratom safeguards included in the programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The contents of the Commission work programme have been received and noted. There has been no official response by Her Majesty's Government but the work programme and an explanatory memorandum have been deposited in Parliament.

  There is no direct reference in the work programme to Euratom safeguards.

  Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations with non-governmental organisations the United Kingdom Government have been required or recommended to make prior to making submissions to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concerning article II of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and which non-governmental organisations have been consulted prior to submissions being made.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 20 April 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  While there is no formal obligation to consult, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has welcomed contributions by non-governmental groups in the preparation of reports under the covenant.

  I will write to the hon. Member about the second part of his question once necessary consultations with a number of other Government Departments is completed.

DEFENCE

  Malaysia (Arms Contract)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Minister signed the 1986 agreement with the Malaysian Government in respect of an arms contract; who signed on behalf of the Malaysian Government; what was the original estimated value of this contract; and what has been the delivered value of goods to date.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am not aware of any such agreement signed in 1986. My right hon. and noble Friend the former Prime Minister and the Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir signed a memorandum of understanding in September 1988 under which the Malaysian Government agreed to purchase various military equipments from the United Kingdom. The terms of the MOU cannot be released from reasons of commercial confidentiality, but since the signature of the MOU the Malaysian Government and British industry have signed a number of contracts whose total value exceed £16 billion.

  Civil Aircraft Notifications
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many notifications were made under the civil aircraft notification procedure in(a) 1991 and (b)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of notifications made under the civil aircraft notification procedure in 1991 and 1992 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1991

  139

  1992

  535

  The increase between 1991 and 1992 follows the raising of the height for notification of aerial activity under this procedure from 500 to 1,000 ft.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low flying were received in each month since June 1991 from addresses in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) England.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of inquiries or complaints relating to military low flying training which my Department received over the period June 1991 to March 1993 from addresses in Wales, Scotland and England were as follows:

  Month

  Wales

  Scotland

  England

  1991

  June

  95

  52

  274

  July

  159

  62

  605

  August

  101

  100

  644

  September

  97

  99

  374

  October

  79

  43

  295

  November

  51

  77

  223

  December

  25

  45

  108

  1992

  January

  32

  52

  126

  February

  60

  108

  203

  March

  43

  104

  275

  April

  66

  66

  275

  146

  Month

  Wales

  Scotland

  England

  May

  145

  90

  661

  June

  123

  96

  668

  July

  117

  154

  610

  August

  97

  91

  372

  September

  67

  77

  327

  October

  99

  92

  391

  November

  35

  34

  315

  December

  20

  26

  178

  1993

  January

  23

  38

  168

  February

  27

  104

  167

  March

  48

  106

  347

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were received about low-flying aircraft in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992 in (i) England (ii) Wales and (iii) Scotland; and what proportion of such complaints related to (1) fast jets, (2) light jet trainers, (3) heavy propeller-driven aircraft, (4) light propeller-driven aircraft and (5) helicopters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of inquiries or complaints relating to military low flying training received in 1991 and 1992 from England, Scotland and Wales were as follows:

  Number of complaints

  1991

  1992

  England

  3,412

  4,401

  Scotland

  791

  990

  Wales

  643

  904

  Information on the proportion of complaints by categories of aircraft could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the military low-level training sorties flown over the United Kingdon in each year since 1987 took place wholly or partly between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not available. Central records of night low flying do not separately distinguish flying between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am. The aim is to complete low flying training before 11 pm wherever possible because it is recognised that aircraft noise can be particularly intrusive at night and only the minimum necessary of such activity is authorised.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) bird sanctuaries, (b) wildlife breeding sites and (c) nature reserves which are the subject of seasonal or permanent low-flying avoidance arrangements in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It remains our policy not to release detailed information on the United Kingdom military low-flying system. Fifty-seven sanctuaries, wildlife breeding sites and nature reserves are, however, the subject of seasonal or permanent low-flying avoidance arrangements.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the results of exercises held by the Royal
  147
  Air Force since 1985 to measure the perceived noise on the ground, generated by overflying low-level military jet aircraft.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A copy of the report "Noise levels of military aircraft at low altitude: Exercise Luce Belle" is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties were carried out over(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland during (i) 1991 and (ii) 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not available. A typical low-level sortie covers some 300 to 500 miles and commonly covers more than one of the areas mentioned. Fixed-wing low flying training is not currently undertaken in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a monthly breakdown of the figures for low-level military training sorties over the United Kingdom since 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year and month

  Sorties

  1987

  January

  8,822

  February

  12,527

  March

  12,515

  April

  13,006

  May

  14,364

  June

  13,787

  July

  14,071

  August

  11,959

  September

  12,954

  October

  11,950

  November

  12,892

  December

  8,814

  Total

  147,661

  1988

  January

  11,179

  February

  14,279

  March

  15,494

  April

  11,733

  May

  12,990

  June

  14,220

  July

  12,653

  August

  13,182

  September

  11,459

  October

  11,589

  November

  13,105

  December

  9,408

  Total

  151,291

  1989

  January

  13,168

  February

  11,702

  March

  11,816

  April

  12,398

  May

  14,299

  June

  15,641

  July

  14,282

  August

  11,279

  September

  9,376

  October

  12,682

  November

  11,462

  December

  6,218

  Total

  144,323

  148

  Year and month

  Sorties

  1990

  January

  11,263

  February

  10,152

  March

  16,362

  April

  10,871

  May

  13,329

  June

  11,709

  July

  13,704

  August

  11,309

  September

  11,361

  October

  13,166

  November

  11,834

  December

  6,330

  Total

  141,390

  1991

  January

  8,990

  February

  7,471

  March

  10,814

  April

  12,300

  May

  12,556

  June

  11,662

  July

  12,971

  August

  10,676

  September

  11,229

  October

  11,097

  November

  11,226

  December

  6,408

  Total

  127,400

  1992

  January

  9,628

  February

  12,691

  March

  13,176

  April

  10,575

  May

  12,276

  June

  12,105

  July

  13,105

  August

  10,003

  September

  11,291

  October

  11,058

  November

  9,684

  December

  5,872

  Total

  131,464

  1993

  January

  9,024

  February

  10,121

  March

  13,009

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of Skyguard radars within the United Kingdom which are currently utilised to monitor low-flying activity.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Skyguard radar system used to monitor low flying activity within the United Kingdom is based at RAF Waddington. The radars are mobile and are deployed to various locations around the country to monitor low flying.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which armoured vehicles currently deployed in Bosnia are to be replaced by vehicles from Germany, and why; at what cost; how they are to be transported; and if he will make a statement.
  149
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The first battalion of the Prince of Wales Own Regiment are taking their own Warrior armoured vehicles with them and the first battalion of the Cheshire Regiment will return with their Warriors to Germany. The vehicles will be transported by ship. The cost of changing the vehicles is estimated at £300,000. The changeover is being done in order to spread the high mileage and very significant wear arising from operations in Bosnia across the fleet as a whole, thereby maintaining the best engineering management and reducing overall long-term costs to a minimum.

  Tornados
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 242, if he will categorise by rank and specialisation the 227 ground personnel deployed with the six Tornados and two VC-10s to enforce the no-fly zone.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The 227 ground personnel were in support of the Tornados at Gioia del Colle; in addition there were 41 ground personnel deployed in support of the VC10 tankers at Sigonella. The 268 personnel are categorised as follows:

  Officers

  Senior NCOs

  Airmen

  Total

  Operations Support

  7

  2

  2

  11

  Engineering and Supply

  6

  55

  152

  213

  Administrative and catering

  5

  7

  32

  44

  TOTAL

  18

  64

  186

  268

  Drug Tests (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to introduce random drug tests for members of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The armed forces employ a range of measures to combat drug abuse. These measures are kept under review and the introduction of compulsory drug testing is an option we are considering.

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on whose authority licences are issued to hunt on Ministry of Defence land; and how the terms and conditions of the licences are drawn up.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Licences are issued under the authority of the Secretary of State for Defence. The licences are different for each hunt to take into account the special needs of the host establishment.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Surrey Union hunt was first issued with a licence to hunt on Ministry of Defence land.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 7 October 1991.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Army personnel were permitted to participate in cub hunting in 1991, 1992 and 1993.
  150
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Army personnel from mounted units, and those involved in their training, are permitted to take part in a range of equestrian training activities, including cub hunting.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the terms and conditions of hunt licences permit any hunt to block up badger setts or permit the digging out of foxes on Ministry of Defence land;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to include in any licences for hunting on Ministry of Defence land a requirement that the rules set out in the rules of the Masters of Foxhounds Association be adhered to.

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

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which hunts currently have a licence to hunt on Ministry of Defence land and in which areas; and when these licences are due for renewal.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The licences to hunt issued by my Department are due for renewal at various times. The hunts which had licences for the 1992–93 season were:

  Brecon Farmers Hunt—Sennybridge Training Area

  Sennybridge Farmers Hunt—Sennybridge Training Area

  Irfon and Towey Hunt—Sennybridge Training Area

  Glyn Celyn Beagles—Sennybridge TrainingArea

  Blankney Hunt—Fulbeck and Beckingham Training Area

  Surrey Union Hunt—Aldershot Military lands and Surrey Commons Training Area

  West Shropshire Hunt—Nesscliffe Training Area

  North Shropshire Hunt—Nesscliffe Training Area

  Avon Vale Hunt—Salisbury Plain Training Area

  South and West Wiltshire Hunt—Salisbury Plain Training Area

  Royal Artillery Hunt—Salisbury Plain Training Area

  Beaucaster Hunt—Spadeadam

  Border Hunt—Otterburn Training Area

  West Percy Hunt—Otterburn Training Area

  Tynedale Hunt—Ouston Nr. Newcastle

  Bedale Hunt—Catterick Training Area

  Zetland Hunt—Feldom Training Area

  Wensleydale Hunt—Catterick Training Area

  West of York Hunt—Ellerton Banks

  Catterick Beagles—Catterick Training Area

  Newcastle Beagles—Otterburn Training Area

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all those fox hunts with which Ministry of Defence personnal are permitted to hunt in duty hours.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel who are permitted to take part in fox hunting during duty hours may do so with any fox hunt in the country if they have the permission of the hunt secretary.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the Queens Royal Irish Hussars have participated in fox hunting; and with which hunts, in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the cost of the licenses held by the HMS Heron sporting gun club were last increased; by what percentage; and for how many years the licenses have been held.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Heron sporting gun club has held a licence to shoot at Merryfield airfield since 1974 and at Langport range since 1986. The licences were last reviewed in 1991 and there was no increase in the charges.
  151
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to restrict the involvement of armed forces personnel in fox hunting during duty hours.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel from mounted units, and those involved in their training, are permitted to take part in fox hunting in duty hours at the commanding officer's discretion when it is not to the detriment of any other military task. Other personnel are not normally permitted to hunt during duty hours. No further restrictions are planned.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any charge is made for Army personnel to use Army horses and equipment to hunt in off-duty hours; and on how many occasions Army personnel from non-mounted units have been permitted to hunt in duty hours in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Army personnel from mounted units, and those involved in their training, are not permitted to use Army horses or equipment to hunt in off-duty hours. Army personnel from non-mounted units are required to pay for the hire of Army horses to hunt in off-duty hours. They would normally provide their own equipment.

  Figures showing the number of occasions on which Army personnel from non-mounted units have been permitted to hunt in duty hours in 1991, 1992, and 1993 could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether cub hunting is permitted on Ministry of Defence land.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

  Shooting Rights
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 14, whether the Bulford and Tidworth garrison shoot is permitted to sell shooting days; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Flying Training
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage decrease or increase in the provision for Royal Air Force flying training activity in 1991–92 over 1990–91; and what changes in provision are being implemented this year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The tasked flying hours for 1991–92 showed a decrease of 3 per cent. over 1990–91. Tasked flying hours for 1993–94 are yet to be finalised.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the listed buildings currently owned by his Ministry; which he intends to sell; how many have been sold in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following properties are currently for sale: Inverary pier, Faslane; Royal Marine 152
  barracks, Eastney; 28A Colliergate drill hall, York; former officers' mess, Maidstone; Forthside house, Stirling; Penisula barracks, Winchester and Bawdsey manor.

  In addition, we are disposing of Royal William yard and Mount Batten tower in Plymouth which will be transferred to the Plymouth urban development corporation and Paterchurch tower, Pembroke dock which will be transferred to Pembrokeshire district council.

  Other listed buildings have been indentified as possibilities for sale but have not yet been placed on the market. We intend, however, to review systematically all our historic buildings to determine which should be retained by the Ministry of Defence, in their current or alternative use, and which should be disposed of expeditiously to ensure their preservation by finding a suitable alternative use.

  Information on sales in the last five years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Hydrographic Service
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the work of the British Hydrographic Service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom Hydrographic Service is made up of four elements: the Ministry of Defence Hydrographic Department, which is responsible for operational policy on surveying and for planning defence and civil surveys; the Royal Navy Hydrographic Surveying Squadron, which conducts United Kingdom defence surveys and part of the civil survey task; the Ministry of Defence Hydrographic Office Defence Agency, which is responsible for the production of the British Admiralty charts and publications and other professional services to the Ministry of Defence; and the Royal Navy Hydrographic School, where Royal Navy and Foreign and Commonwealth students are given courses accredited by the International Hydrographic Organisation.

  The detailed work of all these elements is summarised in the annual report of the Hydrographer of the Navy, which is laid before Parliament and copies of which are placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current and projected future cost of the British Hydrographic Service; and what is the current and proposed future establishment of the service.

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

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown by size and category of the number of vessels currently operated by the British Hydrographic Service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Hydrographic Survey Squadron currently consists of two ocean survey vessels of some 2,500 tonnes; three coastal survey vessels of between 1,400 and 1,100 tonnes; and one inshore survey craft of some 20 tonnes. In addition, the Hydrographic Survey Squadron operates two chartered vessels to undertake civil hydrographic surveys.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the revenue generated in each
  153
  of the last 10 years by sales of charts and related information by the British hydrographic service (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) to overseas customers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Hydrographic Office Defence Agency and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. A. L. Myres to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 5 Ma) 1993:

  1. You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question concerning the revenue generated in each of the last 10 years by sales of charts and related information by the British Hydrographic Service (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) to overseas customers.

  2. The Minister has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office, to reply directly to you. The information you require can be found in the attached Annex. In amplification I should like to make two observations. Firstly, the term "charts and related information" has been defined as the sale of charts and hydrographic publications. Secondly, the revenue figures are, for reasons of comparison, expressed on a constant price basis, namely at 1992–93 prices.

  3. I should also point out that charts and hydrographic publications are sold through a worldwide network of Admiralty Chart Agents. Whilst we have, on the basis of our invoice returns, been able to differentiate between sales to UK and overseas chart agents, it does not follow that an overseas chart agent will sell only to a user based overseas or vice versa.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex

  £ million

  Financial Year

  United Kingdom (1at 1992–93 prices)

  Overseas (1at 1992–93 prices)

  1982–83

  7·08

  9·38

  1983–84

  6·91

  8·44

  1984–85

  7·08

  8·66

  1985–86

  5·98

  7·91

  1986–87

  6·22

  7·91

  1987–88

  6·13

  8·12

  1988–89

  6·28

  8·79

  1989–90

  6·77

  9·45

  1990–91

  7·04

  10·65

  1991–92

  8·60

  11·11

  1992–93

  7·58

  10·98

  1 Calculated using HM Treasury GDP deflator index dated February 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to withdraw vessels operated by the British hydrographic service and for the replacement of such vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current ships of the Hydrographic survey squadron will be replaced, as this becomes necessary, with chartered vessels with naval crews or parties embarked as appropriate.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to use members of the reserve forces in support of current operations.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I reported to the House by notice last October the call-out of a small number of willing officers of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve to support 154
  current operations, and in November the Minister of State for the Armed Forces reported the call-out of a number of Territorial Army and Royal Naval personnel.

  A need for futher limited support from the reserve forces has now arisen. The requirement is for a small number of officers to serve in Italy in intelligence and public relations capacities in support of the operations to enforce the no-fly zone over Bosnia. Three officers will be deployed at any one time and additional support may be needed in the United Kingdom. They will all be volunteers. They are being called out under section 11(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1980.

TRANSPORT

  Fords
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fords there are in England where public roads cross watercourses; how many fatal or serious accidents have occurred in each of the last 10 years as a result of vehicles failing to negotiate water on fords on public roads; if he will list fords which have been closed to traffic following such accidents; and what is his Department's policy towards fords and the provision of warning to motorists when water conditions may be dangerous.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No information is available centrally about the number of fords in England, accidents at or near fords, or fords which have been closed to traffic following accidents. Fords are normally on minor roads which are the responsibility of the local authority. The signs prescribed in Traffic Signs Regulations for use as necessary include triangular signs to give advance warning of the ford and the need to try brakes after crossing, gauges to show the depth of water and "Unsuitable for motors" plates for use with the warning signs where the water is normally too deep. Warning signs can be used where floods occur at fairly regular intervals but should be covered or removed unless the hazard is present.

  Sonic Booms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many sonic booms have been reported over land areas of the United Kingdom in each year since 1987; and how many of these were caused by(a) military aircraft and (b) civil aircraft.

  Mr. Norris
  We have received no reports of primary sonic booms over the UK from the operation of civil aircraft since 1987.

  I have asked my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence to write to the hon. Member about military aircraft.

  Exeter-Barnstaple Rail Line
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future funding of the Exeter to Barnstaple railway line.

  Mr. Freeman
  Services which meet an essential social need will continue to receive a subsidy where necessary. This applies whether the operator is a franchisee or BR, which will continue to operate services until they are franchised.
  155

  Plutonium Transport
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter dated 15 March by the Minister for Aviation and Shipping to Lord Jenkins of Putney on comparative risks of plutonium transport.

  Mr. Norris
  Yes, I have done so.

  General Lighthouse Fund
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change will be made in the funding of the general lighthouse fund following the transfer of responsibility for this service from Her Majesty's Customs.

  Mr. Norris
  The General Lighthouse Authorities, with the agreement of the Department of Transport, have

  Grants and subsidies to the bus industry: Great Britain

  £ million1

  Year

  Revenue support

  Fuel duty rebate

  Rural bus grant

  New bus grant

  Infra-structure grant

  Total

  1972–73

  —

  21

  1

  20

  1

  —

  1973–74

  —

  20

  1

  21

  1

  —

  1974–75

  —

  36

  3

  23

  2

  —

  1975–76

  —

  39

  4

  37

  2

  —

  1976–77

  —

  47

  —

  41

  2

  —

  1977–78

  196

  57

  —

  49

  1

  303

  1978–79

  220

  59

  —

  57

  1

  337

  1979–80

  264

  67

  —

  66

  —

  397

  1980–81

  373

  80

  —

  74

  —

  527

  1981–82

  443

  89

  —

  58

  —

  590

  1982–83

  561

  103

  —

  30

  —

  694

  1983–84

  572

  101

  —

  16

  —

  689

  1984–85

  608

  127

  —

  1

  —

  736

  1985–86

  495

  131

  —

  —

  —

  626

  1986–87

  419

  129

  17

  —

  —

  565

  1987–88

  337

  135

  17

  —

  —

  489

  1988–89

  337

  158

  13

  —

  —

  508

  1989–90

  296

  150

  4

  —

  —

  450

  1990–911

  323

  169

  —

  —

  —

  492

  1991–922

  377

  189

  —

  —

  —

  566

  1 Not adjusted for inflation

  2 Provisional

  Sources: Bus and Coach Statistics 1991–92, HMSO

  Transport Statistics Great Britain, HMSO

  Road Crashes
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the reduction of deaths and serious injuries from road crashes in the north west region.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The number of people killed and seriously injured on north west roads in 1991 was 5,580. This is 21 per cent. lower than the annual average 1981–85 base figure, against which we are measuring our target of reducing the number of road casualties by one-third by the year 2000.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the application of higher safety standards to protect workers engaged in highway repairs has increased the number and length of lane closures at roadworks(a) generally, and (b) between junction 28 and 29 on the M 1.
  156
  entered into a contract with the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers to collect the majority of light dues. The contract came into operation of 1 April 1993 and did not involve any changes to the operation of the General Lighthouse Fund.

  Bus Subsidies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total amount of subsidy to bus operations in each of the past 20 years.

  Mr Freeman
  The information requested is shown in the table. Revenue support figures for the years prior to 1977–78 are not shown as they could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The current standards for safety zones have been in force for many years, although compliance may have improved following publication of the revised chapter 8 of the Department's traffic signs manual in May 1991. The number and length of lane closures have depended on the maintenance requirements at any particular time, and the volume of traffic which had to be accommodated in the open lanes.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department take where motorway repairs and improvements are done under lane rental contracts to prevent excessive delays caused by long sections of road being affected at any one time.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Lane rental provides a particular incentive for contractors to minimise the duration of lane closures, but all our motorway repairs and improvements are carefully planned and co-ordinated to minimise delays to road users, regardless of the form of contract used. We normally require that roadworks on motorways be spaced at least 10 km apart, and our contractors are instructed that no more than 4 km of carriageway should be coned off
  157
  on any scheme at any time. Traffic management layouts are individually designed, and techniques continuously refined, to maximise the capacity of the lanes available and smooth the flow of traffic through the works.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the length of delays to traffic at the roadworks between junctions 28 and 29 on the M 1 motorway currently taking place; and what steps can be taken to reduce them.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Major maintenance, including strengthening and resurfacing, is necessary to the M 1 between junctions 28 and 29 in Derbyshire. Lane restrictions are an essential safety measure to protect the workforce and road users. This section of the M 1 carries 90,000 vehicles a day. With that level of traffic, Iane restrictions will unfortunately cause a degree of disruption, particularly at peak times. To mitigate the effect on traffic, the work is being carried out under a lane rental contract which allows the contractor to work throughout the day and night, seven days a week, to encourage early completion. Through the national and local media road users have been kept advised of the work, so that they can consider making alternative arrangements if that is possible. I am, of course, sorry for the inconvenience that has been caused to people using this part of the MI, but the work is programmed for completion on 20 May.

  Environmental Impact
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to introduce on the environmental impact of transport in the north west region.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  All major transport infrastructure proposals, in the north-west and elsewhere, are subject to full environmental impact assessment.

  The March Budget announced that the value of fuel duty in real terms is to be increased as part of a strategy to increase fuel efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions. My Department is working closely with our European partners to tighten standards for noise and gaseous emissions from vehicles.

  Traffic, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit the Greater Manchester area to assess the effect of traffic on town centres.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I shall be happy to visit Greater Manchester when the opportunity arises.

  We have several major schemes in our trunk road programme which are designed to take traffic away from town centres in Greater Manchester. We are also supporting local authority road schemes and public transport projects such as Metrolink to help traffic conditions in the centres.

  Bus Travelcards
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many urban areas all bus travelcard systems have been withdrawn or disagreed by operators since 1985.
  158
  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally. However, in all the major metropolitan areas there are at present travelcard schemes involving all the major bus operators.

  LGV and PSV Drivers
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now make it his policy to initiate a registration scheme for qualified and experienced LGV and PSV instructors at an early date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 November 1992,Official Report, column 161.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the standards of tuition given by unqualified LGV and PSV instructors and the numbers of liquidations of firms of unqualified instructors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have received no recent representations on these particular topics. My Department has no information about the number of liquidations of large goods vehicle and passenger carrying vehicle instruction firms.

  Rail Privatisation
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) pursuant to his statement on 2 February,Official Report, column 243, that under the proposed rail franchising arrangement there should be a cap for those services that are a monopoly, at what level above the existing fares the cap will be set; and what the criteria will be for bringing the cap into effect;

  (2) to what extent his policy on the guidance he will be issuing to the rail franchising authority as to the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, fares might be controlled has been developed beyond what is said in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Railways Bill Committee paper No. 3 of February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Further work remains to be done in developing the draft guidance that I provided to the Standing Committee in relation to fares regulation and other matters.

  Emergency Telephone (A2)
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on his plans to instal emergency telephones on the A2 as it passes through the Dartford constituency.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Emergency telephones are to be installed on the A2 between Bexley and Three Crutches (M2). Consultants were appointed in January this year and it is hoped that installation work will start in spring next year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets for performance set by his Department for the Benefits Agency in respect of clearance
  159
  time and accuracy are reduced for 1993–94 relative to the original targets for 1992–93; what are the estimated final figures for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  There are four targets which have been reduced for 1993–94.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  per cent.

  per cent.

  DLA clearance time (in 55 days)

  95

  85

  DWA clearance time (in 5 days)

  95

  65

  IS accuracy

  94

  92

  Family credit accuracy

  94

  92

  The final performance figures for 1992–93 will be published in the Benefits Agency annual report in July 1993. The 1993–94 targets will be reviewed, as is customary, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the light of those figures.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total cost to the Exchequer to date of weekend working by staff of the Benefits Agency during the past 18 months at time-and-a-half and double-time, plus travelling expenses, for the purpose of making-up the backlog of disability living allowance cases.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 4 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what is the total cost to the Exchequer to date of weekend working by staff of the Benefits Agency during the past 18 months at time-and-a-half and double-time, plus travelling expenses, for the purpose of making-up the backlog of Disability Living Allowance cases.

  Firstly, it may be helpful for me to explain that Disability Living Allowance (DLA) was introduced on 3 February 1992 and due to this fact any overtime worked prior to this date was mainly in respect of project work and not directly related to processing claims. The information I have therefore supplied, is relevant to the period when DLA was introduced.

  It is not possible to establish how much overtime has been paid in respect of weekend working as the information is not recorded separately from normal after hours working. However, the total amount of overtime, including travelling time, in the period February 1992 to February 1993 was £6,822,583. This figure also includes work carried out in the Disability Benefit Centres which is attributable to other work areas and cannot be identified separately, for example Attendance Allowance.

  Turning now to the question of travelling expenses this data is not available as it is not recorded separately from the normal travelling expenses incurred during everyday duties.

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

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total cost to the Exchequer to date of providing staff of the Benefits Agency with corporate clothing; what this corporate clothing consists of; and how many sets of such clothing have been provided to date.
  160
  Mr. Burt
  The provision of corporate clothing to Benefits Agency staff is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 4 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what is the total cost to the Exchequer to date of providing staff of the Benefits Agency with corporate clothing: what this corporate clothing consists of; and how many sets of such clothing have been provided to date.

  Corporate clothing, as part of the customer service initiative, enables Benefits Agency staff to present a better and more professional image to their customers. This clothing is worn, voluntarily, by staff who deal regularly with the public such as receptionists, Social Fund officers and those members of staff running exhibitions and talks for outside bodies.

  The corporate dress contract was awarded on 11 December 1991. The national cost of corporate clothing, for the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93, is in the region of £2·1 million. I should explain that funding for this clothing comes from office running costs and not out of the budgets allocated to benefits.

  The items available as corporate clothing include jackets, shirts, blouses, cardigans, jumpers, trousers, ties, maternity dresses, and belts. The clothing does not come in sets, but the average order would be in the range of 10 items. Over 86,000 individual items have been ordered to date.

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

  Pension Age
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update table 6, at page 49 of "Options for Equality in State Pension Age" to reflect current retirement pension rates.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table. As in table 6 of "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", the amounts are rounded to the nearest £1.

  Basic pension available at different ages (£)

  Age

  Age 63 'pivot'

  Age 65 'pivot'

  60

  45

  39

  61

  48

  41

  62

  52

  45

  63

  56

  48

  64

  61

  52

  65

  66

  56

  66

  71

  61

  67

  77

  66

  68

  84

  72

  69

  92

  79

  70

  102

  87

  Source: GAD, assumes prices uprating and single person's pension rates.

  Water Prices
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to take into account disparities between water prices in different regions of the United Kingdom when structuring the benefits system.

  Mr. Burt
  Social security in the United Kingdom is composed largely of national benefits. We have no plans to change this arrangement.

  Pensions
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost that would be involved in extending inflation-proofed pensions to those over 80 years of age who do not qualify for annual uprating, assuming the same age profile for such British state retirement pensioners as for those who do.

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

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the numbers of British state retirement pensioners with ancestral links with new Commonwealth countries who would wish to spend their retirement in a new Commonwealth country if their entitlement to an inflation-proofed state retirement pensions were to be maintained.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The nationality or origin of a contributor to the British national insurance scheme is not recorded and we do not. therefore, have the information needed to make such an estimate.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those countries where British pensioners receive inflation-proofed state retirement pensions together with the dates when, in each case reciprocal agreements were entered into.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table.

  Table of overseas countries where annual pension increases are paid and the dates on which reciprocal social security agreements came into force

  Country

  Date

  Austria

  1 October 1972

  Barbados

  1 April 1992

  Belgium

  1 June 1958

  Bermuda

  1 November 1969

  Cyprus

  18 May 1957

  Denmark1

  8 February 1960

  Finland

  1 February 1984

  France

  5 July 1948

  Germany

  1 August 1961

  Gibraltar

  26 March 1974

  Guernsey

  4 April 1966

  Iceland

  1 August1985

  Irish Republic

  4 April 1966

  Israel

  1 November1957

  Italy

  1 May 1953

  Jamaica

  1 October 1972

  Jersey

  4 April 1966

  Luxembourg

  1 April 1955

  Malta

  29 October 1956

  Mauritius

  1 November 1981

  Netherlands

  1 June 1955

  Norway

  1 April 1991

  Philippines

  1 December 1989

  Portugal

  1 October 1979

  Spain

  1 April 1975

  Sweden

  1 May 1988

  Switzerland

  1 June 1954

  Turkey

  1 June 1961

  United States of America

  25 September 1969

  Yugoslavia (including the newly independent former republics)

  1 September 1958

  Annual pension increases arc also payable in Greece under the European Community's Social Security regulations.

  1'The reciprocal agreement between the United Kingdom and Denmark does not provide for annual pension increases to be paid to pensioners in Denmark but such increases are payable under the European Community's Social Security regulations.

  Agencies (Letters)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 172, for what purpose copies of letters from chief executives of agencies within his responsibility are sent to Ministers before being sent to the hon. Members to whom they are addressed; and how many such letters have been amended as a result of this practice.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Replying to parliamentary questions concerning day-to-day operational matters for which they are responsible has been delegated to the chief executive of this Department's Agencies in line with the Government's response to the Eighth Report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (October 1990, Cm 1263). The arrangements are kept under review. In this Department Ministers see a draft of chief executives' replies to remain informed of the actions and replies of the agencies concerned. It is not the practice of Ministers to amend such drafts.

  Free Envelopes
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy regarding the supply of free envelopes to facilitate claims for benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The supply of free envelopes is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. David Hanson, dated 5 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what is his Department's policy regarding the supply of free envelopes to facilitate claims for benefits.

  In line with the Benefits Agency's core value of Customer Service it is normal practice for officers to provide pre-paid envelopes when requesting information from a customer.

  I am aware that there have been isolated instances where the facility of free envelopes has been withdrawn at a local level, but this has only been where it was felt that the money could be used more constructively in providing a better standard of service to our customers. Such decisions are only made where the District Manager is satisfied that the service to the customer will not suffer, and the decision is kept under constant review. I am currently reviewing these exceptions with a view to deciding whether they are justified. I will make a decision and write to you further at that time.

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

  Residential and Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will ensure that, where there is no opposition from clients, the Benefits Agency provides assessment information to local authority social services departments, for the purposes of establishing residential care charges;

  (2) what guidance he has issued to ensure co-operation between Benefits Agency staff and social services departments for the introduction of community care.
  163
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 4 May 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking (i) if he will ensure that, where there is no opposition from clients, the Benefits Agency provides assessment information to local authority social services departments, for the purposes of establishing residential care charges and (ii) what guidance has been issued to ensure co-operation between Benefits Agency staff and social services departments, for the introduction of community care.

  The Benefits Agency has made a number of arrangements to ensure adequate liaison with social services departments. The Departments of Health and of Social Security, the Benefits Agency and the Local Authority Associations (who represent all local authorities), have all been fully involved in the discussions on the introduction of community care. A joint statement of intent was issued in March 1993 to all Benefits Agency offices and Social Services departments (Social Work departments in Scotland). This detailed a number of good liaison practises and stressed the importance of effective communication.

  Additionally, guidance has been issued nationally instructing staff in Benefits Agency offices to co-operate with all reasonable requests for information which social services departments may make, provided that the customers' consent has been obtained. Each Benefits Agency District has also appointed a member of staff with responsibility for liaising with their local Social Services or Social Work department.

  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.

SCOTLAND

  Borders Structure Plan
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to make a statement following his consultations on the draft borders structure plan.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend will announce his conclusions on the borders structure plan as soon as he has fully considered all the objections to his draft modifications.

  Public Expenditure
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of public expenditure per head in Scotland in the current year.

  Mr. Stewart
  Latest available figures for public expenditure per head in Scotland relate to 1991–92. In that year the level of identifiable general government expenditure per head in Scotland was £3,506. Identifiable general government expenditure comprises expenditure identified as being of direct benefit to Scottish inhabitants. Other expenditure, principally on defence, is of equal benefit to all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. That amounted to £716 per head across the United Kingdom in 1991–92.

  Water Investment
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much additional borrowing is planned to be required for water investment over the next three years under existing financing arrangements.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Control of local authority capital investment is exercised over expenditure rather than borrowing. Expenditure provision for water and sewerage is £237 million in 1993–94, £243 million in 1994–95, and £248 million in 1995–96, a total of £728 million.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairs of local enterprise companies to discuss their business plans.

  Mr. Stewart
  The contractual relationship to which business plans are relevant is between local enterprise companies and Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Consequently, although my right hon. Friend and I meet chairmen of local enterprise companies from time to time to discuss a range of economic development and training issues, our discussions are not specifically related to their business plans.

  Farmed Salmon
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for regulating the production of farmed salmon in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have welcomed the salmon farming industry's proposals to establish producer organisations. These will help create a more stable and better informed market. However, I do not accept the industry's case for giving such organisations compulsory powers to determine stock levels and minimum prices both for members and non-members.

  Reservoirs (Public Access)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on public access to reservoirs for recreational purposes.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Public access to reservoirs for recreational purposes is a matter for regional and islands councils as water authorities. The Scottish Office Environment Department will shortly be publishing a voluntary code of practice on conservation, access and recreation to guide the work of water authorities and river purification boards, prepared with their full co-operation.

  Hospital Treatments
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in national health service hospitals in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the figures were in 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  A total of 933,624 patients were treated as in-patients in national health service hospitals in Scotland in the year ending 30 September 1992 compared with 735,583 in 1979—a 27 per cent. increase. Out-patients rose to 6,013,929 in 1992 from 5,202,863 in 1979. The most
  165
  significant increase occurred in the numbers of patients treated as day cases—up to 229,222 in 1992 a 180 per cent. increase on the 81,577 recorded in 1979.

  Hospitals (Glasgow)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with Greater Glasgow health board regarding the future of Glasgow hospitals, particularly Stobhill hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent discussions with Greater Glasgow health board regarding their comprehensive review of acute and maternity services. He looks forward to receiving the board's detailed proposals in due course.

  Dutch Elm Disease
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to prevent the spread of Dutch elm disease.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Dutch elm disease has already spread throughout Britain, apart from some parts of north Scotland. Legislation has been in place for many years giving local authorities powers to order the felling of diseased trees in certain areas where this would help to contain the disease. The Forestry Commission is continuing to investigate possible control methods, including a virus that attacks the fungus which causes the disease. It is also working on the development of disease resistant strains of English elm.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the corresponding provisions in Northern Ireland when considering whether to privatise Scottish Water.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend and I maintain contact as appropriate with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has had from Conservative councillors on water privatisation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has received 14 representations from Conservative councillors on the future structure of water and sewerage services in Scotland since 17 November last year.

  Structural Funds
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with EC counterparts on structural funds' allocation(a) in general and (b) on objective 5(b) status for areas within Grampian regional council boundaries.

  Mr. Stewart
  Draft regulations have been published by the Commission and are under discussion in the structural actions working group of the Council of Ministers. Until the negotiations on criteria for the selection of objective 5(b) areas are further advanced it would be premature to discuss possible financial allocations to areas bidding for inclusion.

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of motorway and dual carriageway in Scotland do not have crash barriers installed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 19 miles of motorway and 106 miles of trunk road dual carriageway in Scotland without central reserve safety fencing. This represents approximately 10 per cent. of motorways and 33 per cent. of trunk road dual carriageways. A rolling programme is underway to install central reserve safety fencing on these remaining sections of the network by the end of the 1994–95 financial year.

  Records are not kept centrally for non-trunk road dual carriageways, for which regional councils are responsible.

  Rail Transport (Fife)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future of rail transport in Fife.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the railways throughout Great Britain is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The provision of rail services in Fife is at present a matter for British Rail. Under the Government's proposals for the railways we believe that the direct involvement of the private sector will result in a better, more responsive service for the travelling public throughout Scotland including Fife.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the Government's proposed time scale for introducing local government reform.

  Mr. Stewart
  We intend to announce our decisions on the future structure of local government in Scotland in a White Paper before the summer recess. Thereafter, subject to the necessary legislation being put in place, elections to shadow authorities will take place in spring 1995, with new authorities assuming full control on 1 April 1996.

  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a further statement on the reform of Scottish local government.

  Mr. Stewart
  More than 3,300 responses to the consultation exercise on local government reform were received from a wide range of organisations and individuals. These are currently being analysed and we intend to announce our decisions on the future structure of local government in Scotland in a White Paper before the summer recess.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the cost of local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Stewart
  A move to a single-tier structure will give rise to transitional costs which should be quickly recovered by annual savings. An indication of the likely financial consequences of reform will be included in a White Paper on our restructuring proposals which we intend to publish before the summer recess.
  167
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to hold discussions regarding the cost of the reform of the Scottish local government system prior to the publication of the White Paper on this subject.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend will be consulting colleagues in the usual way before publishing his proposals for the reform of local government in Scotland.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his oral answer of 31 March,Official Report, column 349, on the cost of local Government reform, if he will hold discussions on the costs of reform with existing local authorities.

  Mr. Stewart
  My officials have already held useful discussions on the costs of reform with local authority representatives on the working party on local government finance. I have no plans at present to hold further discussions on the issue.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the names and qualifications of financial and management consultancies he intends to use to help the Scottish Office formulate the financial data required to produce a White Paper on Scottish local government reform;

  (2) what plans he has to invite Touche Ross to tender for further work with the Scottish Office in connection with the reform of the local Government system in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office has no plans at present to commission further work from any consultants in connection with local government reform.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy, before publication of the White Paper on the reform of local Government in Scotland, to have discussions with representatives of industry and commerce in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  My colleagues and I meet regularly with representatives of industry and commerce in Scotland to discuss a range of current issues, including local government reform. Our consultation paper on local government reform generated about 220 responses from commercial and industrial organisations and these will be taken fully into account before decisions are reached on the new structure.

  Museums
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on policy concerning museums.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Policy on museums in Scotland is developed and reviewed in consultation with interested organisations. In particular with the Museums and Galleries Commission, the Scottish Museums Council, and representatives of local authorities.

  Ministry of Defence Spending
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the success of Scottish Enterprise in ensuring that Ministry of Defence spending is attracted to Scotland, Glasgow and Govan.
  168
  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Enterprise's success in helping Scottish companies to respond to opportunities to secure contracts and in attracting new employment to Scotland is assessed in the round rather than in relation to any specific organisation. Scottish Enterprise's specific initiative to deal with the effects on the Scottish economy and labour market of changes in the defence sector also goes wider than seeking to maximise Ministry of Defence spending in Scotland; and assessment of that initiative is framed in appropriately broad terms to reflect its objectives.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of unemployment in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  In March 1993, the level of unemployment in Scotland, seasonally adjusted, was 244,400 or 9·6 per cent. of the work force.

  It is very encouraging that unemployment in Scotland has fallen for two successive months.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much capital expenditure has been allocated for the current year and 1994 for new hospital building projects in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  A total of £180·484 million was allocated for capital expenditure to health boards, trusts and the state hospital for 1993–94. This figure excludes moneys for information technology but includes amounts allocated for equipment and for the improvement of the existing estate. The allocations for financial year 1994–95 will only be decided at the end of the calendar year.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Education Department will reconsider funding for courses affected by the change of status from college to university of certain institutions in Scotland in cases where students have been deprived of grants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland, responsiblity for the provision of student support is determined by the nature, level, and validation of the course concerned; not by the status of the institution offering it.

  My right hon. Friend has no plans to change that arrangement.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has drawn from experience of the practice of Sunday trading in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Over the years Sunday trading practices in Scotland have evolved in line with the wishes of the local communities. Sunday trading in Scotland occurs mainly in urban areas. It fulfils a need for some members of the public without seriously disadvantaging others. The present arrangements appear to work well and to the satisfaction of the great majority of the Scottish public.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of the Scottish new towns to discuss the future of the new towns; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and I met the chairmen and deputy chairmen of all the new town development corporations on 5 October 1992. I again met the chairmen collectively on 21 December 1992 and will meet the chairmen and board members of individual corporations during the summer months.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning new investment on the west coast main line; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail from time to time. Such contacts cover a wide range of topics relating to rail services in Scotland.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the 1993–94 budget for each local enterprise company in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The allocation of resources to the local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish 170
  Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise Ltd.
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was given to Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise Ltd. for training in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Stewart
  The allocation of resources to the local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will issue new interim guidance on opencast coal production, following the Bridgecastle case, to update circulars 4/1984 and 23/1987;

  (2) at what stage he proposes to issue interim guidance on opencast coal production to supersede circulars 4/1984 and 23/1987.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 May 1993]: We do not propose to issue specific interim guidance on opencast coal production. We do, however, propose to issue a new National Planning Policy Guideline "Land for Mineral Working" later this year. This will embrace opencast coal mining, take account of the Coal Review White Paper, and supersede circulars 4/1984 and 23/1987.

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 Exeter.
The Earl of Ranfurly The Earl of Ranfurly —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Earl of Granard The Earl of Granard —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

UNESCO Membership: UK Intentions
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the time is right for the United Kingdom to rejoin UNESCO and to contribute actively to its work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey informed the House on 24th March, we are keeping under review a possible resumption of our UNESCO membership.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that while there were many, including myself, who supported Her Majesty's Government's decision to leave UNESCO, which was undoubtedly a maladministered and frequently corrupt body, times have now changed? Does my noble friend agree that it is now increasingly detrimental to Britain to be the only member of the European Community not taking an active part in UNESCO's work, and that while Britain remains outside UNESCO important cultural initiatives such as the restoration of Angkor Wat in Cambodia are taking place without the involvement of British experts and consultants? Finally, does my noble friend agree that if cultural considerations are to be given due weight in regions of conflict like the former Yugoslavia, then Britain and the United States, with their membership of the Security Council, would be able to give UNESCO's voice more weight at the UN?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend, during the debate on the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on 24th March, paid tribute to the progress that has been made in UNESCO. She also stressed that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had given an assurance that he approached the question of renewal of membership with a genuinely open mind. But my noble friend did then offer a number of caveats and stressed that the cost of renewed membership would be some £8 million to £10 million. We would certainly wish to ensure that we had value for money from any renewed membership.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, as a former Minister who was once responsible for UNESCO, and having
698
attended a conference on this matter, I know of the valuable work that that body does. Will the Minister, instead of saying that the matter is under review, give an assurance that we shall rejoin UNESCO as soon as possible?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the only assurance I can give is that we will look at the issue very carefully. If it is in our interests, and if we feel there is value for money attached to it, we will join. I must repeat, however, that my noble friend stressed that a decision has not yet been taken. But she will be the first to inform the House when such a decision has been reached.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, cannot the noble Lord give some idea of when such a decision might be taken and whether the matter has high priority? In short, can he not give his noble friend a rather more enthusiastic answer?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that I had given as enthusiastic an answer as possible when I stressed the genuinely open mind on this issue of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I am afraid I cannot take the noble Lord any further as to the timing of any such decision.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I associate myself with everything the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said. Will the Minister explain why there is need for further delay in the light of the fact that UNESCO has undertaken all the reforms required of it? On a recent visit to Washington I was informed informally by the State Department that it is now the view in Washington that UNESCO is a better run UN agency than many others and that therefore the Clinton Administration is likely to rejoin very soon. What conversations has the noble Lord's noble friend the Minister had with the Clinton Administration on the matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the views of the American Administration. I can only repeat that my noble friend did issue a certain number of caveats about rejoining. She said that there were still certain reforms that needed to be pursued although she did stress very much that a great deal of progress has been made under the leadership of Dr. Federico Mayor. But we cannot ignore the cost of renewed membership of some £8 million or £10 million. Very difficult decisions on the matter have to be taken. I am trying to stress to the noble Baroness that before we take any decisions we have to be sure that we are going to get value for money from that increased cost of £8 million to £10 million and that it will be in our own national interests to join.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many will support him in his emphasis on value for money? Does he agree that at a time when we are asking many organisations and interests at home to do with less money we want to be absolutely certain that we are not spending money overseas on something which is not as important as some of the projects we have to turn down?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to stress the importance of value for money. It is for all departments to examine their budgets very carefully and to ensure that any expenditure they seek provides value for money for taxpayers as a whole.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem experienced with UNESCO has also occurred with the FAO? Is he aware that the head of the FAO is able to remain in power long after he has passed his usefulness by canvassing recipient countries for support while those countries which are supporting FAO do not seem to have any say at all? Is he aware that that situation can continue for a long time? Have Her Majesty's Government any plans for correcting that? Have they made any suggestions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says about the FAO, but he will appreciate that it is a different question from that on the Order Paper.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am curious about how value for money would be decided in this case. Can the noble Lord give an illustration of what he would consider value for money in this context?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give no obvious illustration. I have to stress that when we are talking about expenditure of £8 million to £10 million of taxpayers' money we have to be sure that it is in the national interest that that money is so expended.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many firms in this country are suffering financially to a much greater extent than the £8 million we would pay in subscription?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I have tried to stress, all matters will be taken into account by my right honourable friend and by my noble friend when they come to make a decision. I repeat that £8 million or £10 million is a large sum of money, and expenditure of that sort must be justified.

CAP: Set-aside
2.46 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with their policies for taking 2 million acres of farm land out of food production when some 1,250 million people in the world are starving and the United Kingdom has an imbalance of £3,000 million in trade in temperate foods.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, set-aside is intended to help reduce Community grain production. Exporting surplus grain with the help of substantial subsidies is not the right way to tackle the problems of world hunger or the United Kingdom's current trade gap in temperate foods.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that over the past 20 years poverty and starvation in the world have risen 40 per cent. and that
700
the aid bodies now estimate that in the next six to seven years some 1,500 million people will be in that position? When I speak to the aid people they say that there is no concentration on the problem by the various countries which promised a few years ago to give a certain amount of their GNP in aid. Are the Government taking this dreadful situation seriously?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government take emergency situations very seriously. We provide substantial amounts of aid, both in terms of food and cash, to areas in need. However, most of the food in surplus in the Community is unsuitable for use as food aid. The quality and type of food do not always match what recipients need. Also, it may not offer the best value for money. It is surely better to provide the food which people are used to. The Government's aim is to help people, not to off-load Community surpluses.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the set-aside programme is part of the common agriculture policy? Is he able to tell the House whether the matters which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has just mentioned were in the minds of agriculture Ministers of the Community when that policy was formulated?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the UK has for many years pressed the Commission to reduce the cost of EC agricultural support in the arable sector and to reduce the current surpluses. As my noble friend will recall, last year we had a CAP agreement which should achieve those objectives. We accept that the new set-aside arrangements have a role to play in achieving those objectives and we now have to see that set-aside land is used to the greatest benefit.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister explain the logic of his Answer to the first Question that taking food to people who are dying of starvation is not the best way of dealing with starvation? What is the best way of dealing with starvation other than providing food to eat?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord heard my first Answer correctly. I said that we were already providing very large amounts of food to areas around the world that were in need. However, I also said that the type of food which we have in surplus in the Community is not necessarily the type of food which hungry people would welcome.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is it not correct that the people in those parts of the world who are starving want rice or mealies, whereas the EC surpluses consist mainly of wheat and flour?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend because what he says is absolutely correct.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, instead of taking 2 million acres of good arable land out of food production, the land should be used for organic farming? That would solve the problem of over-production. It would solve in large measure the imbalance of payments which exists at present.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's interest in organic farming. It is an interest which the Government share. Set-aside can in itself help farmers to convert to organic farming. However, organic farming is not for every farmer. It requires specialist skills. It is unrealistic to expect all EC farmers to adopt organic production methods.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer has been uncharacteristically coy in revealing the exact effects of the proposed GATT settlement on the current CAP reforms? Much analysis suggests that, if the GATT deal were implemented, the area required to be set aside in Europe would be about 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of arable land and not the 15 per cent. which is currently in force. Does the Minister agree that to ask farmers to grow nothing on 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of some of the best arable land in the world while one and a quarter billion people in the world starve would be the crowning absurdity of a ludicrous agricultural policy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I repeat that there is no shortage of food in the world to feed the starving. The EC Commission is satisfied that the new arable regime is consistent with the GATT agreement reached at Blair House. The Commission's projections of future production assume set-aside continuing at 15 per cent.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, while the Minister may be right in stating that food aid should be limited to emergency food aid, what are the Government doing about the essential matter of training people to grow their own food? Is it not a fact that our overseas aid has dropped in the term of this Government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, no. Our overseas aid is still at very substantial figures. We lay great stress on the provision of training to those who need it.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister has indicated that there is plenty of food in the world. Does he realise that 1,500 million people is six times the population of the USA? Does he suggest that there is that amount of surplus food in the world? I do not believe that for one moment.
The Minister stated that the people of famine areas would not eat the food that we produce in this country. I have a photograph of a woman watching her six or eight children die. If we sent some bread, butter, cheese, milk substitutes and so on, does the Minister suggest that those people would not eat them? I have never heard such nonsense in all my life.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have said on earlier occasions, the problem is to get the food to the famine areas in the face of often inadequate infrastructures, poor transport, lack of local resources and difficulties in distribution. There is no shortage of suitable food. For us to pour subsidised EC surpluses on poor countries of the world would merely reduce their incentive to develop their own agricultural industry. That is a view that is shared by all the main aid organisations.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree—I assume from his last supplementary answer that he does—that families who are used to eating sorghum and millet would not eat wheat or other products produced in the temperate regions?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. While the digestive system of anyone can doubtless adapt to any new type of food, there is often little opportunity for those who are starving to make that kind of change in a hurry.
2.55 p.m.

CIS and Georgia: Technical Assistance
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the criteria set out in the European Commission's Operational Guide on Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States and Georgia (TACIS) have been properly and fairly applied in practice.
Lord Henley: My Lords, given the difficulties of operating in the rapidly changing countries of the former Soviet Union, we think that the Commission has made a reasonable start. We hope that the Foreign Affairs Council will agree on a revised regulation for TACIS in the near future. My noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development will meet Sir Leon Brittan on 18th May to discuss what further improvements are needed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I bear in mind the noble Lord's answer to a previous question relating to an expenditure of £9 million to which he attempted to apply the test of value for money. Is the noble Lord aware of the amount of expenditure authorised in the Commission budget under title B7-62? During the past three years about £794 million has been allocated to that expenditure, of which the burden borne by the United Kingdom is £100 million.Is he satisfied that we are obtaining value for money under that heading, bearing in mind the widely publicised complaints emanating from Russia that a good deal of the expenditure is on paying consultants £2,000 per day, plus £350 a day expenses in Moscow hotels, rather than attending to the matters which are contained within the regulations? What does the noble Lord propose to do about that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not dispute the noble Lord's figures but the figures that I have for 1993 expenditure on TACIS will be about 510 million ecus—that is £407 million sterling—of which our share will be about £62 million.
I believe that I made it clear in my original Answer that we felt that progress had been reasonable. We accept that there is some need for improvements. I can give the assurance to the noble Lord that the new TACIS regulation is almost complete and the Foreign Affairs Council is taking that forward. There will be provision for closer monitoring, better reporting and co-ordination, all of which should improve the effectiveness and speed of the TACIS implementation.

703
As regards the cost of various consultants, I have to stress to the noble Lord that such expertise is necessarily very expensive. On top of that, one must by definition use EC expertise because, as often as not, there is no local expertise available of the kind that we would need. However, I am advised that the rates of pay being paid to consultants are at the prevailing market rates or lower.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister clarify whether in the review the Commission will look at the degree to which those in the CIS and Georgia are being consulted about what they really need as distinct from what consultants think they need?
Will the Minister also indicate when the British Government will discuss the issue with EC partners and what their policy will be? How many projects have been earmarked for support as distinct from being consultant-supported?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that the Government give very high priority to the involvement of recipients in the design and implementation of the programme. We would hope that new co-ordinating units in the recipient countries will certainly strengthen that role. As I said in my original Answer, my noble friend hopes to meet Sir Leon Brittan on 18th May to discuss what further improvements are needed. I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord as to when there will be further meetings between my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues within the Community.
Lord Judd: My Lords, what is the number of projects earmarked for assistance?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when, for example, the Russians were consulted on the matter, DGI of the Commission allocated to the Moscow authority nominees of the University of Grenoble to help them in those various matters whereas the Russians themselves would have much preferred the London School of Economics?
Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will monitor the matter carefully and make quite sure that British consultants and those from other member states receive their fair allocation, and that undue preference is not shown in respect of French consultants? Will he give the House a further assurance that when the preliminary draft budget of the Commission, which will be published on 15th May, comes into his hands, the Government will very carefully monitor the items under that heading, obtain a satisfactory analysis and inform the House?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a large number of questions and I shall answer some of them. As regards value for money, I believe that I made it quite clear that the Government give very high priority to achieving value for money. We shall continue to monitor progress in the field, as the noble Lord quite rightly asked us.
704
The noble Lord also asked why the LSE had not won a particular contract and it had gone to another university. I would not wish to comment on any individual cases, bearing in mind the interest that the LSE has in this House. However, I can assure the House and all noble Lords that the United Kingdom has captured the largest share of business under TACIS. I understand that it is in the order of about 20 per cent. of the contracts that have gone out.

CAP: Closing Date for IACS
3.1 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will extend the closing date for the submission of application forms for the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) for claiming subsidy payments under the common agricultural policy.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the 15th May deadline for receipt of IACS application forms is laid down in the relevant EC Council regulation. The European Commission is not proposing an extension.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer will be extremely disappointing to the great majority of British farmers who are struggling desperately to meet the 15th May deadline for submitting the IACS forms and maps at the busiest time in the farming year? Is he further aware that IACS was agreed under the UK presidency of the Community, so the Government cannot just attempt to blame the nonsense on the Commission?
Will the Minister confirm that there will be a proper system for dealing with genuine mistakes by farmers and by ministry officials and a proper appeals procedure, since the penalties for error are draconian? In view of the administrative shambles that has accompanied the introduction of IACS, does the Minister agree with the farmer who said last week that the Ministry of Agriculture's performance in this matter had made Group 4 look like the SAS?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the proposals on IACS were introduced under the Portuguese presidency. We took over that dossier, which was a complex one, and secured agreement to the new system at the Agriculture Council meeting in November.
With regard to genuine errors, I know that there has been considerable anxiety among farmers on this question. I should like to offer this measure of reassurance. Where there is a genuine error and the farmer notifies the ministry of it before the ministry spots it, there will normally be no difficulty at all in making the correction without penalty. The difficulty will arise when a discrepancy is discovered by the ministry. Some discrepancies may be immaterial to the payment of aid and we shall treat those sympathetically. However, in other cases it may well be hard to distinguish genuine errors from attempted fraud. In those instances we shall, I am afraid, have little option but to apply the EC rules.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the greatest difficulty which farmers experience lies in trying to get the right maps for their areas? Is it not a fact that there are two different scales of map? One is the 1:2,500 and the other the 1:10,000 (I am not sure what the 10,000s are). But on some of the really important maps information has been withdrawn. That information would give the area of the fields, the number of the fields and the numbers of the national grid, all of which are required. On the new maps the information is no longer available.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we recognise that in many areas of the country farmers will have problems over maps. That is why we have said to them that, when they submit their IACS application form, they should send a covering letter explaining why they have been unable to supply the accompanying map, where that is necessary.
Under the EC regulations information must be provided on the unique identification of each field, together with its area and its location. As my noble friend rightly said, that information is printed on the 1:2,500 maps. The farmer's application should include the area of each field and some means of identifying or cross-referencing that field to the form.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm to the House that the forms are not only complex but lengthy, comprising 79 pages? Furthermore, is it not the case that they are accompanied by an explanatory memorandum which is also complicated? Is he aware that the forms have been late in arriving at the farms in my constituency—in what used to be my constituency—and generally in the area of Gwynedd in North-West Wales? The forms in Welsh are certainly not available. Will the Minister be good enough to confirm that and that the explanatory memorandum, which is difficult to follow, is also not available in Wales? It is an extremely serious matter in the area because the farmers have been accustomed to filling in these complicated forms in their own language. If the forms have not arrived in time, will he give the assurance now to me that the farmers will not be penalised?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that forms and explanatory booklets have been issued in Welsh. They were sent out after the English version, and I hope that he will find that that is the case in his former constituency. I recognise that these are new and in some cases complicated forms for farmers to have to tackle. Loading farmers with such documentation is not something on which the Government embark with any degree of pleasure. What we have tried to do is to make the task as easy as possible for farmers, given the constraints of the circumstances that we have. That is why we thought it right to issue what is an admittedly lengthy explanatory booklet but one which contains answers to most of the questions that farmers are likely to ask. The alternative would be to issue a short, sharp booklet which would have been much less helpful.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I assume that other countries are producing similar regulations and
706
similar guidance. Will my noble friend make sure that the regulations and guidance produced by other countries are placed in the Library so that we may have a full opportunity of judging how they compare with ours in complexity, length and reasonableness?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall certainly do my best to ensure that all the application forms from our fellow member states are placed in the Library so that people may look at them. All member states are governed by exactly the same EC regulations on IACS. They are precisely drawn so that the same principles apply across the Community. If any member state does not implement the system in accordance with the regulations it stands to lose considerable sums in Community funding. My right honourable friend Mr. Gummer emphasised in Brussels the need for full and uniform implementation of IACS in all 12 member states. He has insisted that the European Commission should monitor implementation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many forms are expected—in other words, how many farmers in Great Britain will return the forms? Considering that they have taken several days—indeed, weeks—to fill them in, will he tell us how his staff will check all the forms in detail and check the maps? How long will it take them, and how much will it cost?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we expect that between 120,000 and 130,000 forms will be returned to us by 15th May. We have adequate resources on the ground to check all those forms, and we do not anticipate any difficulty in processing them in time to make the payments later in the year.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have passed the 30th minute and I shall proceed. With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As the debate has been limited to five hours, all speeches should be limited to a maximum of 14 minutes, apart from the mover and the Minister in reply. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

Manufacturing Industry
3.10 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston rose to call attention to developments in manufacturing industry since 1979; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important subject. I had hoped that the debate would be based on a published document from the DTI. We are aware that officials have prepared what I take to be a definitive statement of what is known about the condition of manufacturing industry and its recent history and a summary of the causes of our present difficulties. But no such statement has appeared in

707
public and the best we have on policy is an interview that Mr. Heseltine gave a couple of weeks ago to the Financial Times. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me, therefore, if I take a minute or two to summarise what I believe are the relevant facts.
If we take the whole period from 1979 to 1992, the growth rate of manufacturing output has been 0.6 per cent. per annum. That is about the same as it was in the previous decade. The growth rate of productivity, however, was about 3.7 per cent. per annum compared with 2.1 per cent. in the previous decade. Noble Lords may say that that does less than justice to manufacturing performance since 1979 was a relatively good year and 1992 was one of recession. If we compare, say, 1981 with 1992, the picture improves. Output grew at 2.1 per cent. per annum and productivity at about 4 per cent. per annum. Overall, productivity in that period grew in total by some 60 per cent. But output grew by only 8 per cent. Mostly what happened was a shake-out of employment. The failure of our economic system is that it did not work in the classical way; namely, the workers shed by some enterprises were not automatically taken up by others, and what government interventions there were also failed.
On the balance of payments, we have been in current account deficit since 1987. I can see no sign of when we shall return to surplus. The accumulated deficit to date from 1987 is some £78 billion sterling, equal to over 13 per cent. of gross domestic product. Perhaps more to the point for today's debate, we have been running trade deficits on semi-manufactured goods and finished manufactured goods since 1982.
I summarise all this in the traditional way of the schoolmaster. The manufacturing sector has improved in some ways but not all, and it could do better. There has not been an economic miracle, but there has been some real advance.
In particular, perhaps I may offer some simple arithmetic. Compared with some of our competitors, our manufacturing productivity is, say, 20 per cent. too low. I might add that, compared with the best of our competitors, we lag behind on productivity by twice that much. To catch up even 20 per cent. we need to grow faster than our competitors for a very long time. On simple arithmetic, we need to increase productivity by 2 per cent. per annum relative to our competitors to catch up in 10 years. But since in many cases they continue to show better long run improvements than we do, that means adding well over 2 per cent. per annum to our long run growth rate. What disturbs me in particular is the way that the Chancellor continues to confuse the short term with the long term. We may be doing a little better than the Germans for the moment, but the question is, will their difficulties last for ever? I doubt it. But, with the Chancellor's attitude, ours will return.
Let me continue with a few words on macroeconomic policy, although that is not my main theme today. Industry needs a stable macro-economic framework. We may disagree—I fully accept that—on the precise details of that framework and how to reach it. But I think we can agree that firms have enough
708
business risks to cope with without faulty public policy adding to them. So I for one stick to my view that a fixed exchange rate environment is most conducive to rational and efficient business activity. I do not argue that point entirely on theoretical grounds but also on practical ones.
If it could be shown that fixed monetary targets were feasible in our sophisticated financial system and did the trick, I would have no doctrinal difficulty in accepting them. The point is that they turn out not to be attainable, even by those who believe in them most; and they do not work when attempts are made to employ them. Therefore, quite separate from our obligations under Maastricht, it is no help to firms to say that sterling will be allowed to float—which means to fall—to accommodate all manufacturing industry price rises. That path guarantees permanent and unstable inflation, and is no help either to a tough stance on productivity. But, I repeat, I could be mistaken. In that, of course, I distinguish myself from my fellow economists, none of whom seems to believe he could ever be mistaken.
My view is that very little in economics is certain. But what is clear to me is that we must have a nominal target of some kind. The proponents of floating rates—this is not a political point because such people exist in all parts of your Lordships' House —must therefore support strict control of the money supply and be prepared for drastic rises in interest rates when inflation expectations rise. Unfortunately, sometimes they seem to suggest—and they were recently aided and abetted by the Chancellor—that there is an easy way out. There is not.
A nominal target is not enough. The Government must also be committed to full capacity working of the economy—to what some of us may prefer to call full employment. I agree—and again this view was taken by the great Lord Keynes—that such a policy cannot be pursued à outrance. If persistently high inflation reoccurs, especially from internal pressures, and I do not rule that out, those who cause it must appreciate the unemployment consequences. The problem is that all too often the inflation is caused by the government themselves. But they do not experience the unemployment consequences. It is a pity that they do not.
I have three other general points to make. First, I shall argue, I hope along with other noble Lords, that manufacturing matters. But I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not mean that it is all that matters. What is important to the well-being of our country is to produce goods and services that people want. The evidence is overwhelmingly that what they want is certainly goods. In essence what I am saying—I only echo what others have said before me, notably the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his committee—is that our manufacturing base is too small. That means that we are in no position to pursue export-led growth to a degree that would restore full employment with a balance of payments surplus. Noble Lords will note that I say "surplus". Debts have to be repaid, and the economy will certainly wish to go on investing abroad in the future.
Secondly, I hasten to add that I am not a pessimist. I do not believe that we are doomed to be the third world country of the European Community, although this Government appear to want to take us that way with their antipathy to the social compact and their emphasis on cheap labour. Indeed, if one wants to talk about self-denigration, this is a good example: when the Government advertise this country in Germany as the cheap labour (i.e. third world) country of the Community. But despite the Government sending the wrong message to our Community partners, I believe that we can get things right.
Thirdly, we must concentrate on the long run. We certainly have short run problems about financing our twin deficits, the balance of payments deficit and the fiscal deficit. In my judgment, they will get worse. On another occasion we can debate what to do about them. But my concern today in introducing this debate is the long run development of the real economy.
Let me now get down to detailed policy, to what many of us call an industrial strategy. For a country such as ours, with ambitions to be rich and to continue to be so, investment must be the key. To start with, that investment must be in manufacturing capacity as ordinarily understood. We need more plant and machinery and businessmen must have the confidence to know that if they take risks they will not be bankrupted by an inept government or an insensitive banking system.
In her admirable attempts to help small businesses—many manufacturing businesses are small—the noble Baroness may wish to tell noble Lords what small businesses have told us about the banks. I cannot resist pointing out that the Bank of England appears to be more concerned about the survival of banks than the survival of firms that make things. My noble friend Lord Eatwell will deal with proposed changes in our institutional arrangements and will indicate how liquid finance needs to be made more accessible to firms which are quite viable over the cycle even though they may have temporary troubles. I, for one, would certainly adjust tax policy so that our firms are able to write off investment on terms at least as favourable as those available to our main competitors.
Secondly, the real competition among the world's big players, so to speak, is based on research and development. Here too, favourable tax treatment is necessary. But public intervention is also required. At the practical level, that is not so much a matter of the public sector doing most of the research; it is about providing a first-class basic research environment and of co-operating between sectors, both public and private. Above all, it is a matter of government policy not sabotaging research-based industries.
Perhaps for a moment I may wear my pharmaceutical hat. I stand second to none in supporting those who wish to protect the National Health Service from excessive drug pricing. I can be as critical of the pharmaceutical industry as anyone. But I do not wish to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Pharmaceuticals is one of the few industries that we have which is world class. But that is precisely the risk that the Department of Health now runs because the Treasury takes such a short-term view of the need to
710
save on the drugs budget. There are many other examples of successful industries which government purchasing policies place at risk but I shall stick to just that one.
A high rate of investment in physical capital and successful research and development go together as a strategy of innovation. That is precisely what the Japanese recognise and what lies at the foundation of their economic power. It is necessary for firms which wish to survive and, if possible, to dominate markets to be in the forefront as innovators. Here we are lagging behind. We do so because of our economic environment of short-termism and a government philosophy which, until recently, has seemed to believe that the only way to help firms is not to help them. I am bound to say that at least one advantage of having the present Secretary of State—supported, I know, by the noble Baroness—compared with his predecessor is that he says the right things. But what really matters of course is action.
That leads me to the third arm of my strategy; namely, investment in human beings, otherwise known as investment in human capital. The evidence is now fairly strong—this is an area in which I used to research and, in my judgment, it has always been quite strong—that education and training are the key to first-class economic performance. In that area we have failed in the past and regretfully I have to say—I make this as a non-political point—that we continue to fail. The Government's school reforms, being based on ideology, do little to help. As I pointed out many years ago, we needed a simple core for the national curriculum and not the complex mess that the Government chose. Those chickens have certainly come home to roost. If anything, we seem to be cutting back on training rather than going forward.
The important thing to realise about training is that only first-class training is of value. There seems to be little or no benefit at all from giving people low-level skills. There is considerable benefit to the individual and the economy from imparting high-level skills. That is why the Government's policy on minimum wages and the abolition of wages councils is so ill advised. People may become employable because they are cheap. But the outcome is that we continue as a low wage, low productivity economy—precisely the third world within the European Community.
I should like to say a few words on competition policy. I accept both of Adam Smith's dicta: that competition is a spur to efficiency—that is the one that people like to mention—and that businessmen left to themselves will conspire against the consumer—that is often forgotten. That is why an active competition policy is desirable. But such a policy must recognise economic reality. It must be based on the proposition that the relevant market in many cases (not all) is an international one. A local or national monopolist may possess little market power because of the threat of international competition.
We must not exaggerate. Referring to a recent topic in the news, I should have thought that the market for compact discs fitted into the international category; but that does not prevent prices in the UK exceeding those in the US by more than the cost of transport.
What we observe is market segregation and company imposed restrictions on imports. I hope that the noble Baroness's department and the MMC will act urgently in that case to protect the consumer.
My main point is a different one. It is to suggest that competition legislation should not be used to prevent our own companies getting together for specific purposes, notably in research and development, to meet a foreign threat, especially one from an overseas company with a protected home base and itself possessing massive market power. The United States is recognising that fact. We and the Community must do the same.
Speaking from this Dispatch Box, it is obviously my duty in introducing this debate to be critical of this Government, especially for their attitude to manufacturing and the errors of omission which constituted their policy. Happily it seems that there have been some changes of view, not least by the Prime Minister and by the President of the Board of Trade, who at least carries some conviction. He has been consistently an interventionist, even in the days when it was not fashionable to be so.
In introducing the debate, I hope that I have made clear what form the policy should take and what precise measures are needed. In my judgment most of the argument is non-political, as was shown most clearly by various industrialists who have excoriated the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in the past week or so certainly much more than I would ever want to do. My problem, especially with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that he is believed in many different things, but I cannot convince myself when it comes to the economy that he believes anything at all. That is the reason why changes are required, not least in those who are responsible for our affairs.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing today's debate and congratulate him on his timing in bringing this subject to your Lordships' House. I shall endeavour not to talk as a school mistress. I hope I shall bring to the debate my experience from 35 years in industry. Perhaps one of the differences between the noble Lord and myself is that, as an economist, he talks about what should be done. I hope that as an economist I talk about what can be done.
As the economy moves out of a recession, I welcome the opportunity to debate once again the changes which have taken place in British manufacturing over the past 14 years. There has been a tremendous improvement in our underlying industrial performance during that time. The terms of the Motion help us to look at that improvement not in the narrow context of recession but, as we should, over the longer term. I was delighted to find that there is much common ground between the noble Lord and myself on some of the major issues.
712
Let us remind ourselves of what things were like for British manufacturers in 1979. In the 1970s we heard very much less than we do now about efficiency and enterprise. Instead, state-owned industries were heavily subsidised. Overstaffed, feather bedded and risk averse, they simply became a drain on those successful private sector companies which footed the tax bill for the subsidies. I know because I was employed by one where making a decision was something avoided at all possible cost. Public spending was getting out of control; tax rates were high; and employee attitudes were negative. Instead of trying to work with employers to improve conditions for their members, trade unions tried to usurp the managers' role—though I shall quote a managing director of Austin Rover who at one point said that he was glad that the unions were running the company because nobody else was doing so. The result became known throughout the world as "the British disease" —strikes. We lost 29 million working days through stoppages in 1979 alone. We paid a high economic price. Inflation reached 26.9 per cent. in 1975. We lost tremendous ground in world markets. We stayed at the bottom of the Community output and productivity growth leagues.
In 1979 the incoming government knew that Britain had to change to survive, let alone to progress. Change meant taking on big interest groups, making tough decisions and, most important of all, seeing them through resolutely. We were absolutely determined to get the climate for business activity right. So we adopted a strategy which addressed all of the factors affecting our industrial performance. At this point I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there is no easy way out and there are no quick fixes.
Some have doubted our commitment to manufacturing, but once again I can assure the House that that is not the case, and I am pleased to hear the message is now through. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear, manufacturing is not an optional extra but is fundamental to our future prosperity. This country has to create wealth.
In his appearance before the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 27th April, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade reaffirmed our commitment to do everything we can to help British industry win in the increasingly tough world market-place. We should not just be measuring ourselves by Community tables; we must measure ourselves by world tables.
In emphasising the role of manufacturing—here again the noble Lord and I have beliefs in common—we must not forget the enormous and essential contribution which the service industries make to our national wealth. It is suggested that, because we have not produced a White Paper, we have no industrial strategy. On the contrary, we have a very clear strategy and we are busy operating it. We are busy sharing it with those who will show the results.
The strategy is to help business improve its competitiveness. Businesses, not governments, create wealth and improved competitiveness is vital to industrial success. We have given business an economic framework within which it can plan and

713
invest with confidence. The single most important element of that framework is sound economic management that delivers low inflation, low interest rates and low tax rates, but that cannot be the limit of government responsibility. We have a major role to play in ensuring that our companies are able to fight and to win in world markets. We must make certain that those leaving school are fit for the world of work and we must continuously train and retrain. We have involved the business sector in those programmes so that the people we train and retrain are the people they need to employ.
We work, too, with the private sector to provide the infrastructure that is vital to our competitiveness. We have to ensure that government services are provided as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. Support for business cannot be measured solely in monetary terms. We have promoted more open markets around the world by completing the single market with a commitment to Europe and pressing for a favourable outcome to GATT. We have helped British companies to innovate; 308 of them are collaborating with other European organisations in the Community programme called "Eureka"—one of the outstanding ways of encouraging joint ventures across borders and across sides. We have developed better business advice, allowing companies to react to fast-changing markets both here and overseas. Again, I agree with the noble Lord that international companies have to be of a size which is globally competitive.
I should now like to draw your Lordships' attention to some of the visible results of our policies. I had great difficulty in choosing which figures to share with the House because I am delighted to say that many of the figures are now moving in the right direction.
Since 1981, a similar point in the business cycle, UK manufacturing output has risen by nearly a quarter. Latest figures show manufacturing output in the three months to February was 1.5 per cent. higher than in the same period a year earlier. Total output has been rising for nearly a year. That is a crucial area of importance. Manufacturing investment is up by two-fifths since 1981. The latest figures show manufacturing investment in the fourth quarter of 1992 was up by 5.5 per cent. on the start of the year—absolutely the right direction.
UK manufacturing productivity has grown by nearly three-quarters since 1981. Latest figures show manufacturing productivity in the three months to February was over 7 per cent. higher than a year earlier; indeed, in the 1980s UK productivity grew faster than in all other major industrialised countries after decades at the bottom of that particular league. Output from the pharmaceutical industry has risen by 100 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1982. The vehicle industry is producing 300,000 more vehicles a year than it was 10 years ago, with 100,000 fewer people. We must never forget that productivity does not necessarily create jobs and we have to address that issue also. But it is good to see that the United Kingdom is poised to become a net exporter of cars.
Since 1981 the volume of United Kingdom manufactured exports has increased by four-fifths. It
714
has grown faster than in France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States. Those results show the achievements of our policies.
I look forward to today's debate. The knowledge and experience in this House will, I hope, mean that we have a positive debate because part of our future success will depend on presentation to our worldwide customers; of convincing them of our improvements, determination, commitment and quality. Our role is as important as that of the highly skilled operator on the line. If inward investment has proved anything, it has proved that there is nothing wrong with the skills of our workforce when well managed.
At the DTI and throughout government we offer our support to industries and I hope that your Lordships will do the same. The noble Lord, Lord Benson, once said that we should behave like a football manager. We agree, and may I suggest that we are playing for the World Cup.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, this is by no means the first time that we have spoken on this subject. Nonetheless, it is highly desirable that we should be speaking on it yet again today and we do so with the able introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the supporting remarks—in many respects they were supporting—of the noble Baroness, Lady Denton.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. This is not a political issue. It is remarkable that when one looks at the various documents which have been issued by relevant parties and bodies on the question, there is a considerable degree of consensus. Everybody knows what needs to be done; the problem is how we are to set about doing it.
Among the very important documents that have appeared in the past decade, which is the period we are talking about, is the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who, I am glad to see, will be speaking in the debate. I had some small share in the setting up of that inquiry because in a debate on an Unstarred Question, which I introduced on 10th November 1983—a debate in which some noble Lords present today participated and to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, responded on behalf of the Government—I drew attention to a very important historical development. It was that during the course of that year we were for the first time seeing our balance of trade in manufactured goods moving into a negative position. For decades and decades—indeed, ever since the start of the industrial revolution—we had bought in raw materials, fashioned them, added value to them, exported them and made money in the process. For the first time, that process had been reversed. I thought it right to draw attention to that and to suggest that a much fuller scale inquiry should take place.
The report, for which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and his colleagues (I was one of them) were responsible, drew attention to the fact that between 1963 and 1983 exports of manufactured goods exceeded imports to the value of between £1.5 billion

715
and £6.5 billion a year but that a sharp change then occurred and by 1984 a net deficit of some £4 billion had arisen. The non-oil visible deficit in 1990 amounted to some £20 billion; in 1991 to £11.5 billion; and in 1992, in recently published figures, to some £15 billion. So this is a very serious issue indeed.
In the report on overseas trade to which I have referred, a number of long-term proposals were made which, if they had been adopted, could well have avoided the situation in which we have found ourselves in the past three years. I should like to quote from page 83 of the document. It states:
"Unless the climate is changed so that steps can be taken to enlarge the manufacturing base…as oil revenues diminish the country will experience adverse effects which include:
(i) a contraction of manufacturing to the point where the successful continuation of much of manufacturing activity is put at risk;
(ii) an irreplaceable loss of GDP;
(iii) an adverse balance of payments of such proportions that severely deflationary measures will be needed;
(iv) lower tax revenue for public spending on welfare, defence and other areas;
(v) higher unemployment, with little prospect of reducing it; and
(vi) the economy stagnating and inflation rising".
That was a very pessimistic forecast but, unfortunately, some of those features reflect what we have lived through in the past three years.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Does he also recall that at the time the report of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, was published it was denounced from authoritative Treasury sources as a Marxist document?
Lord Ezra: So, my Lords, although we are asked to throw our minds back 10 years, what we are really asked to do by the subject of today's debate is to look forward 10 years. The really big issue is how we are going to avoid this happening again, because, regrettably, the stop-go syndrome has not left us. In the past 10 years we have had two ups and downs, so what are we going to do to avoid another one?
Here we come to what various parties have said about the issue. The CBI, for example, estimates that there needs to be an improvement of between 20 and 40 per cent. in our industrial performance, which is identical to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It indicates that, compared to our main competitors, we have not invested enough, we have not researched enough, we have not innovated enough and we have not trained enough. We have done all those things but we have not done them to the extent that our competitors have. Above all, our industrial capacity, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, clearly explained, despite massive improvements in. productivity, has substantially declined.
If we compare growth in our manufacturing output between 1979 and 1991 with that of three of our major competitors we see that in the UK growth in manufacturing capacity, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, indicated—I happen by pure chance to have the same statistics as he quoted—grew by 8 per cent. But in Germany manufacturing capacity grew by 30 per cent.; in the USA, by 33 per cent.; and in Japan, need I say, by 60 per cent. One could go through a
716
long list of Western developed countries which have exceeded our manufacturing growth in that period. That is an indication of the problem facing us.
There are, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, signs of recovery. But this is when we should put our thinking caps on, because the big issue facing us is how this recovery will be managed. Will it get out of control, like other recoveries that we have had in recent years? Will it lead to another splurge in spending met by even more imports and eventually by an application of the brake—by stopping things, leading to further disinvestment, further losses of jobs? Now is the time when we should be looking at these matters. Now is the time when we should be coming to conclusions on how we are going to deal with these longed for, long awaited signs of resurgence.
We on this side of the House are not the only ones who are worried. Mr. Peter Morgan, the director general of the Institute of Directors no less, expressed grave concern on these issues at the annual meeting of that institute on 27th April, which some of your Lordships no doubt attended. He said that a radical new approach to economic management is required. That is what we need.
Let us be quite clear. A lot of people have given a lot of attention to this. In this very House, the noble Lord, Lord Benson, to whom the noble Baroness referred, has repeatedly asked for a government statement on industrial strategy. That has been supported across the Floor of the House. It was supported, when recently raised, by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton; it was supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote; and it was supported by many on this side of the House.
What I find surprising is that the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Institute of Management, chambers of commerce, the TUC, our two parties—the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—have all tried our hand at suggesting how we can get out of these difficulties and how we can lead ourselves into long-term industrial resurgence. Why are the Government so reluctant to come into the frame? Why do not the Government read all these documents—I am sure they do—and then, as befits their role in overlooking the whole economy and policies of the country, come out with a document which summarises, or differs from, or adds to these proposals? Then we could have a real discussion on the subject. As emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and myself, there are no politics in this. We all want to get the thing right. What I think those of us who are most concerned are worried about is that we could be leading ourselves eventually into another recession unless we adopt the right policies now to manage the recovery.
I would very much urge that in addition to the long statement, issued in the Financial Times, of the intentions of the President of the Board of Trade to develop better relations with industry, which is highly desirable, the Government should come out—let us say in the Autumn of this year—with a document which introduces all the things that they are now doing and a number of the things that they propose

717
doing and so give us some indication of how they believe that by careful management, the action of government, and through industry and the financial institutions, we can work our way into a situation where we can look for long-term sustained growth in our industrial capacity.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, Sir Joshua Reynolds, the great painter and one of the founders of the Royal Academy, said in a discourse to students at the Royal Academy in 1769:
"If you have great talents, industry will improve them; if you have but moderate abilities, industry will supply their deficiency".
I am sure, of course, that he was using the term "industry" to signify hard work and dedication. But I feel that it would be so appropriate if we could instil that saying (using the word "industry" to signify manufacturing industry) into the minds of all our educationalists and public opinion formers today. We so need to encourage a more positive attitude to industry and to convince the best brains that British industry is, and can always be, just as fulfilling as any other occupation, be it the professions or the public service.
I welcome this debate which gives us an opportunity to be constructive; to range wide over the manufacturing industrial landscape, and to try to determine what are the lessons learned since 1979 which should enable us to build on the strengths and overcome the weaknesses which unfortunately still exist in our manufacturing industry sector.
Nothing is immune from criticism, nor should it be; but although constructive criticism leads to positive action in many cases, destructive criticism leads to antagonism and antagonism is probably the last thing we need in British manufacturing industry at this time. As the Minister said, we must remember that presentation of our success is most important. Our international competitors constantly boast about their successes while we agonise over our failures. But British manufacturing industry is not a failure. It has so many areas of success and I shall refer to some of them in the course of this speech.
I really do welcome this debate because I believe that as we are now crawling out of recession it is an appropriate time to take stock, to refuel and to start off again in a higher gear. Much has been achieved in the past 14 years in terms of restructuring manufacturing industry and it is fitting that some credence should be given to the achievements of all engaged in manufacturing, particularly the trades unions whose attitude towards the problems of manufacturing industry is barely credible to someone who worked in British manufacturing industry from 1966.
Instead of generalisations about progress and lots of statistics, and generalisations about changed attitudes, I am going to quote from particular examples. I believe that the experiences that I will bring to your Lordships' attention are not unique but are mirrored throughout the country.
I have deliberately not concentrated on the motor industry because that industry is always quoted in
718
debates of this sort. I am taking my examples from an unfashionable sector—namely, chemicals—the food sector and, finally, I shall make some observations about the lack of innovation, marketing and customer awareness in a consumer goods manufacturing industry sector.
If any of your Lordships were to stop and ask the ubiquitous man in the street if he thought that a medium sized chemical industry in the North of England had thrived since 1979, his answer (based on the anti-industry propaganda which has been so prevalent in the interim period) would almost certainly be no. The reality is that in the period since 1979 Yorkshire Chemicals' turnover has quadrupled; overseas sales are five times what they were in 1979 and now account for 90 per cent. of total sales. The company still employs almost the same number of people but of course productivity has increased significantly. That is really a great record and naturally begs the question: to what does the company attribute its success? The answers which I received were pure textbook stuff, but textbook stuff applied with one eye constantly on costs and the other on the market-place—determined to give the customer what the customer wants.
The list contains all the elements of what a good business should be doing, including continuing improvements in efficiency in all activities—particularly in production, marketing and distribution—broadening the end use and geographical sales base; technical and product innovation; increasing capital expenditure not only to update and expand production, but, very importantly, to improve quality; and, of course, team work. But finally, Yorkshire Chemicals says that it was changing attitudes, constantly, adopting a truly international "customer focus", that made it the success which it now is.
Mentioning Yorkshire Chemicals' capital spend criteria encourages me to make the point that in the past 14 years we have seen a much more focused and intelligent approach to investment. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right in saying that investment is the key. But many people believe that manufacturing industry has been starved of investment. That does not really square with the examples such as the £700 million research plant being constructed in Stevenage by Glaxo which, I am told, is the largest construction project currently being undertaken in this country after the Channel Tunnel. The noble Lord also mentioned R&D expenditure. He mentioned the pharmaceutical industry, but what he did not mention was the £500 million per annum being spent on R&D by Glaxo.
My second example of a success story is quite different from Yorkshire Chemicals or indeed even Glaxo. It involves the construction of an ultra-modern £30 million plant in Shropshire employing 250 people and producing a product which is now Britain's 26th largest grocery brand. However, its success is something of a condemnation of the old production-driven attitudes which bedevilled the dairy product manufacturing industry for so long.
Müller, a Bavarian dairy company, saw a major opportunity in the UK yoghurt market. It supplied to

719
the market direct from Germany and then, when by dint of excellent marketing and customer satisfaction it had built up a large market share, it decided to invest in this market. The story of that success was detailed in the Financial Times on 22nd April in a very good article by Guy de Jonquiéres. I commend the article to your Lordships. It is an example of what can be achieved and of how a German company was so enthusiastic about investing here and employing excellent British employees to further its success.
The Müller story encapsulates another change that has occurred since 1979; namely, the ability of the workforce to rise to the opportunities created and available by putting the customer first. Too often people believe that it is only in the service industries that there is the necessity to put the customer first. Naturally, they have to, otherwise they will not be in business. But it is imperative that the service sector is backed by the right goods to sell of the right quality, be it the correct dyestuffs as one of the processes leading to textile sales in a departmental store, as does Yorkshire Chemicals, or the right yoghurt in the supermarket.
The more I think about it, the more I realise that the interdependence of manufacturing industry and the service industry is such that we here in your Lordships' House probably do a disservice to industry in general by concentrating on one sector without considering the impact on the other. Marketing has been a common factor in the success of Yorkshire Chemicals and Müller. It is not too far-fetched or too general a statement to say that an analysis of manufacturers who have failed to make similar progress will almost certainly show that they do not put the customer first.
The "table-top" industry—ceramic, porcelain and glassware—appears to an interested customer and retailer to be languishing. Where is the excitement in the china and glass departments? I fear that a great deal of it comes from other European or Japanese companies. The British products on offer have such a sameness about them. Tradition is all very well but, as Yorkshire Chemicals and Müller have found out in the past 14 years, product innovation can run alongside continuing traditional products which are being constantly updated, and attention to the customer results in almost assured progress, despite global recession, unhelpful exchange rates, high interest rates and all the other excuses for non-performance.
I truly believe that we are raising our industrial game to the level of our educational competence. For too long in the post-war period we were wrong to spend such a high proportion of GNP on education and expect the people who benefited from that education to partake in menial, unskilled or semi-skilled tasks. Industry is now much more demanding of brain power than brawn power and if that means replacing human beings by robots in foundries, so much the better.
There is an indelible experience etched on my mind of my first conversation I had with a so-called "blue-collar" worker in the foundry at Longbridge in
720
the 1960's. I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Stokes in his place who, incidentally, was my boss during that period. Standing there in the almost unbearable heat and noise, this worker told me how proud he was that his granddaughter had just got a job in Longbridge, carrying on the family tradition. But, he said, "She has a job much better than mine, it was really marvellous". She had just been appointed a junior typist and had sick leave benefits and holiday entitlement when she wanted to take it. He was not bitter; he was just pleased that things were looking up and that his granddaughter could have an easier life than him. The pathos of that moment remains with me still. He was worth so much more than me; he was a loyal, hardworking man who had given his life to what he called "The Austin", yet was working in appalling conditions. Thankfully, those days have gone and I know that developments in staff training and development, profit-related pay schemes, identical working hours, pensions, holiday pay and sick pay entitlements for all employees in so many of our industrial companies have made industry a much more agreeable place in which to work.
I only wish that there was a commensurate external enthusiasm for industry. We need to preach the message to the education sector: industry needs the best brains; industry truly is a great career; please encourage young people to think positively about industry. I believe a good start has been made in these past 14 years. We need to increase the momentum, and to that end a debate like this, focusing on the importance of industry can do nothing but good.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in opening the debate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that this was a most important subject. I am sure that all of your Lordships will agree with him. Apart perhaps from questions of peace or war, it is the most important question facing this country and this Government at the moment. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that I am being impertinent if I say how very impressed I was by his speech which seemed to me to be the best speech that I have heard from that Bench over many years. That is not to say that I agreed with all of it. In some ways, the making of a very had case (and making it seem extremely good) is an example of dialectical skill, for which the noble Lord is well known. In all seriousness, I was impressed by his speech and should like humbly to congratulate him upon it.
Having said that, I should like to refer to one or two aspects of the noble Lord's speech which did not seem wholly to cover the ground. Indeed, the noble Lord himself will recall that he was somewhat selective in the aspects of the economic and industrial situation to which he referred. Naturally, with limited time—although it did not formally apply to him, he courteously accepted it for himself—the noble Lord had to be selective. However, there are other aspects of the situation in the economy today and of the developments taking place in it to which he did not refer.

721
If I may, I should like to take the noble Lord up on what I understood that he said—I hope that he will contradict me if I have misunderstood him—about favouring fixed exchange rates. I gather that I was right in hearing that. By that, he no doubt meant inter alia that he would favour the restoration of the ERM. With great respect, I think that that is a fallacious and to some extent dangerous point of view. If one has exchange rates that are fixed either to some nominal figure or to some figure based on the exchange rates of other people's currencies, one lacks the flexibility which a free system of exchange rates gives. Putting it, if I may, in the simplest terms: if one's industrial, commercial and economic position is bad and one has a free exchange rate, the exchange value of one's currency goes down. That immediately has two effects, both helpful in the situation. First, it makes one's exports more competitive because they are cheaper in one's cheaper currency and, secondly, it makes imports more expensive and therefore discourages imports which are upsetting one's balance of payments.
It seems to me that the traditional exchange rate system, which operated in such a way that if one's economy was successful, one's currency rose in value while if one's economy was unsuccessful, one's currency went down in value had very great merit. I think that our experience of the ERM bears that out. Although I cannot hope that my noble friend the Minister will say in her reply that we shall never touch the ERM again, which would be my own view, I hope that she will at least indicate that we have no tendency towards it at the moment and no hankering after its restoration.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, also said that we were a cheap labour community. I think that is a very doubtful proposition. In many ways we have high labour costs. Although the position is very much improving and although industrial relations are excellent and the cost of our labour is not significantly increasing, I should not have said that we were a cheap labour community. If we were, that would, in a way, make us a more attractive area for investment than the noble Lord himself seemed to think that we were.
In the same context, the noble Lord also did not refer to what seems to me one of the most encouraging symptoms affecting our economy. Foreign nations, particularly perhaps the Japanese, can choose where in the world to invest. They can choose economies which seem to them to be going to produce the best results for their investment. It is therefore not without significance that the Japanese, who have no sentimental affection for us, are, from their point of view, investing more in this country than in any other overseas country and are continuing so to do. The noble Lord really must face the fact that, given that that is happening, either the Japanese are foolish and ill-advised—and there is not very much factual support for that theory—or that this is a good country in which to invest because our economy is sound and making progress.
I share the noble Lord's concern about the still heavy deficit on the balance of payments. Of course, no one can see that without some feeling of anxiety. As
722
one who served at the Treasury when the tendency was entirely the other way, I can well understand how anxiety-making is the state of affairs. But the noble Lord must face the fact—as I think your Lordships can happily do so—that for all our difficulties and for all that substantial deficit on the balance of payments, foreign countries with absolute freedom as to where they place their investment find it desirable to place a very large volume of investment in this country. That is enormously advantageous. Japanese enterprise already provides considerable employment in the country. It is helping our economy, both from the balance of payments and the employment point of view. It is certainly something very much to be encouraged.
That leads me to the main point that I should like to leave with your Lordships. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that what is needed is high investment and that we should take every step to encourage investment both from overseas companies, to which I have already referred, and, still more, from our own resources. We should ensure that there is high investment here to provide us with first-class, improving and expanding industrial capacity.
However, how is one to do that? One of the ways is to secure that taxation is kept at moderate levels. There is very little doubt that the knowledge that, if you make an investment in a country and it is profitable heavy tax will then be paid on those profits, is a great discouragement to investment. The converse is also true; namely, that if you know that if you make a successful investment you will be able to keep a great deal of it tax free, that is surely the greatest possible encouragement.
That points very directly to how right the Government are to keep down direct taxation. Indeed, I hope that they will apply that lesson to the point of reducing direct taxation. But I also want to indicate my own anxiety about the spread and development of VAT. I think that VAT is a very bad tax. It inflates costs in so far as it is a charge on services and it increases industrial and other costs. I had an experience of the latter only the other day, in a very modest way, as churchwarden of a little church in Hampshire. With much trouble, we raised some money to rebuild part of the church which the diocese said was in a dangerous state. But, having done so, we then found that we had to pay VAT at 17.5 per cent. on the money that we had paid for the work. That is not only socially unjust in its application to places like churches—perhaps particularly so to small country churches—but it is also an indication of the inflation of our costs resulting from VAT. I very much regret the Government's increase in the rate of VAT to 17.5 per cent. and the promise, or threat, of extending VAT to domestic heating. It is a very bad tax.
My noble friend the Minister will say, "What are we to do to finance national expenditure if we do not make such increases?" I would say to her that the lesson of the present situation is that taxation must not be increased in any direction and that, therefore, public expenditure must be reduced. There are directions in which it could be reduced and in a debate on that subject (which no doubt we shall have before

723
long) I shall have certain very definite suggestions to make. I suggest that if we are to put first the recovery of our economy, the building up of industry and investment in industry—upon which, I agree with the noble Lord opposite, so much, indeed, practically everything, depends—then in the coming years we have to restrict government expenditure not only on luxuries and semi-luxuries but also on all sorts of things which many noble Lords would, perhaps, regard as necessities. One example that is frequently referred to in this House is legal aid.
At this stage I shall not digress into the general subject of taxation. However, I shall leave with your Lordships the thought that if it is imperative to encourage investment and get the whole industrial machine modernised, up-to-date and expanding and if it is right—as I think it is—not to incur too heavy a deficit on the balance of payments, it is essential for the Government to restrict public expenditure. Some of your Lordships may think that, as a former Treasury Minister, I have an obsession in that direction. Indeed, one or two noble Lords whose then departmental expenditures I was rather harsh on may well form that view. But I say to your Lordships with all seriousness that one of the keys to the economic recovery which we all want to see is a restraint on public expenditure, a relaxation of taxation and the expansion of investment in industry with the expansion of industry that would follow therefrom. If we follow that course, the recovery, which we are glad to see already starting, will continue and the United Kingdom will, once again, be a highly prosperous, secure and well-managed country.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I shall spend most of my minutes talking about Japan. I am less expert about that country than a good many of your Lordships, but my not especially frequent visits over nearly four decades have all given me the same impression, which I should like to share.
We will all have seen a recent study—that may sound as if I am moving away from Japan, but I am not; it is the same subject—which showed that firms in this country with engineers in the driving seat, as chairmen or thereabouts, do much better than firms with an accountant there. The President of the Board of Trade himself has approvingly quoted a Japanese friend who said:
"Accountants should be on tap, not on top".
I think it is well known that we have more accountants per head than any other country, and we certainly do put them on top.
As bankers, accountants here are allowed to close down whole industries. In their capacity as receivers, accountants are the nation's undertakers, and they have themselves long been among our main growth industries. No doubt the turnover from receiving in bankruptcy and from debt collecting appears as a plus in the GNP—and a very big one too, I should imagine, with the salaries these people pay themselves when
724
they reach the top of some miserable company, and the platinum handshakes they give each other when they and their companies fail.
In Japan, industrial leaders are proud of the cars and electronic systems that they make and sell and the firms they keep going. In the United States they seem to be proud of their salaries and the number of firms they can sell to each other. We follow the US. I exaggerate, I hope; but I fear not much. We export a lot, but we import more. The more we close down industries and parts of industries on the advice of accountants, the more we shall go on importing.
Japan is interesting because per head it has a low rate of accountants and high rate of technicians compared to this country. Furthermore, it was never hooked on that blind faith which claims that market forces can do no wrong. Japan is, in its new time of financial trouble, coming to rely on Keynesian solutions. The Japanese have always understood the saying that the only free market is one whose freedom is guaranteed by Government.
This country has chosen to become a low-wage outpost of Japanese industry. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who argued that we are not a cheap labour country. However, recent events cannot bear him out. Let us consider the row about Hoover transferring a large sector of its European manufacturing operation from France to Britain explicitly because the wages and labour conditions in this country are more favourable to employers. Let us also consider the dignified debate and the clarity of argument with which another place is pursuing the issue of whether we should undertake the obligations towards employees which will be undertaken in every other Community country under the Maastricht Treaty. It is not the Government's intention that we should be a high wage country, and that is why Japan, the United States and Germany have been investing here. We must see what is happening. They are not going to put their high-tech bits here, are they? It is the low-tech bits which they put here.
We can continue in that way, but we should have been learning from the high-tech, high-wage countries of the world instead of living out some thin, belated, diluted version of the 19th century American dream. Too often we say: if a company does not make a profit, close it down; if it does, sell it off to someone else and use the proceeds on the form of compulsory purchase which we call a contested takeover. Then repeat the process ad infinitum, borrowing as you go, until the balloon bursts.
I do not believe that the President of the Board of Trade or the noble Baroness want us to go further down that road. There are encouraging noises coming from the right honourable gentleman and from behind his closed doors. Furthermore, there are encouraging noises, although not so loud, coming from behind the doors of the new Office of Public Service and Science. Those noises, which are hardly premature, echo what is now the almost universal opinion within manufacturing industry. The CBI expresses that opinion with perhaps unprecedented vigour. It said in a convenient recent statement that the Government

725
must act to change the culture and help to forge better communications within manufacturing industry. They must also provide leadership nationally in manufacturing industry. There must be consistency in policy to enable forward planning, and there must be fewer ministerial changes. I endorse that last statement, but of course only within the framework of one government.
Okay, so we are playing for the World Cup, as the noble Baroness said. But we are not yet even training for that. We are not in the right league. The right league is the high-tech, high innovation, smooth technology transfer league among industrial countries.
I turn to the results of a conference held last December by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. Many noble Lords are members and will know that the PSC was founded in 1939. It is an all-party body comprising 188 Members of both Houses of Parliament, 133 scientific and technical institutions, 72 companies and 58 universities. The committee's constitution allows it to advocate policies to government, but it has never done so until now. After its conference last December it sent a message to the Government which stated:
"Japan's industrial performance, especially in innovation, is better than Britain's",
and
"In Japan subsidies have always been regarded as investments".
The committee also stated—and here I come to what I regard as its most important single point, perhaps the most important single point in the difference between Japan and Britain—that,
"in Japan co-operation and competition among individual companies co-exist."
And not by accident. I shall quote the two main reasons for that co-existence, as given in our report. First,
"MITI [the Ministry of Industry and Trade in Japan] plays a leading part in the formulation of a rolling national economic plan which is collectively updated by government, parliament, education, research, industry and banks".
Secondly,
"MITI orchestrates many collaborative programmes of industrial research. It chooses what projects shall be done this way, chooses the firms to do them, holds the ring as they are done, and decides when the project shall be terminated so that collaboration can give way to competition".
The report continued:
"The whole strategy depends on complex and extremely laborious consensus building among those who take part".
In my opinion, that is the main reason for the extraordinary success of Japan in past decades.
Our report also drew attention to many other issues. For instance, it cited the interactive flow of knowledge in general among Japanese firms, research associations, academia and government. From the shop floor itself "blue-collar research" is fed back into the innovation process and into education. Our report stated that much new technology is transferred by seconding the specialists concerned rather than moving information in writing.
I turn to the financial aspect of Japanese success. The report stated:
"Japanese success could not have been achieved without low interest rates, long return times on investment and a
726
culture which encourages the internal development of companies rather than the mergers and take-overs which tend to distract UK industrial thinking".
The rest of the report gave warnings about the future of Britain in terms which many noble Lords have used today. It mentioned cheap labour, short-termism, an eroded base and poor training. Those are all errors to which accountants and the Treasury can give no value. It recommended the adoption of a clear macroeconomic strategy, based on industry and technology; the creation of a pro-technology, pro-industry culture; a swerve towards science and technology in education; life long professional education; more government support for R&D; policies to help all companies, not just the biggest and best, to innovate; stable interest rates; and government becoming industry's "catalyst, navigator and guardian"—in short, its friend.
I should add that all this was subject to the obvious caveat that it is undesirable, and would in any case be impossible, to transfer Japanese institutions and practices to this country lock, stock and barrel. We must find our own ways of reaching the same communal goals.
We sent our report to the Prime Minister and to other relevant Ministers and we received courteous replies. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has just pointed out how the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Labour Party have worked at solutions. He might have gone further and emphasised that to an amazing extent we all agree on the solutions. It is true that life is easier for us on these Benches: we have no words to eat. I shall not pursue that line of thought. But I hope that the Government are going the way that they seem to be going. Certainly, new policies of the kind that we have all been urging for so long would now receive a universal welcome.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I am glad that he has reminded us of the Japanese story. He made some wise points as regards how far that can go with us. Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the Japanese have invested an enormous amount of money in this country because they have confidence in the general climate in which they work, in the people with which they work and in the standards which we keep.
I join other noble Lords in expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, not only for the Motion but for the valuable speech with which he introduced this important debate. I suggest to the noble Lord and to the House that the very high standard of the speeches which have followed owe a good deal to the example which he set, which was immediately followed by my noble friend Lady Denton.
I was rather proud that the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, referred to the 1985 Select Committee report on overseas trade. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, had his usual bit of fun by telling the House that the report was greeted by the government as a Marxist report. It just so happens that I have the Government's formal reply with me, which does not begin quite like that. It begins:

727
"The Government welcome the report of the Select Committee as a contribution to discussion".
That hardly seems to have anything to do with Marxism.
As the report was made some years ago, it is as well to remind the House of the important points made in it, which are by no means out of date. First, there was the special importance to the British economy, in the long term, of its manufacturing base in a global context. Secondly, competitiveness is the key factor in all its aspects: price, design, the ability to foresee changes in the market, to implement advances in science and technology, and to make and market new products.
The next point which the report made was that the decline in Britain's competitiveness has been gathering pace for more than a century. The national attitude towards manufacturing needed changing sharply and quickly; recovery would take many years. We laid stress on the fact that Britain had many top class manufacturers in world terms which by no means could be described as being in decline. We needed more of those and the good manufacturers needed to expand further. The report pointed out that the new factor in recent years had been the progressive loss of large chunks of the home market, even while export performance was very strong in some areas.
The report emphasised the importance of changes in education, and the need for more training and more effort in civil research and development. We did not use the word "innovation"; I wish we had used it. However, in a masterly report for the Select Committee on Science and Technology my noble friend Lord Caldecote added great strength in more up-to-date terms to what we tried to say.
It is against the background of those thoughts, which are of long-term validity, that I look at the developments in recent years and the position today. I rather agree, in school-masterly terms, that it is rather like the curate's egg: there are some good points and some not good points. However, a good start has been made in a number of aspects: in education, in training, in civil research and development and in securing more investment. It is not often realised that R&D expenditure in industry has increased by 6 per cent. per year between 1981 and 1991. That is good. Exports have done extremely well. They have risen in volume, which is most important, by 65 per cent.
However, the output of manufacturing industry has not done as well. On the other hand, it was pointed out that output per person in manufacturing rose by 53 per cent. in those 10 years but, as my noble friend said—and I much welcomed the figures—it has risen by nearly 75 per cent. since 1979. That is a tremendous success and lays the base for real improvement in our competitiveness.
We should not forget that industrial relations have changed out of all recognition. Through their legislation the Government should be given much credit for that. However, management and the workforce should also be given credit for a most welcome increase in employee participation without any intervention from the Social Chapter.
728
Management skills have improved and their incentives have strengthened. That is what Martyn Lewis might call good news.
However, there are some not such good points. The deficits have continued. They have grown in some years and are growing now. That is extremely worrying. They have continued because imports are increasing as we do not produce enough manufactured goods in this country. What do I mean by "enough"? By that I mean as many manufactured goods as our people wish to buy. It is a quite simple truth that, so long as we do not produce enough manufactured goods in this country to satisfy demand, there will be a deficit of the balance of trade. That does not mean that we must seek self-sufficiency because there will always be imports and exports, but we must at least match demand. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, we must do considerably better than that.
That is quite a task which faces industry and in that industry requires the help of the Government. I estimate that manufacturing output needs to increase by well over 20 per cent. above the normal annual increase in demand to fill the gap between demand and supply. That will take some time. It may mean that over 10 years our output must increase by well over 40 per cent. That is an immense task. It was the size of the task facing our country which made the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, other noble Lords and myself use such stark phrases—one of which he quoted—to remind the nation as well as the House of the task which it faces. That is not because of anything particular that has happened over the past five or 15 years, but because of the steady decline in competitiveness over the century and more.
That task makes me welcome recent statements by the Prime Minister and by the President of the Board of Trade about the importance which they attach to manufacturing. That importance was well confirmed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is good that the Government can now give and have given a lead. That leadership must be tested not only by the statements made by Ministers but also by what is happening inside government.
I am glad to see that the Board of Trade has been reorganised to give it the knowledge and understanding of the different sectors of industry. It used to have that but for some reason it disappeared. It has now come back again. That will give it the muscle to help industry to become more competitive and to help new businesses to get started with the know-how learned by others. That seems to me to be a very good start. Export help has been stepped up and I think that was a good step. I hope that special steps will also be taken to encourage, and perhaps persuade and guide, manufacturers and those they supply to recapture lost sectors of the home market. That is a part of the problem which has been slightly misunderstood in public opinion and in government circles.
Much is said about the importance of exports and about the help that is given in that area. The time has come to ensure that attention is concentrated more on the home markets which we have lost. I was glad to read an article in the Financial Times of Monday 26th

729
April which stated that the new organisation appears to be able to provide the machinery under which people who wish to compete more effectively in the home market may be helped to do so. It may also be worth pointing out that manufacturers in the home market face competition from importers who are helped from time to time by other people's export credits and by the measures taken by other governments. We need to study that issue to ensure that we are as competitive as other governments in that regard.
However, those measures are small beer compared with the need for a national will to change. It is more than just a political will. It certainly requires the leadership of the Government. We need to build up as quickly as possible a strong manufacturing base. Many of us who recognise that requirement have asked for an industrial strategy statement from Ministers. The 1985 report made some interesting comments on government strategy towards industry and on government priorities. Those matters are referred to in paragraphs 159 to 160 of the report. We drew on the comments of my noble friend Lord Laing of Dunphail who gave evidence.
I have no doubt my noble friends will make the point that the case for an industrial strategy is a strong one. That does not mean I believe that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is so weak that he will not get his way inside the Government. However, I share the suspicions of some that the old devil is still hard at work in the Treasury supported by some academic economists. I am fortified in that view after having read two articles in The House Magazine written by two economists who thought nothing of the general theme of this debate; that is, that manufacturing industry is of special importance.
People still write articles stating that the balance of trade does not matter. People still write articles stating that it is the whole economy that matters and that important parts of it, such as manufacturing industry, cannot be separated out for any special attention. I regard that theory as rubbish—I believe the 1985 report supported my view—and everything that has happened since 1985 has proved that such a theory is rubbish. I am glad to note the comments of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade on that theory. I do not believe either of them has ever shared that nonsensical view.
As a result of the swift change in government policy that has occurred in recent years, there is some fear that we face a greater degree of intervention than we may like. I believe we need not fear that that will happen or that great subsidies will be introduced. We should take comfort in the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has announced the establishment of a new organisation to help in this area as stated in the Financial Times. I declare my confidence in the ability of my noble friend and her colleagues in the Government to put this matter right.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, the strongest revival seen in manufacturing industry over the past year has unfortunately not been the longed for but still rather patchy and anaemic recovery from the recession but rather its strong recovery as a salient political issue for the Government. This is a welcome development and contrasts starkly with the Government's attitude in the period 1979 to 1992 when manufacturing industry was consigned to a twilight world. We had the spectacle of government Minister followed by government Minister giving us the news that the future lay in the service sector and that in this exciting new world manufacturing was destined to play a diminishing role in our national economy. Other countries could make things and we would consume them. Thanks to the bounties of North Sea oil this pleasant arrangement appeared to some, for a short time, to be a credible way forward.
The Budget of 1981 sought to turn this forecast of the decline of manufacturing industry into a reality by hastening the process along. Large numbers of companies collapsed and a huge amount of capacity and investment in human skills were lost forever. Yes, the companies that survived were stronger and more competitive, but this crude Darwinian approach killed off many companies which could, with government support and the availability of low cost finance, have made a valuable contribution to our economy and in particular to our balance of payments. None of our major competitors approached the problem of industrial and technological change in this way. Many fundamentally sound companies have also fallen victim to the combination of the 1990-92 recession and the Government's fatal decision to enter the ERM at an uncompetitive exchange rate. My noble friend Lord Peston eloquently spelt out the calamitous consequences to our manufacturing industry of, on the one hand, wrong-headed economic policies and, on the other, an absence of industrial policy.
I hope that I am not being overly cynical when I suggest that the Government's recent rediscovery and concern for manufacturing industry is a result of the failure of their economic policies since 1979 and the recognition that the UK is perilously close to the point where we will simply not be able to pay our way in the world unless we can improve significantly the volume and value of the tradable goods we produce.
The Prime Minister announced his support for the cause of manufacturing industry in the press in March. That is to be welcomed. He repudiated the Thatcherite orthodoxy which he claimed to have opposed throughout his period in Mrs. Thatcher's government. The President of the Board of Trade has been less secretive in his support for manufacturing industry. In his political credo Where There's A Will published in 1987, he nailed his colours firmly to the mast. He stated that,
"an industrial strategy had to be at the top of our political agenda and that government involvement, far from being a matter for shame, is vital to the survival of the British economy".
Does this combination of a Prime Minister, possibly with all the zeal of a convert, and a President

731
of the Board of Trade who is a true believer, usher in an era of government partnership with industry and strong support for industry? I believe the signs are promising. Both industrialists and the TUC have noted a change of mood. There now appears to be more contact between the Government and industry and the cause of British industry is being promoted more enthusiastically and more frequently. But words by themselves are insufficient; action is required and action costs money. Here lies the rub, because there is as yet no evidence that the Government are prepared to accord sufficient priority to the regeneration of British industry and commit the substantial funds necessary to the project.
The problem can be measured in a number of ways: our falling share of world trade; the remorseless decline in manufacturing's percentage of GNP; and the growing imbalance—that has been referred to—between manufactured exports and manufactured imports. Our problem now is not only how do we hang on to our current 6 to 7 per cent. of world trade when our share of the world's population is only 1 per cent., but how do we increase it so that manufacturing can provide the engine for future economic growth?
A healthy and growing industrial base is vital to employment creation for although the manufacturing companies themselves are likely, because of labour saving production processes, to employ fewer people, the increased economic activity they promote leads to employment in supporting and ancillary companies.
The UK manufacturing base is, by and large, competitive internationally, and in a number of sectors we are world leaders. However, as has been pointed out, the base is too small when measured against its capacity to meet a rise in domestic demand and to match the growth in imports. Time, money and political will are needed to reverse the decline in manufacturing.
A primary requirement for manufacturing industry, as again has been pointed out by several noble Lords, is a stable macro-economic environment. Uncompetitive exchange rates and wildly fluctuating interest rates are the enemies of the long-term planning which is essential to industrial well-being. The cost of funding long-term investment programmes is a crucial, even decisive, element in the success of any project. Our major competitors have long benefited from low long-term interest rates whereas our companies have either had to pay very high real interest rates or have had to tap the equity market which, because of the much higher rates of dividend in this country, is a very expensive form of financing. If the Government are serious about industrial investment they should consider using tax incentives—which are made so readily available to promote home ownership—to increase the supply and reduce the price of long-term funding for industry.
Export finance is another area of concern. There is increasing anxiety in industry that following the privatisation of ECGD the insurance cover available to exporters may, in the case of many countries, fall well short of the opportunities for the export of manufactured goods to those countries. Can the
732
Minister today confirm that the Government are committed to ensuring that the level of export credit cover available to manufacturers in this country will be sufficient to match those export opportunities and, in particular, to ensure that we are fully competitive with other major manufacturing countries?
In a world of global markets and free capital movements the decision about where to locate a manufacturing plant, whether it is taken by a British company or a foreign company, often comes down to the technological infrastructure. That infrastructure is a combination of the skill base of the workforce and the processes and products which have been developed by that workforce. Therefore, a well trained workforce must lie at the heart of any industrial strategy.
The Government must do all that they can to remove the bias in our education system against industrial training and accord a much higher status to vocational training. The school curriculum should be progressively restructured to achieve that aim, and industry should be invited to play a greater role in higher education decision making to ensure that courses are appropriate to our industrial requirements.
Investment in industrial training in the workplace must be increased. Expenditure on training in the UK lags well behind that of our major competitors. The Government should consider the system that operates in France and elsewhere and introduce a training levy of, say, 0.5 per cent of payroll. Those companies whose training spend is equal to or above that level would be unaffected; those who spend less would be required to make the difference available to fund their local training establishment. That would provide a powerful incentive for companies to increase their expenditure on training and would ensure that there was close co-operation with the local training institution to provide relevant training schemes.
For those of us who are in search of the Government's industrial strategy perhaps one of the most important recent developments has been the preparation by the aviation committee of the DTI of the national strategy technology acquisition plan for aeronautics. The plan, which has been strongly supported by British Aerospace—where I am a director—was presented to the Government early last November. The plan identifies and analyses the main areas of technology in which advances are required to be made in order to enable change and then seeks to prioritise those technologies which are particularly important to maintaining the UK's competitive position. That is an industry in which we are one of the world leaders.
The plan recognises the central role which aerospace plays in our manufacturing sector and seeks to address the very serious problems of financing the technology and developing the new products we need. Such are the lead times in aerospace that today's success is based upon investment which was made in technology in the 1960s and 1970s. With the industry now under severe economic pressure from the long recession, reduced defence budgets and reduced support from the DTI there is a real danger that the current research and development budget will be

733
insufficient. Consequently, the UK may not have a competitive aerospace industry by the end of this decade.
The industry received a further body blow when, under the recently negotiated aerospace chapter of the EC/USA GATT agreement, the UK agreed, with others, to an effective halving of launch aid funding. That puts the UK at a massive disadvantage against its major competition in the United States where the industry enjoys a high level of government support for research and technology. For example, the NASA aerospace programme alone is worth about 1 billion dollars per annum compared with the DTI's civil aircraft research programme of £26 million per annum. Our European competitors also benefit from far more generous support from government. In France, for instance, significant state funding is made available to replenish the share capital of companies after they have sustained substantial development costs.
Many in the aerospace industry believe that investment levels need to be increased significantly over a five year period simply in order to catch up. In practice, economic pressures have forced a reduction in expenditure on research and technology over the past few years. A substantial increase in government support through the DTI will be needed in order to secure industrial competitiveness. In those circumstances, it is essential that the UK Government should ensure that the aerospace industry receives financial and political support broadly equivalent to that given to our major competitors. That should cover both defence—through procurement policies—and support for the civil industry. Industry needs a level playing field and, in particular, we need support for seed corn investments in research and technology.
If they are to make a serious contribution to the large-scale investment needed to support such seed corn investment in the aerospace and other high-tech industries, the Government will have to redefine some of their spending priorities. An industrial strategy made up of words and good intentions will be of little value. The President of the Board of Trade's undertaking to intervene before every meal is worthless if he is unable to secure from the Treasury the necessary funds to support his intervention.
There is a growing feeling that the Government's new-found enthusiasm for manufacturing industry is merely symbolic, a public relations exercise which lacks substance. It now appears likely that the crucial battle for resources between the DTI and the Treasury alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington—a battle foreshadowed in Michael Heseltine's book of 1987 in which he called for structural changes in the Government to beef up the powers of the DTI—will be won by the Treasury and that the much needed industrial strategy will amount to no more than kind words and some sticking plaster. Will the Minister please tell us today when the Government propose to respond to the national technology plan and whether and how they propose to match the scale of funding available to the aerospace industries of our major competitors?
4.58 pm.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not share for a moment the rather depressing view of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, that the Government's conviction about the importance of manufacturing industry is merely symbolic. I have no doubt that it is absolutely genuine, but I am sometimes a little worried as to whether the Government know what to do about it and how to translate it into effective action.
I should like to begin by echoing the very eloquent tribute paid to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am not paying a loose or sloppy compliment when I say that speeches of that tone from Opposition Front Benches, no matter which party sits on those Benches, make a real contribution to progress and can do a great deal to change the attitudes which everyone seems to agree need to be changed. I hope that the speeches which followed that of the noble Lord in the debate have been an adequate reward to him. They followed the tone which he so admirably set.
Not long ago one of my noble friends on the Front Bench announced that a huge balance of payments deficit was likely to be our lot in 1993. What worried me was that it was announced without an atmosphere of accompanying alarm or fear and was received quite calmly in the Chamber. I believe that the loss of the capacity to shock by numbers and statistics is quite frightening. We just turn away from facts as though they do not exist.
I agree with everyone who has said that there is no short, easy way out. However, we are faced with the challenge that we have no great stomach for long-term effort in this country. Over many years we have preferred to go for the short term reward. We have been ready to pay ourselves more for doing less, and for doing it rather less well. We have not kept a close enough eye upon what our competitors have been doing.
I entirely accept the need for general attitudes to change. Perhaps it would not be entirely relevant in passing to comment that not many people reach the Floor of your Lordships' House by the route of manufacturing industry. I have commented previously about the importance of the engineer. It is my belief, heretical in some quarters I am sure, that engineers do more to create wealth than ever accountants do. For the most part accountants simply count what other people have done. They are unable to create for the future. What is the attitude of parents? What are we doing to influence the attitude of parents in the guidance that they give to their children in the choice of careers? I fear that engineering is not high on their list of priorities.
My noble friend on the Front Bench has wide experience in the field of engineering. I am sure that she shares some of my anxieties, although she may not always applaud the way in which I have expressed those worries. Suffice it to say, engineers in our country, as I see it, sit down below the salt, speak when they are spoken to and are seldom much remembered or respected. That attitude has to change if we are to make the progress for which we hope.

735
I was told by my noble friend recently that there is an official in the Treasury who has an engineering qualification. I do not know whether the person is a man or woman. I was in no condition to probe any further so great was the shock. It is entirely irreverent to say it, but I have often suspected that the nearest one gets to engineering in the Treasury is when someone goes there to look after the plumbing or to maintain the lifts. I am concerned that throughout the realms of government the influence of the engineer is not greatly assisted. I am sure that it should be.
It is very easy to blame governments. It is not part of my message to say that the Government are entirely to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves. Noble Lords have today talked about the need for continuity. It is interesting to note the Government's attitude on continuity. There have been no fewer than nine Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry within a decade. The matter requires some thought. Governments find lecturing a rather more comfortable way of spending their time than listening. Lecturing is comfortable; one does not have to pay too much attention to one's own message and one never knows what uncomfortable message one may receive from others. However, I entirely exclude my noble friend on the Front Bench from any such charge. She gives me the impression of listening. I very much hope that her colleagues listen to her as carefully and attentively as she listens to us.
I cannot resist the temptation to refer to one point with regard to the Government's contribution. Governments are interested in other people's procedures. They are critical of them at times. But they take little or no interest in their own. They are slow to reach any judgment about them. I refer in particular to our legislative procedures. Again and again we have a great pile, a thick volume—I use the most polite language that I can hit upon—of verbal garbage which is then the subject of frequent amendments from those very people who have produced it. I do not seek to remind noble Lords of some of those cumbersome documents which are currently in front of us. However, I believe that if governments are sincere in wishing to move this country forward towards more modern attitudes in industry, they must look at the way in which they conduct their own affairs. They must ask themselves how well fitted the present institutions and organisations of government are to carry the huge additional functions which are put upon them. It is a question which governments allow to go by default.
I am sure that my noble friend will not be altogether surprised, astounded or amazed that I refer to the controversy about industrial strategy. The Government are very clear that they have an industrial strategy. As one of the slower thinkers in the community, I am not so convinced about it. Will my noble friend use her very considerable talents to persuade her colleagues that, even though they may be very clear about their industrial strategy, it would be helpful to people such as myself, who need a little helping hand to understand, if they were to publish that strategy in a clear well put together document.
736
My noble friend may not be greatly influenced by the thought of making people such as myself feel comfortable. However, I believe that if she were to dwell upon the issue for a moment, she might find attractive the fact that, if an industrial strategy were published by the Government, other departments would be committed to it. Perhaps her own department, the Department of Trade and Industry—it is making great progress at present and earning some laurels for itself—would be immensely helped if it had the commitment of the Treasury, the Department for Education, the new department of science, the Department of the Environment and others. Most of them need first lessons in what manufacturing industry is about because again and again they prove their ignorance of it. I hope that my noble friend will bear in mind the immense benefit which would flow to her and her colleagues if they were able to have the full commitment of other departments to the policies which they are attempting to pursue.
I turn briefly to industry. Sometimes in industrial operations the distinction between success and failure becomes blurred and that performance—good, bad or indifferent—is equally rewarded. That is something which one must regret. I wondered also whether managers give sufficient attention to their own skills in communication and leadership. I marvel at the way in which the technology of communication has improved and with that improvement goes the increase in volume, but the volume is not always well thought out.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to banks and business, and the contribution which our banks make to industry. I wonder whether those eminent in the banking world ever judge themselves against their counterparts in other countries. Looking at the subject from a spectator's point of view, I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that many people in the City of London find a bruising, costly takeover struggle much more attractive than long-term support for the industries upon which we all depend.
Perhaps I may end on two simple points. First, I wonder how good any of us is at teaching or learning the importance of wealth creation. It is something which no one questions. On the other hand, I wonder how deep into the community goes the acceptance of the need for the creation of wealth. Against that, I am much concerned that there is an absence of fear throughout the Community of the dangers of resorting again and again to the painless measures of just a little bit of devaluation. We do not have to look far back—less than 30 years—to find the German mark at 11.5 to the pound. That is the measure both of the decline we have gone through over the years and of the task we now face.
I repeat what I said before about the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I hope that this kind of debate can at least make some contribution.
5.13 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, not least because of his delightful teasing humour. Like other noble

737
Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston for introducing the debate. As he and others indicated, manufacturing is important. It is crucial to the future success of our industry. Fortunately, that is being recognised by more and more people; even the Prime Minister recognises it. That was not so in the 1980s when we spent most of the decade chasing the myth that the secret to success lay in developing the service sector. That idea was vigorously put forward by the predecessors of the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite; I am glad that today she has told us a different story.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that she thought we sometimes did a disservice to industry by concentrating on manufacturing. I think that what we are trying to do in the House today is to redress the balance'. Of course, both the service and the manufacturing sectors are important. But it is because of neglect in the 1980s that the base of the manufacturing sector has shrunk so low, as noble Lords have indicated, that it is too small to provide for the recovery which is now so urgently needed.
I wish to refer to three ingredients of the problem: first, investment in industry; secondly, the relevance of education and training to industry; and, thirdly, our cultural attitude to industry. I shall say very little about the first, except to remark that it was disappointing to see from the CBI's latest survey that the growing optimism among companies did not extend to investment. According to reports, the CBI warns that manufacturing industry is still cutting investment. This is not good for the future: it is the one area where there should be growth. As my noble friend Lord Peston and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated, Britain's comparison with other countries is very poor in this respect.
I turn now to my second area of concern: education and training. Let me say at once that there have been considerable moves which are very welcome. The participation rate in higher education has increased. In education for 16 to 17 year-olds, we are seeing a slow improvement. All that is very welcome, although there are still many weaknesses. We still lag behind our major competitors in many respects. Both the CBI and the Engineering Employers' Federation have addressed the problem in recent reports on manufacturing industry. The CBI has also addressed it in a second recent major report on training, Routes for success. Both organisations make the point very strongly, and so does the TUC, that the key to a successful economy is a well-trained and well-educated workforce.
In this House and in the other place, we hear much said by the Government about the necessity for keeping costs down, particularly those for wages and social provisions for employees, in order to retain our competitiveness. Of course, costs are important and need to be controlled in industry, as in every other sphere. But the real answer to our competitiveness lies in the quality of our workforce and the quality of the goods we produce. The UK cannot compete as a low-cost industrial nation. We are not a third world country and we cannot compete with such countries.
738
Our competitiveness must lie in high quality, high productivity, high technology and high added value. We must train and invest to achieve that.
As your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities said in 1990 in its report on vocational training and retraining, training must be regarded as an investment in every respect, and the Treasury as well as the City must be made firmly aware of that and change their policies accordingly. As my noble friend Lord Kennet said, we are not in the right league when it comes to training. The quality of our training must be worthy of the term "investment".
It is disappointing that the initiatives in youth training have not resulted in a better trained force of young workers. The Government, I am afraid, must accept some responsibility for that. They have consistently "cheesepared" on the schemes. This year, in real terms, expenditure is down 14 per cent. on 1990-91, while, according to the Government's own labour force survey, 195,000 16 and 17 year-olds were unemployed during June, July and August last year. It seems occasionally that the Government are more concerned with the statistical exercise of keeping unemployment figures down than with addressing the real problem of seeing that meaningful training is provided with recognisable qualifications of a high standard which equip young people for skilled employment.
The system of NVQs is now coming on stream. That should offer for the first time a genuine opportunity to provide a highly skilled workforce. But it will not happen without effort and investment. The Select Committee advocated the legislative route; namely, that employers should have a statutory duty to ensure that all 16 to 19 year-old employees received training leading to a recognisable qualification. Much of the evidence received by the committee during the inquiry pointed in that direction.
But the Government prefer the voluntary route. So too does the CBI. Its report, Routes for success, goes far beyond anything that the Government have yet accepted. The CBI recommend a universal credit system for all 16 to 19 year-olds, including those in schools, sixth form colleges and FE colleges, as well as those in training and in training with employment. Secondly, it recommends an overarching award with a single framework for all 16 to 19 year-olds whether on NVQs or on the A-level route. Thirdly, it recommends a considerably enhanced system of careers education and guidance.
So far, the voluntary approach has not served us well, as the Youth Aid report very forcefully indicated. But the recommendations of the CBI could take us well beyond the present system and provide us with a trained workforce which could compare with any. To use the jargon, it would produce a world class trained workforce. I hope that the Government will look seriously at those recommendations.
A common framework for A-levels and NVQs is still resisted. Nowhere else in the world is there so sharp a division between the academic and the vocational route, and we are paying dearly for it in the United Kingdom. However, opinion is changing.

739
Higher education advocates a more broadly based A-level qualification. Many universities, both old and new, already accept students with BTEC and other non-traditional qualifications. What is lacking is the political will to make that fundamental change.
During the committee's inquiry into vocational training and retraining, one of the points made was that the training of adult workers was even more vital than training for young people. It was said that too much attention had been paid to training the young at the expense of those already in the workforce. The committee did not entirely agree with that point, but it did agree that training for those already in the workforce was equally important. Some 80 per cent. of those who will be in the workforce at the turn of the century, are already there now. The majority of them are largely untrained and, if they have skills, those skills have usually been acquired through experience and are therefore not quantifiable and not transferable. The formalisation, topping up and expansion of those skills is essential if we are to compete with the rest of the world. It is particularly important that we attempt that now when, as industry picks up, skills shortages become so apparent.
Both the CBI and the EEF accept that the expectations employers have of their employees have been far too low. We need to alter that. Low expectations, both in schools and in industry, are one of the characteristics of the UK which have helped to depress standards. Adult training is pathetically low in government training schemes and needs to be part of a national training strategy.
It is significant that at a time when the participation rate is rapidly rising in universities, the one area where difficulty is encountered—the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will not be surprised to hear this—is engineering. Most universities have difficulty in filling all the places. Yet engineering is the key to manufacturing success. That is indicative of the attitude that this country has towards industry.
Cultural attitudes must change. They must change at every level of education and training, both in the curriculum and in careers education. The problem must be addressed; and it must be addressed with government leadership. It is part of the national strategy that is needed for industrial recovery and for manufacturing industry if we are to succeed in the future. I hope that the Government, too, will address that problem.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, the topic of today's debate, developments in manufacturing industry since 1979, reminds me rather (I do not know why) of one of those specialist subjects chosen for the final of "Mastermind"—a relatively narrow subject, easy to study and probably easy to remember.
As I prepared for my speech today, I asked around as to what I might say. I am afraid to say that my son was the one who gave me the soundest advice of all. He said: "It is such a narrow subject. There is not much to say about it. You ought to make the shortest speech on record".
740
I do not know why it is, but in listening to this debate my mind has changed a little. I feel that we are witnessing a dynamic change in attitude, whereby it is perhaps no longer "us and them", but "you, we and us". I think such change is due to the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. If his speech reflects the policy of the Labour Party, then we on these Benches should begin to worry. It was a good speech. It said nothing that did not accord with my own views and, I believe, the views held by all on these Benches. That must be because our views have changed. The Labour Party was the party of the blue collar worker but not of the industrialist. The Conservative Party was the party of the industrialist but not of the accountant. The blue collar worker has long gone. Perhaps it is due to Lord Moulton, my grandfather, speaking of television originally and pointing out that blue shirts looked better than white on television and therefore these days the only people wearing blue shirts are those who expect to appear on television.
I have to begin with the hope that we have seen the death of the economist. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, will recognise the statement—I cannot remember who said it but it was said quite recently—that managing the economy is like driving a car facing backwards and every time you turn the wheel it takes six months for anything to happen.
The Government are reasonably lucky in that they have turned the wheel facing backwards. They were not sure where they would end up and, by surprise, they have ended up in a quite good situation. There is no point in seeking to jog backwards. We must look at where we are today and not ponder how by accident we got there. We should not knock the Treasury too much. I am told that the Treasury has fewer driving licences than any other department and that in general the more intelligent one is, the less inclined one is to drive or own one's own motor car. People have their own theories.
Where are we today? We are in a period where everyone acknowledges that there must be both a monetary and a fiscal policy; but no one wants to define either of them. We are in a period of stability, after a relatively long and interesting shake-out, which frankly was scary for many people for a very long time. We are in a period of political stability. If the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, reflects the policies that the Labour Party would wish to support, manufacturing industry in particular can go ahead and think long-term. It will not have political disruptions at home that will destroy its programme and investment.
There are a number of problems at the moment. There are run-downs of stock and there will probably be the classic supply bottlenecks. But we seem to be recovering more quickly than our industrial competitors in Western Europe. For once, therefore, we are ahead of them. The comparative figures in relation to trade and so on do not mean much to me any more. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, almost referred to the point because of the exchange rates. I happen to be vice-chairman, under my noble friend Lord Limerick, of the Anglo-Swiss Society. The other day one of my Swiss friends on his birthday reminded me of how, 40

741
years ago, he had married a very attractive girl from the Yorkshire textile industry. In that time the pound sterling had devalued 90 per cent. against the Swiss franc but he was more than happy because, as he pointed out, his wife had increased by some 40 per cent. over that period. That was roughly all that he could say for the British economy.
I should like to talk about where we are going. Do we have to have an industrial strategy? Should the Government be controlling it or should they step aside? From time to time various theories are produced. A new one has been introduced to me; namely, the Heckscher Olin factor endowment theory. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, will know it well. That seems to me to be quite a good idea because basically it stays with common sense. We should have a policy and a strategy, but Conservative parties do not like industrial strategies, which sound too much like the recommendations put forward by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on which I happen to serve. I would be a little bolder than some others and say that the Conservative Government at that time did not like the report because they thought that it was an attack on their economic policy rather than a statement of where we might be today.
Where we are today is very clear. We have a shrunken manufacturing base. Of that there is no doubt. But it does not cause as much concern as frankly I thought it would do. We are more productive. The potential is there. If we follow the Heckscher Olin theory, we find a number of points to look for.
First, if we are to try to determine a strategy, we need to look for particular areas where there is a relative abundance of technology and labour and where there is adequate capital. Whether that will mean the chemical industry or other industries remains to be seen. It is a question of being selective and perhaps the Government should encourage some form of selectivity without treading on dangerous ground.
The second point to look for concerns areas of scale which can relate to the success of British Airways or any large organisations where there are such economies. Thirdly, we have to look at making absolutely certain that we give the customer what he wants, when he wants it and where he wants it. Within that framework we should look at imperfect competition, as it is called. We should examine those areas where there is not much local competition, those sectors where we are more advanced than anybody else or those parts of the world where we have better relationships.
In considering that maybe from today there will no longer be a division between the service industries and the manufacturing industries but that we shall all be talking of trade, we are looking at our home trade (which is now the EC) and our overseas trade (which I suppose is the non-EC). It has always been the case that our overseas trade has been the main market for our capital goods and manufactures. That has been due in part to the empire and in part to the fact that in those countries people did not make the things that
742
we made. As has been pointed out, we imported raw materials and created added value here at home, and so developed the plant and machinery.
But times have changed. Communication is better. It is more logical to create added value nearer the sources of supply of raw materials than it is to ship raw materials right around the world. It has been adequately pointed out that the decline in some areas of petrochemicals is due to not having feed stocks and other people forcing the closure of petrochemical industries in Europe. But the opportunities are there, if we analyse them and go for them.
I happen to be president of a body called the British Exporters Association and I also chair the Engineering Industries Association, overseas side. We looked together at the situation and asked what were the areas in which the British are very good. Surprisingly enough, in many of those sectors we are best in areas that have been declining, because we still have the technology, an abundance of labour and, surprisingly enough, a shortage of home demand.
I should like to say a few words about mining and in particular the coal mining industry, for which I have gathered some affection. I had not realised that the decline in coal production was such that we would produce only 80 million tonnes a year. Yet I did not know that in long wall mining we have between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the world market and few people can compete with us. In countries such as Iran, where they are looking to produce 3 million tonnes of coal and China where they produced 1.4 million tonnes this year, there are major markets and opportunities in that sector as well as in the minerals sector and plant and machinery overall. In that field we export somewhere around ü400 million a year.
Secondly, there is the textile machinery sector, where over half our sales are exported—some ü250 million a year, creating added value on the ground abroad and providing a surprising amount of British content. The study being undertaken at the moment reinforces the concept that the export of British capital, plant and machinery—that is, manufactures —to create added value in something like the textile industry, and then reimporting the end product creates a higher British content than importing some of the raw materials and making goods over here.
A third area obviously lies in a matter raised in our original report. What happens when North Sea oil runs out? The oil and gas sectors have developed surprisingly well over recent years and we are in the forefront of technology there. It is a sector where there will be adequate capacity of technology and an abundance of labour to provide us with the opportunity of trading abroad.
We want to give the customer what he wants, when he wants it and where he wants it. What he wants is easy. When he wants it at the moment does not necessarily mean quick delivery because many of our industrial competitors who are also our customers are in recession and do not want things now. Where they want it: again, they do not want things in their countries now. I am afraid I am back to the second world and to those countries which genuinely have a demand today for British plant and machinery in vast

743
quantities, if we can somehow find the mechanism to support the financing of that trade. I speak not simply of export credits, but of looking and concentrating—as I believe we are doing at the moment with the new Russian states—upon those areas where our contribution in terms of credit, equipment, know-how and technology will help to create added value, import substitution, the potential for export and therefore the overall development of trade.
We are in an interesting time. I did not believe that we would arrive here. I like to think that we arrived here intentionally; I have to say that I believe it to be by accident or possibly pure fluke. On listening to speeches today, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I believe that we will have a good chance ahead of us. Therefore I propose, as I have done in many speeches before on trade, that we should give added support to the revitalisation of the Board of Trade. I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to consider changing her title to that of Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade—an ancient title which my grandfather held and I believe also the noble Lord, Lord Jay, if I recall correctly. Accordingly, I and many of the leading figures in manufacturing industry are proposing in the Autumn to ask the Board of Trade and all its members to join with us at a joint meeting to discuss our future policy.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, the theme of this debate has been before this House on many occasions recently and has been the subject of numerous parliamentary Questions. But in recent weeks two things have happened. The first is that the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade have both made it clear that they are committed to manufacturing industry and to enlarging our industrial base. Those pronouncements seem to me a little overdue but they are a good, modest step forward. The second is that a few days ago the President of the Board of Trade made a statement to the press which was published in the Financial Times on 26th April 1993. I believe it was intended to be the DTI's policy for the future. If so, I am bound to say that I found it unsatisfying both in form and substance, for reasons which I will explain.
No enterprise anywhere in the world, large or small, can possibly succeed unless all those engaged in it are clear as to the objectives and the part which they have to play. The concept that a statement in a newspaper can galvanise this country in resuscitating manufacturing industry seems to be out of the question. What is needed is a Green Paper followed by a White Paper, both of which are debated in Parliament so that the whole country knows what it is expected to do. That is the purpose of Parliament. It is an astonishment to a great many people on all sides of this House that the Government are unable or unwilling to exercise the political will to do that. It is disturbing to government supporters and must be meat and drink to the Opposition parties.
In the past year a great many individuals and institutions, who have been skilled in manufacturing
744
over a long term of years and speak with real authority, have suggested various courses to the Government which would increase our manufacturing industry and our industrial base. Few of those have been adopted. The constraints of time prevent me from mentioning them all and I merely take five of them as examples.
The first is the need to give much greater emphasis to education and training in management skills in and for industry. It begins in schools, follows through in universities and then into industry itself. Emphasis is needed on science and technology, on personnel and financial management, but above all on the practical management skills of producing products of the right type and quality which are satisfying to the customer, delivered on time and competitive in price. It will take the Government at least five years to introduce an effective programme of education into this country.
The second point, which is really another aspect of education and training, is that much greater attention needs to be paid to the selection, training and career development of the workforce. Our efficient competitors from overseas who establish plants in this country have adopted these practices for many years. We seem unable or unwilling to follow their lead and example.
The third point concerns partnership sourcing. The task of the Government in that respect is to make partnership sourcing a commonplace in both the public and private sectors. It is a spur to productivity and a stimulus to research and development. The Government are in a particularly strong position in leadership in that respect because they are the buyer of manufactured goods involving billions of pounds every year.
The fourth point is the contribution which the City can make to manufacturing industry—a subject not mentioned in the newspaper article at all. In recent years the contribution of the City has been inadequate. Matters which need examination are short-termism, which is a scourge affecting not only the City but also the Government and the Treasury in particular.
Other points are imprudent and improvident lending by the banks, overpayment of dividends and bad financial management. Again and again damaging takeover bids are based on financial opportunism rather than the needs of shareholders, management, the workforce and the customers. All those factors have contributed to a shortage of liquid funds by manufacturing industry to invest in the new technologies year over year so that we become fully competitive with our competitors overseas.
The fifth point concerns partnership between government and industry—a concept which has been endorsed both by the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade in recent months. The newspaper article to which I referred sees that obligation discharged by the exchanging of posts between the Civil Service and industry for short terms. If the generals in the Army are planning a strategy to defeat the enemy, they do not rely on an exchange of corporals at platoon level. What is needed is something much greater than that; that is, a forum

745
where industry and government can meet to discuss the major problems which are worrying this country and, having made decisions, can see in their respective spheres that they are properly put into force.
So it comes down to this. I believe that if the Government would disclose a bold strategy and firm, strong leadership, the whole country would rise to the occasion. If they will not do so, we shall muddle along as we are at present, among the also-rans. The task of formulating a sound industrial strategy and putting it into force is a five year job. It follows that unless a sound industrial strategy has been formulated by the end of this year there is little prospect of anything effective being put into force in the life of this Government. I beg the Front Bench to bear in mind that, for them, time in that respect is running out.
I conclude, sadly, on a very sombre note. I am delighted to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, is training as a football manager. Indeed, I wrote to her recently and said that her charm and ability would make her irresistible. But if she examines the sporting pages she will find that the life of football managers is very hazardous and that any football manager who is in command of a team which is acknowledged to be between 20 and 40 per cent. behind the required standard may soon be joining the ranks of the unemployed.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I share the gratitude that we all have to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for calling this timely debate and, like others, find myself in much agreement with him. Indeed, the unanimity in the Chamber is most encouraging.
There is not a person in the House who is not encouraged also by the first signs of economic upturn, but many of us remain deeply concerned that our incipient balance of trade problems will nip the green shoots in the bud. This problem is at the heart of our relative national economic decline and I should like to return to it and suggest remedies.
Any examination of our balance of trade figures clearly indicates, surprisingly, that it is not our inability to export but rather our propensity to import that lies at the root of the problem. Our export performance is in fact remarkably good. Indeed, we export 40 per cent.—yes, my Lords, 40 per cent.—more per capita than do even the Japanese. Why then have we this propensity to import? We need to analyse the situation to enable us to take wiser decisions for the future.
I would suggest that the pattern has come about as a consequence of the anti-inflationary policy that all governments have been following in this country for nearly 30 years. A central plank of that policy has been to control the economy through interest rates and, above all, to support the pound, but, sadly, to support it at levels that were consistently out of line with its purchasing power parity, with a consequence that it has been consistently overvalued and money—the cost of capital—has been markedly more expensive in real terms than that of our international competitors. I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who touched on this point.
746
The end result of this is that those industries which are open to international competition—manufacturing industry in particular—have had to compete with imports that were effectively subsidised and to export over a hurdle of a pound often overvalued by at least 10 per cent. and sometimes more. In industry, where profit margins are seldom of this order, it represented a handicap which in my view is one of the contributory reasons for the decline in manufacturing capacity in this country. It explains our propensity to import goods that in many instances we both used to, and indeed could, make here as our competitors have little if any natural advantage.
Yes, I also realise that we had many instances of bad management, badly designed products, bad labour relations and so on, but in spite of this our export performance has been and remains at a remarkably high percentage of our gross national product. What we need to address is the reason that we import so much, and to look for a recovery based on import substitution as well as exports.
Fortunately, the Government's present policies really do address this problem. We now have a pound that is valued realistically, and what is more we have money at a price which industry can afford to borrow in order to re-equip. The scene is thus generally set for us to regain a sensible balance in trade. However, this view is not universally accepted. Some people point to the decline of our manufacturing base and the growth of our service sector as certain proof that we are finished as a manufacturing nation and that we should concentrate on other forms of economic activity. I wonder whether they have analysed sufficiently the causes of this change and seen in fact that the growth of services—that has given us, for example, a highly efficient retail sector that is the envy of the world—was, as much as anything, caused by the equal and opposite effects that were so damaging to manufacturing industry.
Manufacturing, unlike retailing, faced the full consequences of overvaluation and dear money. Retailing, meanwhile, had all the blessings of cash in inflationary times, and its efficient distribution network fitted the promotion of cheap imports like a glove. It is no wonder then that our manufacturing capacity shrank. I believe it is universally accepted that our economic recovery can be sustained only by the production of internationally tradable goods and services. However valuable retailing, tourism and the sale of insurance policies may be, they are unlikely to be internationally tradable enough to fill the current balance of payments gap that is caused principally by the import of manufactured goods.
One also hears other voices suggesting that invisible exports will fill this gap. But here again, it you strip down the figures, you see that only a relatively modest part of our invisible balances are actually earned by the commission on financial transactions. The major flows come from inward capital investment—it is to be hoped, to enhance our manufacturing base—and from dividends and the repatriation of invested capital; capital which in many instances was earned outside the service sector in the first place; capital which, had economic conditions been more favourable, and had it

747
been invested here, might well have done much to strengthen this country's manufacturing base and thus prevented us being in the trading situation that we are in today.
The net benefit of traded invisibles is relatively small. I believe then that it is unrealistic to look to invisibles and to the service sector to solve the problem. They will certainly help but they cannot fill the gap. Inevitably, we are brought back to the importance of manufacturing. It is so encouraging to see a wider acceptance of this view in what for so long has been an industrial country with an anti-industrial culture. But I am concerned whether, even though the Government are now very supportive, this thinking has fully permeated the Treasury.
More people now see that the Government—indeed any government—should take every step they can to strengthen our manufacturing base. Indeed, the prospect of national bankruptcy focuses marvellously the will to do something. However, those reasonably close to government know that the reins of management power in this country are held by the Treasury. Even the Department of Trade and Industry is answerable to it. Alas, through no fault of its own, the Treasury is overwhelmed by the need to raise revenue to try to meet the infinite demands of welfarism from a virtually static economy. Is it surprising that the departmental philosophy is inevitably one which puts the cart of tax collection before the horse of wealth creation? They are priorities which are back to front and inimical to our success as a trading nation.
Manufacturing to so many in the Treasury is just another lobby group. My noble friend Lord Peyton and I have discussed this in the past and I so agree with him. But we cannot go on like this. Too many of our national decisions are taken for the effect that they will have on this year's budget and not for the beneficial effect on the economy in five years' time. What other nation would build a tunnel in one decade and then the infrastructure leading to it in another —certainly not our Victorian forebears?
I believe that we must change the structure and form of government. It is encouraging that that is a clear message from this debate. It must become blindingly obvious to everyone that we plan our affairs very poorly in this country and we need to plan them better. I am not for one moment advocating that we go back to picking winners, but we have to improve the quality of decision-taking and implementation. The trading requirements of our trading nation really must come virtually before everything else. We simply have to reform the thinking and working of the central department of state.
Sadly, I fear that unless we change our style—and this applies to governments of all colours—our national economic decline will continue. More positively, I hope that the appropriate economic committees of the Treasury can have a clearer brief as to the primacy of wealth creation, exports and import substitution as national priorities and be given encouragement to devise policies accordingly.
748
It is not difficult to envisage the agenda for such a committee—many of the matters have been dealt with already in the House today—but it should weigh every decision against its likely long-term consequences on our international competitiveness and trading position. These things may happen now in an ad hoc way, but one feels that they simply do not get the necessary priority and policy co-ordination that they should have from the centre.
With a sensible and well thought-out strategy, which may indeed take five years or more to think through and implement, this country still has the talent, energy and wit to overcome its economic problems. Meanwhile, it also has a window of economic opportunity and we are looking through it at this moment. If we can keep interest rates down, encourage investment in our manufacturing capacity, do nothing through budgetary changes that will raise the RPI (which is such a sensitive issue when it comes to wage negotiations) and keep the rate of exchange roughly where it is, then we shall surprise ourselves by how effectively recovery may come and how fast import substitution takes place.
I know that we all wish the Government well in directing the nation to seize this chance, and I hope that this timely debate will help them in so doing.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this has been a very interesting and useful debate. Two things have emerged, and are emerging, this afternoon. The first is the consensus that manufacturing is of the utmost importance to the British economic scene. The second is the need—I believe it is a cross-party call from all sides of the House—for the Government to come to Parliament with their views on an industrial strategy so that it can be debated. Advice, which I am sure will come from all sides, can then be offered on how that strategy might be improved. I wish to add my voice to those two emerging consensus points of view which I believe are very useful.
When I saw the terms of the debate I thought that this was going to be just another opportunity to have a go at the Tories for their term in office. It is rather more than that. It has been very useful that a number of speakers have gone further back in time and have also obviously looked to the future. That is one of the things I wish to do in my brief remarks. I hope that I shall not go on too long.
In the run up to 1979 we have to look at the perspective. I make these comments not only as an engineer, but as someone who has worked in British manufacturing industry for over 20 years. I hope that I have some little experience which I can bring to the House. During the 1970s it was my experience that although things were difficult (life is never easy) output was expanding, factories were being opened and employment was sustained. It was my experience that management and workforces actively cooperated with each other. They sat down and discussed the problems of the operations and they arrived at decisions on the way forward. It was a unity of purpose and direction that I believe was very beneficial.

749
Then we came to 1979. It was very interesting to see the effect within industry of the Conservative Party winning the election. Almost overnight the shutters came down. Management stood back from the unions and workforces and said "Right, now it is our job to manage. We are taking back"—that is, the God-given right to make all the decisions—"without reference to you". That was the beginning of the period that we are now debating in the terms of the Motion.
What are the developments in manufacturing since 1979? Put simply, we have seen two major periods of recession, factory closures, the lack of employment of technical and engineering personnel and the emerging balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods. Until very recently we have experienced a total lack of government support. We all remember the statements that were made by a succession of government Ministers saying that manufacturing does not matter; the service industries can take the strain, and the rest of it. That was the situation until recently.
It is only in a very recent and short period that government Ministers have changed their tack. They are now saying that manufacturing is important. As I have said, the emerging consensus is that it is important. That is getting through to the Government. It is all very well for government Ministers to say that manufacturing industry is important, but where is the beef? We have a desperate need for Parliament to have a government Statement of their industrial strategy. It is one thing to say something, but it is important that it should be supported. The Government should be prepared to provide concrete support which can come in a whole range of different ways. It does not need to be money disbursed through the Department of Trade and Industry directly into company coffers. There is a whole range of ways in which manufacturing industry can be supported.
We have now come to a situation where there is, as I have said, an emerging consensus that manufacturing is important. We look at current realities. We are struggling with recession and there is a lack of confidence. It is interesting that this is the third year in succession in which the green shoots of recovery have been reported. It is frightening to think that that is the reality of the length and depth of the recession which we have suffered over the past few years. The Government continually come back in the spring saying that the green shoots are here. Once again we have another record of green shoots being reported. I hope that they are really there now and I hope that we can develop our economy in such a way as to get out of the recession and put back to work the over 3 million people who are unemployed.
In some respects, we are at a cross-roads. We can go on as we have been doing over recent years in a way that I would summarise as being a continuous long-term decline. We can continue to sell off the family silver to pay for an unsustainable standard of living. That period could last for quite some time, but when we run out of things to sell and when the oil runs out, where do we go then? Do we turn round and say that the world owes us a living and that we will demand it through force of arms or whatever?
750
I hope that we shall not continue along the road that we have been going down for so long and say that we do not really need to do anything. I hope that we can think of a positive future. I hope that we shall think about how we can invest for the longer term; how we can train and educate engineers and technicians rather than accountants and lawyers, and how we can develop sources of cheap long-term capital to invest in the machinery and the equipment that is needed to add value in manufacturing plants. Some stability in economic policy and in exchange rate policy would also help.
However, above all I suggest that we need to put into practice the concept of everyone working together to meet common objectives. We must banish the Thatcherite concept that there is no such thing as society. It is only by working together that we can manufacture things to benefit not only ourselves, but our fellow human beings around the world.
I believe that I am the first person in the debate this afternoon to mention unemployment, but that must be a touchstone—a key indicator—of our success. Reducing unemployment over the next few years—and, I would hope, eradicating it in the longer term—and getting to a stage where we have a positive balance of trade in manufactures are the objectives that we should set ourselves for the longer term.
As I have said, I am glad to share in the emerging consensus about the importance of manufacturing and about the need for a definitive government Statement to Parliament about what their industrial policy is.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for not being present for his opening speech. Having heard the supportive comments made about it, I am doubly sorry at having missed it. Perhaps I should explain that early this morning I attended the board meeting of a company which is a major manufacturer of wallpaper. During the past two years, through very hard work and efficiency, that company has been able to expand the development of its business right across Europe, the Far East and the United States of America. It is a success.
I then decided to take a train to London. British Rail has had millions and billions of pounds of our money put into it and has been running under government control for many years. But it could not put on a train from Runcorn to London. It was necessary to change trains twice in the course of that relatively short journey. That proves yet again what I have always strongly believed. The further government get away from something, the more likely it is to succeed. I am not therefore one of those who believes that we need a government policy to generate and support manufacturing industry and that that should form the basis of a government strategy.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that our problems started in 1979. In fact, history shows exactly the opposite. The best time for our manufacturing competitiveness and investment was the period from 1981 to 1988–89. The bad period

751
for British industry was during the 1960s and 1970s when the Government put so much money into it. During that period, many companies were operating which should not have been, supported by government money. When that policy changed to a positive one, many businesses which were not efficient or not being run effectively, but which were operating on government money, rightly went to the wall.
The Government play an enormously important part in all our lives. Everything that we do is influenced in one way or another by what governments propose. They tax us. How industry is taxed has an enormous impact on its success. They decide where our roads go and where they should not go. That has an enormous impact on the success of some industries and on some of us. They control our planning. The impact of either positive or negative planning on manufacturing industry, and particularly on inward investment, is enormous. They educate us all. If they decide that the priorities in education should not be science or technology-based, then the nation as a whole suffers.
I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Peyton when he says that the real issue at stake here is not whether my noble friend Lady Denton or my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Heseltine say that they support British industry but whether government departments—all of which, all the time, are producing legislation which affects us, industry and manufacturing—take that same positive view. I would have much more confidence that the Government are doing something if I. heard the Secretary of State for the Environment say that he regarded the creation of wealth and manufacturing industry as priorities than I would if I heard my right honourable friend Michael Heseltine say the same thing. Although he is saying such things now, he never said anything like that when he was Secretary of State for the Environment and carried out many actions that were contrary to the interests of manufacturing industry.
I hope that, among many other things, my noble friend the Minister will pass on to the Government the message from here that what is going to be effective and really make things work is the determination of all sectors of government to produce legislation to support manufacturing industry, not hamper it. Many of the things that noble Lords have discussed in this House have often handicapped manufacturing industry rather than supported it. As part of a non-regulatory department, which is what I hope the Prime Minister now has in the Cabinet Office, I should like the Government also to examine seriously the impact and cost of legislation on industry and how it will ultimately impact on the economy of the country.
A number of my noble friends and other noble Lords have noted the importance of import penetration and its impact upon our level of manufacturing industry. In the late 1950s, the import penetration of manufactured products bought by consumers was about 5 per cent. It has recently been about 35 per cent. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said, that has much more to do with the
752
Government's strategy relating to exchange rates and interest rates than with micro-policy, which deals with support at the sharp end of enterprise. The impact of our exchange rate and interest rate policies has had an enormous swing effect upon our manufacturing. Once we run into a downturn on the cycle, consumers stop buying. It is not true that our manufacturing does not have the capacity. The size of the capacity does not matter because if the consumers do not buy, the business will soon go down.
If we are to have a competitive role in world affairs, one of the most important strategies that the Government need to consider for the future is a much more stable interest and exchange rate policy, but one which accepts that this nation has a great propensity to import. As my noble friend Lord Aldington pointed out, we need a policy that gives that adaptability. Otherwise, we shall continually be pushed out competitively by other producers whose imports are much more competitive.
If we are to take our fair share of world trade, we have to have companies of such size and strength in the United Kingdom that they can compete on a world basis. It is a tendency of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to look nationally at the size of companies rather than globally at company needs. In the dairy industry—one of the areas where I have had the most experience—decisions were recently made which indicate that, rather than looking at the global competitiveness of our country, there was a tendency to look at the national scene. As we grow into Europe, it is imperative that we have manufacturing companies which can compete in that enormous market.
It is interesting to note that a company with which I am associated looked closely at BNFL, which is a major employer in the North West. It employs about 11,000 people. However, it actually has support companies which employ 40,000 people. The size and structure of that major company has an enormous impact upon all the smaller companies that supply it with products. The needs of major growing companies have to be understood by all sectors of government.
There is far greater scope for financial partnerships, but not much has been said in the debate about the source of finance for growing manufacturing businesses. Undoubtedly, small manufacturing businesses run into very considerable difficulties, probably at the third and fifth year of their developing cycle. I believe that there is greater opportunity for industry and those providing finance in banks, in venture capital, to take a much longer-term view of the needs of industry as companies grow. It is just as important for industries to do that for themselves as it is for financiers to do so. As a banker once said to me, "A good entrepreneur will run rings round a banker any day". A good entrepreneur must understand the need to talk closely with his financier so that they may build up the business together in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell; namely, working together in order to achieve that aim. I believe that much could be done in that respect and much, possibly, that could be encouraged by government. The importance of that aspect must be considered.

753
There are two other matters which I believe to be terribly important. The first is quality improvement. I remember, as perhaps do other noble Lords, seeing a cartoon of a stereotype industrialist—big, fat and smoking a cigar—addressing a board meeting and saying, "Gentlemen, the golden days of shoddy goods are over". Undoubtedly, they are. Again, competition from the rest of the world and Europe will ensure that only the best sells. There is a great need for improvement here. The Government are making some positive moves in terms of one-stop shops to encourage quality improvement.
I return again to the point about co-operative activities in industry. Our major companies in the North West, such as ICI, BNFL and Pilkington's, have joined together to form an improvement club consisting of people who have developed excellent techniques within their own companies and who can therefore help smaller companies that need that kind of input. There is no cost involved; it is larger and smaller companies working together to everyone's benefit.
Many speakers have talked about culture. It is the aspect that industrialists mention to me probably more than anything else. It is not what governments do: it is the attitude of society at large to manufacture, industry and wealth creation. It is a leadership that government have to take. All sectors of society have to be shown that if they want to achieve their aspirations, then, first of all, we must create the wealth to do so. Government have to take the responsibility upon themselves to reduce their costs to a minimum to make that wealth available in the most efficient way.
Let us consider for a moment the various debates we have had in this Chamber when we have not been debating manufacturing industry but, for example, we have been debating education, social services or health. Then the idea that someone has to create the wealth before we spend it completely disappears out of the window. On those occasions, no one ever mentions that if we are to have a new hospital somewhere, then we must have so many businesses in the area to make a contribution towards paying for it in the first place.
Surely, we all have a role and responsibility in the matter. It is clear from today's debate that Members on all sides of the House do believe in the importance of manufacturing, wealth creation and the role that Britain has the opportunity to play in Europe in leading the world in many technologies and great businesses. If we really believe that, we cannot just put it as a priority when we have a debate on it; we must ensure that it is a priority in everything we think about and in everything we touch. I hope that the Government, above all, will take that role on board.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, it is of course true that there is no mystic economic value in manufacturing compared with services, that manufacturing is not the only major element in a modern economy and that the service sector has been growing in most advanced economies over recent years as a proportion of GDP. But it is also true that a thriving manufacturing
754
industry is crucial to an advanced economy, and particularly the British economy, for several overriding reasons.
First, a far higher proportion of manufacturing output can be traded overseas and internationally. Only about 20 per cent. of services can be so traded. Secondly, and perhaps most important of all, the UK consumer has an almost inexhaustible appetite and demand for manufactured goods, especially consumer durables such as cars. Indeed, it is a mounting influx of imported manufactures which has pushed the UK ever further into a balance of payments deficit over the past 20 years. If we do not produce those things, they are bound to be imported and we get into deficit. Thirdly, we should never employ our whole population on services alone.
In view of the noble Baroness's temporary lapse into the bad habit of rewriting history, I should just add the following. From 1945 to about 1970, despite all the difficulties, UK manufacturing industry was in fact holding its own and we had no trade deficit in manufactures. But since that time, as I see it, British manufacturing industry has suffered a series of damaging shocks, some of which were inflicted by mistaken government policies.
First, by swallowing the common agricultural policy whole and raising food prices dramatically in 1972 (and so raising our labour costs by something like 4 per cent. all round and in the long term) we dealt a considerable blow at our manufacturing industry. That was most clearly visible in the car industry. Some people forget that from 1945 to 1972 our car output grew fairly steadily to a total of just under 2 million cars a year in the latter year. Then, under those influences, by 1980 the figure had fallen back to only 900,000—a drop of about 50 per cent. That fall did not begin until the early 1970s. Today car output is edging back only inch by inch to the 1972 figure, which is due largely to the assistance of Nissan, Honda and Toyota. We should welcome the arrival of those Japanese firms in this country, even though they came here not out of a great love for the British Government or the British economy; they came here largely because Renault, Fiat and Volkswagen make it impossible for them to go to Germany, France or Italy. However, that was fortunate for us.
We should also note the confirmation of the Japanese firms that they intend to remain within this country whether or not we ratify the Maastricht Treaty. They know very well that in any event they will be perfectly free to export to the rest of Western Europe.
The other two most damaging blows inflicted on our manufacturing industry have been the two severe deflations of 1979-81 and 1990-93. In the long term they deprived this country of a considerable slice of our manufacturing industry. Thanks to those mistakes, we developed in 1983 a deficit in trade in manufactures for the first time in our history. Some argued that we could overcome a visible deficit by earning an invisible surplus. Unfortunately, the policies pursued since the 1970s have largely extinguished the invisible surplus too. First, we now hand over about £2 billion net. a year to the EC

755
budget. Secondly, we are year by year increasing the interest bill paid to overseas creditors on behalf of the huge sums borrowed each year since 1987 to cover our current balance of payments deficit, as my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out. With a current deficit averaging £12 billion during those years, the extra interest bill that we must pay overseas runs to a good few billions. A much greater part of those borrowings have not taken the form of what the economists call real capital formation. But I estimate that 80 or 90 per cent. has been portfolio investment here or simply short-term borrowing.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who is not with us today, invented a theory that a current account deficit does not matter. His argument was that an accounting identity exists by which a current deficit must be covered automatically by capital receipts. That sounds fine but all it really means is that, if you spend beyond your income, you must borrow the amount of the excess from a bank or somewhere else or sell some assets. When you reach the point when nobody will lend you anything more, you must cut your spending and your standard of living heavily. We should not put too much trust in that argument, even though it is set out again in the noble Lord's extremely well-looking book about his experiences. We shall not solve our current accounts deficit by simply wishing it away.
What can the Government do in the present circumstances? Though the main job is for industry there is much that an active government can do to encourage investment and growth in manufacturing capacity. But at present the Government are not doing very much. Throughout the years of growth, up to the 1970s, there was in the tax field, for instance, the income tax initial allowance and later the investment allowance which encouraged firms to invest. There was also a system of profit taxation which fell more heavily on distributed profits than on retained profits. That was a further incentive. But all those stimulants were swept away during the Lawson era in the name of simplifying taxation.
In the admirable report of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on overseas trade which was published in 1985—described by one Minister as being discredited, whether it was Marxist or not—it was suggested that to assist manufacturing industry:
"the Government should give more and not less support to bodies such as the Export Credits Guarantee Department and that better use should be made of the National Economic Development Office".
Since then the Government have withdrawn from short-term political risk reinsurance in the ECGD and have abolished the National Economic Development Office. Surely that was the nearest thing to a forum for industry and everyone else such as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. Does the Minister have any better news about the ECGD reinsurance than was given to the House recently?
Meanwhile, it is true that, worthy as some of the supply side incentives may be, they do not work if there is no demand for the product. Firms will not buy new plant or more plant if they cannot sell the product. And the only alternative to management of
756
demand is mismanagement of demand, of which we have had too much during the past 15 years. The worst example of that mismanagement has been the persistent overvaluation of sterling. I find myself in agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Vinson. The exchange rate affects every firm which exports and every firm which competes with imports. It is instructive to remember that in the 1950s and much of the 1960s with a competitive exchange rate we achieved sustained growth and full employment for more than 20 years. Overvaluation in 1980 contributed to the intense deflation which did so much harm in 1980-81. Similarly, the fall in the sterling exchange rate in 1985-86 was probably the main cause of the brief recovery in 1987-88, which was attributed by some at the time to the magical skills of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. That lasted until the recovery faded out about two years later.
After all that experience, joining the ERM in 1990 at a rate of 2.95 deutschmarks, and the high interest rates to sustain that, can now be seen as the worst mistake in our economic policy since 1945. In our two years' membership of the ERM unemployment rose by 1.25 million. Incidentally, the noble Baroness said nothing about the 3 million unemployed in our economy whose productivity has been reduced to zero.
However, liberation from the ERM last September and the achievement of a more competitive exchange rate have given us a real chance for recovery. If we can believe the unemployment figures under this Government, that may be beginning already. A competitive rate not merely helps exporters but restrains excessive imports by making them dearer. That is highly desirable and probably it is the only way left to us of achieving that. If manufacturing industry is to recover, we must seize that opportunity and keep down the exchange rate.
There are recent reports which suggest that the present Chancellor is trying to push the rate up again. I hope that those reports can be denied, and perhaps the Minister will deny them this evening. To push up the rate now would be an act of suicidal folly, and if there is recovery that would almost certainly knock it on the head.
The moral for the longer term future is that if we are really serious in wanting to restore manufacturing investment and output and to rebuild a solvent economy we must avoid uncompetitive exchange rates like poison.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, through all times since, and probably before, the Industrial Revolution, a successful internationally competitive manufacturing base has been and will be central to the process of our wealth creation and should be at the heart of our industrial policy. The impact of our manufacturing industry on our national economy goes well beyond its direct contribution to national output and employment. Manufactured goods underpin our economic activity. Currently they produce 50 per cent. of our

757
consumer purchases, take 60 per cent. of all our investment and provide 70 per cent. of our total exports of goods and services.
Our manufacturing industry is a major purchaser from and supplier to all other industries, particularly the service industry. Changes in the fortunes of our service industry are felt throughout our economy. I do not make those statements to repeat arguments already accepted by your Lordships. I make them because that is the central message which must go out again and again from your Lordships' House and from this important debate, which was so well opened by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and which has been so well spoken to by all noble Lords who have followed him.
We need also to speak against what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has described as the "self-denigrating myths". We need to speak against them because that message has also not been sufficiently received by educationists, economists, the financial community, the public at large and by government. An example of one of those self-denigrating myths is that all merchandise in our shops comes from foreign sources; for example, toys, electrical goods and motorcycles. But that does not take account of the export of our goods abroad. For example, pharmaceuticals now total £3 billion-worth of exports. It may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships, who notice that the country of origin marked on their television sets and electrical goods is somewhere in the Far East, that we are a net exporter of television sets with an export surplus of £440 million. Another fine example is that Scotland supplies 40 per cent. of desktop computers in the European Community.
There are other myths about our manufacturing industry's decline. Sadly we have seen the empty cotton mills of Lancashire and the deserted steel plants of South Wales. Of course industry has been through a massive and painful change. But what are the real facts? As I have been able to ascertain them, the facts are these. Between 1981 and 1991 productivity increased from 22 per cent. to 58 per cent. although, of course, that meant some loss of employment. In British Leyland in 1979 it took one employee to make six cars whereas now it takes one employee in that same company (now the Rover Group) to make 25 cars. Our share of world exports has increased from 7.6 per cent. in 1985 to 8.7 per cent. in 1991. That is fairly good for a country which has only 1 per cent. of the world's population. I give your Lordships' another fact; namely, in the same period, 1981 to 1991, our R&D has increased by 6 per cent. per annum.
I believe that a large portion of the credit for that success should go to the Government and particularly successive governments since 1979. I speak as a Cross-Bencher for 20 years in your Lordships' House who was not a supporter of the Government during that period. However, as my noble friend Lady Denton said, there has been a great improvement in industrial relations. In 1979 there was that dreadful figure of 29 million lost days which has been reduced in 1991–92 to just over 500,000 lost days. There has been a purging of overmanning and restrictive
758
practices. Inflation has been brought under control, although that was not always so during that period. We have seen the benefits of privatisation. There has been a reduction in corporate tax from 52 per cent. to 33 per cent. and for small companies a reduction in corporate tax from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent. There has also been a significant reduction in personal taxation.
That success is also due to the ability of industry to make change. Let us look at the changes, for example, in the very large manufacturing companies. Let us look specifically at the changes in that very large manufacturing company GKN plc over which Sir David Lees, one of our leading industrialists, now so ably presides. There was a massive reduction in the workforce but there was also a massive increase in the efficiency and viability of that company.
Let us look also at the increase in the numbers of manufacturing companies. In 1980 there were 144,000 while in 1991 there were 171,000. Another success which can be shared between industry and government is the raising of the standard of quality which has not been addressed so far in your Lordships' debate. There are now 14,000 establishments accredited with BS 5750, a substantial increase over the past five years.
There is more to be done. In its first publication entitled, Making it in Britain, the new National Manufacturing Council of the CBI states:
"The UK has a growing, but as yet insufficient, number of world class manufacturing companies to provide the critical mass necessary for a successful manufacturing-based economy. The challenge is to ensure that UK manufacturing enters the 21st century able to compete with the best in the world".
The Government continue to play a very important role in the industrial equation. Among other things, they are responsible for 40 per cent. of GDP. The Government need to provide a sound economy and to encourage relevant education and training. They need to provide a transport infrastructure. They need to be wholly supportive of international trade. Above all, they need to have pro-industry policies.
That is a challenge not only to the Government but also to the financial community and to industry itself. The CBI has set industry a target of a 5 per cent. per annum minimum increase in productivity. I cannot emphasise enough how vital it is that the Government should not introduce anti-industry policies. But there is the problem of the Treasury "boulders" or, as my noble friend Lord Aldington said, the problem of the "old devil still at work" in the Treasury.
Within only the past week in your Lordships' House we have seen evidence of the Treasury not simply failing to be pro-industry but being actively anti-industry. I refer to changes in the tax structure relating to companies working in the North Sea oil industry, which is particularly damaging to smaller companies. My noble friend will remember Question Time a few days ago. Then there is the proposed extension of the selected list scheme. I have a great deal of praise and respect for the Secretary of State for Health. I knew her well before she entered the House of Commons. I believe she is a very good Secretary of State for Health. I believe, and know, she deeply cares about the National Health Service and the welfare of

759
patients. I also know she recognises and appreciates the contribution made by the pharmaceutical industry to the success of her policies.
Indeed I was disturbed early in the morning on Bank Holiday Monday when I heard on the radio the Secretary of State draw attention to the benefits that the pharmaceutical industry provided and the new HID vaccine. She referred to a saving of 700 deaths, 13,000 hospital admissions and to how many children had been saved from handicap from haemophilus influenzae. This is a respiratory disease. When it attacks young infants, it can have devastating results.
I told your Lordships' House on 14th April what impact the selected list scheme will have on the pharmaceutical industry. Without hesitation I repeat it in this debate. Under the best estimates it will cause the pharmaceutical industry a loss of sales of between £250 million and £300 million. It will cause a cutback on investment and production or research and development of £400 million. It will cause the turning away of future foreign investment to a figure that we know not of. It will cause a loss of jobs somewhere in the region of 3,000 people, many of whom are skilled scientists, pharmacists and laboratory technicians. Finally, it will have a very very serious impact on some companies, particularly small companies. That impact extends to 47 per cent. of sales, 64 per cent. of sales, 83 per cent. of sales, and indeed five companies which will be affected to 100 per cent. face extinction.
This industry is one of our prime industries. My noble friend has already told the House about the massive growth in that industry. At the beginning of this debate she said it had increased output by 100 per cent. Its exports have gone up from £750 million in 1980 to £3 billion in 1992. It now has a surplus over imports of £1.3 billion and is the second largest exporter of all our industries. The imposition of the selected list scheme makes no sense. It is very damaging to that very important industry and provides doubtful benefit to the National Health Service and no benefit at all to the National Health Service patients. Above all, the measure is anti-industry at a time when we are trying to get out of the recession. The pharmaceutical industry, notwithstanding its success, is also an industry that is affected by this recession. Will my noble friend therefore look at this problem again with her colleagues and perhaps really find that "old devil" in the Treasury and drive him out? I hope he is not the one and only engineer in the Treasury.
I would like to end my remarks to your Lordships on an uplift. The Department of Trade and Industry, my noble friend's department, is being restructured to be more responsive to the needs of industry. That is not only a management restructure but also an attitude restructure. The CBI has formed the National Manufacturing Council. I have quoted the comments of that council. I shall finish my remarks by quoting from a blue pamphlet. I am now supplied with these blue pamphlets and I have put on a blue shirt to celebrate. The pamphlet is entitled Politics Today. In it Mr. Mark Radcliffe, the deputy director-general of the CBI is quoted as stating:
760
"The UK has many natural advantages. English is the universal business language. We have a stable democracy and a Government committed to the free market system. Our economy is poised to resume steady, sustainable growth. We have competitive labour costs and corporation tax rates, low and reducing inflation, good management-employee relations, and a strong skills base. Moreover, UK businesses produce goods to high international standards".
All that is now needed is a good partnership with Government.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, all of us are enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who initiated the debate this afternoon. I offer him my congratulations and also my gratitude for the way in which he introduced this subject. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter spoke for the whole of your Lordships' House when he referred to the way in which the noble Lord presented this subject.
On noticing that the name of my noble friend Lord Hacking was on the speakers' list I had thought he would make my speech for me. That may cause the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, considerable apprehension. However, I shall speak for just two minutes. It may not surprise your Lordships that I, too, wish to congratulate the pharmaceutical industry. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made several flattering references to that industry. My noble friend the Minister also referred to that industry and my noble friend has just mentioned the 100 per cent. increase in productivity that the industry has achieved over 13 years. My noble friend Lord Hacking and I spoke on this subject last week.
I did not speak in the debate on 14th April but on that occasion my noble friend Lord Hacking referred to the selected list scheme. I shall not ask my noble friend on the Front Bench what she thinks of some of the products on that list. The four or five noble Lords who have spoken about this industry would agree—my noble friend Lord Hacking mentioned this—that it has achieved an enormous surplus in overseas trade as well as a huge increase in productivity and employment. The nation, and indeed industry, can take great pride in that achievement.
The pharmaceutical industry is concerned with gene technology and molecular biology. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, kindly said that I had used scientific terms in the debate despite the fact I am not a scientist. That goes to show how science and technology have changed the face of industry.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear of the enormous costs the pharmaceutical industry faces in bringing products to market. Other industries that manufacture motor cars and televisions for example, also face costs but the payback period is of particular relevance to the pharmaceutical industry. I understand that in the United Kingdom the pharmaceutical industry faces a payback of £50 million sterling by the third year of marketing a product. In Switzerland the industry faces a payback of something like 300 million Swiss francs over five years. At current rates of exchange I believe that amounts to around £150 million—my noble friend Lord Selsdon may correct me if I am wrong.

761
The pharmaceutical industry faces huge risks if a product does not satisfy demand precisely. If all the risks are not combed out, dreadful disasters can occur. I have only to mention thalidomide to bring home to your Lordships the risks that are involved in this sector of industry. In the course of today's fascinating debate my noble friend the Minister made several flattering references to the pharmaceutical industry. Some 16 years ago I occupied, with my noble friend Lord Belstead, the positions now occupied—I should say with considerable distinction—by the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Eatwell. I recall the passage of the Patents Bill 1977. That Bill will be familiar to my noble friend the Minister and to my noble friend Lord Hacking. I understand that to be a patents expert one has to be both a lawyer and a scientist. I am neither but that perhaps goes to show that a mere accountant can be asked to cover the whole of the Patents Bill in your Lordships' House. I and my noble friend Lord Belstead coped with 600 government amendments between Second Reading and Committee stage.
Thanks to the demand for new pharmaceutical products there is great competition in the pharmaceutical industry to bring new products to the market. I say "bring new products to the market" but the products are brought to mankind, not just in this country and in Europe but throughout the world. The costs of developing medicines and compounds and bringing them to the market are horrendous. I am sure that your Lordships and my noble friend the Minister will agree that some element of protection might be required in this industry. I believe the best way to achieve that is through patent protection. I make one plea to my noble friend. Will she please give all possible help to the new supplementary protection certificate which is being introduced to cover products in the European Community as that will afford considerable help to the industry? Already similar protection is available in Japan and the United States. I am sure that my noble friend will take account of those points because my noble friend Lord Hacking and I know that she and her department are very much on side and support that great industry.
In the course of her opening speech my noble friend flitted over one tiny point. She referred to the service industry. I presume that she was aiming at the professions—and I hasten to add, not football managers. My noble friend is far too nice to be one of them. Perhaps she meant lawyers. I should declare a small interest, being an accountant. Your Lordships and the entire profession will be enormously indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who today, as always, made a notable contribution to the debate.
I have always understood that accountants have one apparent ability; namely, to absorb, digest and to re-present figures and financial information. Any sector of industry, not merely the pharmaceutical industry, requires such information yesterday. That is especially true, in the current climate of competition, of pharmaceutical products. Any financial information is required instantly and it must be accurate. In the course of our debate last week I mentioned the cost of up to one million dollars a day of any delay in the
762
introduction of any major new product which a company and the medical profession worldwide believe is needed. Each day's delay can cost a huge amount. It is to those costs which the talents of accountants, and above all those as distinguished as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, need to be directed.
Information technology is also increasingly used in gene technology and molecular biology, as well as in financial systems. It can allow the management to identify avenues of research which could be fruitful, how much each avenue of research will cost to develop and how quickly the product can be brought to the market, assuming that there is a market. It can also indicate how the financial supporters of the industry can be provided with an adequate reward.
My noble friend mentioned the happy aspect of a football manager. That brings me to the extremely interesting remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who spoke of the superb dairy product made by a Bavarian firm called MŰller. Three years ago I paid a short visit to the capital of Baden-WŰrttemberg, Stuttgart. Having done two hard days work with my Swabian friends it was suggested that I might like to relax with what they knew was one of my passions. I watched the prospective champions of Germany—Stuttgart—trot out at the Neckar stadium. They wore remarkable jerseys with the motif of a large red star and the word "SŰdmilch". I was told that that was not referred to as milk of the south: there is a team of that name in Scotland. I thought that it was beautifully advertised. Three days later I returned to my home in Scotland and found a similar motif in the main freezer in a small shop in Northmuir—which is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and other noble Lords who live in that particular area. I had seen the star product in that freezer advertised prominently in Stuttgart. I assume that it was the same product as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
That shows that a superb product, well and imaginatively advertised and instantly available can have remarkable success. What works for a company from Bavaria will also work, as noble Lords have pointed out, for British companies marketing products overseas.
It has been enormous fun and a great privilege to be the tail-end Charlie in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, indicates that he has still to speak, but he is one of the professionals and I am at the end of the list of speakers. It has been an enormous privilege to take part because we have heard notable speeches this evening. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing the subject so superbly. His speech was worthy of your Lordships' House, and I concur with everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Above all, I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
7.05 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, two competing themes have run through the debate. First, from all sides of the House there have been expressions of grave concern that, despite the fact that Britain possesses a

763
number of excellent manufacturing companies, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, reminded us, yet taken as a whole, Britain's manufacturing industry is neither efficient enough nor large enough to sustain this country's standard of living in the medium term.
The second theme, from the Government, has been one of complacency. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, enough good news to please even Mr. Martyn Lewis. All that needs to be done to secure competitive growth in manufacturing industry is that current policies be maintained, or perhaps merely augmented here and there a little to satisfy the interventionist whims of the President of the Board of Trade.
The complacency expressed by the Government is extraordinary in the light of the failure of their industrial policy over the past 14 years, a failure measured precisely by the growing trade deficit in manufactures. That trade deficit was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, among others. It might have been hoped that that failure would have led to the most heart-searching reappraisal. We hoped to hear today about the reappraisal which has apparently taken place with respect to Government industrial policy. We heard nothing.
We must recognise that in the past 14 years the Government have achieved what every economist and every economics Minister has been striving for since the war—a rate of productivity growth in manufacturing industry in excess of that of Germany, the US and the EC average. Everybody hoped for that and the Government achieved it. Yet, when the goal so long sought was at last achieved it turned to ashes, for the increase in productivity growth led to no increase in output and was accompanied by a sharp deterioration in the balance of trade in manufactured goods. In terms of the vital bottom line—share of markets at home and abroad—the policy was an unmitigated failure.
That failure was not unpredicted. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, my noble friend Lord Jay and other noble Lords mentioned, the 1985 report on overseas trade of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, warned of the serious consequences for this country should the decline in the size of manufacturing industry be allowed to continue. That report was dismissed by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, as:
"a mixture of special pleading dressed up as analysis, and assertion masquerading as evidence".
That was, of course, the same Chancellor of the Exchequer who argued that he was,
"at a loss to understand the selective importance attached by the Opposition and some Tories to the manufacturing sector".
Now, of course, those bad old complacent days are over. Now we have a Prime Minister who has told the Independent newspaper that in the 1980s he was, in his words, a member of a "minority" who "passionately believed" in the need for a bigger industrial base. Unfortunately, at the time he was only Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and then he was only Chancellor of the Exchequer. His was a silent minority. His passion for industry was a love that dare not speak its name.
764
Today we have had the chance to assess the reality behind the Prime Minister's passion. We have had the chance to look for the substance behind the protestations of concern. We have heard today and have read in the press of the new energy which the Government are committing to industry policy. In the Financial Times last Monday, as many noble Lords have mentioned, the President of the Board of Trade outlined his new six-point plan for industry. The first point refers to competitiveness: DTI officials will "travel the world" in search of information on how to compete. The second refers to deregulation: a war on unwanted paper. The third refers to sectoral divisions, whose job is to make DTI officials informed and knowledgeable. The fourth refers to spreading information on innovation. The fifth point refers to exports: DTI officials will spread information on export opportunities. The sixth point refers to one stop shops—noble Lords have guessed it—providing information for small businesses. There it is. The DTI is to become a ministry in which officials run around the world dispensing news. It will not be a Department of Trade and Industry but a department of travel and information.
Is that it? Am I being unfair? Will all that information be enough to regenerate British industry? Having carefully examined the policy pronouncements of the President of the Board of Trade, having read of all the energy, enthusiasm and commitment, I can only repeat the immortal question of an earlier president, President Ronald Reagan—it was echoed by my noble friend Lord Monkswell—"Where's the beef?". The answer comes from the DTI, "Sorry, the beefs off but we can send you some information on cattle breeding".
The problem with that so-called strategy is not that it is not well-meaning, or that it does not point in the right direction; it does. The problem is, as the noble Lord, Lord Benson, made clear, that it simply fails to measure up to the task in hand. It fails to face up to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who told the Select Committee on Employment in another place in March that,
"Manufacturing industry is no longer there and therefore we"
—he was referring to GEC—
"have to source a lot of our components from other countries".
In the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, there is a recognition that the economic position of the UK today is unprecedented. Never in modern times has this country faced a situation in which unemployment is due quite simply, as the noble Lords, Lord Aldington and Lord Vinson, pointed out, to our inability to produce the goods that people want to buy. Never in modern times have we faced the prospect of growing international indebtedness in the depths of recession. Never in modern times have we had to face a situation in which British investment per worker is half that of Germany and America and one-third that of Japan. Unless we can at least double investment per worker, so reaching European levels, Britain simply will not be able to compete in the world economy. Never has it been so urgent for us to face up

765
to the fundamental problem of economic backwardness which the DTI's infamous unpublished but much quoted report clearly identified.
Facing up to a problem of that scale requires a sense of history because tackling backwardness in a highly competitive world has been done before. It was done in the 19th century by Germany, desperate to catch up with the dominant industrial strength of Great Britain. It was done by post-war Japan, a country which produced in 1955 just 50,000 badly designed, badly made motor cars costing twice as much as the British model. Today it is being done by Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. They are overcoming backwardness. Through all those examples, scattered in time and culture, there runs a common policy pattern on which their success was founded, some of which was referred to, in the case of Japan, by my noble friend Lord Kennet.
What is that pattern? It is, first, a major financial reform which channels invertible funds toward manufacturing industry. It is, secondly, a corporate reform to match the financial reform as part of the investment drive. Thirdly, it involves a commitment to improving the quality of the labour force. Fourthly, it is an almost desperate desire to acquire the latest fruits of science and technology. Fifthly, it includes steps to involve the labour force in the process of modernisation, ranging from Bismarck's introduction of unemployment insurance to Japanese lifetime employment security. Sixthly, it involves a clear commitment to industrial success by an ambitious government working in partnership with industry. Those have all been the consistent ingredients of industrial success.
Just looking at that list gives a clear measure of the inadequacies of the Government's policies. We have had a financial reform but it was a reform which has done nothing but harm to industrial investment. That was a point touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. In the early 1980s we were promised that deregulation of finance would increase the availability of capital to industry and lower the cost of capital. But the result of deregulation has been a boom in lending to just about everything other than industry and a steady increase in the real cost of capital.
On top of that, deregulated financial markets have steadily forced up the dividend ratios of British companies to levels twice as high as our major competitors. As the CBI has said,
"There is a risk that companies will seriously deplete their capital resources…Companies should not allow themselves to pay out an excessive level of dividend which weakens their balance sheet or causes them to abandon the capital spending required to secure their long term competitive position".
Unfortunately the CBI does not tell companies how they should resist the pressures of the financial markets.
Mr. Heseltine's brave new world contains not a word about finance for investment. That mould involve taking on the powerful interests in the financial sector which are so important to the Tory Party. He simply would not dare. There has been no attempt at corporate reform. There has been no attempt at building corporate links with all the stakeholders in a company—the workers, the
766
customers or the community at large. There has been no attempt to reform corporate governance. That is forbidden territory. There has been no attempt to develop a real, national policy for improving the quality of the labour force. The training levy was abolished when it should have been reformed. The TECs were denied the powers of the German chambers of commerce and were seriously underfunded. In this long, deep recession, expenditure on training has been cut, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood pointed out.
After 14 years of this Government, only one-third of our workers have a vocational or professional qualification compared with three-quarters in Germany. The gap is particularly serious in engineering where Germany and France continue to produce twice as many qualified people. Yet real expenditure on off-the-job vocational education and training has fallen within the last five years.
On science and technology, the Government's lack of commitment is clear to anyone working in a university. After 14 years in which R&D spending as a share of GDP has steadily fallen, it was revealed today that Mr. William Waldegrave is to abolish an expert advisory committee of scientists because it has proved too outspoken for its own good.
As for involving the workforce in the drive for industrial success, this Government are determined to do the opposite. Workers are to be seen and not heard. In the drive to create a cheap, downmarket labour force—and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, should realise that that is the Government's line, not that of my noble friends—this ideology-driven Government remove workers' rights and securities at work, casualises the labour force, abolish the wages councils, resist the Social Chapter, and now, in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, their ideological folly has led them to abolish the legal foundation of the single union agreement, an important component, as Japanese companies have shown, of a modern industrial relations policy.
If we are to succeed, this country will have to undergo radical changes. Many of the costs of those changes will have to be borne by the working people of this country. Yet this Government do everything to prevent those people feeling that they are a part of that process.
The final component of successful industrialisation, successful attacks on backwardness, requires a government with ambition and commitment to industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, suggested. If there is one thing that the Government clearly lack it is ambition for Britain. Let me give a couple of examples. We have heard much today of the need to enhance skills to compete in the global economy. The Government have acted. They have set national targets for improvements in education and training. They have, for example, set a target that 50 per cent. of the workforce will achieve qualifications equivalent to the standard for entry to higher education by the year 2000. What a tremendous target! The problem is that that compares with the

767
target set by France of 75 per cent. and that set by South Korea of 80 per cent. The Government's target is one which they know in advance will fail.
In the Red Book, the Government set out their projections and ambitions for growth of GDP for the next five years. The average growth rate that this ambitious Government aim for is 2.5 per cent. per year over the next five years, less than the growth rate required to maintain the level of employment at what it is today. It will make no fundamental attack on the level of unemployment.
This is a Government so lacking in ambition that they are setting targets for training which will result in competitive failure and targets for growth which will result in the continued waste of 3 million unemployed. This is a Government who have settled for genteel economic decline, a Government who are at ease with unemployment. Until we have a Government in this country who are prepared to face up to the real needs of manufacturing industry, are prepared to grasp the nettles of financial and corporate reform, are prepared to regard education and training as the commanding heights of the economy, and unless we have a Government who will grasp the opportunities which modern science offers and, most of all, a Government who will be ambitious for Britain, then manufacturing industry in this country will continue to decline.
That kind of programme is a fair summary of the papers published in the past few weeks by my honourable friends Mr. Robin Cook and Mr. Gordon Brown. It will be helpful if, as the noble Lords, Lord Ezra, Lord Aldington, Lord Peyton and Lord Benson, have all requested, the Government were themselves to publish a coherent policy statement. That would launch a national debate, which is urgently needed. May I urge the Government to accept the challenge and take their case to the country? It is what our manufacturing industry deserves; it is what the country deserves.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, by leave of your Lordships, I welcome the opportunity to respond to a most fascinating, valuable, and enjoyable debate. I wish to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for making the debate possible today and to noble Lords who have contributed in such great depth.
There was a consensus of views and I am delighted to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that I listen to all the experience in the House; I would not dare do otherwise. In my opening speech I said that there was too much good news for me to be able to make a full selection. Perhaps I may say that there were too many good views in the debate for me to be able to respond to every single one. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not cover absolutely every point. We are extremely lucky that so many noble Lords should take the trouble to give us the fruits of their considerable experience.
However, at this stage I should like to say that in referring to Labour's industrial strategy document, the head of the policy unit of the Institute of Directors
768
said that this was looking to the past, not to the future. I fear that I have that impression about the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Eatwell. I feel that the latter perhaps misjudged the temperature of the House on this occasion because most speakers felt that the issue was too important to be quite so political.
I set out the Government's industrial strategy in my opening remarks. There is obviously a failure to reach some noble Lords, but I stress again that the Department of Trade and Industry believes in meeting people and talking, learning, listening and building with the people with whom it is involved, not simply circulating paper.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and my noble friend Lord Selsdon, stressed how important it is for the future of industry in this country that it should be customer driven. The Department of Trade and Industry is also customer driven. I am always pleased to listen to and learn from the noble Lord, Lord Benson, but I was disappointed that he felt that by making statements to the Financial Times my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade did not contribute in that area. It is our customers who are out there and they must understand what we are doing. I believe that that was a valuable input.
I should like now to look at specific elements of our strategy—privatisation, small firms and tax changes. In the most radical change in the United Kingdom's economic and industrial structure since 1945 we have returned 46 major businesses and more than 930,000 jobs to the private sector. These important sectors of the economy are now exposed to commercial reality —as my noble friend Lord Wade suggested—with a path to improving performance. There have been striking improvements in productivity which have been passed on to consumers as lower prices and rising standards of service. Those industries are also winning business for Britain, right around the world.
My noble friend Lord Wade and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggested, and I confirm, that it is important for international companies to be globally competitive; size must be maintained. British Gas has won large contracts in India, Argentina, Indonesia, Tunisia and Germany. Since Rolls-Royce was privatised in 1987, the company's share of the civil engineering market has risen from 10 per cent. to 22 per cent.—a competitive market, if ever there was one—and over 70 per cent. of output is now exported.
British Telecom has won contracts in New South Wales and has a flourishing arrangement with Samsung of Korea in the fiercely competitive Far Eastern market. The water companies are making great progress in overseas markets, such as Turkey, Australia and Argentina.
In 1978–79, the nationalised industries received subsidies of £2.2 billion at today's prices. By contrast, in 1990–91 privatised companies provided £3 billion to the Exchequer. That happened over a period when the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, tells us that the shutters were down and we were doing nothing. Perhaps he also failed to notice that Ministers no longer make horticultural statements, they deliver performance figures.

769
I wish now to turn to a different scale, which I do with much pleasure as Minister with responsibility for small firms, to point out the great contribution that the sector is making to the recovery and renewed growth in the country. Small firms are not simple; they are innovative, creative, flexible, close to the customer and an important part of the economy. Ninety-five per cent. of firms in manufacturing have fewer than 100 employees and account for one-third of manufacturing employment. They are the future for job creation in this country. Despite continuing difficulties for all businesses, small firms have shown themselves resilient. Some 400,000 new businesses were started in 1992, 12 per cent. of them in manufacturing. The rate of start-up in new small firms has already increased this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the success of Yorkshire Chemicals. I would also point out another company that I visited recently in that part of the world, Holliday Dyes and Chemicals Ltd, which is bringing a chemical manufacturing company to the market in what is not the easiest climate. There are success stories.
To help small business we must offer world class support services£as indeed must the banks. It has been mentioned by several noble Lords, and it is important, that the relationships between small firms and banks continue to improve. I believe that efforts are being made. I was delighted to see that at least two banks are piloting late night opening, which is ideal for small businesses. But I believe that we should be aiming at transparency of agreements and a better understanding of the rates of charges. Whatever innovation we bring—and we have several schemes which provide funding for small businesses —the banks must continue to be the main source of such funding.
It is important that the banks provide the level of assistance necessary and that we provide the information. In the explosion of small business in the 1980s, a new generation of business persons came to the fore. They are brilliant at the job they do, be it road haulage, retail, photography, or welding and spraying, but they had no experience of managing; not even the experience of discussing the family company over the breakfast table. For that purpose we plan to establish a network of one-stop shops offering a wide range of guidance to the smaller and growing companies. The policy of the Department of Trade and Industry is that while ensuring a climate for start-ups, we keep and grow the companies that we have. One-stop shops will remove the confusion that presently faces businesses which seek help. It will also weld together the organisations which offer that help: the Chambers of Commerce, training and enterprise councils, local authorities, enterprise agencies and other bodies. The first six pilot one-stop shops were recently announced and we shall very quickly Dave a national network.
The Treasury has been mentioned by the majority of noble Lords who spoke today. I believe that it has played a considerable part in the growth that we can see. We have lowered tax rates substantially for businesses and individuals. We cut corporation tax
770
from 52 per cent. in 1984 to 33 per cent. now—the lowest rate in the European Community or the Group of Seven. Companies are now left with more of their own money to invest according to their priorities. We reduced the basic rate of income tax from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent. We reduced nine higher rates of tax ranging from 40 per cent. to 83 per cent. to a single higher rate of 40 per cent.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter raised the issue of the ERM. I can reassure him that we shall not rejoin the ERM before certain conditions are met. Those include the end of market turbulence and not before the German and United Kingdom monetary policies come closer. The message that government have heard from industry is one of a requirement for stability. Industry cannot plan and grow without stability. We recognise that message well. In the last Budget the Chancellor reduced the advance corporation tax rate on dividends to ease the problems of surplus ACT, and increased export credit cover over the next three years by £1,300 million, which was additional to the £700 million added in the Autumn Statement. Overall, the Budget reduced burdens on business by £1 billion.
Much mention has been made of the improvement in productivity. That is from companies responding dynamically to increased competition and technological progress. I agree wholeheartedly, of course, that we have far to go. But we have achieved much and we should pay credit to the companies which are now leading. We have world class companies in this country.
Improving productivity does not mean that total employment has to fall. Many successful businesses shed staff in the 1980s but overall employment still increased strongly. Several noble Lords have mentioned the problems consequent on a policy exercised by many companies of fast mergers and acquisitions. But now we see many firms removing and divesting services which were less efficient in-house and creating opportunities for small firms again to grow and build. Britain has been more successful in job creation than most other European countries. Between 1979 and 1990 the workforce in employment grew by 1.4 million, the fastest rate for at least 30 years. But I assure noble Lords that the problems of the current unemployment figures are well faced and I shall come to those later. I recognise that individually they create great difficulties.
One of the major ingredients of the success of growth has been in the self-employment area. In the 1970s the number of self-employed hardly changed, but since 1979 their number has increased by a million. I am pleased to say that 46 per cent. of the UK labour force are women. The role of women in manufacturing is bound to become increasingly important, as women are forecast to make up 86 per cent. of the growth in the labour force by the year 2001. There is a guarantee for improvement. Perhaps I may stress that sustained employment growth depends on a flexible labour market.
I now turn to inward investment. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, the climate here has become more and more attractive for

771
successful overseas companies. I have yet to meet the overseas executive who protests at being sent to the United Kingdom. They come here in large numbers. In 1991 the United Kingdom accounted for 36 per cent. of the stock of US investment and 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in the European Community. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was less than fair when he said that they simply came because the French and Germans kept them out. Certainly the Belgians tried to make them welcome, and the investment continues, while the French and Germans have suddenly woken up to the opportunities that we take in.
Inward investment helps to re-invigorate key sectors such as vehicles, office equipment and chemicals. It brings to Britain the latest technology and the best international practice, which can be copied. I am delighted to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that it already brings some research and development. Some of the work—not large quantities, but some of the Nissan work—is in that area. But I agree with him that while it is important that we should have a constant awareness of the achievements of that country, we should not be frightened of it. I have often wondered about the logic behind Ford's naming of their policy "After Japan". There is no reason why we should not run alongside once we have achieved the increase in skills level. It offers tough competition for our own companies to measure up to, but inward investment is associated with thousands of jobs; jobs which would otherwise go elsewhere in Europe.
I am pleased to say that I had the pleasure of visiting MŰller, the company mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The benefit to the community that that plant had brought into the area was obvious. While Michael Porter talks about the "competitive edge of nations", I believe it is important that we should start looking at the competitive edge of communities, of how working together—local authorities, industry, employers and employees, educationalists and higher education institutions—can change the whole picture to the benefit of the whole community.
Training and enterprise councils are key partners in our industrial strategy. Under contracts agreed with the DTI, training and enterprise councils will provide small and medium-sized firms with comprehensive support services. I am pleased to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that there is a great consciousness of the need for retraining and adult training, and a recognition that skills are something which we should continue to hone through the whole of people's working lives as well as giving them the opportunity to change their skills.
I turn to exports. Again there is success in that area. We now export a quarter of what we produce. We export more per head than do the Japanese. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, said that we are working towards building the same number of cars as in the 1970s. I point out that the difference now is that we sell them. People overseas want to buy our cars. Despite the
772
European recession, United Kingdom export volumes, excluding oil and erratics, are at an all-time record. Our volume of non-EC trade in the first quarter of this year was 12 per cent. higher than a year ago.
There are many policies available to help manufacturers and not just advice—introductions to overseas markets, opportunities to visit and support in those markets and opportunities for support from our councils. Last year the President of the Board of Trade launched his initiative to second to the DTI 100 men and women from British companies to help promote exports. The first of them are already in post. They are not sitting behind desks, swamped by paper; they are out in the markets that they know, investigating the opportunities for British companies and bringing back that information. There is a series of major market campaigns aimed at three of our largest export markets: Europe, North America and Japan—"Business in Europe", "North America Now" and "Priority Japan". There is every evidence that they will show substantial success.
Despite the record-breaking achievements of our exporters that I have mentioned, we recognise that it is fatal to rest on our laurels. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, overseas firms face the same pressure to win as we do. There is no such thing as a secure market. It is always necessary to seek new ones. Both products and consumer demand are fast changing. Jobs can be won by companies which take a strategic approach to exporting as a way of securing a wide sales base and an increased market share at home and abroad. Too often in the past companies have seen exporting as a kind of add-on to the home market.
Many noble Lords raised the issue of import substitution. The best way to bring about import substitution is to ensure that United Kingdom industry is competitive in all respects and across a range of sectors—to help British firms beat the competition, not protect them from it. It is not part of the Government's role to force people to buy goods against their better judgment. However. I hope that all customers—individuals, retail and other business customers—will always consider whether there are United Kingdom suppliers of the goods that they wish to buy. Perhaps I may suggest that your Lordships' support of British manufacturing can, or indeed cannot, be measured in our car park outside.
I hope that British business will work with its suppliers to see whether those suppliers can fill the gaps so that it can purchase goods from British sources. I believe that now is the time for major companies to run a "Match it" campaign to find out whether British suppliers can indeed match it. For many years my department, along with the CBI, have been backing the Partnership Sourcing Initiative aimed at strengthening the relationship between British purchasers of goods and their suppliers.
Another part of my portfolio is design. To succeed in the world market place, British companies must produce world class goods. Good design and effective management of the design process are essential elements in achieving excellence. British design talent

773
is universally recognised as world class. Many British companies use British designers but there is far to go. The benefits of design are not as widely recognised by industry as we would wish them to be. Therefore, we feel that it is important to raise the awareness of design, through the work of both the Design Council and the "Managing into the '90s" programme. We have also ensured that design is part of an engineering degree. I believe it was Brian Redhead who said: designers wear flowered ties; engineers wear woollen pullovers; and when people are wearing woollen pullovers with flowered ties we shall begin to see the effect in our production. In the past 10 years my department has spent some £120 million in promoting the application of design to industry. We shall begin to feel satisfied when it becomes as integral to production as has quality.
I mention briefly the deregulation initiative to which the Prime Minister has given fresh impetus. At the Department of Trade and Industry we have set up seven task forces comprising people from the business world to review all 3,500 regulations in a systematic way. This is not an instant quick fix media opportunity initiative. It is "work through the paperwork and come up with the answers". The aim will be to simplify regulations and indeed abolish them wherever possible. Perhaps I could point out that the career of my honourable friend Mr. Hamilton rather improves with every piece of bureaucracy that he abolishes. He will welcome input on those on which he can focus.
Some noble Lords called for increased capital allowances to stimulate investment as well as the temporary increases that were announced in the Autumn Statement. They were designed to bring forward investment and, by boosting business confidence, encourage the recovery. To go further and introduce large, general increases in capital allowances would be counter-productive. It would distort investment decisions and could lead to lower quality investment.
The messages I take from your Lordships today and from those who looked forward are that we must keep control of public spending to ensure the stability that industry wants. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter raised the matter of VAT and gave notice that he would return to it. It is a policy of the Government to switch the burden of tax from direct, which discouraged effort and enterprise, to indirect taxation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, confirmed that the best form of technology transfer is in someone's brain. If we can ensure that the skills are spread as widely as possible we can increase technology transfer. I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord that the message for stability also applied to Ministers at the DTI.
Funding for industry must be long-term and in particular in small firms I am looking for it to be fixed rate in many instances. I suggest that industry has a role to play here in its own pension fund management. That is one of the first areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, suggested that the Financial Times did not touch on the issues of the absolutely key relationship between the City and
774
industry. I am sure he will appreciate that that is one of the difficulties of departmental briefs. I agree with the message that I have heard time and again today; namely, that it is the role and responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that the needs of industry are heard and attended to by all other departments.
Perhaps I might give my noble friend Lord Peyton an easier night's sleep. I am afraid that the engineer in the Treasury which gives him so much concern was moved to the Treasury when Financial Services was moved from the Department of Trade and Industry. So we still have some way to go.
There were several references to the work of the report produced under the guidance of my noble friend Lord Aldington. His contribution to today's debate was indeed welcome. Much was learned from that report, as from the subsequent report under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Caldecote. If ever there were a market opportunity, it is that those two reports should be best sellers. Industry would much benefit by that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the statement made by Peter Morgan of the Institute of Directors. In that address Peter Morgan also said that the UK can come back and win, and that would be the policy that we would follow.
As I said earlier, I sympathise deeply with those who have suffered most during the recession, particularly those who are without work at the moment. But even now the United Kingdom has a higher proportion of its adult population in work than almost any other European Community country and unemployment has fallen for two months in a row.
There are other clear signs of the resumption of growth. Survey after survey—not by government but by those people involved in industry—report the signs of a resurgence of confidence. The latest CBI industrial trend survey shows business confidence at its highest level for 10 years; retail sales in the first quarter of 1993 were 3.5 per cent. higher than a year earlier; average earnings growth is the lowest for at least 25 years. This year's inflation figures too have been the lowest for more than 25 years. Interest rates have fallen by nine percentage points since their peak in Autumn 1990 and are now the lowest in the European Community. We have a fiercely competitive exchange rate.
I stress that the last thing that the Government or the Department of Trade and Industry are, is complacent. There is much work to do. We are at the beginning of instituting that work and some of it is already beginning to bear fruit. Our companies are operating with full support from an administration committed to low inflation, lower tax rates, wider competition and deregulation. If I disappoint your Lordships by doing it rather than printing it, then I apologise. British business now has clear advantages in competing throughout the world. As I said in my opening remarks, it is for companies to be competitive; it is for companies to go out and win; it is for us to support them; and together I believe we are ensuring that Britain is once more moving ahead.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I did ask a specific question concerning the pharmaceutical industry of which I gave her notice. If she is unable to reply now, perhaps she will write to me.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I apologise. I was conscious of the time. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for giving me notice. As he mentioned in his speech, the Department of Health and not the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the sponsoring of the pharmaceutical industry. However, no decisions have yet been taken. The advisory committee is consulting manufacturers of products which may be affected and manufacturers will have a full opportunity to make representations or to offer price reductions. Perhaps I can stress that the Government have no wish whatever to inflict needless damage on the industry's competitiveness or its research base. It is one of our stars.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope that I shall not be accused of being my normal snobbish self when I say that such people wandering around with floral ties and pullovers make me feel quite sick. Other than that, I feel that the debate has measured up to the high standard I expected from your Lordships. I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part.
I was extremely impressed with the range of agreement in your Lordships' House. Also, where we disagreed I felt that there was still a meeting of minds. It was clear why we disagreed, and that I always find helpful. I can assure the House that I shall not go over all the ground again. There will be other opportunities when I can argue with those who said things that I could not accept.
As your Lordships know, I am a perpetual student and I learnt a great deal today. In the next few months noble Lords will understand that better when I recycle their best ideas as though they were my own. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
7.55 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to take account of a change introduced by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The Bill, which was introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Ayr, enjoys the support of the Government, the Law Society of Scotland and local authority interests. It seeks to enable licensing boards to grant licences on a firm legal basis and to avoid any risk of a prospective licensee being frustrated by a legal technicality.
Under Section 23 of the 1976 licensing Act, licensing boards may entertain an application for the grant or provisional grant of a new licence only if the applicant produces a certificate as to the suitability of the premises in relation to planning, building control
776
and food hygiene. The certificate issued by the planning authority should state that the applicant has obtained planning permission, outline planning permission or a determination under Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 that planning permission is not required in respect of the premises concerned. A Section 51 determination has been relevant in the past in cases where no formal planning consent was needed but where any existing planning consent was expressed in terms which did not clearly cover the particular licensed use.
The problem which this small Bill seeks to remedy is that, with effect from 25th September last year, Section 51 determinations were replaced by certificates of lawfulness of existing use or development under Section 90A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 repealed Section 51 of the 1972 Act but did not unfortunately bring Section 23 of the licensing Act up to date. The purpose of the Bill therefore is to provide for consequential amendment of the licensing Act by the simple addition to Section 23 of a reference to a Section 90A certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development. The existing reference to Section 51 determinations in Section 23 of the licensing Act is retained to provide for any transitional cases where a Section 51 determination might have been obtained prior to 25th September last year.
Clause 1(1) provides for the amendment of Section 23 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. Clause 1(2) adds to Section 23(2) of the 1976 Act a reference to a certificate under Section 90A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, while retaining the existing references to Section 51 determinations to ensure that those determinations made prior to 25th September 1992 remain valid. Subsection (1) of Clause 2 is the Short Title and subsection (2) provides that the Bill extends to Scotland.
It is a short Bill. It is unusual for me. It is a non-controversial Bill and it is the first Private Member's Bill that I have presented to either House. Even in my previous existence I did not seem to merit a Private Member's Bill. Just as this is my first Private Member's Bill, I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux on the Woolsack for his first time. It is what may be called a double first for us both. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like briefly to congratulate, first, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on the eloquence with which he got over the unfamiliar phrases and, secondly, the Government on facilitating the Bill. It is wonderful to see a government putting right their own mistakes, and I wish that they could put right their big ones with equal facility.
8 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I wish to make a brief contribution to this Second Reading discussion of a short but important piece of legislation

777
and to join in the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for introducing and explaining the Bill. It has the full support of the Law Society of Scotland, the licensed trade and all people associated with planning applications within that trade. The Bill corrects a legislative oversight which has caused difficulties in the administration of the licensing laws and, perhaps even as important, there has been associated expense, delay and misunderstanding.
The licensed trade and the Law Society of Scotland highlighted the issue and it was to the credit of the Scottish Office that it responded positively by framing the present Bill now being introduced by the noble Lord. The Bill will clarify the law in relation to applications for liquor licences and make the position clear for all concerned in the administration of the licensing laws. All parties involved will benefit from this measure, and its passing will clarify the law, eliminate confusion, frustration and needless expense and make the operation of the law in this field more efficient in Scotland. I trust that the Bill will see its way through this House and another place without opposition. I commend it from this side of your Lordships' House.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, between two eminent lawyers perhaps I may raise a layman's point. Retrospective legislation is always a problem. What will happen to anyone who may have been caught in the void between the original legislation and the corrected legislation? Have any anomalies been created? I am sure that this is a point which only a rather legally illiterate layman could raise but it is one on which I should like the Minister's views.
8.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to this Second Reading debate before my noble friend concludes it. I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, on taking his seat on the Woolsack for the first time. I am sure that there will be matters of great controversy other than this over which he will have to preside, but I hope that we will provide for him a pleasant memory and a realisation that, contrary to what might appear to him as a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, sometimes on some matters relating to Scotland we are not inevitably at each other's throats.
I congratulate my noble friend on presenting the Bill. As noble Lords opposite will appreciate, I have known him for a very long time and have been in government with him. I am sure that this is not the most difficult Bill he has ever had the opportunity to introduce, but he did it with a flawless eloquence which has very much been the hallmark of his style both in the Commons and also in this House. Having paid him that glowing compliment personally, perhaps I may also say in repetition of what he said that the Bill he presents has received wide support not only in another place but from the Law Society of Scotland and local authority interests.
778
As my noble friend has so clearly and lucidly explained, the Bill is aimed at removing a lacuna in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 arising from recent planning legislation. My purpose is simply to confirm that the Bill enjoys the full support of the Government. It is of course unfortunate that your Lordships should now have to be troubled by a particular anomaly which results from an unforeseen consequence of recent planning legislation. In the spirit of humility which is the hallmark again of this Government, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will appreciate the openness which is always so clearly shown from this Front Bench. I am grateful to him also for giving such strong support, although I suspect that the greater openness which he requests will not actually be forthcoming.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was concerned about the retrospective quality of the legislation. I say to him generally, although I am no longer, as he will appreciate, the Lord Advocate, that any questions of retrospection in legislation are, under this Government, as they have been under previous governments, matters entrusted to the Law Officers of the day to reach a determination on whether the degree of retrospection is acceptable. The Scottish Law Officers have indicated no concern over this matter. The noble Lord asked whether there is any gap in the provision. The answer is no, because, as he will appreciate, and as my noble friend indicated, it goes back to a particular date. The selection of that date is to ensure that there is no gap in the way the planning legislation and the licensing Acts interlock.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that the sensible approach where this small but important anomaly has been identified is to ensure that the matter is remedied as swiftly as possible. I am most grateful on behalf of the Government for the clear indications of support not only from those interested in local government in Scotland and otherwise but also from Opposition parties in Scotland. Given that support, I have little doubt that my noble friend will not have to rely on his skills of argument and debate at any further stage of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. My noble and learned friend the Minister has replied to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, so that saves me attempting to interpret the law. I can leave it safely to him. As I said initially, it is a pleasant experience to have everyone agreeing and to be able to include, I understand, such august bodies as the Law Society of Scotland and CoSLA. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Patient Confidentiality
8.7 p.m.
The Marquess of Reading The Marquess of Reading rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they propose to resolve the difference in priorities between the Department of

779
National Heritage and the Department of Health with respect to patient confidentiality and the media in the context of the Patient's Charter.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Question I put before this House hinges upon a most important principle—a universally accepted principle that pre-dates the National Health Service and even our own system of parliamentary democracy. It is a principle, however, which is regularly flouted by the press in pursuit of cheap headlines and increased circulation. It is flouted most shamefully when the press choose to focus upon those who are most vulnerable, often obtaining what should be confidential information by devious means.
I speak of a matter which has been drawn most forcefully to public attention by the Matthew Trust, whose advisory council I am proud to chair and which has pioneered reforms in the way in which the mentally disordered are regarded and treated.
On 10th March this year, in this House, with support from the Special Hospital Service Authority, the trust called a Forum on Press and Patient Confidentiality. I was privileged to be among more than 100 representatives of the medical and legal professions, the caring services, the media and the main political parties who took part. The trust director, Peter Thompson, chaired this comprehensive review of the issues raised, on the one hand, by the need for press freedom in a democracy and, on the other, by the need to protect the rights of the individual, particularly with regard to medical records. Dr. James Appleyard of the British Medical Association underlined the need for a Department of Health code of confidentiality, especially as the new referral procedures in the health service effectively increase the range of people with access to patient records. It is a call the BMA has been making for many years.
As happened when the trust investigated the newspaper ombudsman system in relation to complaints from the mentally unwell, there was overwhelming acknowledgement that a problem exists which simple remedies might cure. The missing link is the political will to afford protection to the vulnerable.
These days we have a Patient's Charter to assist us in our dealings with the National Health Service. It grants us access to our own medical records, reminds the NHS of its legal obligation to keep them confidential and assures us that our privacy will be respected. That is all well and good so far as it goes. But what protection do we, or those who suffer mental disorder, have from breaches of this charter? More significantly, what protection is there for patients in special hospitals like Ashworth, Rampton and Broadmoor, which I am visiting this coming Friday?
The press display an unhealthy interest in their predicament because of the notoriety surrounding the distressing consequences of their behaviour. A hospital is a place of healing, and any cure, especially for severe psychiatric disorder, requires peace and trust and consistency of care. Breaching confidentiality does more than just cause distress to the patient, to relatives and to friends. It undermines that
780
fundamental principle of trust. And what redress is there when someone's life is damaged by irresponsible, not to say inaccurate or sensational, reporting? At present there is none. Those with means might sue for libel. That option is not open to the mentally ill. Does their disability render them fair game for the press? Their only protection resides in a document which was issued by the then Ministry of Health 37 years ago. Approved by medical and media professionals at a conference on 16th May 1956, it offers guidance to hospital staff about their dealings with the press.
Much has happened since then in the NHS, in our understanding of mental health issues and, not least, in the behaviour of the press. Over the past few years we have seen increasing public concern about the press, particularly over invasions of privacy and breaches of confidentiality. Since 1989 there have been no fewer than four investigations into the indecent enthusiasm of the press for muck-raking in pursuit of profits. The findings of the National Heritage Select Committee hearings on this topic were published earlier this year on 16th March.
Mr. Clive Soley MP held special parliamentary hearings about the press last December. His report refers to the tragic suicide of the 19 year-old television actor David Scarboro, a star of "Grange Hill" and "East Enders", who was forced to abandon hospital treatment for mental illness after sensational stories in the gutter press. And it tells of bizarre efforts by the tabloids to turn the visits of a serious researcher to the murderer, Peter Sutcliffe, into a British version of the "Silence of the Lambs". Indeed, a recent book about Peter Sutcliffe contains photographs obtained by clandestine means inside a special hospital.
We still await a formal response to Sir David Calcutt's second inquiry into press invasions of privacy. It is not expected until the debate surrounding Mr. Soley's Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill is concluded in July. Yet on 29th June 1992, in this place, the Minister told us that the outdated 1956 guidance note for hospital staff was under review and that a consultation paper would be issued shortly. We are still waiting.
Correspondence which the Matthew Trust has had from the Department of Health and the Department of National Heritage suggests that a conflict of responsibility lies behind this inordinate delay. The priority of the Department of Health must be to protect the confidentiality of patient records. However, the priorities of the Department of National Heritage are quite different. There is an apparent reluctance to offend the press by imposing restrictions on their methods of operation. Surely a conflict of departmental interests should not be allowed to stand in the way of measures to protect the vulnerable from abuse.
I respect the work of the media and would not wish to hamper their ability to investigate matters of public concern. But I do object to their abuse of the rights of the mentally ill. Parading the private tragedies of the sick in public is no less abhorrent than seeking entertainment by visiting Bedlam, as happened in less

781
enlightened times. Political expediency may yet allow the mentally ill to be sacrificed in an effort to curry favour with the press.
Indeed, we are faced with an extraordinary situation. in a television interview at last year's Conservative Party Conference, the Secretary of State for National Heritage pre-empted Sir David Calcutt's findings by saying that a free press should remain unfettered. The press may warm to the idea that they will emerge unscathed from a storm of criticism, but it is cold comfort to those who fall foul of their morbid fascination with mental disorder.
My question is simple: how is this apparent impasse to be resolved? In my considered opinion, and that of the Matthew Trust, a joint working party should be established to consider how best to protect patient confidentiality. It should include medical staff and representatives of all those who come in contact with patients and their records, voluntary agencies with a special interest like the trust and representatives of the press and other media. Their task should be to devise a simple formula which will, first, inform patients and their relatives of their rights; secondly, inform hospital staff of their responsibilities to patients, including the right to make public the shortcomings of the NHS when their superiors refuse to listen; and, thirdly, enable the press to fulfil their responsibilities without infringing the rights of patients.
Much of the discussion about how this can be achieved has already taken place. With good will the outcome of the deliberations might be available before government announcements about press regulation, and a revised Patient's Charter and guidance to hospital staff would assist the Press Complaints Commission to improve the newspaper industry's code of conduct.
This in turn might help the Government out of their current impasse. I look forward to hearing that the Minister intends to adopt that course of action.
8.18 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to offer very sincere support to the noble Marquess who has just addressed us in such an attractive and moving way. I agree that part of my motivation for speaking is that the inspiration for this debate comes from the Matthew Trust and its founder and director, Peter Thompson, who has been my friend for more than 30 years. I have said before, and I say it again now, that within my knowledge no individual has done as much for the mentally afflicted as Peter Thompson. I couple with the name of Peter Thompson that of Elly Jansen. Like Peter Thompson, she started without any resources at all. She has built up quite an organisation which has become worldwide. It is the Richmond Foundation. We read that she has been troubled in recent years, but I know that all who care for mental patients will never fail to pay tribute to her integrity and achievement on behalf of these same mental patients.
I know that the Minister, so exceptionally well-qualified in this field, is well aware that this issue is of very wide concern. I had not myself realised quite how wide the interest was until the conference the
782
other day which was held here. I had the honour of being the host. It was a conference that dealt with the topic we are discussing this evening. It was attended by representatives of every sort of health organisation, including two representatives from the Minister's department. I have no doubt that she will receive favourable reports.
Perhaps I should now turn to the subject of the Unstarred Question. I do not wish to make a general assessment of the role of the media in our society today. However, it happens that this morning I received a copy of a speech that was delivered by someone I should like to think of as a friend of mine —I hope that he will say the same about me after these remarks. I refer to Mr. Andrew Knight, the executive chairman of News International, which controls The Times, the Sunday Times, the News of the World, the Sun—never forgetting the Sun—and Today. No doubt it also has other interests. Mr. Knight began his important speech the other day by announcing that we in Britain have the best media in the world. I suppose that in the general sense of saying that everything British is better than anything else, one can go along with that opinion. Personally, I do not have enough worldwide knowledge of the media in the remote parts of this planet to know whether that is true. All that one can say is that one will not hear very good remarks made about the tabloids in this House. When I opened a debate on them some years ago, it was thought that they had gone downhill. Most people now feel that they have gone further down that road. However, as an inveterate reader of The Times, I am not going to say that Mr. Knight was necessarily wrong.
I must, however, narrow the discussion. On another occasion we can have a general debate on the role of the media, about which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, who is to follow me, is an expert. Are they behaving well towards the Royal Family? The answer must be no—there is no question about it. Are they behaving well towards anybody? That is another issue which might profitably be discussed. Are the media behaving reasonably towards the most vulnerable members of our society, the subject of this Unstarred Question and the people upon whom we must try to focus? To say the least, there are clearly grounds for disquiet.
The issue before us is not an easy one. Last November I opened a debate, which was replied to by the noble Baroness, on the Blom-Cooper report on Ashworth Hospital. We had to agree that, in one sense or another, the media did a good job in bringing out many of the things that were going on at Ashworth Hospital which would not otherwise have seen the light of day. The Blom-Cooper report followed, and great improvements are now afoot. I hope that they will come to fruition. I do not say that every time the media take an interest in what is going on in these places they are necessarily wrong. However, as anyone who is involved in these matters knows, there are many examples of the media behaving indefensibly. The noble Marquess referred to one or two.
I have had some experience over the years with prisons, which are not exactly our subject tonight, and with special hospitals, which are. Many is the time I

783
have arrived at the scene to find a representative of one of the tabloids awaiting me. On leaving, the representative has been quick to ask me whether there is anything of interest to report. Perhaps as an elderly public man I should not complain too much about that, but the real question is whether that degree of nosing into the affairs of people who are suffering greatly from some awful mental illness is legitimate.
I shall give only one example. I have visited Ashworth Hospital many times. On one occasion not so very long ago —but before the Blom-Cooper inquiry—I found some difficulty in conversing with a security officer behind a glass window. It was difficult to discover exactly what he was demanding of me. I had a plastic bag with me containing some letters from a particular patient. I could not understand whether the security officer was saying that I should not take the plastic bag in because the patient might put it over his head and commit suicide or what he wanted me to do. The conversation came to an end eventually and I saw the patient. The News of the World carried a story that I had assaulted the security guard. In a sense, I suppose that it was a tribute to my prowess to say that an octogenarian could assault a virile young fellow through a glass window, but that was an impossibility. One may say, "How can that story get about?" Obviously it was through some mole who either told somebody after the event or had somebody watching the scene. I have experienced such things a great deal.
Therefore, when I say that I am calling (as I shall be in a moment) on the noble Baroness to lay down guidelines, one has to admit that, with the best will in the world, guidelines will not always be followed. One must accept such things and look at the matter realistically. At the same time, however, some guidelines are better than no guidelines and good guidelines are better than bad guidelines.
We are all waiting eagerly to hear from the noble Baroness because some time last year she indicated —I do not know whether she promised, but she held out the hope—that guidelines would be made available. I think that that is right. At any rate, a consultation paper was to be made available to us, but that has not happened. No one in the world is more likely to be able to extract satisfactory guidelines from the Department of Health (although it might be a little awkward) than the noble Baroness. I hope and pray that she will not fail to help us tonight with new guidance, whether or not that takes the form of official guidelines. If she does fail, I know that it will not be her fault, but I hope and pray that she will not fail.
8.27 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I am intervening in the debate only in order to report to the House the experience of the Press Complaints Commission in dealing with complaints about the sort of behaviour which was spoken of in highly general terms by the noble Marquess and in similar terms by the noble Earl. The code which the commission upholds is precisely concerned to maintain the rights of individuals in the field which is of concern to the
784
noble Marquess. One difficulty about that field is that there is much more generalised concern than there are actual complaints about instances of bad behaviour.
Perhaps I may take the case of the Matthew Trust and the report it published in 1992 about which the noble Marquess and I have corresponded at some length. In my opinion, the report, which dealt with the way in which the press treated mentally disturbed and distressed citizens, contained a large number of inaccuracies. Those were discussed with the trust. The commission is most concerned to assist bodies like the trust in protecting citizens for whom it takes responsibility. In fact, a complaints body can only deal with complaints that are made to it.
Over the past two-and-a-half years, the trust, which in its report condemned the conduct of the commission and the way it dealt with complaints, submitted one complaint to the commission. That complaint was dealt with, though not to the satisfaction of the trust. Those whom the trust cares for are frequently not in a position to make complaints on their own behalf. We have told the trust, as we have told a large number of other voluntary bodies, that we shall be happy to take third-party complaints in respect of breaches of the code of conduct by newspapers. That offer to the trust has produced one complaint—and, I repeat, one only.
I turn now to the invasion of privacy by the publication of material derived from medical records. In advance of this evening's debate, I had a search made through all the complaints made to the commission. In this field we have received only one complaint about the publication of medical records. We broke our rule that we would publish all our adjudications and findings in that case and treated it anonymously at the request of the complainant. It was a reasonable request because publication would necessarily have involved revealing medical treatment. The commission required the offending newspaper to apologise in writing to the people who had suffered. That was how that single instance was dealt with.
The commission has been at great pains to put its facilities at the disposal of voluntary bodies and to publicise its activities. All that I can report to the House in respect of the subject matter raised by the noble Marquess is that there does not appear to be evidence of substantial complaints among members of the public or among voluntary bodies. Alternatively, if such complaints exist, they are not brought to the commission where they can be remedied.
The Earl of Longford: I wonder whether the noble Lord will permit me to intervene?
Lord McGregor of Durris: Of course.
The Earl of Longford: I must be careful about phrasing my question because it could be offensive. However, does the noble Lord realise that there is not as much confidence in his own commission as he would wish existed?
Lord McGregor of Durris: I have confidence in the commission and the way in which it deals with complaints. However, I repeat: we can only deal with complaints that are made to the commission.

785
The noble Marquess has been in fairly regular touch with the commission over a period of time. He knows that we exist and that we have undertaken to deal with any complaints made to us by the Matthew Trust. The trust has made one single complaint in the face of the generalised record of abuse which the noble Marquess presented to the House. I cannot assist the House in matters affecting the department, beyond saying that if there are any consultations to which the commission can contribute and if there is any assistance that we can offer to the Minister's department in dealing with such matters affecting the press, we shall be only too happy to do so.
In advance of any such consultations, I emphasise that the code of practice that exists covers the revelation of medical information which would in almost every circumstance be condemned by the commission. Certainly, in respect of putting voluntary bodies and the department in touch with newspapers that are regarded as offending in that respect, the commission will be only too happy to put to the relevant bodies in the industry proposals for improving or changing the code of conduct.
I very much regret the manner in which the noble Marquess made his accusations against the press. I also very much regret the manner in which the Matthew Trust (which the Press Complaints Commission has been at great pains to assist in pursuing its work) has been unwilling to use the facilities offered to it by the commission.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene in the dispute that has just taken place across the Floor of the House between my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris, the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, about the volume and character of the complaints that lie behind tonight's debate. For my part, I am reassured by what my noble friend said about the volume of those complaints. But, nevertheless, as the noble Earl said, I think that there is a general concern about the area. The noble Marquess was correct to raise the debate on the general question of a patient's right to confidentiality. That is particularly acute where one is dealing with the most vulnerable kinds of patient with mental illness in secure hospitals. It has become clear from the speech made by my noble friend Lord McGregor that that is part of a much wider debate on the rights and responsibilities of the press in a democratic society.
I hope that arising finally out of the exchanges that have just taken place, it may be generally accepted that, fortunately, this area ought to be an aspect of that general question which attracts less controversy and is more specific and manageable than protecting the private lives of politicians, princes or princesses. Of course, tonight's debate is a continuation of the one raised on 29th June last year by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. When replying to the debate the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, drew on a previous experience as a district hospital chairman and member of the former Press Council. I hope that she will not take offence if I say that I believe
786
that she got the balance right between patient privacy and public accountability. Her speech was positive and promising; but, as has been drawn to her attention, the promise has still be be fulfilled. She said:
"It is widely recognised that the guidelines are 36 years old and I am pleased to announce that new guidelines are being prepared and will be issued shortly for consultation". — [Official Report, 29/6/92; col. 636.]
Your Lordships are entitled to discover from the Minister tonight how short is "shortly".
That kind of delay appears to be par for the course in relation to the Department of Health. The delay that we have suffered since our last debate is nothing compared with the delay described by Dr. James Appleyard, chairman of the BMA's representative body at the forum to which the noble Marquess referred. According to information provided to me by the Matthew Trust, Dr. Appleyard reported that a draft guide of confidentiality was drawn up in 1984 following the Data Protection Act of that year. That code of confidentiality was drawn up by the DHSS as it then was, and the Intra-Professional Working Group, which included the BMA and Sir Douglas Black, President of the Royal College of Physicians. Nine years later that draft code remains filed away somewhere in the Department of Health, even though the BMA again raised the matter in 1991. According to Dr. Appleyard, the BMA called the Department of Health on 9th March only to be told that the department was still working on the problem. Therefore, delays appear to be endemic at the Department of Health. We await with great interest to hear what the Minister has to say about progress on these issues, which are essentially for her department.
I do not underestimate the difficulties in the health service. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting referred to, but it was reported in the British Medical Journal. According to the report, Charles Kaye, chief executive of the Special Hospitals Service Authority, said that staff would be telephoned at midnight by journalists offering £4,000 for information on individual patients. I am sure that the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission will wish to know about that matter and inquire into it. Charles Kaye was worried about the damage that lurid press coverage could do to a patient's rehabilitation. He accepted the public's right to information about how patients could be treated and rehabilitated within the special hospitals and said:
"but we must ensure that we are not providing media access over general issues at the expense of individuals".
That sums up the nature of the issue very well.
At the hospital end we need as quickly as possible updated guidelines and a strengthening of the confidentiality aspects of the Patient's Charter. The guidelines should be the subject of the widest possible consultation and, having been agreed, of the widest possible dissemination in order to take account of the fragmentation of the health service which is occurring with the new hospital trusts and fund-holding GPs.
It may be that the Minister has been the victim of the ambitions of her own department in respect of this matter. In the debate on 29th June in this House she said that the guidelines that are being proposed will be more comprehensive and will cover a larger remit than

787
just information to the press. I wonder whether, given the concern that exists about tonight's matter, it might not be more worth while, without waiting for the wider and fuller guidelines, to concentrate on guidelines which deal merely with press intrusion.
It is clear that there will be the need for disciplinary action against staff who leak confidential information about patients to the press. However, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, moles are difficult to detect. Those of us who have served in government will know how difficult it is. If some newspapers are prepared to offer the difficult-to-resist bribes on the scale reported by Mr. Kaye, real action is required at the press end. That raises the wider issues of the Government's response to the second report of Sir David Calcutt's commission, which was published in January.
I must say to the noble Marquess that I do not believe that a theory of a cold war between the Department of Health and the Department of National Heritage is lying behind the problems. He described it more modestly as an impasse, which is the main thrust of the Question which he has tabled for Answer today. I simply assume that the departments have very different responsibilities and therefore start from different points of view.
However, one recommendation from Sir David Calcutt has particular relevance to the proper protection of patients' privacy. For the second time, and in his second report, Sir David Calcutt repeated the recommendation to which I drew attention last June. He recommended that a new offence of criminal intrusion into private property should be created. Calcutt specifically included hospitals within that recommendation. The Liberal Democrats, from whose Benches I speak, in their evidence to Sir David Calcutt strongly supported that course. I must say in passing that I am puzzled that in the Calcutt Report that clear recommendation is apparently to be confined to England and Wales. The Minister from the Scottish Office, who is a distinguished lawyer, has left the House but we all know that Scottish law is superior to English law. Nevertheless I hope that Scottish law will not be deprived of the advantages of such legislation when the Government finally pluck up the courage to introduce it.
Without widening the debate unduly I must add that in our evidence the Liberal Democrats came out against a statutory press tribunal, as recommended by the Calcutt Commission, or the introduction of a privacy law. We favoured a strengthened Press Commission and the consideration of a general tort of harassment, which would also be relevant to the problem that we are discussing tonight. I was happy to read in the press today—and I was a little disappointed that my noble friend Lord McGregor did not mention it—that the Press Complaints Commission has taken action in strengthening its own arrangements by ensuring that it has a majority of lay members with an independent chairman. It has also taken certain steps to deal with forms of intrusion such as long-range lenses. I am sure that that will be most welcome.
788
My experience of self-regulation, which I shared a great deal with my noble friend Lord McGregor, is that for it to be effective it must have at its disposal some kind of effective sanction to deal with serious breaches of a code of practice. We on these Benches proposed in our evidence to the Calcutt Commission that newspapers should provide a good performance bond related in size to their circulation which would be at risk if the commission found them guilty of gross misbehaviour. I should have thought that that might be relevant to the kind of misbehaviour reported by Mr. Charles Kaye.
The Government are properly reluctant to breach the principle of press freedom with a statutory tribunal. I strongly share the views expressed by my noble friend Lord McGregor on that principle. However, I was not clear whether the noble Marquess equally shared that attachment to the principle of a free press.
I commend the proposal that I have made about providing an effective sanction for a self-regulatory body like the Press Complaints Commission. I urge that on the special position of patients, particularly mental patients less able to look after themselves, the Government should make progress as quickly as possible. There seems to be no reason why there should not be a set of Department of Health guidelines which concentrate simply on relations with the press, without waiting for the Government's decision and possible new legislation on the greater generality of Sir David Calcutt's recommendations.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Marquess for raising this Question. We are not debating the general matter of freedom of the press, nor are we debating what kind of action the Government should take in response to Sir David Calcutt's second report. Quite specifically the Question asks:
"Her Majesty's Government how they propose to resolve the difference in priorities between the Department of National Heritage and the Department of Health with respect to patient confidentiality and the media".
Within that context the noble Marquess has drawn our attention to patients with mental illness problems. I believe that we should confine ourselves to that because we are not discussing the general privacy of citizens. That is very important but it is not on our agenda this evening.
We are discussing mentally ill patients and what should happen about them. Should we do something special for them in addition to what we do for ordinary citizens? There is a principle involved here. Mentally ill patients are extremely vulnerable and are often unable to do very much on their own as regards having recourse to a complaints procedure and so on.
We must confine ourselves to what the Government are being asked to do. We must consider whether there are special problems relating to mentally ill patients. We must consider issues of confidentiality and press freedom in that regard. Many people have already quoted what the noble Baroness said last year in response to a debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Carter. She said that the guidelines would cover:

789
"the importance of preserving confidentiality, the responsibilities of all staff in the NHS for the management of health information and for controlling its use and disclosure and operational guidelines for preserving confidentiality and handling disclosures of health information".—[Official Report, 29/6/92; col. 6381
That is a very good coverage of the issues which are broadly at stake. Without adding further to the embarrassment of the noble Baroness, we await that statement.
I wish to go slightly further than that this evening. When the Select Committee on National Heritage in another place examined the question of privacy and media intrusion some useful remarks were made. One of those remarks, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred, concerned the problem of prohibiting harassment and besetting. The committee in another place suggested that Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 could be extremely useful because it deals with the problem of besetting. Many people who have experienced "door stepping" by the media will agree that it involves a great deal of harassment.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that the Press Complaints Commission cannot deal with matters about which it has received no complaint. We should think more generally about that. We have a peculiar situation in which many people are dissatisfied but they do not register a complaint. The commission feels that it must receive a complaint before taking action—and yet, paradoxically, people are complaining loudly about the treatment of this or that Royal or this or that scandal. However, no formal complaint is made. Perhaps the Government should consider whether the commission's remit should be broadened so that it can initiate a complaint by itself. It can say to itself, "Although we have received no complaint, we do not believe that that behaviour is acceptable".
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The commission has put itself in just that position in respect of the Matthew Trust. We have urged the Matthew Trust to send us every complaint which it has on behalf of any mentally distressed or disordered person. We have assured the trust that such complaints will be handled immediately. We have received only one complaint.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information. I am sure that that problem can be sorted out. However, over and above the Matthew Trust, I believe that a provision such as I have suggested should be available. There is a much greater level of dissatisfaction among the customers or the public than it is possible to record or report officially. There is a problem in that regard which we must think about.
Given the vulnerability and the many specific problems which the mentally ill have, I make only one suggestion. This will not be the responsibility of the Department of Health but rather it will be the responsibility of the Department of National Heritage, but, nevertheless, I shall put forward my suggestion. There is an offence of inciting racial hatred. Obviously the freedom of the press is restricted
790
in that it is not allowed to report events which may incite racial hatred. I am not a lawyer and this is not a proper formulation, but we need a similar offence to prevent causing extreme distress. Press intrusion may even cause health problems. Of course, it may be inconvenient or annoying but it may also affect a patient's recovery. It may cause a relapse. I realise that legislation must be tightly defined. We do not wish to restrict press freedom, but we should consider whether certain forms of intrusion are damaging to the health of a patient, especially a mentally ill patient. Once again, I thank the noble Marquess for initiating the debate.
8.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of the media and patient confidentiality, especially in the context of the Patient's Charter. I have listened with very great interest to the speeches by my noble friend Lord Reading and other noble Lords who have participated in the debate, and I am conscious of the depth of knowledge within your Lordships' House both concerning the NHS but also the fourth estate.
When I first read my noble friend's Question, I must confess that I was baffled by it. The Question refers to,
"a difference of priorities between the Department of National Heritage and the Department of Health with respect to patient confidentiality and the media".
I was aware of no such difference of priorities—nor were my ministerial colleagues in the Department of National Heritage. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend for shedding light on those issues.
From the start I can reassure your Lordships that there is no difference in priorities between the health and heritage departments. We are both committed to open government, to accountable management and to ensuring that patients' interests are protected from unwarranted intrusions by the media.
It may not be comfortable for the Government to have problems made public. I am not thrilled when a newspaper splashes a story of inefficiency, corruption or mismanagement within the NHS, but it is right that it should have the opportunity to do so. It is a job of the media, painful though it may be, to expose shortcomings and make the executive accountable but there is a wide and discernible gulf between policies, bad management and inefficiency both by governments and individuals in their working capacity, and the private lives of anybody whether they be Ministers, managers or a traveller on the Clapham omnibus.
I am conscious that the NHS should not be divorced from general rules that will govern the freedom of the press and the wider aspects of the intrusion into people's private lives; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that people in special hospitals need particular protection because of their extreme vulnerability. I am not convinced that they need different rules though, only the strictest application of the rules that apply to everyone.

791
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, mentioned, the debate that took place last June in which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked a question on the same theme, was a precursor of today's debate. My noble friend Lord Reading mentioned the one day forum hosted by the noble Earl, Long Longford, on patient confidentiality and the media. The forum was organised by the Matthew Trust and I am delighted that it attracted a wide audience from among health care and media groups. My noble friend Lord Reading and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, gave examples of press intrusion which have given cause for grave concern. However, I must say, as a former member of the Press Council, I understand the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that the commission generally has to act on complaints made to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, expressed the public's general dissatisfaction with the press. I suspect, however, that there is some truth in the adage that I believe Tom Stoppard expounded: we all believe in the principle of the freedom of the press; it is just the newspapers that we do not like. This clearly is a matter of grave concern. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to explain the legal background and the Government's policy on privacy.
"It is well known"
I quote Lord Justice Glidewell in the Court of Appeal on 23rd February 1990
"that in English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right to action for breach of a person's privacy".
Lord Justice Glidewell was giving judgment in the case of Gordon Kaye v. Andrew Robertson and Sport Newspapers Ltd.
Your Lordships will remember the case. A journalist and photographer working for the Sunday Sport had got into ward G in Charing Cross Hospital where Mr. Gordon Kaye, the star of the popular television series "'Allo, 'Allo" was lying in intensive care. Mr. Kaye was suffering from severe injuries of the head and brain caused by a flying piece of wood that smashed through the windscreen of his car.
The journalists apparently induced Mr. Kaye to say some words and they photographed him. Shortly after they left Mr. Kaye had no recollection of their visit and the medical opinion was that Mr. Kaye was in no fit state to be interviewed or to consent to it. Mr. Robertson, the first defendant and editor of the Sunday Sport, called his staff's achievement,
"a great old-fashioned scoop",
and the court was able to grant only limited relief to the plaintiff.
The case, which happened while the privacy committee, under the chairmanship of Sir (then Mr.) David Calcutt, was sitting, may well have been decisive in prompting it to recommend criminal offences of physical intrusion with intent to obtain personal information for publication purposes.
Mr. Kaye was not the only celebrity in hospital to suffer from the attentions of the press at about that time. The late Russell Harty, and Mr. David Lewry, captain of the "Herald of Free Enterprise", also found that a hospital was not a safe haven.
792
The privacy committee recommended that the press should be given a last chance to prove that self-regulation, under a new Press Complaints Commission, could work. The newspaper industry duly set up the commission, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, replacing the old Press Council, in January 1991. In mid-1992 the Government asked Sir David Calcutt to review its effectiveness. Sir David concluded that the Press Complaints Commission, as at present constituted, was not an effective regulator of the press. He recommended a statutory press complaints tribunal, the introduction of intrusion offences and four other measures bearing on privacy.
The Government accepted Sir David's assessment of the commission, urging it to give attention to the points he listed as its failings. The Government also accepted the five recommendations for protection of privacy, though we reserved our position on the tribunal for which, we consider, a more persuasive case would have to be made out.
I should add that we are also considering carefully the report of the National Heritage Select Committee which contains many recommendations for government and for the newspaper industry. We will respond to the committee in the normal way and hope at the same time to give our final response to the Calcutt recommendations.
The intrusion offences would make it criminal to enter or remain on private property, to place bugging devices, or to photograph or record someone's voice, without consent and with the intent to obtain personal information with a view to its publication. Sir David considered that "private property" should include, among other things,
"any part of a hospital or nursing home where patients are treated or accommodated",
and that the courts should have power to restrain publication of information which had been illegally obtained.
These offences, which we hope to introduce at a suitable legislative opportunity, will not, however, stop responsible investigative journalism. As I said, it is the freedom—and some would say the duty—of the press to seek out the truth about unlawful, misleading or hypocritical conduct or statements.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, mentioned the industry's code which the commission upholds. The code requires journalists not to intrude into an individual's private life except in the public interest. Although I believe the code has been very useful in some circumstances, the Government consider that this form of regulation has not proved to be wholly effective. We believe the criminal law is necessary to prevent the most blatant and unjustified forms of intrusion.
On matters of policy the NHS should be entirely open and one of the most effective ways of countering negative publicity is to promote positive understanding of the hospitals and their work. The Special Hospitals Service Authority, which since 1989 has been responsible for the management of these hospitals, has rightly seen this as an important activity. Since its inception it has appointed press

793
officers in each hospital and it has actively encouraged six separate television programmes describing its work. The authority has pursued a policy of inviting journalists to visit hospitals and to join in the debate on a wide range of professional issues. Indeed, today's Nursing Times carries an interview with the SHSA's head of nursing services about the work being undertaken in the difficult area of the use of seclusion.
However, while the authority is keen to invite the press to see and comment on its work, it will not sacrifice any patient to a one day's news sensation and has not hesitated to take firm action against any newspaper which has abused access to its hospitals or attempted to reveal the identity of patients without their consent. I endorse the view of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the services, the ethos and the whole atmosphere of the special hospitals has improved.
The Government attach the highest priority to the confidentiality of personal health information in the NHS. When patients visit their GP or hospital, they need to feel assured that the information given is treated in the strictest confidence. The same applies to the information recorded about them by health professionals and other NHS staff. Details of diagnosis and treatment are very sensitive. It is essential that all the information is held securely, and only made available to those who need to have it, in order to care for the patient and manage the health service.
All personal information held by the NHS is, of course, protected by common law. By "personal information" I do not mean only medical details. Names, addresses and other identifying details are all "personal information". The NHS, and those employed in it, have a duty under the common law not to divulge personal information to any third party —and this includes the media. Disclosures outside the NHS may only be made in strictly limited circumstances—such as if required by statute or court order, or if it can be justified in the public interest— for example, scientific research or to prevent serious risk to public health.
In addition, doctors and other health professionals have an ethical responsibility to safeguard the confidentiality of patients' personal information. This well-established right to confidentiality is, as my noble friend stated, enshrined in the Patient's Charter. The Department of Health also has long-standing guidance, issued in 1956, which makes it clear that information must not be divulged to the press without the consent of the patient. The need to get the patient's consent to the release of any information is absolutely fundamental.
In fact, I would want to tighten the safeguards still further. The Patient's Charter places great emphasis on the rights of the individual. The current circular states that hospitals may, in response to a, press inquiry, confirm that a named individual is a patient in the hospital. Even divulging that someone is in a hospital—without giving any further details—constitutes a breach of confidence, a point made very forcefully in your Lordships' last debate on this subject. The name of a hospital can in some cases lead
794
to inferences of a very sensitive nature being drawn. No information should be released without the consent of the individual concerned.
As my noble friend Lord Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, quite rightly reminded your Lordships, when we debated the issue last June I stated that the department would update its guidance on information to the press and re-issue it as part of a comprehensive document. I regret that that has not been possible. The preparation of the guidance has continued to raise a number of complex legal and data protection issues which are taking time to resolve. But I share the impatience of your Lordships' House and I am very anxious that we should at least progress the area concerning the press, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
I am therefore announcing tonight that we shall publish, within a fortnight, draft guidance on this specific issue for comment. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House as well as being sent to various organisations, including the Matthew Trust, for their views. I also warmly welcome the offer of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, on behalf of the Press Complaints Commission to contribute to our endeavours. When we have considered the responses we shall then issue substantive guidance to the NHS on that narrow aspect.
With regard to the comprehensive guidelines, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, we are committed to issuing these for consultation as soon as possible, and our timetable is not governed by the Calcutt review and the Department of National Heritage's response.
There are one or two other points which have been raised this evening which I should like to pick up. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, raised the question of sanctions against NHS staff for breaches of confidentiality. All NHS staff are bound by their terms and conditions of service to maintain confidentiality. Breaches may result in disciplinary proceedings, including possible dismissal.
My noble friend Lord Reading raised the BMA's concern due to the increased flow of information following the NHS reforms. In September 1992 the department issued guidance on the secure handling of confidential information in contracting. This requires purchasers and providers to set up safe havens for the handling of such information.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, also asked why we had delayed so long in respect of the 1984 guidance. I understand that guidance was drawn up in 1984 in advance of Sir Douglas Black's inter-professional working group and as a result of the work of that group, a further draft was prepared for the statute book. We sought comments in 1987 and again in 1989, but some professional bodies continued to hold reservations about the code. Legal advice is that a statutory code is unnecessary because the common law provides adequate safeguards for protecting the confidentiality of personal health information. We are therefore finalising draft guidelines, which draw heavily on the original code and, as I said, we shall issue them for consultation at the earliest opportunity.

795
In conclusion, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issue which my noble friend's Question has provided. It is clear that the whole House shares the concern about press intrusion into patients' affairs. I hope that I have dispelled any misconceptions that there may have been about conflicting priorities. I
796
assure the House that there is no conflict and that the Government will continue to do all that they can to protect the freedom of the press and the patients' right to confidentiality.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  INCOME TAX: 1993 BUDGET
  INCOME TAX: 1993 BUDGET
  SELF-EMPLOYMENT: DEFINITION FOR TAX AND SOCIAL SECURITY
  SELF-EMPLOYMENT: DEFINITION FOR TAX AND SOCIAL SECURITY
  VAT: DECISIONS ON THRESHOLD
  VAT: DECISIONS ON THRESHOLD
  BOARDS OF VISITORS: WOOLF RECOMMENDATION
  BOARDS OF VISITORS: WOOLF RECOMMENDATION
  PORTLAND YOUNG OFFENDER INSTITUTION: CHIEF INSPECTOR'S REPORT
  PORTLAND YOUNG OFFENDER INSTITUTION: CHIEF INSPECTOR'S REPORT
  ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S: CASUALTY SERVICES
  ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S: CASUALTY SERVICES
  ARMS TRANSFERS: UN REGISTER RETURN
  ARMS TRANSFERS: UN REGISTER RETURN
  EC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: FORTHCOMING BUSINESS
  EC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: FORTHCOMING BUSINESS
  RESERVE FORCES: DEPLOYMENT
  RESERVE FORCES: DEPLOYMENT
  RAF: LASER GUIDED BOMBS
  RAF: LASER GUIDED BOMBS
  ARMED FORCES FIGHTING STRENGTH
  ARMED FORCES FIGHTING STRENGTH